Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Self breast exam

2007-03-16T02:46:22Z

DocMD:

How was that image offensive and/or graphic. The woman's breast was concealed by her hand - it was a harmless image demonstrating exam technique.

Highly graphic and offensive image? Oh please! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 22:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Is this not intended as a reference tool that is considered safe for children? Do you really consider nudity appropriate? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::That wasn't nudity. Really, how on earth was that 'unsafe' for children? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 22:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::: I saw a woman's body. I saw no clothes. It was completely unnecessary. The article is just as informative without it, and much more friendly to younger users. They don't need to see a woman touching herself intimately to learn about breast examinations. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

How is the female form offensive to children? Especially a photo of a breast exam? It is not even remotely sexual... Are you also going to disallow presentation of Michaelangelo's David?
:Michaelangelo's David is a piece of rock, not an actual person. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It's still a visual representation of the human form. How, in all honesty, do you think this photo is offensive? This is an illustration of a diagnostic technique. How does that warrant offensiveness? I am just trying to understand where you are coming from here...
:Would you not find it inappropriate for such a picture to be hanging on the wall of a kindergarten or elementary school class? If so, why would we tolerate it here? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::Is this site really for kindergarteners? [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 22:34, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

No, actually. I do not find a photo of the human form offensive for children. For heaven's sake, about 50% of children are brestfed in infancy. Once a child reaches the age of 5, how do breasts suddenly become offensive. Furthermore, many young women do not know how to perform a correct breast exam. In my experience, photographs are extremely helpful in this arena.

: How odd an attitude. It is true that on its own, the image of a breast obviously doesn't have a corrupting influence. However, on the subject of nudity, how is the line drawn. There has to be a threshold of tolerance somewhere, right? Is a bare breast OK? How about full frontal nudity? What about a picture of an erect penis? If we are allowing nudity, there must be some guideline as to where the the threshold is drawn? Who decides this? Who polices it? Is it even possible for such a guideline to be anything more than unambiguous and subjective? Would it not be sensible to just conclude perhaps we should just consider human nudity inappropriate for a reference on which we hope children will learn? It's not like the site will lack serious informative content by having a policy against human nudity. A depiction of how to perform a breast exam can be just as effective if shown with a clothed breast or with some kind of breast analog. Although, perhaps the job of teaching about breast examination should be left to qualified doctors? --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

But an extremely detailed sculture of a man's penis and scrotum is okay with you?

Talk:Self breast exam

2007-03-16T02:31:26Z

DocMD:

Talk:Self breast exam

2007-03-16T02:25:59Z

DocMD:

Talk:Self breast exam

2007-03-16T02:20:56Z

DocMD:

Talk:Quote mining

2007-03-15T16:19:10Z

DocMD:

==Usage of the term?==
I'd never heard it before. Some Googling and a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quote_mining the corresponding Wikipedia article] give me the distinct impression that it is commonly used by evolutionists against creationists, but that it is ''not commonly used in any other context.'' It also seems to be a fairly recent coinage.

Thoughts? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:I have heard this term before, but only ever used by evolutionists as an attack on creation researchers. It was apparently coined on the evolutionist discussion group Talk.Origins. CreationWiki [http://creationwiki.org/Quote-mining has a response to this]. Perhaps for balance, the sample "mined" quote could be changed from Darwin to an example of an evolutionist quoting, say, Dembski, out of context? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Surely 'balance' would be having both? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:01, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Not if it's really ''used'' only in one direction. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:38, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::Good point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Maybe we could change it to a more abstract (and made-up) example that emphasizes the point while at the same time simply telling the context in which the term is often used (Evolutionists accusing Creationists of doing so, possibly with the reply by Creationists as Richard gave it - I haven't checked that link)? The quote strikes me as needlessly complicated, especially for an example that is supposed to make a point clear. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Actually, what triggered my comment was that I was ''planning'' to find or concoct an example that did not involve either evolution or creationism, but if I'm correct that the phrase is used only in the evolution/creationism dispute—and, as [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] notes, only in one direction—such an example would be misleading, because it wouldn't be illustrating the actual way the term is used. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::(MAD Magazine once had a very funny article about the way in which movie advertising takes reviewers' quotes out of context.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::I suspect you're right; while the phenomenon is fairly ubiquitous, the 'quote mine' tag seems to be a neologism more or less unique to this case. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I attempted to solve some of the issues here by using a quote where the subject, Dembski, wrote a response to being accused of quote mining. Are people more comfortable with this arrangement or should we keep looking for another solution? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I don't think that Dembski story solved anything, because you have done a little quote mining yourself in order to tell it the way that you did. You ran together 2 quotes that are really 5 pages apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:49, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::It was the only reliable source that had responded to a quote mine so I ran with it with out realizing that they were separated, my mistake, I have reverted to the old quote and weaved in your information, removing the now irrelevant text. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

But the new example isn't an example of "quote mining," it's an example of plain old "quotation out of context." Unless you can find a reference that says it's ever referred to as "quote mining" outside of talk.origins, CreationWiki, and other discussions specifically of evolution/creationism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Yea, yea, but quote mining is the collection of "out of context quotes" but I know what you are getting at though. I do not think there is anyway to save this page on conservapedia, all the material will be way to tendentious because of the dichotomy of creation/evolution. So I say we just nuke the whole darn thing!

Now I am not convinced that its not salvageable at wikipedia but I will take that up there :) [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:(In case people don't understand: I nominated "Quote mining" for deletion on Wikipedia on the grounds that it's not yet in dictionaries or what Wikipedia considers to be reliable published sources. Tmtoulouse or you or I can do some original research and confirm that it's widely used in a few specific places, such as the USENET newsgroup talk.origins, and that it's used primarily in the context of the evolution/creationism debate, but I don't think you can find that information in a published source meeting WIkipedia's reliable source guidelines. I could well be wrong...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:01, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::There is also developing a more general use. It is perhaps rather bold to start with the most contentious topics, but the two examples show how it can be used to support various types of argument. If it is an invalid method of argument, and yet creationists use is, where can they be shown this is a more friendly place than here?[[User:DDG|DDG]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I think that there may be a misunderstanding concerning quote mining. Quote mining is a concept that has existed ever since books, papers, and intellectual journals have been written. One of the primary determinants of an accurate and honest work is the avoidance of quote mining, as it is tempting to skew sources to support whatever the writer would like to say. Anyone can find dozens of sources to support even the most ridiculous of notions. I think that the is no legitmate reason for this article to be deleted. It has nothing to do with the imaginary war between science and religion. It's about good, factual writing.