Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Talk:Quote mining

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon logic.svg

This Logic related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

More info, better format

This page is automatically archived by Archiver


The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven doesn't make sense, typo? --Mad Min 12:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking that. I lifted it out of the discussion on the ToE talk page at CP, so I haven't checked the original. I assume it's supposed to be "this". --Kels 12:58, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Just a sample here--PalMD-yada yada 13:59, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Does someone else have a link to that site that Kenservative accidentally posted - the one where all of his quotes are from? I know it's on the forum, but my laptop thinks the forums don't exist.-αmεσ (!) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

Surely AIG maintains one? Or, well, is one... humanbe in 18:33, 13 September 2007 (MDT)

I pointed out the Darwin quote mine thing in's atheist test in an email to them. Of course I didn't use the words "quote mine" though. :) If anyone's interested, I can post their response here. If I get one.

Interesting Google searches[edit]

From CP: "The term "quote mining" returns 28,400 Google results as of January 1, 2008."

Results 1 - 10 of about 28,100 for parthian shot. (0.22 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 21,400 for insultive. (0.15 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,470 for last wordism. (0.26 seconds) (RW is the first hit.)
Results 1 - 10 of about 640 for "placement bias". (0.20 seconds) ("Liberal placement bias" showed 2 results, both from RW)
Results 1 - 10 of about 531 for "liberal deceit". (0.21 seconds)

NightFlareSpeak, mortal 14:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Possible fun page[edit]

May I create a fun page of this? I had an idea along the lines of:

Quote mining is a magical art, invented by god, to combat the foolish darwinists who use falsely planted facts to mock the faithful.

The first recorded instance of quote mining was performed by god, towards lucifer's famous declarations denouncing god:

The commonly known mined quote is as follows:

"I will ascend into heaven.

I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.

I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north.

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds.

I will be like the most High." (Lucifer)

The actual full quote is as follows: (the parts used above are bolded)

"My fellow members of the divine council, surely you realize that God has gone quite bonkers. I will, as I have before, ascend into heaven to speak with him about how man is mortal, can only sin a finite amount, and how eternal damnation for a lifetime of sinning is sadistic and absurd, but I fear it will never work. I will also take this moment to say that I in no way intend to exalt my throne above yours. If you assist me, I can lead you to make the entire universe a fair and just democracy, where no minority under the stars of God shall fear eternal damnation for disagreeing with an entity who is is entirely feasible and understandable to disagree with. In this great and benevolent democracy, we shall gather every sunday to discuss and rethink some of the more absurd actions we have been overruled on in the past, such as placing of false evidence of fossils to fool the rational and contemplative for no good reason. This will truly make the world a better place. We shall all be at this congregation in the north, all of us, each getting their fair say. I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north, not as your ruler, but as your equal. As your friend. And if you will follow me there, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, and we will all look down on the happy and smiling people, who will also know of our existence. In this way, I will be like the most high, except I will not be one person. I will be many. I will be you. I will be me. I will be US. Will you join me in this endeavor?"

Little did Lucifer know that god was right behind him, and had just come up with the idea of quote mining. Unlike the mortals he passed the technique down to, however, he could quote mine things already in the minds of all who heard him, and so nobody remembered this speech, until God humorously brought it up on the 7th of March, 2008.

The technique has since been used to combat the insidious weapons used by Neo-nazi-darwinists known as "Facts." God reasoned that since he created the world, it was not morally wrong to manipulate the words of liars. He passed this technique down to his council of three, Chuck Norris, Andrew Shalfly, and Ben Stein.

What do you think? is it an okay start?Sanity 21:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't know if you're still around, but go ahead, knock yourself out! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Aquatic ape theory[edit]

How does it undercut ToE? Lyra § talk 01:01, 8 June 2008 (EDT)


Do you seriously think that addition deserves to the in the lead section of this article? What exactly do you think is going to cross the mind of a uninformed reader when they stumble onto this page? And, more importantly, how on earth did you reach the conclusion that contextless quotes are the same as deliberate deception? Your argument only establishes that it might be quote-mining, which seems pretty damn feeble to me. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!</font>Tsubasa-Jelly 01:03, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Point one, well taken. Third sentence, I have done tiny research (google/WP) and this woman is in all likelihood (and almost certainly) a classic quote miner. She leaves out words without ellipses, removes critical context, and generally uses quotes to support her thesis that wouldn't in their completeness. That's quote mining.[1] ħumanUser talk:Human 03:17, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Darwin eye quote[edit]

(moved from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?)

    To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason
tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye
to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever
so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the
case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful
to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be
considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly
concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may
remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may
be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser
vibrations of the air which produce sound.
    In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has
been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors;
but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to
look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral
descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what
gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having
been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered
or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but
a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from
fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class
we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known
fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye
has been perfected.
    In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely
coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this
low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two
fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a
moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for
instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets,
within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other
crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and
which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are
convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their
lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With
these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show
that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living
crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living
animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see
no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other
structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the
simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and
invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as
perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.
    He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that
large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the
theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit
that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be
formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know
any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his
imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be
surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of
natural selection to such startling lengths.

Quote mining the Bible[edit]

There's a comment on Jerry Coyne's blog yesterday that got me thinking about the idea of "study guides" and such for the Bible. I've more or less been aware of the practice my whole life, I know the Anglicans that were dominant in my area did it, and I gather it's even more common for evangelicals. Pretty sure the JoHo's do it too, from what I've seen of their literature. That is, the practice of taking a whole string of unrelated verses from the Bible and reading them in a particular order for whatever reason. Say, two verses of Mark, followed by a half-dozen verses of Corinthians, then hop back to the OT for a few smattered verses here and there, and so forth. So what the poster at Coyne's place suggested is that this practice, aside from creating a lot of connections in the Bible that weren't there in the first place, predisposes the faithful to lifting quotes from wherever, sans context, and acting as if they're valid and somehow connect to other random quotes from entirely different works and authors. Anyone else have any insights into this stuff? --Kels (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that it's the most cherry-picked document ever assembled. And you have to remember that that stuff isn't just taken out of the context of the surrounding verses, but also the historical and literary context. For example, in historical context (apparently) "love thy neighbour" just means "love other Jews, you can still kill the others" and then you have people who take the acid trip that is Revelations as literal. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 14:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining question[edit]

Has anyone quote-mined the quote-miners to tie them into knots? (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect quote[edit]

In the "Quote Mining Index - QMI" section, the second half of the quote appears to be incorrect. It says "this does not represent a very large gap" (emphasis mine), while all other sources I found - including TalkOrigins - say "this really does represent a very large gap" (emphasis still mine).

The other sources also explain why the large gap exists. It isn't as pithy as the version here, but it makes it clear enough that the creationists are still wrong.

Unless someone can provide a source for the "does not" version, I'm going to change it. Player 03 (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which quote? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 04:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Here. Searching for the phrase "very large gap" should also work. Player 03 (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, you're asking about the TalkOrigins page. Oops! That would be Quote #40, which I should have directly linked in the first place. Player 03 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it seems we're wrong. Please change it. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
At first I got an odd result: 1760 results for the quote mine, but ~3000 results for the explanation. Then I realized that everyone uses the version with "[fossils]" in it, which gives ~20000 results for the quote mine. That's why I changed the first part of the quote.
Google doesn't actually allow you to search for a quote as long as the explanation, but I broke it up into pieces and got ~3000 for each piece. The number on the page is from searching for the full explanation quote. (Up to the point where Google cuts it off, of course.) Player 03 (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Could 'the proverbial artistic someone' provide an image of a quote mine? Something like [2] with an assortment of phrases etc. (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Moore argues to vote for Donald Trump[edit]

Before the 2016 American election, Alex Jones released a video featuring Michael Moore supporting Donald Trump with arguments. Naturally this video was mirrored as a minor meme. The real video was actually a devil's advocate argument excerpted from a feature length standup/documentary(?) film by Michael Moore in support of the "lesser evil", Hillary Clinton. - This may be a good example but needs citations. Include it if you like. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A none political/Religious/etc type of quote mining that's widely known & reported on as happening for years (prob decades) in British media - adverts and posters for movies taking review quotes out of context, at once publicly getting called out for an advert along the lines of *fake example*: original review 'this is not a good movie' a critic, the newspaper', poster quote a critic, The Newspaper says 'this is...a good movie'. (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)