Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Use of Irony quotes in historiographical discussion

Options
  • 20-01-2011 1:46pm
    #1
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭


    I am looking to get some views on this question.

    In what circumstances is it appropriate to use so-called irony quote marks in a historiographical discussion, say for example in the context of an internet discussion forum discussing aspects of WW2.

    This arises from poster on a thread here :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056126556

    Basically one poster insisted on using this form of sentence :
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    ... in comparison to 'crimes' in eastern europe

    The user then replied that as no specific single crime is mentioned it would be incorrect to say

    EXAMPLE A

    Crimes of Totalitarian regime

    & instead you should say

    EXAMPLE B

    'crimes' of Totalitarian regime

    My take on this is outlined here :
    Morlar wrote: »
    You are incorrect in the belief that irony quotes are required when discussing crimes of totalitarian regimes in cases where no specific event is singled out. To illustrate this please read the articles this thread is based upon :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/21/european-commission-communist-crimes-nazism

    &

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12059475

    You will see neither the BBC or the Guardian agree with your application of irony quotes around the word crimes. This seems plain as day to me so I do not understand your refusal to acknowledge this. Put it another way - if I started a thread tomorrow and said :

    I think it could be interesting to discuss the role of the SS on the Eastern front particularly 'crimes' in the southern sector.

    or

    This thread is to discuss Ordnungspolizei 'crimes' against jews in occuppied europe.

    There would be an uproar in both cases as adding those quotes clearly seeks to question the criminality when there is no question about it. Nor is there an obligation to put the word crimes in quotes as no specific single event is referenced. You are simply mistaken on this one.


    Any other thoughts on this in the wider context of discussion on a history/heritage forum ?

    I would also put forward the following in support of my take on this :

    http://www.quotation-marks.com/emphasis_and_irony.php
    Another important use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words. Ironic quotes can also be called scare, sneer, shock, or distance quotes. Ironic quotes are sometimes gestured in verbal speech using air quotes
    ...
    Ironic quotes should be used with care. Without the intonational cues of speech, they could obscure the writer's intended meaning. They could also be confused easily with quotations.

    In a similar sense, quotes are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that the word is not being used in its (currently) accepted sense.

    In the fifteenth century, we “knew” that the Sun's revolution divided day from night.

    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/07/19/tom-segev-reviews-benny-morris-new-book-1948/
    For some reason Morris found it important to prove that the Arabs of the country were not a nation but just “a nation”. He uses quotation marks a great deal: the Arab Rebellion was not a rebellion but a “rebellion”, the Arabs did not have a plan but only “a plan”, a promise made by an Arab prime minister is only “a promise”. The land of Israel is the land of Israel, but Palestine is only “Palestine”, of course, and the justice sought by its Arab residents was not justice but only “justice”.

    Correct use of So-called 'irony' quote marks in historiographical discussion 4 votes

    'irony' quotes in example B doubt the correctness of the word quoted - should not be used
    0%
    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    100%
    Mahatma coatMorlarPatsytheNaziMonty Burnz 4 votes


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    Morlar wrote: »
    I am looking to get some views on this question.

    In what circumstances is it appropriate to use so-called irony quote marks in a historiographical discussion, say for example in the context of an internet discussion forum discussing aspects of WW2.

    This arises from poster on a thread here :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056126556

    Basically one poster insisted on using this form of sentence :



    The user then replied that as no specific single crime is mentioned it would be incorrect to say

    EXAMPLE A

    Crimes of Totalitarian regime

    & instead you should say

    EXAMPLE B

    'crimes' of Totalitarian regime

    My take on this is outlined here :




    Any other thoughts on this in the wider context of discussion on a history/heritage forum ?

    I would also put forward the following in support of my take on this :

    http://www.quotation-marks.com/emphasis_and_irony.php


    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/07/19/tom-segev-reviews-benny-morris-new-book-1948/
    I understand your point Morlar, but I suppose that's free speech for you.


  • Options
    #3
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    I understand your point Morlar, but I suppose that's free speech for you.

    To clarify - I am not saying people should not have the right to imply X event was or was not a crime. Or that people should not be allowed to imply there is some doubt to the criminality of the event.

    In this case the user has said that this is not their intention.

    My point is that IF you use so-called irony quote marks there is an effect you should consider. I believe using irony quotes around the word

    crime

    in the sentence

    crimes of totalitarian regimes

    to change it to

    'crimes' of totalitarian regimes

    DOES introduce an element of doubt as to the criminality.

    My point is not - people should not be allowed to doubt criminality or question aspects of historical events, I am more trying to clarify that this is infact what they are doing.


  • Options
    #4
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Wiki:
    Quotations and speechSingle or double quotation marks denote either speech or a quotation. Neither style — single or double — is an absolute rule,....

    .........

    Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:

    He shared his “wisdom” with me.
    The lunch lady plopped a glob of “food” onto my tray.
    The person used “intellect” to speak.
    To avoid the potential for confusion between ironic quotes and direct quotations, some style guides specify single quotation marks for this usage, and double quotation marks for verbatim speech.[citation needed] Quotes indicating irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark

    By the way your Poll is misleading. You call them irony quotes which is not what they are. If you insist on calling them irony quotes you are misleading people into voting in a certain way. See explanation of quotation marks in link i have given and you will see that only SOME STYLES specify single quotation marks as being irony quotes. As I already have said I did not use them as irony quotes (or should I say 'irony' quotes?).

    You should alter this if you want a genuine result.


  • Options
    #5
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    I believe using irony quotes around the word

    crime

    in the sentence

    crimes of totalitarian regimes

    to change it to

    'crimes' of totalitarian regimes

    DOES introduce an element of doubt as to the criminality.

    My point is not - people should not be allowed to doubt criminality or question aspects of historical events, I am more trying to clarify that this is infact what they are doing.

    If we cannot question aspects of historical events then what are we doing on a history forum? The questioning will obviously vary depending on the topic but my point remains the same. I would be interested in points of view on this other than myself or Morlars (as we know each others position) to try and get some type of consensus?


  • Options
    #6
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    If we cannot question aspects of historical events then what are we doing on a history forum? The questioning will obviously vary depending on the topic but my point remains the same. I would be interested in points of view on this other than myself or Morlars (as we know each others position) to try and get some type of consensus?

    You are shifting your position here.

    I have never said that you can not or should question the criminality of historical events.

    I said that if you use quote marks around the word crime - that you ARE questioning the criminality of the event.

    You repeatedly denied you were questioning the criminality of the events.

    So you do now confirm that your application of quote marks to that sentence was to imply doubt as to the criminality ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    By the way your Poll is misleading. You call them irony quotes which is not what they are. If you insist on calling them irony quotes you are misleading people into voting in a certain way. . . ..

    You should alter this if you want a genuine result.

    The questions are perfectly straightforward as is the post # 1 of this thread.

    I have referred to them as 'so-called' irony quotes to avoid any possible confusion on this.

    The poll questions are limited in the amount of characters used in each question.

    Correct use of So-called 'irony' quote marks in historiographical discussion

    'irony' quotes in example B doubt the correctness of the word quoted - should not be used

    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use

    I have tried to make that question, title and options as impartial, clear and open as possible.


  • Options
    #8
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    The questions are perfectly straightforward as is the post # 1 of this thread.

    I have referred to them as 'so-called' irony quotes to avoid any possible confusion on this.

    The poll questions are limited in the amount of characters used in each question.

    Correct use of So-called 'irony' quote marks in historiographical discussion

    'irony' quotes in example B doubt the correctness of the word quoted - should not be used

    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use

    I have tried to make that question, title and options as impartial, clear and open as possible.

    So-called by you. And also they are labelled irony quotes in the poll which is a dumb question as I did not use them as irony quotes. Your Poll question is not reflective of our different points of view.


    Thus you are leading people.


    Can you confirm that you see the difference in 1. quotation marks, and 2. Irony quotes.


  • Options
    #9
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    So-called by you.
    not by me.
    Thus you are leading people.
    Can you confirm that you see the difference in 1. quotation marks, and 2. Irony quotes.

    Here is the question you missed in that post :

    So you do now confirm that your application of quote marks to that sentence was to imply doubt as to the criminality ?


  • Options
    #10
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    You are shifting your position here.

    I have never said that you can not or should question the criminality of historical events.

    I said that if you use quote marks around the word crime - that you ARE questioning the criminality of the event.

    You repeatedly denied you were questioning the criminality of the events.

    So you do now confirm that your application of quote marks to that sentence was to imply doubt as to the criminality ?

    No, My position has not shifted although I may not have interpreted post 3 as you meant it.

    Anyway, next time your setting a Poll try not to lead people to vote in a certain way. Kinda defeats the purpose.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69803469&postcount=14


  • Options
    #11
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    No, My position has not shifted although I may not have interpreted post 3 as you meant it.

    Where did I say that you can not or should not be permitted to question the criminality of an historical event ?

    I have not said that becauase I do not believe it.

    I simply asked you to clarify that was what you were actually doing :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69794222&postcount=8
    Morlar wrote: »
    Why have you put the word 'crimes' in quote marks - are you trying to imply they were somehow not crimes ?

    I believe you should have the freedom to question the criminality of any event, I just think that you should be more open and honest about it. For example putting quote marks around the word crimes in the sentence 'crimes of totalitarian regimes' clearly, clearly in my view is intended to cast doubt on the criminality. Which is fine as that opens the discussion to a whole new direction, however to then deny that was the intent and to claim grammatical correctness was the reason is incorrect and in order to clear that up - this is the purpose of this thread. Split from the other as it was a persistent thread de-railment in progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Morlar wrote: »
    Where did I say that you can not or should not be permitted to question the criminality of an historical event ?

    I have not said that becauase I do not believe it.

    I simply asked you to clarify that was what you were actually doing :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69794222&postcount=8



    I believe you should have the freedom to question the criminality of any event, I just think that you should be more open and honest about it. For example putting quote marks around the word crimes in the sentence 'crimes of totalitarian regimes' clearly, clearly in my view is intended to cast doubt on the criminality. Which is fine as that opens the discussion to a whole new direction, however to then deny that was the intent and to claim grammatical correctness was the reason is incorrect and in order to clear that up - this is the purpose of this thread. Split from the other as it was a persistent thread de-railment in progress.

    Where have I claimed grammatical correctness?

    Where did I write 'crimes of totalitarian regimes'? That is a subtle difference you are trying to slip in I feel.


  • Options
    #13
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Where have I claimed grammatical correctness?

    Where did I write 'crimes of totalitarian regimes'? That is a subtle difference you are trying to slip in I feel.

    The sequence of posts are here :

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69695258&postcount=1
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69697362&postcount=2
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69705525&postcount=3
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69708359&postcount=4
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69750497&postcount=5
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69786101&postcount=6
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69787668&postcount=7
    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69794222&postcount=8

    The phrases being used in the articles that thread is based on were 'Totalitarian crimes', & 'communist crimes' you replied to this with :
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    (particularly in comparison to 'crimes' in eastern europe that are involved in this story)?

    The crimes of Eastern Europe that are involved in this story - the ones that you placed in irony quotes are the totalitarian and communist regime crimes.

    You then claimed that your use of the quotes was grammatically correct (my words) on the basis that unless a single, specified event was referenced it was correct to use quotes.


  • Options
    #14
    zagmund
    Registered Users Posts: 2,501 ✭✭✭zagmund


    I'm afraid you lost me right at the start, but do continue to 'talk among yourselves' until a mod comes along and tells you to take it outside lads.

    z


  • Options
    #15
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    zagmund wrote: »
    I'm afraid you lost me right at the start, but do continue to 'talk among yourselves' until a mod comes along and tells you to take it outside lads.

    z

    don't backseat mod or you will be infracted. mod.

    OP you don't use irony quotes in a historiographical piece, end of. Quotation marks are for quotes, its as simple as that. If you want to suggest something such as sarcasm or irony or whatever you can make a point of it through use of a statement in brackets or as a footnote.

    johnnie do you realise the discussion is not about the words but the punctuation? Stop going off topic. mod.


  • Options
    #16
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    'irony' quotes in example B do NOT doubt the correctness of the word - correc to use
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    If we cannot question aspects of historical events then what are we doing on a history forum?
    Wasnt that the whole cut and thrust of the other thread tho, Its Illegal to Question the Crimes of Some regimes but not others.

    So which is it, Either its acceptable to question the official story and account of an event or the event should be ringfenced and taken as gospel

    but you cant have it both ways
    The questioning will obviously vary depending on the topic but my point remains the same. I would be interested in points of view on this other than myself or Morlars (as we know each others position) to try and get some type of consensus?

    why would the questioning change depending on the topic
    If the question is did these people commit atrocities then its the same question regardles if it was the SS The Red Army the Paras or the IDF


  • Options
    #17
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Wasnt that the whole cut and thrust of the other thread tho, Its Illegal to Question the Crimes of Some regimes but not others.

    So which is it, Either its acceptable to question the official story and account of an event or the event should be ringfenced and taken as gospel

    but you cant have it both ways

    why would the questioning change depending on the topic
    If the question is did these people commit atrocities then its the same question regardles if it was the SS The Red Army the Paras or the IDF

    I have already been told not to go off topic on this thread but as you ask these questions here I will have to answer. I think you have assumed my position incorrectly from the other thread. I stated clearly both here and there that questioning events based on facts is acceptable and also that I do not agree with HD legislation, I think I said it is the type of legislation that would have been used in Nazi Germany. This is clearly expressed on page 1 of the WWII thread on the subject- if further clarification is needed we can carry on on that thread IMO?

    Apologies for being off-topic again!


Advertisement