Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-truths

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, I don't see anyone arguing for the deletion after the rewrite (and it's not OR anymore). If someone disagrees, feel free to renominate it, with reasons specific to the rewritten article. - Bobet 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-truths

Article is OR, see Talk:Truth#Half-truth.3B_Truths_Paradox •Jim62sch• 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment -- Given the work that user:Dmoss has put into making this article a real article, devoid of POV, I'd like to withdraw this AfD. Of course, I'm not sure what needs to happen to delist it, etc., but I'll work on it. •Jim62sch• 13:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The see also section is truly bizarre, (apparently, you should also see Devil, Garden of Eden, Lie, Lucifer, Original Sin, and Truth™) and indicative that perhaps this is a rather confused little page. And if you remove those, you're left with very little. So I say merge back into deception and leave it at that unless appropriate content can be added. — Dunc|☺ 13:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentIt's actually simple OR. squitti left his web page on a few articles [1], and this diff proved it to be OR [2] •Jim62sch• 15:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually it's no original research when there's no research there, it's just original. — Dunc|☺ 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
        • And as it's now been originally researched, it could stay. — Dunc|☺ 22:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR -- Whpq 14:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research and lack of content, not to mention the dubious external (and internal) links. IronChris | (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noticed this via editors recent additions to logic, now reverted, thankfully.--CSTAR 16:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in the Wiktionary, not the Wikipedia. ... Kenosis 17:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, based on newly presented, verified content in article. I hadn't known there was verifiable content on this subject. Nice work Dave. ... Kenosis 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentsThe expanded concept of half-truths, esp truths that lie, has been accepted by Oxford University.

The research has been accepted by listed on the following sites: University of Kansas Link List and has been recorded by Lakehead University Magazine.
The concept of 'half-truths' ie especially truths that lie, is a missing link that may explain the 'original sin' from the 'garden of Eden', this has logical implications for several concepts such as truth, and lie, and deception.
The concept of truths that lie is an unrecognized logical error in human philosophy that has implications to most all concepts dealing with forms of logic and philosophy.
Thank you. --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete — I've been trying to avoid using "-cruft" in xfD summaries lately, but what the hell--conversioncruft the sole purpose of which is to insert linkspam to the author's website. The article itself contains an interesting example of its subject: the "publication of research findings in Lakehead University Magazine concerning half-truths" is a brief paragraph "class note" (i.e., personal update) in an alumni magazine. JChap2007 17:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    Changing to keep per well-sourced rewrite. However, I do question whether the thesis of the politics section, "Half-truths are an integral part of politics in representative democracies," needs to be attributed. It seems like an opinion to me. That I happen to agree is beside the point. JChap2007 23:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The whole paragraph in the Politics section used ideas from the single reference at the end, ^ Crystal, David (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, p. 378. You should be able to find it on Google Books by typing in the keywords 'half-truth cambridge encyclopedia'. A direct quote, from which I drew the idea for the introductory sentence, is "Politics is the world of the half-truth. It is evidently part of the price we have to pay for democracy". --Dave 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: To publish:

"To publish is to make publicly known, and in reference to text and images, it can mean distributing paper copies to the public, or putting the content on a website."
Here is the publication, a free to view site, the book will be out in the next few years...for a fee of course.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment I'm sure we'll all be scouring Amazon.com •Jim62sch• 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all delete recommendations above; suspected WP:OR or some sort of weird WP:VSCA. No reliable sources and the "see also" links make this even more bizarre... --Kinu t/c 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)See below.
  • Comment Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories.

The half-truth concept has been published previously in various media forms.
Would this not be a form of censorship and contrary to the purpose of this dictionary ?
Thanks again.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: One type of half-truth is changing the punctuation to suggest something that is not. The original quote was a question not a statment....Would this not be a form of censorship and contrary to the purpose of this dictionary ?

It was a question, not a statement of fact, was it not ?
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, it was a rhetorical device formed as a question. •Jim62sch• 21:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The english philosopher Alfred Whitehead is quoted in 1953 in a famous quote: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

So Alfred Whitehead did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil. For some unfortunate reason we did not appreciate his message.
Thanks
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Gazpacho 22:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, The article is certainly badly written at present, but the very purpose of Wikipedia is to continually improve articles. Half-truths is currently referenced from the deception article. There is no doubt the article has itsd own place in Wikipedia. Those who believe the article is too POV should direct their attention to correcting the problem rather than trying to have the article deleted because it does not accord with their own POV. If every badly written article was deleted rather than improved Wikipedia would probably fit on a floppy disk. --Dave 00:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. And Dave, please note that the only reason it is linked from deception is because the author of Half-truths linked it. JoshuaZ 01:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Changing to Keep new version written by Dave. JoshuaZ 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment The english philosopher Alfred Whitehead is quoted in 1953 in a famous quote: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".

Until recently I had not heard of Alfred Whitehead, so tell me if Alfred Whitehead a teacher of philosohpy at Harvard in sthe 50's knew of this, why was it not revealed to the general public ? Was it used against society by some ? of did make the connect betweeen half-truths and the devil.

I doubt Whitehead was speaking of the devil in a religious context, he was more likely using a general expression meaning "leads to making invalid assumptions that undermine a person's ability to properly interpret subsequent information". --Dave 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have attempted to retrieve this article by eliminating religious POV content that detracts from the description of half-truth as a philosophical concept, and introduced hard references to supporting texts to improve credibility. I still believe the article is salvageable regardless of how people may feel about the original author's views. Can I suggest people who have voted to delete the article return for another look, and reconsider whether the article should be deleted or improved. --Dave 03:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the heavily edited, non-POV, non-OR-pushing version by Dave. Now this is what an article on "half-truths" should be. Good work. :) --Kinu t/c 19:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This article is padded with original research and incidental uses of a phrase. Gazpacho 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per my reasons above. •Jim62sch• 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Gazpacho, feel free to comment on the article talk page. •Jim62sch• 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good work by Dave and others to find and post relavent material....!!

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.