I do. Let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the WTS. I mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it. There was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that. It was a true, in context quote. I can understand why he wouldn't want to be associated with creationists, etc., but his actions, more like a little tantrum, were unusual. I think the WTS just thought it was easier to edit the digital edition to avoid a controversy, but even that was a favor. For Rama Singh to also demand an apology is laughable and goes against principles of free speech and reporting.
Do you think the 'Rama Singh misquote' situation is uncalled for?
by neat blue dog 16 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Wasanelder Once
If I were to say in writing that "there is as much a chance that neat blue dog was a child predator as there is that I believe in creation." Would it be a big deal if people quoted me as saying "neat blue dog was a child predator"? Or if I were quoted as saying "I believe in creation"? Of course neither is true. Its all in how you quote it chum. If they didn't know they were wrong they would have left it. -
cognisonance
The quotation is not a misquote, the Awake does quote his works correctly and did not twist their meaning. However, it's still out of context and is intellectually dishonest to quote Rama Signh given the context of the Awake article. Awake is trying to make it sound like there are valid reasons to not believe in evolution, and is trying to use Sighn's statement of fact that a 'great many' of scientifically minded do not believe in evolution as an example of a valid reason.
-
neat blue dog
Wasanelder: "Would it be a big deal if people quoted me as saying "neat blue dog was a child predator"? Or if I were quoted as saying "I believe in creation"?"
Yes, but in this instance they didn't isolate his words in a way that changed their meaning. THAT would be a misquote.
-
neat blue dog
cognisonanance: "Awake is trying to make it sound like there are valid reasons to not believe in evolution, and is trying to use Sighn's statement of fact that a 'great many' of scientifically minded do not believe in evolution as an example of a valid reason."
Which is perfectly fine. It's apparent to pretty much anyone that they're quoting him because he's in the scientific community and has an opinion about his colleagues, not because of any sympathy to creationism. Anything anyone says in public is a fact, and doesn't need permission to be published in support of a certain cause.
-
Mephis
I think every instance of the WTBTS misusing quotes to twist them should be highlighted. What they wanted that quote to say is shown by what they replaced it with. Singh was being perfectly reasonable to ask for an apology. It is exceptionally bad form to do what the WTBTS did. That they did it without expressing any remorse, and have done similar things for years, shows they are either incompetent or dishonest in how they treat academic works. They are not forced to treat their material honestly, nor are they forced to apologise for treating it dishonestly, so the only thing left is publicising that this is the religious version of the National Enquirer. Caveat emptor. -
neat blue dog
Mephis: "What they wanted that quote to say is shown by what they replaced it with."
. . . which was basically just a reworded version of what he really did say.
-
steve2
Look, it's not a misquote as such; it is a quote used out of context to create the opposie of the original author's written work. The author wrote, demanding they remove it and apologize. They removed it from all e-versions and it will be removed if the magazine is reprinted. They did not apologize, which, unless it is a court ruling, they do not have to do.
In the overall scheme of things, it's not the worst instance of their misusing other's written work.
-
Mephis
neat blue dog - I would agree with you, if the WT had included the rest of Singh's original piece. That it's because said people do not understand evolution and so evolution should be taught at colleges. And missing off that key part of what Singh wrote changes the meaning quite radically. Any fool can pull out sentences to make them say what they want them to say devoid of their original context. I remember being taught why not to do it as a 14 year old. -
nelim
It is a misquote. If they were just interested in repeating his opinion, why did they put his title "professor of Biology" there? And why did they not include the full sentence, at the very least? "... including biologists, non-biologists, and the lay public."? Mr. Singh is talking about educated people in all kinds of professions, not just biology. Which reduces the value for WT quoting him. And why didn't they (honestly) put something like: "Rama Singh, supporter of evolution and professor of ...., makes the following observation: ..."? That would have been honest towards Mr. Singh.