Question about rule about bolding in quotes

[MrDibble]

I had always understood that bolding text in a quote for emphasis was OK as long as you added something like “my emphasis” or “bolding mine” or similar.

This mod note would seem to say different:

What do you think are acceptable exit conditions for this war?

Modnote: We have a long standing policy of not changing quotes of posters. That includes things like bolding them. Find a better way to indicate what you are replying to. Please do not do this again. Done again here:

The rules don’t seem to say that, with their “normal editorial rules apply”, and I’ve done it plenty of times without being modded.

So, which is it? Bolding for emphasis (with notice that this is what was done) is allowed, or it isn’t?

This isn’t a question about the acceptability of the specific post prompting this moderation, because there wasn’t any “my bolding” comment with it. I’m asking for clarity about when there is such a comment.

[Cervaise]

Co-signed.

[Tamerlane]

Hah! I just messaged What_Exit the about this very thing! Also co-signed, of course. I’m perfectly fine dropping the habit, but I’ve been doing it for decades and have never been modded for it.

[Procrustus]

I’ve done it too. I think it’s proper. It’s done in legal briefs and court opinions all the time, and those guys don’t do anything wrong.

[EllisDee]

My understanding of the long-time rule is that it has always been to not edit without attribution. “Bolding mine” has a long tradition on the SDMB.

[Riemann]

@Tamerlane

I’m perfectly fine dropping the habit

If they changed this rule I’d be bold over.

[Novelty_Bobble]

“bolding mine” seems to be the clearest way of querying a specific point whilst both keeping it in wider context and ensuring everyone knows that it was not there in the original quote.

As long as the words aren’t changed and a clear comment is provided I don’t see the problem.

I’ve done it and had it done to me, never had a problem with it.

[Pleonast]

Ideally, responses should indicate the exact words being responded to, while also showing the context in which they occurred. Board rules need to support this.

[Procrustus]

It seems unanimous. Common sense prevails by referendum. We just need to sit back and wait for the announcement.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Absolutely yes. Same goes for italics or underlining if you want to use them instead of bold.

[k9bfriender]

The other option is to only quote the parts that you want to emphasise, which gets into complaints about quoting out of context.

[running_coach]

From 2018. Several mods weigh that, in their opinion, there’s no problem.

Is "Bolding mine" on a quote: required, polite, unnecessary or other?

I see “Bolding mine” when bolding a quoted post where there was no original bolding and in fact, I usually try to do it. Is it required because of the “don’t change quoted posts” rule or is it just considered polite? If it’s required, I need to report myself because I forgot to add it and my 5 minutes is up.

Earlier thread.

Bolding Mine

This is really more of an IMHO than a Pit, so I’ll try to increase the vitriol a bit. I hereby renounce you future Fox News contributors who quote somebody’s entire post, then bold the parts you object to because you consider them especially egregious, and then add that little self-righteous pastiche at the end, “Bolding mine.” Since you’re so intent on focusing on the few words that upset you and decided to ignore the rest of the post, you’re literally guilty of taking things out of context. …

[Dissonance]

Should bolding now be disallowed, I’d like to propose a new policy to clearly show parts of a quoted post being selected for emphasis. Such text shall be colored purple, and the indication that this has been added by the person quoting said text shall be indicated by the words

• \color{purple}{\text {this post has been graped by the grapist.}}

[engineer_comp_geek]

Bolding has always been allowed to emphasize the part of the quote that you are referring to in your reply. We prefer that you add “bolding mine” or something similar to indicate that you have done so, but that’s not technically a requirement.

I’m sure some creative person could find a way to selectively quote part of a post and add bolding in such a way as to change the meaning of the quote. That is not allowed. You can’t change the meaning of a quote, either through omission or bolding.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Dissonance

• \color{purple}{\text {this post has been graped by the grapist.}}

Using Mathjax features to color text is currently a bit buggy. You end up with this:

Using \color{purple}{\text {MathJax}} features to color text is currently a bit buggy.

There are a couple of threads in Site Feedback that discuss the issue.

So we can reject this one on technical grounds, not just on the fact that it’s annoying.

[MrDibble]

@engineer_comp_geek

Bolding has always been allowed to emphasize the part of the quote that you are referring to in your reply. We prefer that you add “bolding mine” or something similar to indicate that you have done so, but that’s not technically a requirement.

So even the modnoted post should have been OK, then?

[Riemann]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Same goes for italics or underlining if you want to use them instead of bold.

There’s an existing board culture of using bold for this purpose. Isn’t it better to stick to that?

@engineer_comp_geek

We prefer that you add “bolding mine” or something similar to indicate that you have done so, but that’s not technically a requirement.

I’m surprised to learn that it’s not required. Maybe it would be a good idea to require it?

(It need not be a sufficient requirement, just a necessary one - obviously saying “bolding mine” would not give you a free pass to try to distort something by creative bolding.)

[Exapno_Mapcase]

I was just trying to forestall the inevitable but-what-about… nitpicking.

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Riemann

I’m surprised to learn that it’s not required. Maybe it would be a good idea to require it?

Personally I think that’s a good idea.

[mordecaiB]

@engineer_comp_geek

Personally I think that’s a good idea.

Probably wouldn’t hurt so that new posters can pick up the habit or read about it in the rules once changed.

I’m curious where @What_Exit got the idea that it was unacceptable? Not only has it been the norm forever, but the no changing quotes rule is entirely about changing the meaning of the quoted material, nothing else. People always select part of a quote to reply to rather than the whole quote. With this mod note that wouldn’t be allowed anymore either.