Talk:Quoting out of context/Archives/2016
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The large section aimed at Creationism/Creationists puts the article's neutrality into question
Given the length, depth, and heavy-handed nature of the section, this article seems more of an attack on Creationism and Creationists than an informative, encyclopedic article about the widely used practice of quote-mining. 184.7.167.28 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty well sourced, and a good example of what the article is about. There's plenty of non-religious examples as well. It's not exactly flattering to religion, no, but that's not really the point of the article one way or another. I don't see a problem with it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the first person to comment here. The article completely omits any mention of quote-mining leveld against creationists, which as happened as well, and overlooks the reasoning behind creationists' so-called "quote mining." Also, the section entered about similar misquotings of the Bible, such as the use of "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" to support evolution was removed within a matter of days. Not very neutral at all in practice. Ben 10 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Then add some examples of quote-mining against creationists, Ben 10. If it happens anywhere near as often as what happens to scientists by creationists, you should be able to find some well-sourced examples, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankNiddy (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I will when I have the chance, although bias will be a factor on what is considered well-sourced (I notice your false dichotomy is a perfect example, whether you intend it to be or not). Ben 10 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll remind you that blogs are not acceptable, that there isn't a giant media or scientfic conspiratorial cabal against creationism or intelligent design, and that think tanks like the ICR aren't reliable, as demonstrated by some of the examples given in this very article. Also, as a creationist, you should love false dichotomies, since you think the only alternative to evolution is "God did it." :-) FrankNiddy (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will when I have the chance, although bias will be a factor on what is considered well-sourced (I notice your false dichotomy is a perfect example, whether you intend it to be or not). Ben 10 (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Then add some examples of quote-mining against creationists, Ben 10. If it happens anywhere near as often as what happens to scientists by creationists, you should be able to find some well-sourced examples, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankNiddy (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the first person to comment here. The article completely omits any mention of quote-mining leveld against creationists, which as happened as well, and overlooks the reasoning behind creationists' so-called "quote mining." Also, the section entered about similar misquotings of the Bible, such as the use of "A day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day" to support evolution was removed within a matter of days. Not very neutral at all in practice. Ben 10 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm an ardent evolutionist but this article looks very POV to me because of the one-sided examples. They are hilarious and I love them, but not here. I'd like to see it moved to rationalwiki where it belongs. There I'd love it!! Here, it's a bit out of place. 178.38.111.13 (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I'm only here because I found myself thinking "this article does not seem very well balanced". Sure, the the creation-evolution controversy might be big in America but the article is drowning in creation-evolution examples. I might have expected to also see some examples of non context religious passages in theological debates too. I'm dissapointed to discover that the unbalance is four years old and not resolved. The individual examples might be valid but do we need all of them? --Lord Matt (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't agree. This was a valid problem in 2012 when evolution/creationism was the only issue, but a lot of work was done in 2013 to add examples from different fields. Given this is the topic where the term quote mining originated and only the most notorious examples are used in this article, I believe belittling this problematic would create bias rather than reduce it. I suggest removing the unbalanced tag. Tkjanacek (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have to agree. I'm only here because I found myself thinking "this article does not seem very well balanced". Sure, the the creation-evolution controversy might be big in America but the article is drowning in creation-evolution examples. I might have expected to also see some examples of non context religious passages in theological debates too. I'm dissapointed to discover that the unbalance is four years old and not resolved. The individual examples might be valid but do we need all of them? --Lord Matt (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Quote Mining and the Creationist-Evolutionist Section
It seems quite obvious to me, thanks to the many sections above, that this section is quite biased. Numerous posters have brought the issue into question, yet nothing about it seems to have changed. Honestly, it should be removed completely from this section, unless arguments from both sides can be shown clearly and therefore without bias. Someone above had the idea of taking it out and including it in another article that it more closely relates to, which would also be better than where it currently is. The section has "agenda" written all over it. And I'd say the same thing if this was a section with a creationist agenda being biased towards evolution. Either one would be biased and unfair, which is not what articles should be doing on here.
"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." [1]
This is clearly NOT "a neutral point of view."[2]
Eckerdj7 (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- The statements are supported by reliable sources and I see no original research there. If you see it, please point it out and explain why it is original research rather than reporting what the sources say. As for Wikipedia neutrality, in scientific subjects does not mean giving equal weight to both sides when one side is the scientific consensus and the other is a fringe view such as creationism. Sjö (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is impossible to make the article balanced between quote-mining by creationists and quote-mining by scientists because the former do it 100 times as much. But the result is an article that looks like a blog post slamming creationists. They should be slammed, both for their methods and for their conclusions, but it should not be done ON Wikipedia, only reported there. 178.38.111.13 (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
References
Requested move 15 June 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move with support. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Fallacy of quoting out of context → Quoting out of context – QooC is always fallacy, either as stupidity or for deception. Both versions are covered in the article. the word "Fallacy" in the title is redundant. cf. "Straw man" , not "Straw man fallacy". The current title may give an impression that "quoting out of context" has a meaning other than fallacy. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support: per nominator, also per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Ebonelm (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom, and per Mark Twain, who wrote about the original Greek Olympiad "One of the brightest gems in the New England weather is the dazzling uncertainty of it." Randy Kryn 9:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.