Someone answered a question based on what I am pretty sure is irrelevant historical information, I said:

I'm sorry, I don't see the connection between the (interesting) historical background given and the sentence.

Is using background correct here or should I say information since I think what the person said was irrelevant?

  • 1
    To all intents and purposes, background information is always relevant. Anything that wasn't contextually relevant would simply be [co]incidental. May 19 at 14:31

One of the meanings of background is "information essential to understanding of a problem or situation" Merriam-Webster. At the very least background is "the circumstances or events antecedent to a phenomenon or development" (same source).

So calling the historical information "background" implies that it is at least somewhat relevant. What you said may have been confusing because you seemed to be acknowledging the relevance of the historical information and questioning it at the same time.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .