# Modifying a quotation



## maxiogee

Hiya,

Something I do all the time 'jarred' slightly today.
I was responding to a post when I edited out irrelevant material, and added bold-face to relevant words.
Is it right that we should have the power to do both to someone else's texts?

I've even seen people making, and may myself have made, additions to someone's text in what ends up as a quote - implying sometimes that the quoted person has made the additional remarks.

What do people think?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Making letters bold, italic, colours, whatever = fine.
Changing material, to help clarify a point = fine
Changing text to something that the original poster didn't intend = not fine.

But it's still easily possible to go and see what they DID post in that post that you would have read earlier on before you got to a future post with the quote in it, so, no biggy.


----------



## .   1

I think that a quote should be a quote.
I do not think it fair to change a quote.
Changing a quote changes a quote to a paraphrase.
It is possible to refer to only part of a quote but even this is dangerous as the lack of context can change the apparent intent of the original poster.
To add words to a quote must change the original intent of the poster to some degree.
Highlighting text seems reasonable but even this can give a different flavour to the quote.
Some long posts can be tedious to quote but this is probably the safest thing to do.
Quote the whole quote and then refer to the part that is in contention.

.,,


----------



## elroy

I strongly disagree.  Please do not quote the whole text if it's long, just to comment on a small part of it.  We recently discussed this and concluded that this practice was irritating.

I don't see anything ethically wrong with stripping a quote of all but the parts you are specifically addressing, when those reading the post should have read the previous posts and should therefore be aware of how long the original quote was.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I agree, the post is already in the thread for context, it would have already been read, people aren't going to get their only information from that quote, after already reading the whole post.


----------



## .   1

I stand corrected.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> I agree, the post is already in the thread for context, it would have already been read, people aren't going to get their only information from that quote, after already reading the whole post.



I think that the number of people who, both here and elsewhere, appear to post without having read all the posts in a thread contradicts you.
We have all seen, I'm sure, posts which dsiplay a total ignorance of what has already been mentioned, and not only when the Mods merge two threads.


----------



## Nunty

I am in favor of snipping posts that are quoted so only the relevant bits are re-posted, but I do not like the practice of changing those bits (bold, colors, even spelling/grammar corrections). I try to think of it as though I were quoting someone's article in an article I am writing, and give the quote that same... I guess "respect" is the word I want.


----------



## Jana337

Nun-Translator said:


> I am in favor of snipping posts that are quoted so only the relevant bits are re-posted, but I do not like the practice of changing those bits (bold, colors, even spelling/grammar corrections). I try to think of it as though I were quoting someone's article in an article I am writing, and give the quote that same... I guess "respect" is the word I want.


Well, but we are a language forum and it is kind of logical that we submit corrections.  It is not practical to write a laundry list of correction under or instead the quote. They are much more useful in context.

Quoting someone's article - that's similar to our CD forum that is mostly correction-free. But in other subforums, texts are often submitted for correction...

Jana


----------



## Nunty

Jana337 said:


> Well, but we are a language forum and it is kind of logical that we submit corrections.  It is not practical to write a laundry list of correction under or instead the quote. They are much more useful in context.
> 
> Quoting someone's article - that's similar to our CD forum that is mostly correction-free. But in other subforums, texts are often submitted for correction...
> 
> Jana



Sorry, I didn't mean to say not to correct! (Look at my sig, for instance.) But I do think that in most cases, the corrections should be separate from the quoted material. For instanse, lets say I am writing this sentence. I think the corrections should be in the response part of the new post. Like this: 





> Here, the person who is replying quotes my post. For instanse, lets say I am writing this sentence. And of course, the quote would be at the begining of the replying post, as usual.


The person who corrects me writes whatever and adds: Just a couple of corrections, Nun-T: 
For instansce, lets say I am writing write this sentence. 

That is all I meant to say. I prefer to see the quotation intact. Maybe it's a hold over from my academic days.


----------



## Outsider

I fail to see the relevant difference between correcting a quoted text within a "quote" template, and doing the same outside a "quote" template...


----------



## Nunty

The difference, Outsider, is that the integrity of the original quote is maintained and corrections made elsewhere. It can be quite difficult to read a quote when it is riddled with cross-outs and boldface and three different colors.


----------



## Outsider

But you can usually scroll up, and read the original post.


----------



## elroy

Why not think of it as the "edited version" of the text, and not the quote?  After all, many use the qutoe tags not just to cite others but to set a particular text apart for whatever reason.  That should be of consolation to the academic in you.  

As for Maxiogee's comment about those who do not read previous posts, it's not our responsibility to make up for others' laziness.  And anyway, when you really get down to it, even the full quote is not enough to understand the full context and as such does not necessarily eliminate confusion and misunderstanding.  Reading previous posts is a must in any case if you really want to do things right, so I don't think it's a matter of pruning quoted material or keeping it intact.


----------



## Nunty

Outsider said:


> But you can usually scroll up, and read the original post.


Yes, if the thread is not too long. But if the thread extends over a couple of pages, it's a pain. Anyway, that is just my opinion and my practice. You're welcome to yours.


----------



## elroy

Nun-Translator said:


> Yes, if the thread is not too long. But if the thread extends over a couple of pages, it's a pain. Anyway, that is just my opinion and my practice. You're welcome to yours.


 Did you know that the forum software allows you to view up to 100 posts on one page?  It's a wonderful (perhaps underrated) feature.


----------



## Outsider

Nun-Translator said:


> Yes, if the thread is not too long. But if the thread extends over a couple of pages, it's a pain. Anyway, that is just my opinion and my practice. You're welcome to yours.


Certainly, but let me just add a note. Since one of its latest updates, the forum has a very nice feature: in every quote, there's a little blue arrow. Clicking on it takes you back to the original post where the quoted text came from.


----------



## Nunty

elroy said:


> Did you know that the forum software allows you to view up to 100 posts on one page?  It's a wonderful (perhaps underrated) feature.


No I didn't. That is truly a wonderful feature, and I'm scurrying over to the UCP as soon as this is posted.



Outsider said:


> Certainly, but let me just add a note. Since one of its latest updates, the forum has a very nice feature: in every quote, there's a little blue arrow. Clicking on it takes you back to the original post where the quoted text came from.


Yes, that is new and I'm not used to it yet.

Thank you both for the constructive comments.


----------



## Etcetera

Nun-Translator said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to say not to correct! (Look at my sig, for instance.) But I do think that in most cases, the corrections should be separate from the quoted material. For instanse, lets say I am writing this sentence. I think the corrections should be in the response part of the new post.


I agree with Nun-Translator. 
But as for me, I would prefer to get a PM.


----------



## .   1

I agree with Etcetera,
I am not interested in anyone pointing out my typos to me.
On the few occasions that I correct another member I do so by way of PM and allow that member to edit their own post.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Many posters in the non-English language forums come here to learn a foreign language. Pointing out their errors helps them learn. Sometimes, I do it through PM, but often I correct them on the main forum, in the hope that other readers will learn from their mistakes, too.


----------



## LV4-26

In the books we read, parts of quote are often underlined or put in bold. This modification is then acknowledged by the author. Which is what I do when I happen to make such alterations to someone else's posts. 
Incidentally, I've never been sure how to word it properly, but I usually write something like "underlining is mine".


----------



## geve

. said:


> I agree with Etcetera,
> I am not interested in anyone pointing out my typos to me.
> On the few occasions that I correct another member I do so by way of PM and allow that member to edit their own post.
> 
> .,,


Many learners have a signature that says "Please correct my mistakes", or aks for corrections at the bottom of their posts. In that case I correct their whole post if needed (not just their translation attempt), and I use the quote marks. This way if further posters quote my post, the part that I didn't write (but only corrected) will not appear as having been said by me.
I would send a PM for a typo or a missing word in a post if it was not the point of the thread. But if there is a mistake in a translation suggestion made by someone, editing is not the best option, since the thread poster might not re-read the corrected post.


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> In the books we read, parts of quote are often underlined or put in bold. This modification is then acknowledged by the author. Which is what I do when I happen to make such alterations to someone else's posts.
> Incidentally, I've never been sure how to word it properly, but I usually write something like "underlining is mine".



I think you could colour it differently and then say something like "the green emphasis is mine".


----------



## papillon

Like Nun-Translator, I am very conservative about adding anything to a quote. In an academic article, quoting is almost an art form where the need for brevity, attribution and keeping the original intact need to be balanced.

When quoting someone, I always keep in mind that the words "Originally posted by XXX" precede the quote. Grammatical correction aside, even if you simply clean up the language by _adding_ a few words, you've modified the original. Therefore, you are claiming XXX said something that XXX didn't say.

All the while, I think stripping down the quote to just the relevant parts is essential. As discussed in another forum, nothing is more annoying than having to reread a page-long quote in search of the salient point. I usually use ... in place of parts that were edited out, some people do [...] and such. In this case, if you do it well, you are not  misrepresenting the original.

As for corrections to grammar, I think maxiogee suggestion is best:



maxiogee said:


> I think you could colour it differently and then say something like "the green emphasis is mine".


----------



## cuchuflete

LV4-26 said:


> In the books we read, parts of quote are often underlined or put in bold. _*This modification is then acknowledged by the author.*_ Which is what I do when I happen to make such alterations to someone else's posts.
> Incidentally, I've never been sure how to word it properly, but I usually write something like "underlining is mine".



Hi Jean-Michel,
"My emphasis" is a common term for what you have described, and what I did _*above in your post.*_


----------



## whattheflock

I think I misunderstood a bit of the original question. I thought Maxiogee was asking if changing the contents of the quote was alright. 
I don't think spelling corrections or ellipses are much of a problem either. But to change the content or intent of the quote doesn't seem especially nice. Also not nice, specifically, when there's a change to even the name of the quoted person, for the sole purpose of lampooning them or even deriding them. I have seen this happen before. Like,



> Originally Posted by *Fred*
> 
> 
> Yes, welcome.


 
if someone didn't like what he said, sometimes they make it into,



> Originally Posted by *Stinking hard-headed nerd whom we hate*
> 
> 
> Yes,* I surely *welcome *all advances in strange bars*.


 
Is this what the original question was about?


----------



## heidita

. said:


> I agree with Etcetera,
> I am not interested in anyone pointing out my typos to me.
> On the few occasions that I correct another member I do so by way of PM and allow that member to edit their own post.
> 
> .,,


 

Yes, unless it is learning material, like a post by a non-native who might not know the correct spelling. 
We had this _talk_ on the German forum and it was agreed that spelling mistakes, typos, were not to be corrected as was actually happening during some time.
One can also point out a spelling mistake in a humorous way. I think nothing wrong with that.


----------



## heidita

Nun-Translator said:


> I am in favor of snipping posts that are quoted so only the relevant bits are re-posted, but I do not like the practice of changing those bits (bold, colors, even spelling/grammar corrections). I try to think of it as though I were quoting someone's article in an article I am writing, and give the quote that same... I guess "respect" is the word I want.


 
I cannot agree with you. On the spanish forum sometimes people ask for corrections pages long and I always correct these quoting the text and making necessary changes in another colour. 
It may be difficult to read for the writer but this is a learning forum, not to give the poster a complete and corrected and flawless page which he can download and then present as his. At least he should have to take the time to write it out again and above all see his/her mistakes clearly.


----------



## heidita

whattheflock said:


> when there's a change to even the name of the quoted person,


 
Very funny whatthe..but what do you think about abbreviating some nicks which seem quite incomprehensible or don't even have letters in it?
I have seen our friend .., called _dots and comm_as for instance and there is an English boy on the grammar forum whose name is Srglmn (or something similar, whom I always call SR.


----------



## Nunty

heidita said:


> I cannot agree with you. On the spanish forum sometimes people ask for corrections pages long and I always correct these quoting the text and making necessary changes in another colour.



Ah. In the forums I frequent, such extensive corrections are not permitted. 



> It may be difficult to read for the writer but this is a learning forum, not to give the poster a complete and corrected and flawless page which he can download and then present as his.



Which is why these corrections are not permitted in FE or EO.

I was referring to the corrections of a few words, such as those I am so grateful to receive in FS.


----------



## LV4-26

Thanks for the useful advice, Cuchu and Tony.


----------



## Whodunit

I don't understand why one should not correct someone in the quote. Let's say I quoted an utmost long post in the German forum: Who would read that again without anything changed?

I like to make corrections in red, suggestions in blue, and misplacements in green in the original quote. No one has ever objected to it. Wouldn't it look strange to quote the person and then re-post the corrected version (with colors, of course) below? Twice the same text: One as the original, the other one corrected.

Sometimes members send me PMs if there has been a misleading mistake in one of my posts. I appreciate those PMs, because I hate to be corrected in the forum, if it is just a stupid typo. Let me give an example:



JazzByChas said:


> Educated immigrants often know English even before they come to this country! So catering to someone not to have to learn the native language of a country in which they reside strikes me a perpetuating the laziness of the people who emmigrate to this country.


 
There are three possibilities to react to such a post:

1. ignoring (it's just a typo, who cares?)
2. correcting "emmigrate" to "emigrate" in red (within the quote) in public (hoping that others would benefit from the corrections)
3. sending an PM to the original poster, and directing him to his post

Most often I choose (2), because "emmigrate" can be misleading for those who are not familiar with the English language. It is "immigrate," but "emigrate." Now a native speaker uses "emmigrate," so what? People can get confused by such typos.

I'd use number (3), if I kind of know the person well, and if I know that the person would not react rudely by a corrections, AND if the person doesn't have a signature like "Please correct my mistakes."

Number (1) is possible, if the poster doesn't like me, and if the typo is totally meaningless and not confusing.


----------



## maxiogee

whattheflock said:


> Is this what the original question was about?



My question was, I thought, perfectly worded.
I was asking about the etiquette of altering a quote in any way, at all.

Yes, I expected to be told that if Joe typed all in black, and someone either wished to correct a typo then it is usual to either alter the error and set it in a contrasting colour, or strike through the error and enter the correction, again, in a contrasting colour.

I have no problem with editing out the truly irrelevant part of a post, the better to highlight the part one is answering, as long as the remnant quoted doesn't appear to controvert the original poster's meaning. You know the sort of thing… it appears on theatre posters all the time. The critic writes "Maxiogee has appeared in several great plays, his last rôle as Hamlet was probably his best work ever. However, this play is a disaster from start to finish and he is clearly artistically bankrupt." The next day the theatre advertises with the strapline "Maxiogee… his best work ever." _The Irish Times_

I have seen people take someone's post and go through it point by point, and enter their ripostes in bold where they fit. Sometimes this is not very welll done, with no clear delineation of who wrote what - especially when the quoted text is sprinkled with bold text already.

What I was particularly asking about was this sort of thing. Julius Caesar posts: 
All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. All these differ from each other in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae.​
And Mark Antony quotes him:


			
				Julius Caesar said:
			
		

> All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third. *All these differ from each other* in language, customs and laws. The river Garonne separates the Gauls from the Aquitani; the Marne and the Seine separate them from the Belgae



You may well say "All these differ from each other" but some might argue that this is racism, and that you are trying to justify raising yet another army…​
My point is that the appearance now is that the emphasis is now seen as Caesar's.
The purpose of my question was to see if there was any form of consensus as to the WR forum having a preferred style.
My objection to posting ripostes/repsonses inside the body of a quote is that is makes it difficult to quote those pieces.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> Very funny whatthe..but what do you think about abbreviating some nicks which seem quite incomprehensible or don't even have letters in it?
> I have seen our friend .., called _dots and comm_as for instance and there is an English boy on the grammar forum whose name is Srglmn (or something similar, whom I always call SR.


I quite enjoy the diferent names inspired by my nick.

.,,


----------



## whattheflock

heidita said:


> Very funny whatthe..but what do you think about abbreviating some nicks which seem quite incomprehensible or don't even have letters in it?
> I have seen our friend .., called _dots and comm_as for instance and there is an English boy on the grammar forum whose name is Srglmn (or something similar, whom I always call SR.



Sorry to have annoyed. Not being the sharpest tool in the shed, often I miss obvious things. Thanks for bringing that up.


----------

