Talk:Lie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Junk at the top

I don't think telling the truth should be equated with lying. I prefer to reduce ambiguity. Observer

Good invention good intention We cannot lie to god cause he knows he put the serpent beneath us so we are to be wiser than that dirty devil Jesus said hold fast till I return to deceive the devil himself is not a lie care for a hand of Dandee Lion lyin dandee Can somebody suggest an example of how telling the truth could be a "lie if the intention is to deceive"? I am unable to think of one. Also, I am not aware that selective truth-telling is actually the same as lying, for example, if I go to the shops and buy some bread and some bananas, and I say "I went and bought some bread" that is not telling the whole truth, but it would be hard to call it a lie. LordK 21:34, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure. Let's say a militant vegetarian asks you, "Did you have any meat for lunch today?" Seeking to avoid a confrontation, you say, "I had a salad," when in fact you had a salad with chicken in it. On its face, your statement is true -- you did have a salad -- but you are saying it with intent to deceive, because the usual interpretation of "salad" is a dish with vegetables only. It is a white lie, of sorts -- a lie by omission, by telling a truth whilst expecting that the hearer's wrong assumptions will lead him to a false conclusion. --FOo 23:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
OK, that is certainly relevant, it is just that I would not refer to that as an actual lie - perhaps a half-truth or "clever trick" - and likewise I would not refer to somebody who behaves that way as a liar. It is certainly appropriate to mention it in the article, I am just not sure that it should be defined as a "type of lie". LordK 14:32, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Sure, it's a doubtful point. I think Immanuel Kant would consider it a lie, though. :) --FOo 16:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


If you make the statement about salad in the knowledge that it will mislead the other person ... then though it's technically true, it's dishonest. It's also not answering the question: "Did you have any meat for lunch today?" seeks a yes or no response -- Tarquin 16:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not even that. Instead of yes or no you could answer "I had chicken" but the answer has to be, in essence, relevant to the question. So "I had a salad" is an irrelevant answer, not a lie- just like answering "It's a nice weather outside, isn't it" (which would make the deception more obvious). 194.80.31.104 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited the "lying by omission" section in the article to use that example, as the definition used and the example given were both quite difficult to comprehend while that example is simple and practical. 24.15.53.225 03:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


[Wikitonary] has as one of its definitions of to lie: "intentionally allowing someone else, who has a right to know the whole truth, believe (trough action or inaction) something else then the whole truth." -- gmlk 06:04, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Example story: Little Johnny is trying to sneak out of his house to go play at Billy's house. Johnny's mother catches him and asks, "Where are you going?". Johnny replies with a smile, "I'ma go to the library." His mother says, "Ok" and lets him go. When Johnny gets to Billy's house, Billy says, "Hey, guess what! There's someone giving away free ice cream at the library. Let's go get some." So the two boys go to the library.

Johnny lied to his mother even though his statement was true. He had the intention to deceive her. --70.160.97.60 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


I removed the link to George W. Bush. This site should not be used to promote a political agenda. -Librarian Brent

is it a political agenda to describe the objective fact that George W. Bush lied about WMD, drug use, and his National Guard service? I, for one, in the interests of accuracy and completeness think both Bill Clinton and Bush should have at least a paragraph each describing their lies, but nooooo. Wikipedia's overly delicate sense of political correctness borders on the ridiculous.

Why is it when I link to "White Lie" I have to capitalize the W and L or the link doesn't go to the proper article otherwise? --NeoThe1

In a page about an abstract concept, mentioning political lies seems really biased. The article can be perfectly well written without the use of politically charged situations, IMHO. --Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't say that propaganda necessarily is composed only of lies. Wouldn't it hypothetically be possible that some group posses the "truth" (if there is such) and use propaganda techniques to disseminate it?

[edit] From the mouths of babes shall come POV

The most commonly cited milestone in the rising of this, what is known as Machiavellian intelligence, is at the human age of about four and a half years, when children begin to be able to lie convincingly. Before this, they seem simply unable to comprehend that anyone doesn't see the same view of events that they do - and seem to assume that there is only one point of view - their own - that must be integrated into any given story.

Remarkably, some adults seem to regress to this behaviour with remarkable ease, especially when editing encyclopedias. :-) JRM 16:17, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Well whilst we're on the topic, I don't see why the bible should be used in this article. If there is to be a section on lying and the bible, there should be one for a variety of texts from different religious and irreligious viewpoints. Otherwise, the point about the bible should be removed.86.147.46.248 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Why wa I redirected to this page following a search for 'prevarication'?

Because "prevarication" is a synonym for "lying" or "lie". [1] JRM 13:53, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

In the case of the Iraq war, for instance, the fact that lies escalated a conflict may have made it a quite serious breach of trust and betrayal of those who would suffer in that conflict. However, anyone who accepts as true the assertion that the regime in place was an inevitable threat to those who perished fighting it, or whose lives are at risk in the aftermath of the invasion, would be far less likely to consider escalating the conflict at the most convenient time to be any kind of betrayal. The perspective of the common sense conservative quite often relies on this kind of assumption of certainty. But if conflicts that are to be escalated are chosen due to some ideology, it is hard to see how this differs from simple might makes right logic.

How can this paragraph possibly be appropriate for a supposedly non-biased encyclopedia?

No mention of Bush, Blair and Aznar? Because of the lack of mention of these atlantic dictators, the wikipedia lie article is a lie itself...

There is also no mention of Pinocchio? I guess his nose is deemed a fallic object and censored off the wikipedia by the FCC...

[edit] The Liberals and the Big Lie

For some reason, this article has no reference at all to the Big Lie tradition being carried on by Liberals et al, a very strange omission, imho.

Unfortunately, if you want to get into that can of worms you will have to include all the big lies throughout history, such as the ones told by the socialists (Nazis AND communists) FDR, a long list of dictators and ambassadors, a few otherwise honorable chinese emperors, and even Nicolo Machievelli - depending on whether you choose to describe "The Prince" as prescription or description.24.10.102.25 17:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the article you want: Big_lie Cuddlyable3 10:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Lies and trust

Very convoluted sentences:

the fact that lies escalated a conflict may have made it a quite serious breach of trust and betrayal of those who would suffer in that conflict. However, anyone who accepts as true the assertion that the regime in place was an inevitable threat to those who perished fighting it, or whose lives are at risk in the aftermath of the invasion, would be far less likely to consider escalating the conflict at the most convenient time to be any kind of betrayal

Someone (who understands what author is trying to say) should edit.

Personally, I believe trust and lies are not entirely exclusive. For example, I trust my girlfriend completely; I trust her to tell me the truth, but also trust that when or if she lies to me that she has a good reason for it.24.118.227.213 06:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written just for persons in love with your selectively-honest girlfriend. Love is blind.Cuddlyable3 12:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, Wikipedia is not a chat room. Talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more suggestions. / edg ☺ ★ 12:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I merely used her as an example to help prove my point; Second, I didn't mean to give the impression that she is "selectively honest, far from it, she is brutally honest, as am I, but that's beside the point. I would go into a discussion about love, but this is not that page. Third, my intention was to show that trusting a person does not always mean expecting honesty, but also expecting that when they lie, it is for good reasons. Fourth, as for Wikipedia not being a chat room, it may be a rule, but one that few seem to follow, and I have found these talk pages to be all the more enjoyable for it.24.118.227.213 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shame

In my experience, the primary reason why most people lie is that they are ashamed of something--an action, an omission to act, a family member, a set of circumstances--and wish to conceal it, because they cannot cope with the brute ugliness of reality.. Whether or not such shame is justified or not is another issue. To avoid becoming ensnared in a web of ever more elaborate deceit, it is necessary a) to avoid false pride, which induces one to feel shame over and thus lie about one's wealth, family background, sexual prowess, academic and/or vocational achievements, etc; b) to refrain from behaving in a shameful manner, whether by commission or omission. None of this is easy. Perhaps the most difficult words to utter in the English language are "I was wrong," "I made a mistake," "I failed," or "I didn't try hard enough." --Bamjd3d

Is it possible for someone to be clinically diagnosed as a liar? If so what is the term for the "disease"?

I believe he/she would be called a Pathological_liar, don't know if that is the clinical term. --Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics and Sociology of Lying

I have removed that second paragraph from the quoted work as being entirely irrelevant and polemic. It is one thing to include a discussion of the framework for determining what is or is not a lie by using a commonly understood context. It is quite something else to make gratuitous political arguments. To those who loudly wail about the neutrality policy, I point out that the only way this encyclopedia gains general acceptance is by that very studied approach to finding neutral ground. Otherwise, this page just becomes an extension of the dopiness that can be found on the Kos and will end up being equally ignored.Dawgknot 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I review this, certainly a citation for a source is needed. I have looked for one but cannot find it immediately. While I have no doubt that Lakoff is no fan of the President (and therefore places the use of this quote in question), there is no indication that he was "criticizing" the President as the article states. On the face of it, his analysis seems fair and balanced. Can't find the code to remove the blue highlighting around the opening statement Dawgknot 22:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Even mentioning Bush or the Iraq war bothers me. I am pleased the section is so NPOV - considering. However, can't someone come up w an equivalent example that doesn't involve a current, ongoing example? Please?67.164.212.239 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lie By Omission

Technically, a lie by omission isn't a lie. A lie in the purest form of definition is a false statement meant to mislead.

Going with the "Salad and Militant Vegetarian" premise, say you did tell the vegetarian that you had a salad, but didn't tell him that it was a chicken ceaser salad, it's true that you had a salad.

You didn't make a false statement with the intent to deceive, but rather, the exact opposite, which is a true statement with an intent to deceive.

An amphiboly is also related to a lie by omission in a way that an amphiboly is a shift of usage of a word with the intent to decieve (Like if you told that same militant vegetarian that you had a vegetarian dish, and what you meant by a vegetarian dish was a dish made from vegetarian animals.)

ColdRedRain 08:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


A "lie of omission' is in fact a half-truth, and a half-truth is a lie, problem is the current definitions of half-truth don't make note of this phenomena.

In 1987 it was noted that truths can lie, and most people could not understand this.


[[ == Painting a Picture: ==]] This is my definition for whenever you can't for whatever reason give all the details to a situation and therefore paint a picture in the person's mind which you are talking to. Example: a Pastor's wife has an office in the church along with many other lady staff. Well, many days she will close her door and turn off the lights while she is there working. The purpose of this is to get more work done without interruptions by people who would see that she was in and would stop to talk and take all of her time. Now, Is that a lie? No, that is merely "painting a picture." If what you say is the truth but you know that person whom you are talking to believes something different, you did not lie but rather it is there choice to come to the conclusion they draw. Many people would say it is a lie to "paint a picture" in one's mind but would readily condone and even say when someone asks "how are you?" they would reply "Great!" when in truth they may not be doing great! That is a lie, because the answer you gave them was not the truth. When what you reply with is the truth, then you are not lying. However, if you know you are painting a different picture in someone's mind, then that is deception; not a lie. There is a fine line there, one that is next to difficult to define but there is a huge difference. When deceiving someone, why is it that you find yourself choosing your words wisely? Because you don't want to be lying and saying things that are not true. When the guy who was asked if he was eating meat would have said, "No, I didn't eat meat" then that would have been a lie. I think we can see the difference in his answer. now if you were lying by painting pictures then why would you choose your words wisely and carefully? You wouldn't because you could just make up anything. Something to think about. Add your comment:) RCB77

A website has been set up to expose this, as well I have contributed several suggestions to improve the current definitions (they are logically connected) of words such as "truth', 'half-truth' and 'lie'. (wiktionary.org)

If would be appreciated if your encyclopedia would list a link to " THE JESUS CHRIST CODE: The LIGHT: The RAinbow of Truth. http://www.jesuschristcode.com

Thanks.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jocose Lies

I think jocose lies should be explained more in-depth in the article, to cover where a person can draw the line between a joke and a real lie. Personally, I think jocose lies are not really lies, because either the jocose lie sounds so ridiculous that another person will automatically know that you are trying to joke or you say something that's not true without an intent on keeping whoever's hearing you deceiving by saying right after that you're just kidding. April Fool's Day jokes would be all be wrong if people thought all jokes were wrong, and I don't really believe that they are. --The Chinchou

I believe most of what you seem to be calling jocose lies could be called Irony or Sarcasm.--Phelan 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You have to remember that there can be separation between lying and doing something wrong. I believe that it is a lie to say a joke, even if you say "just kidding" following it. But that doesn't mean that this is bad. This explanation that you are calling for would fit better under the 'morality of lying' section. --70.160.97.60 14:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Lie?

Actually this section should be removed due to the fact that even rudimentary scholarly research indicates that the alleged lie is merely a misreading and sometimes delibrately misused. The Bible also doesn't condone lying. I'm glad that this page exists. I do not believe in the liberal definition of a lie, instead I believe that wild guesses are lies that should not be submitted. A person should not be permitted to challenge the public to prove that his comments are untrue. Too many people guess at the truth and place the information into Wikipedia, pretending that their statements are true. IMHO, such people are liars.Superslum 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Really a Lie

The quote about Jesus lying is not necessarily true.

"I am not yet going up to this Feast, because for me the right time has not yet come. However, after his brothers had left for the Feast, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."

Jesus leaving after the others leaving only means that the "right time" had come.--Padishar 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's easy to pull out a single verse out of context to make your point. I this case, the neither the editor or philosopher Schopenhauer bother with the context or the in-depth commentaries. I propose that the Schopenhauer line and the line from the following section be removed. Input please. --Geneb1955Talk/CVU 09:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It should be taken out because this article is about lies, and it would only seem that Jesus lied, when he really didn't. --Padishar 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If I told you that I was not going to a restaurant, and, as soon as you departed, I secretly went to the restaurant, would I have lied? Yes. But, if Jesus is considered to be divine, he would not lie. Therefore, the passage is removed, regardless of the fact that it is correct. User:Padishar should explain the difference between an apparent lie and a real lie. It would be of assistance to legal scholars and to philosophers of justice.Lestrade 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

As I stated in my first comment, Jesus said that his time had ουπω (from the original Greek, meaning "not yet") come. This implies that when the right time came, he would go. It is not a fair comparison to say, "I'm not going to a restaurant," when Jesus said he was not yet going to the feast. Padishar 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Ambrose Burnside is said to be the first president of the National Rifle Association. New International Encyclopedia revealed to me that William Conant Church was the first president of the NRA. IMHO the claim that General Burnside was the first president is a flagrant lie. I am uncertain of whether or not President Grant served as the 8th president of the NRA. The article asserts that he served as the 8th president of the NRA. Superslum 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) See: Xn. 24 @ U.S. Grant Superslum 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


The Evolution, Game Theory and the Lie section is original research, makes factual claims with no attempt at citation, takes one-sided POV stance on various ethical issues, is written too informally and too patronizingly with excessive jargon and cliches, etc. It needs to be either completely revamped or eliminated altogether, probably the latter. To that end I've deleted the most flagrant portions but it still requires more cleanup.

I'm also concerned about whether the definition of "lie" presented here is universally accepted... is there a consensus in the academic ethics community that half-truths fall under the same classifications as clear mistruths?

[edit] Etiquette of lying

Under the heading, "Etiquette of lying" a link to Augustine needs to be linked to the Augustine pertaining to the context of the article and not the disambiguation page. I am not sure who this is or I would myself, could someone more adept with the subject update this?

--The Rumour 00:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-truth = White lie.

It is perhaps very logical to speak of a half-truth as a white lie.

White is usually a metaphor for Truth, and one type of half-truth is a white lie.

Example: Where are you going ? I am going to get gas. (this is a half-truth) The truth omitted is that after getting gas I am going to Church.  ;0)

I suggest that a seperate page be set up for half-truths' as there are many forms...new forms only recently identified.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. What you call a half-truth is a true statement made as an evasion. Evasion, misdirection, provocation, over-simplifying, personalising, sarcasm are all methods of rhetorics.

--Cuddlyable3 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth is that a half-truth can be the blackest lie. If asked what you did today, "Oh, walked the dog, cleaned the house, went to a pilates class, did the shopping, cooked dinner" but you miss out the tiny detail that you slept with your partner's best friend, then while saying things that are 100% true, you manage to tarnish your soul a good 'un.

-- Peter Williams 13 August 2007

[edit] What Jesus Meant

In the "Lying in the Bible" section of the Wikipedia article, 152.160.55.146 tells us what Jesus really meant. But, is that the absolute, certain truth or is it just 152.160.55.146's own opinion? Why didn't Jesus mean the Universal Feast with the Merchants at the beginning of the Season of Harvest, or the Magical Feast with the Fishermen at the beginning of the Time of Wonder? How about King Henry VIII's Feast of Chicken Legs and Deer Sides? Speaking in riddles and parables results in confusion. Why not have Jesus speak clearly and in a straightforward manner? Then the world wouldn't need 152.160.55.146's explanations.Lestrade 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

→ Can we please move the discussion on from the questions associated with theology and focus more directly on lying. Suggestions for extra categories would be useful

Jesus answered this question in Matthew 13:10-13, saying: "'To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them'" (NLT). That seems to have happened in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Padishar (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh snap. Padishar tells the truth.Ringwall 17:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he quotes the bible. It is merely your opinion that the paragraph quoted represents Truth. Peter Williams 13 Aug

[edit] Legality

When is lying illegal? It might be nice to have a section explaining this in the article. I myself don't know the answer. A5 09:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lying is never legal, which is the whole reason why we as people are trying to determine what exactly is a lie.

Lying is mostly legal, I think. It is certainly illegal to do it under oath; and in certain cases lying forms an illegal deception. Depends on the country of course. Notinasnaid 11:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The ability to lie is a weapon which can be used to cause harm in many illegal ways. Guns, knives, missiles etc. are also weapons and many laws exist to make their posession illegal. However the ability to lie is not a weapon that can be separated from an individual by any law, so merely demonstrating that one has that ability, i.e. by telling a lie, cannot be intrinsically illegal.Cuddlyable3 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lie Detection

The section on lie detection is poor. I'll edit it soon, just so you know. If anyone has any suggestions for extra information I'm happy to collate and update.Endsummary 13:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monique

Lying is also known as "moniquing" someone.

Is this line a bit of vandalism relating to someone's ex, named Monique? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Murray (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Cumbrian Liars

How about mention of the tradition of Cumbrian Liars, I am sure there are similar traditions in other areas. --jmb 14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. See the film Laughter and Grief by the White Sea for an example from northern Russia. :) Lies, when told as elaborate stories, can be a real artform and I think that this is a major ommission in this article. But what are these things called? "Tale lies"? "False tales"? Does anybody know? Whatever it's called, it should be mentioned under the "Types of lies" section. Esn 06:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black lies

I removed the sentence "A black lie can cause discord to the speaker or listener or both if found out.". I may have been a bit hasty here, but I do have the impression this is some sort of pleonasm: we are back to the original meaning. Even if there is such a thing as "white lies", where the bad intent of the lie is removed, there should be no point in creating the concept of "black lies"- I got some hits on it, but only 2% or so of the hits for white lie- and then often with comments of the type "does this give any meaning?" Greswik

[edit] this could be better stated

Under the heading 'Morality of Lying'

"They have in mind here such circumstances as lying to Nazis in WWII that there are no Jewish children in one's house[citation needed]."

and

"They have in mind here a case such as that of lying to someone who is terminally ill that he is not terminally ill[citation needed]."

Instead of "They have in mind here such circumstances as lying to", wouldn't "For example" be more fitting? Then there'd be no need for a citation on either statement, since it's just a clarification on what the philosophers were saying. (They always need clarification, don't they?)

I'm still new to the editing arena, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Would it be rude of me to just make the changes?

Eyknough 21:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under the heading of "morality of lying"

I made my above proposed changes to the article so it would no longer seem to state what the philosophers 'had in mind'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyknough (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC). Eyknough 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I see that there is a "suggest to merge" tag on the article as of march, and seeing as it is currently april and there has been no discussion about it (at least, not that I can see. sometimes I skip sections when I read the talk page) I would just like to say I do not think the articles should be merged. I think that lying and deception are different. For me, when I think of lying, I think of it as a human psycological thing of not telling what is true. When I think of deception, I think of more like disguises and camoflauge and animals and plants, like the anglerfish and the light it uses to lure its prey. Personally, i've never seen or heard of an animal "lie" about anything. It's more of a humanistic thing. Of course, I might be wrong, and these are just my opinions. But I think the articles should stay separate. 24.15.53.225 03:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And now that I look at the Deception page closer, I see that everything on the deception page is about animal defense mechanisms (camoflage, mimicry, etc.), only adding to my point that the Lie page is more about the human psycological lying (animals can't techinically lie, only decieve or trick). 24.15.53.225 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. A lie is a type of deception, but the pages talk about different things. Fresheneesz 01:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations and Denials of Lying

Exposing an opponent as a liar is a major triumph that one sees people striving for in the fields of politics, legal cross-examinations, interrogations, scandal-reporting journalism and all kinds of heated debate. I think one could put together a list of notable lies, but I don't know how to impose limits on the probable overload of examples that can be found or alleged.Cuddlyable3 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i found usefull information about lie detection at that site but its not refrenced, can i copy parts of it to the lie detection section?

 Lieing is the act or useing a lie in a statement.

Please sign your posts. You have pointed to a site that claims to be "The ultimate source" yet covers itself with disclaims of any accountability http://www.2knowmyself.com/disclaimer and doesn't identify its sources. (The owner has identified himself to me as Mohamed Farouk Radwan at 242 Fath Street, Alexandria, Egypt, and says he holds a diploma from a correspondence school [3]). For Wikipedia you should be able to verify statements with reputable publications and copying from such a site is IMO just inadmissible hearsay. Updated Cuddlyable3 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory

This section doesn't have much relevance to begin with as deception, cunning, etc are distinct from "lie" by definition. The article itself defines lie and the separation between deception in the first 4 lines, connotating that lies are verbal. I think thise whole section should be deleted as its really a stretch to associate the two here, when the term lie isn't found once in the article Game Theory Surreal 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the fact that the article's accuracy is disputable real or just supposed to be ironic (and a lie, making it even more ironic)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spykumquat (talk • contribs) 15:24 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying, lies, liar and liars.

I think these should redirect to this page, and there should be a headnote that directs people to the disambig. pages, what do you guys think? (this isn't on my watchlist, I will check here regularly though.)TheBlazikenMaster 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will do it myself since nobody else wants to help me. TheBlazikenMaster 18:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Common you guys, I really need a discussion. TheBlazikenMaster 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
All 4 words in the title link to lie via disambiguation. Cuddlyable3 14:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, but they should redirect here, and there should he a headnote leading to the page. I have changed many disambig pages before and made the redirects the most likely, so I will do it again. TheBlazikenMaster 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Lie

Please put something for white lie.

Done. Cuddlyable3 07:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudologia Fantastica

There should be some info about compulsive lying or pseudologia fantastica

Done. Cuddlyable3 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying and Religion

Although the discussion of Christianity and lying is not out of place here, the absence of discussion of lying in the contexts of other religions renders it incomplete. 67.172.109.240 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lying and evolution

The volume of content on speculative evolutionary grounds seems entirely out of place here, and also feels very wrong as a conclusion to the article. Personally, I would cut this or move it elsewhere, but at the very least I would consider tightening it up and finishing on a stronger subject. If you want to keep it here, perhaps consider moving it to after Deception and Lies in Other Species, then the other sections will fall more naturally at the end. Covering Up Lies, for instance, feels like a more suitable point to close upon. This is just a suggestion, of course, but it would improve the flow of the piece. 67.172.109.240 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This page seems to be a constant target for vandalism. Any way we could semi-protect the page?Jay42 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paradox of lying -> Use of lying in paradoxes

The section "Paradox of lying" starts by saying "a person who we know is consistently lying would paradoxically be a source of truth". With a definition of lie making this statement true, the word obviously would describe the situation better than paradoxically. The mentioned paradoxes are related to logic not lying as described in this article (i.e. intent rather than truthfulness). I'm reverting to an older version and changing the section to "Use of lying in paradoxes". Bergsten (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with removing this introduction to the subject of paradoxes: Within any scenario where dualistic (e.g., yes/no, black/white) answers are always given, a person who we know is consistently lying would paradoxically be a source of truth. I don't think it is useful to qualify that statement as obvious though it may well be so. It correctly expresses the simplistic binary logic employed in the paradoxes regarding speakers who speak always true or always false. Those speakers' intents are neither implied nor relevant since the paradoxes concern interpretation of statements after they are made. I am replacing the introduction.Cuddlyable3 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I still disagree, but as there are no other comments on this I will leave it as it stands. Bergsten (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss your disagreement. The adverb paradoxically (which you considered replacing) in the introductory sentence characterises the peculiar situation that arises where a speaker's presumed intention to mislead by stating untruths is negated by a hearer somehow having separate knowledge that he speaks the opposite of the truth. The "paradox" lies in the fact that true facts are obtained here by "false" interpretation. The sentence also establishes that an artificial two-value logic is used by the example paradoxes about lying.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I made my edit to start with, was that I felt that lying (as described in the article) had little to do with any of the paradoxes mentioned, and rather is used as a real life gadget to illustrate an abstract idea in logic (hence my heading "Use of lying in paradoxes"). To be honest I'm no fan of the word paradox, but if used I think it should describe a situation where seemingly true statements lead you to what appears to be a contradiction. Here the best I can come up with in terms of a contradiction is something like "I receive misinformation but still know the truth" or "I receive false information that I can use". In any way I understand your point and agree that the concept itself is important/interesting, just not well described by the word paradox (or really about lying). Bergsten (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question: Isn't Careful Speaking the same thing as an Omission Lie?

In a lie by omission you are leaving out certain information, isn't careful speaking the same thing. e.g. My friend has something valuable that he doesn't know is valuable. I do and convince him to give it to me without mentioning said value.

Isn't it the same or am I misunderstanding something? 71.247.168.19 (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the words "careful speaking" straightforwardly from the dictionary meaning of careful which is painstaking, attentive, cautious. Of what one is to be careful is not specified! For example a speaker could be exercising care in pronunciation. However the article seems to introduce a different, loaded notion of Careful Speaking which someone apparently believes must imply a scenario of a posed question (interrogation?) and a particular threshold of lying. Is there any reputable source for this narrow definition of common words, or should it be removed? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that IMHO it is definitely is not the same thing. The problem you have identified is composed of two parts. The first is the ommission to disclose all information in the this context that of a negotiation. The second part is the nature of truth. The only absolute truth is reality itself. Every other expression of reality must be a conversion, or translatation of some sort. It is therefore only partial. With regard to the first part of the problem, it should be clear that a negotiation is taking place to both parties. If it is not clear then, even under the crude interpretation of UK law, no contract can exist as both parties to the resulting contract (the transfer of ownership) were not of one mind. However, if it is clear that a negotiation was being carried out then the term "caveat emptor" or some such comes into play. We each have a duty to look after our own interests. The key is whether a knowing deception as to the circumstances was taking place. The phrase "Careful speaking" seems odd. To speak carefully cannot be bad. It is the best we can ever do.
LookingGlass (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to agree that "Careful speaking" is not per se lying. I shall remove it (keeping a mention of the phrase only).Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question 2: Failure to correct an engineered misunderstanding.

It seems to me that there is another form of lying which revolves around taking a passive approach to enlightening another about their misunderstanding. If someone said to me: "I would like to meet you again." I would not understand this as meaning: "If I had the chance to do this again then I wouldn't waste so much time with you.". It would be clear that I had misunderstood the speaker if I then engaged in a process of trying to set up another meeting! This may sound like a weird example but in other cultures no responsibility is taken by individuals for anothers interpretations of shared current circumstance unless it is in that individuals own self-interest. I have seen this in Finnish, West Indian and middle-eastern cultural contexts. Thinking about it this may even be the norm. But it seems to me to be a form of deceit that is a passive form of lying. It is comprised of crafting sentences that appear to be firnedly, welcoming. positive etc whereas they are in fact at best neutral and more often negative. The cultures in point find it extremely hard to manage personal confrontation of even the mildest form and craft social etiquette to avoid it at all costs. I can find no words in English to describe this sort of interaction. A slap stick example is walking along the street in earnest debate with a "friend", who engages you in eye contact and appears fully concentrated on what you are saying. You then walk into a lamp-post. The deceit in this case is in the body language of the "friend", which omits to share the observation of the impending collision with you.
LookingGlass (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We already note "Lying by omission" as a type of lie. I recognise the cultural face-saving that LookingGlass describes but I think it goes too far to label an ordinary friendly welcome as "a passive form of lying" Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lies in the Bible

The article contains a section on "Lying in the Bible" with some quotes from the bible, but there is absolutely no mention that many people consider the bible itself to be one of the biggest, longest-running lies in the history of mankind. I realize that Christians don't look at it this way, but non-Christians certainly do. Is there any possibility that the WP article on Lie could acknowledge that not everyone considers the bible to be truth? Is is simply a matter of quoting references that state that the bible is itself full of lies? For example, do people still consider that the stars, sun, planets, animals, plants, humans, etc. were created in 6 days? Will people go to heaven for eternity if certain conditions are met (and these conditions vary considerably, depending on denomination)? Or to put it another way, if the bible is not the biggest, longest running lie in the history of mankind, what is? Some of the People, Some of the Time (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the policy advice Wikipedia is not a soapbox. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. We don't need any more speeches here, but to answer your question, the accepted path is to find one or more documented, authoritative sources who classify the bible as "lies". Difficult, but perhaps not impossible. It is not our role to vote on what is the "biggest, longest running lie in the history of mankind". SusanRSK (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example that meets those criteria: Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He edited his own version of the bible that omitted what he considered to be falsehoods. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" and describing Paul as the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus

The source is THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE. PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF The JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE, BY THE EDITOR H. A. WASHINGTON. VOL. VII. PUBLISHED BY TAYLOR MAURY, WASHINGTON, D. C 1854. which is viewable at http://books.google.com/books?id=1mIFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22band+of+dupes+and+impostors%22&source=web&ots=TIDs6_2BAb&sig=kx7XvpKTbbekRWxY119a10T0PlQ#PPR1,M1

and here is the text:

Letter To William Short. Monticello, April 13, 1820.

DEAR SIR, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.

But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...

(Jefferson then removed large sections fo the New Testiment from the Bible that he edited)

A neutral presentation of this source may provide the balance that Some of the People seeks in the WP article. ThomasJeff (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have added a brief summary of Jefferson's conclusions, with a reference. Some of the People, Some of the Time (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] briefly semiprotected

The recent IP vandals seem connected - I'm semi-protecting the article for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bible Contradictions

"It also states in the bible that it is not wrong to lie, in other words it is alright to lie, in the passages Joshua 2:4-6, James 2:25, Exodus 1:18-20, 1 Kings 22:21-22, and 2 Kings 8:10. Is it wrong to lie? Yes or No? The Bible seems to go in the direction of both on the subject. The bible blatantly contradicts itself on the subject."

Whether or not this is true, it seems off. I'm not sure if it really fits the standards... 67.185.232.36 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Kain

[edit] "Types of lies" section

I gave the whole section a badly needed copy edit. For instance, "bold-faced lie" is a mistake in English, resulting from a mishearing. It shouldn't be perpetuated. The real term is "bald-faced lie." And I removed the last sentence of that subsection because it wasn't accurate. Many lies are called "bald-faced" when the liar, or the alleged liar, has tried to conceal their falsity.

Sentences that define something by using the form "XXX is when..." are ungrammatical.

There were several other changes. Generally, this section was not well written. Someone with excellent writing skills should take a look at the whole article.

Cognita (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)