Home ‘Deutsch quote check re: biological vs explanato...’
Deutsch quote check re: biological vs explanatory knowledge
In-house rules
Apr 21, 2026
· By Dennis Hackethal
Misquote: 4 issues found
Unmarked changes are underlined in wavy red. Hover over them Tap them or see the explanation below. Checked using the pattern . and the Myers algorithm.
Suggested fix
The quote with each unmarked change either marked or undone. It passes the check.
[...] [B]iological knowledge is non-explanatory, and therefore has limited reach; explanatory human knowledge can have broad or even unlimited reach.
Copy fixed quote
Original text
One is that biological knowledge is non-explanatory, and therefore has limited reach; explanatory human knowledge can have broad or even unlimited reach.
Quote text
Biological knowledge is non-explanatory and therefore has limited reach; explanatory human knowledge can have broad or even unlimited reach
Ellipsis used (if any): ‘[...]’
Diff
One‧ is‧ that‧ bB iological‧ knowledge‧ is‧ non-explanatory ,‧ and‧ therefore‧ has‧ limited‧ reach;‧ explanatory‧ human‧ knowledge‧ can‧ have‧ broad‧ or‧ even‧ unlimited‧ reach.
added in the quoteremoved from the originalwavy not marked as a change‧ space
Part-by-part explanation
#
Part
Valid?
Explanation
1
One‧ is‧ that‧ b
× no
Deletions must be indicated, eg by ‘[...]’ or [replacement].
2
B
× no
Insertions must be surrounded by [brackets].
3
iological‧ knowledge‧ is‧ non-explanatory
4
,
× no
Deletions must be indicated, eg by ‘[...]’ or [replacement].
5
‧ and‧ therefore‧ has‧ limited‧ reach;‧ explanatory‧ human‧ knowledge‧ can‧ have‧ broad‧ or‧ even‧ unlimited‧ reach
6
.
× no
Deletions must be indicated, eg by ‘[...]’ or [replacement].
Embed this check
Paste this snippet into your site or blog to show the diff where you quote.
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://quote-checker.com/diffs/deutsch-quote-check-re-biological-vs-explanatory-knowledge/embed.js"></script>
Copy embed code
Please note: limitations of this tool
This tool is in its beta stage. Expect things to break; proceed with caution.
This tool isn't magic. It can only catch errors that can be determined programmatically. But quoting properly is also about accurately reflecting the meaning of the quoted content to the reader . That requires an understanding of the content, which is something this site cannot give you. Quoting properly is still your responsibility.
Red markings show what the quote leaves out of the original, green ones what it adds. Neither is necessarily an error: only changes that aren’t properly marked are, and those are underlined in wavy red.
When no issues are found, that is NOT a guarantee that a quote is not a misquote.
The APA, MLA, and Chicago checks follow what those guides publish about changing quotations, as far as a program can tell. Chicago’s manual is behind a paywall, so its check relies on Chicago’s public Q&A and secondary sources. Some of the guides’ rules call for judgment, such as whether it’s obvious that something was left out at the end of a quote, so the checks can only approximate them.
The in-house rules are stricter than either guide. They want every change marked, including text left out before or after the quote, and an ellipsis can’t stand in for a line break: mark what’s left out of each paragraph separately.
Formatting, such as italics and bold text, is not yet supported. Consequently, changes in formatting cannot be detected. Use something like markdown syntax – *single asterisks for italics* , **double asterisks for bold text** , etc. – to indicate and detect changes in formatting. Pasting from other websites should convert to this syntax automatically. If your quote adds or omits emphasis, be sure to indicate that in your text (eg by saying ‘emphasis added’ or ‘emphasis removed’).
Quote Checker