Talk:Quoting out of context/Archives/2013

Quote mining isn't recognized by any other encyclopedia or dictionary

This may be unpopular on wiki but the concept of "quote mining" isn't recognized by any encyclopedia or dictionary. Other than wikipedia, the only other sources which recognize quote mining as a legitimate concept are atheist, anti religion, anti intelligent design and/or anti creationism sites and certain scientists. The term and, given the examples in this article, its application seem subjective and ideologically driven. On one hand, it makes it appear as though only "creationists" can be accused of "quote mining;" yet Barbara's and Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse," which this article uses as a reference of "creationist" quote mining is an example of atheist, rather than evidence for creationist, quote mining. ID isn't creationism. Atheist Bradley Monton in "Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" has said ID isn't creationism and it's a question worth pursuing, including as a scientific theory. But given the level of what can be called anti-ID "quote mining" on ID-related pages on wiki which passes as NPOV and factual, it's not surprising that only those who dare question materialism or evolution would be the target of pejorative labels. The WIlliam Dembski page, for example, has quotes of peopel quoting Dembski supposedly admitting he's Christian which somehow is supposed to mean his ID theory is creationism. So does Dawkins being an atheist mean his theories are guided by his atheism rather than science, and thus are scientifically invalid? On the other hand, "quote mining" seems to be a charged leveled against someone anytime someone's words are used against them. Is it quote mining or just someone upset their words are used against them? "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them," by Henry M Morris, a creationist, argues this latter point. Wiki is supposed to be NPOV therefore is it not in accordance with this stated position to point out that "quote mining" is not only a debatable concept but that its application is controversial? It also seems rather redundant. Why do you need to develop an entire sub genre when it basically means the same thing - to take a quote out of context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.9.236 (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote mining is actually a bogus term by defenders of the critiqued camp used when a critique quotes a person from the critiqued camp in their favor. All it is used for is to let this valid practice sound obscure. --41.151.184.191 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, "quote mining" is not a bogus term, and the process of quote mining is not a "valid practice." Famspear (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Creation Evolution Debate

Why is this article being used as a Debate for someone's own personal agenda??

Totally Rude and Off Topic. The article should talk about it's title, not someone preferred gripe.

I remove the entire section. Please keep it deleted!!

It has no place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)