Talk:Quote mining

	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

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Darwin eye quote

(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 question

Has anyone quote-mined the quote-miners to tie them into knots? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect quote

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)

Cartoon

Could 'the proverbial artistic someone' provide an image of a quote mine? Something like [1] with an assortment of phrases etc. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Michael Moore argues to vote for Donald Trump

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'.86.187.172.106 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Korean race"

[2]

American scholars do not translate the word "民族"(=ethnicity) into "race," which is used in Taiwan, China, and many other Asian regions. However, American scholars translate the word "민족"(=民族=ethnicity) used in South Korea into "race."

It needs to be made clear that it is an anti-Korean translation that hits not just the ruling party in North Korea but all leftists and liberals in the South Korea.

The translation of "민족" into "race" was centered on anti-North Korean pro-Japanese scholars like Shin Ki-wook and Brian Reynolds Myers‎‎, who disliked South Korean liberals and leftists, which eventually became the mainstream of Korean studies in the United States. The reason is simple, because it is absolutely contrary to the national interests of the United States that inter-Korea South Koreans and North Koreans aim for unification based on the same "ethnicity"(=민족) and oppose Japan with a sympathetic view of North Korea.

Very few American scholars translate the word "race" when Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai people use the word "民族". However, they routinely translate the Korean word 민족 into "race." The word "race" in Korean is 인종, not 민족.

Indeed, many South Korean liberals and left-wing politicians are misunderstood as racists on Reddit and in various American media because of this fucking anti-Korean trash Brian Reynolds Myers‎‎.

I think we should make this clear because there are so many people who misunderstand about Korean nationalism and politics through English Wikipedia. Umaru16 (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not important to this page. It's a confusing translation controversy that most English readers are not going to get: the apparent distinction between race and ethnicity is difficult to explain, if there even really is one. This is not the place to hash out this controversy but to give examples that can be clearly understood so people understand what quote mining is. Chillpilled (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

...And come to think of it, I don't even think that's a case of quote mining even if you're correct. That would just be a mistranslation which isn't the same thing. Chillpilled (talk) 12:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this is 'Quote mining' right. Because Brian Myers moved to South Korea in the 2000s and has lived here for almost 20 years. He even traveled to North Korea three times. There is no way that he never knows what 민족(minjok) means in South Korea. Myers analyzes inter-Korean politics very biasedly because he has ultra-nationalistic patriotism for the U.S. and is a racist who openly identifies himself as "anti-North Korea". Umaru16 (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Due to the stupid interference of Americans, the word 민족("Korean ethnicity" or "Korean people", it is not "Korean race") disappeared from the pledge to the national flag in South Korea in 2007, and English Wikipedia describes South Koreans as if they were loyal to the Korean 'race' before 2007. However, Americans do not take issue with the word 中華民族("Chinese ethnicity" or "Chinese people" Chinese race) in Chinese official patriotic song. This is not irrelevant to Meyers' anti-Korean racism. Unlike Korean studies in South Korea, Korean studies in the U.S. are quite influential. Umaru16 (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

A biased mistranslation still isn't an example of quote mining. Chillpilled (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The entire "examples" section is an eyesore and makes me wonder why is this article silver. I think we should remove everything but the Darwin example. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Because people come along after an article's been brainstar'd and coat-rack their pet issues (the above is a stellar example) to the text without being challenged, even if it degrades the overall tact of the article (this is true regardless of whether the people adding these things are correct about the individual topics... not every article is a soapbox from which to tell everyone about such specific things). I almost just removed the mention of TERFs in the lead because my first thought was "name one example". But then I actually remembered some examples (papers by Dhejne, de Vries, and Steensma get quote-mined like this). Still the body text doesn't even mention anything about TERFs as an example so it is slightly jarring to the reader. Chillpilled (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Myers' case is is 'Quoting out of context'. Because in South Korea, the word minjok means "ethnicity," but it is sometimes translated into "people" or "race" for Americans' easy understanding. Minjok was also translated as "people; ethnic group; race" on an official site run by the 국립국어원, which is related to the South Korean government. The problem is that the word Minjok is rarely used in South Korea in the sense of "people" or "race," and most of them are entirely used in the sense of "ethnicity." By the way, Meyers almost unconditionally translates the word "minjok" into "race" in South Korea, portraying almost all liberal/leftist political parties and the North Korean regime as racists. South Korean leftists oppose racial discrimination but at the same time support 'ethnic-based nationalism'. Translated in the manner of B.R. Myers, Shin Ki-wook, and Robert Kelly, South Korean leftists come out with outrageous translations that oppose racism while at the same time supporting racism. Umaru16 (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In other words, translating 민족 into 'race' is not technically a mistranslation. However, almost all Koreans use 민족 to mean 'ethnicity' or 'Korean nation', not 'race' in most contexts. Umaru16 (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to distinguish between ethno-nationalism and racial-nationalism comes off as a complete absurdity to most modern English speakers, since many of the far-right parties in the Anglosphere make no such distinction and often advocate "ethnostates"; "ethnicity" and "race" are so closely associated in English that ethnicity is often taken to mean "race plus culture". So again even if you're correct (honestly, I just am not familiar enough with South Korea to know) this just comes off as a confusing shoe-horn to the article, to most readers. Chillpilled (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Umaru, the problem, I believe, is not that the example is inaccurate, the problem is, we're giving undue weight to this. That's the case to most, if not all examples in the page. as I said, I think we should remove the entire section but the first example. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 14:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, the meaning of 민족주의([ethno-]nationalism) in South Korea is not that of "ethno-nationalism" in the United States. In South Korea, a left-wing nationalist group called the 민족문제연구소, which advocates "민족주의", advocates the values of "human rights" (인권) and "peace" (평화).# This is because South Korea was divided due to American/Soviet imperialism, which did not properly solve the problems related to Japanese war crimes in the past. Umaru16 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chillpilled The South Korean left never supports "ethnostates" like Richard Spencer. In South Korea, the term 민족 is closely related to post-colonialism toward Japan and reconciliation with North Korea. Umaru16 (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The amount of elaboration you have to give in an attempt to clarify this is exactly why it shouldn't be here. The clearest examples of quote-mining are very self-evident with practically the slightest investigation, and don't require this much explanation. Oftentimes they can be exposed by simply expanding the quote. This is not at all the case with this example, so it doesn't serve this article. This article isn't meant to contain a list of every example of quote-mining we ever care about. The examples are there to help a reader understand *what quote-mining is*. Chillpilled (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. This is because it is obvious that Meyers and other American-centered scholars do "Quote mining," and even though it is based on anti-Korean prejudice, it is excessively cited in English Wikipedia and English media. The important thing is that even though Korea is one nation, it has now been divided into two countries. A factor that will unite them is that they share ancestry, language, and culture. Conservatives want to defend the existing order. Paradoxically, therefore, South Korean militarists deny ethnic nationalism. Anti-imperialists and pacifists in South Korea support ethnic nationalism. South Korea's alt-right is anti-feminist and anti-Chinese, but at the same time pro-Japanese anti-communist, so Alt-right support Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, but South Korea alt-right hates 민족주의. Rather, some of South Korean feminists have become controversial because they have excessively expressed an ethonationalist view on the issue of Comfort Women. South Korea is rich in economic power, but the political culture is rather Third World because Korea is a victim of colonialism and imperialism. Umaru16 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There may be a typo because I am currently using a translator Umaru16 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

In summary, the left wing of South Korea puts forward ethnic nationalism for the sake of denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula, ending hostilities with North Korea. South Korea's right-wingers (including Alt-right) deny ethnic nationalism because they have hostility toward North Korea and goodwill toward Japan. South Korean politics is really complicated, right? The problem is that many American scholars, including Myers, criticize the South Korean left and defend the South Korean far right. South Korea does not have an ethonationalist far-right in the context of American politics. In South Korea, anti-communists, mainly violent and anti-human rights, are classified as far-rights. Umaru16 (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to suppose your interpretation here is that it qualifies as quote-mining because it's "removed from context" in the sense that it ignores the wider South Korean political/cultural context. But this is a misunderstanding of the type of context-removal this page's subject refers to: quoting someone directly while omitting the other parts of the exact same text or speech coming immediately before or after what is quoted, which would otherwise contradict the attempted portrayal. Chillpilled (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

So can I make an individual article called "Minjok"? Umaru16 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why you couldn't. It's an aspect of Korean politics, which pertains to coverage of authoritarianism as in the RW mission, whether opposition to or support of it. Chillpilled (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Still, I hope to maintain "Korean race". This is considered an obvious example of Quote mining in South Korean wiki. Umaru16 (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Quote mining happens when a person says something like, "X and Y but nevertheless Z" - but the quoted part is just "X and Y".

What I'm seeing in the Korean stuff is concern about how words or concepts should be translated from very different languages. Obviously this could be used to confuse - but it's not quote mining. I could actually point out instances where Spanish has been badly translated into English or, for that matter, where English has been badly translated into Spanish. But a bad (or badly used) translation isn't quote mining.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)