Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + − + − + − + Line 16:
Line 16: − '''Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.'''+ − − This is not true, as using somebody's own quote against them is different from quote mining. The fundamental difference is that while the former method is used in law to expose self-contradiction, the latter is used to misrepresent the views of prominent and respected people. Line 28:
Line 26: − + − This method, however, is not a good example of quote mining, as quote mining generally omits whole sentences, while keeping the used sentences intact, to conceal the fact that the quote is misrepresented. The use of elipses and omissions would make the nature of the quote obvious because of the skepticism of the legitimacy of the quote. − + + + + + + + + +
Reverted edits by JackSmith (Talk); changed back to last version by Philip J. Rayment
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by dictionaries, used to describe the act of taking a quote out of context to argue a point that the original quoted person was not arguing. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, quote mining is different because it doesn't catch contradictions in what one says, but rather makes it seem like the quoted person is against a belief they actually support.
'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a [[pejorative]] term, not recognized by dictionaries, which expresses objection to using someone's quotes against him. While the entire fields of law and politics encourage quoting an adversary to [[discrediting attack|discredit]] him, [[evolutionist]] do not feel their quotes should be used against them and have invented the term '''quote mining''' to criticize that practice.
==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
==Origin, in TalkOrigins.org==
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"
According to the pro-evolution site TalkOrigins.org, quote mining is "the use of a (usually short) passage, taken from the work of an authority in some field, 'which superficially appears to support one's position, but [from which] significant context is omitted and contrary evidence is conveniently ignored.'"
Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered not to be quote mining.
Quotes that illustrate self-contradiction are thereby considered, by the inventors of the term, to be quote mining.
The term is used to suggest that people have deliberately or negligently taken facts that are material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting for use against the quoted; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does. Generally, however, the term quote mining is used only to describe deliberate misrepresentations of the views of the person quoted.
The term seems to be used to suggest or claim that people have ''deliberately'' or ''negligently'' taken facts material to a quote out of context, with the result that the quote no longer stands for its original proposition. Allegations of quote mining are controversial,<ref>For example, the TalkOrigins.org Quote Mine Project documents many fallacious quotes, but the classification is controversial.</ref> since it implies [[scienter]] - that is, either intent to deceive, or disregard to the possibility of deception. This distinguishes quote mining from more general, run of the mill, quoting out of context; while the latter involves no misrepresentation of facts material to the quote's meaning, the former does.
The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
The origins of the term are unknown, but it appears to date from the late 1990s.<ref>According to [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html TalkOrigins.org], the first known use was in 1996.</ref>
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
It is not recognized by any dictionaries.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who frequently argue that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists. This is not a sign that is is an invalid claim, as it could also mean that creationists are the most frequent users of the tactic in question.
Its most common use is by evolutionists who claim that creationists misrepresent quotes from scientists.
==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
==Is Quote Mining Wrong?==
===Myth===
===Myth===
Many people, especially in the legal and political fields, use quotes by others against them. There is nothing objectionable about this practice, and the term quote-mining could apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign.
===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
===Fact: Defining Quote Mining===
A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
A deceptive quotation uses an ellipsis to camouflage a point of authority that goes against one's argument.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may... trade on insider information."''
An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
An honest argument still quotes the authority source, but quotes all relevant parts.
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''
:''However, Party X was completely within his rights to trade on this information. After all, "it is well-settled principle of securities law that a corporate officer may not trade on insider information," but Party X was not a corporate officer.''
This should demonstrate that an accusation of quote mining is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, but rather of appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.
This should demonstrate that an accusation of "quote mining" is not merely an indictment for appealing to authority, a well-settled tactic indeed - the accusation is of ''appealing to authority in a selective manner, so as to distort and confound the actual meaning of the authority.
===Fact: The Law on an Attorney's Quote Mining===
Attorneys are under a well-settled duty not to misrepresent authority to a court of law. In essence, they may not "quote mine." By way of example, a Federal Circuit Court in 2003 disciplined an attorney for selectively quoting elements of a [[court]] [[Opinion (Law)|opinion]]. The attorney, faced with a charge of contempt of court for delaying filing a motion by ''twelve days'' when the court ordered her to do so "forthwith," explained that, by settled law,<ref>The attorney cited City of New York v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 278 F.2d 708, 710.</ref> "Forthwith means immediately, without delay, or as soon may be accomplished by reasonable exertion."<ref>''Id.''</ref> She neglected to cite the following sentence, which explained that "forthwith" generally means, "within twenty-four hours,"<ref>''Id.''</ref> apparently hoping that, without this qualification, the court would read "forthwith" as implying ''no time constraint other than necessity.''
The court which received the attorney's brief was not amused. In censuring the attorney, they wrote,
{{cquote|The effect of Walser's editing of this material and ignoring the Supreme Court decision that dealt with the issue - a decision that seriously weakened her argument - was to give the Court a misleading impression of the state of the law on the point. She eliminated material that indicated that her delay in filing the motion for reconsideration had not met the court's requirement that she file "forthwith," and presented the remaining material in a way that overstated the basis for her claim that a "forthwith" filing requirement meant she could take whatever time would be reasonable in the circumstances. This distortion of the law was inconsistent with and violated the standards of Rule 11.<ref>Precision Specialty Metals, Inc. v. United States, 315 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003).</ref>}}
Rule 11 forbids attorneys from arguing in a misleading manner. Clearly, this federal circuit thinks that "quote mining" is a reprehensible act contrary to intellectual and academic rigor. There is ''indeed'' something objectionable about the practice, and the term "quote mining" ought not "apply to nearly every legal proceeding and political campaign."
==References==
==References==