Talk:Noble lie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the main article seems to make the assumption that democracy is the default setting for all human societies, that only such things as "noble lies" can explain the rule of an elite, whereas Plato's noble lie establishes the rule of a particular elite, the elite according to nature, that of the philosopher-kings. It also does not consider that all societies have such foundational myths, even democracies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.28.26 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Although arguably not an organisation based on the noble lie, many of their members are believed to be from various church groups that no longer believe, but continue to espouse the beliefs as a form of what they believe to be positive social control and continue to hold positions in many religious organizations.

Is "believe" transitive or intransitive in this sentence? If it is transitive (that is, if "the beliefs" is its object") then a closing parenthetic comma is needed after "espouse" for clarity. Alternatively, dashes or parentheses could be used around "but continue to espouse". — 217.46.147.13 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates a fictional character[edit]

In the first paragraph of the article I find the following line "The fictional Socrates, created by Plato, proposes and claims..." I am unfamiliar with the claim that Socrates is a fictional character, and since I believe the general consensus is that Socrates was in fact a real person, I suggest this should be removed until a proper source can be attributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.60.254 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "reason" :
    • Brian Doherty, [http://www.reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml "Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?"], ''[[Reason Online]]'', July 1997, accessed [[February 16]], [[2007]].
    • [http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html Origin of the Specious, Reason Magazine (July 1997)]

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great article![edit]

This article, though short, is very high quality. I just want to share my appreciation with its editors. Thanks! —Jemmytc 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links Removed[edit]

NPOV violation to say the least. 128.205.48.211 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)SAB[reply]

The link to the-wawg-blog.org removed in the edit on 01:30, 31 October 2008, was re-added on 01:34, 22 December 2009. Yes, definitely not neutral. Removed again. 208.38.215.21 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested... by whom?[edit]

I added a [citation required] to the statement "It has been suggested that Kristol's and other neoconservatives' support of the war in Iraq is an example of that in action". By whom has it been suggested?

The Noble Lie as applies to guardians[edit]

Does anyone know where Plato said:

"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves"?

This quote is in the article, but with "citation needed." I've been searching for a few hours, and I can't find it. I emailed a professor of ancient philosophy, and he denied that Plato ever said it. This is mind boggling because hundreds of websites and articles attribute this to Plato, but none can specify where in the Republic. Perhaps we should remove it from the article? Lumentenebra (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified quote removed[edit]

The quote "; for example:

"The noble lie will inform them that they are better than those they serve and it is, therefore, their responsibility to guard and protect those lesser than themselves. We will instill in them a distaste for power or privilege, they will rule because they believe it right, not because they desire it. . ."[citation needed]" has been removed from the "Plato's Republic" section because it has a lack of citation, and furthermore the quote is not present in any of multiple versions of Plato's Republic. If someone finds this removal to be in error, please reinsert the quote after "The Republic also seemed to say that different lies should apply to the governors;" along with the citation.

Lumentenebra (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred falsehood[edit]

The article said that "thoroughbred falsehood" was the 'literal translation' of gennaion pseudos. In standard translations of The Republic, "lie" and "falsehood" are both used for pseudos (though about 20:1 according to Google Books), but I haven't been able to find any instances of gennaion being translated as "thoroughbred" there. Clearly the origin of the word has to do with "breeding", hence the metaphorical senses of "well-bred", "noble", "high-minded", but "thoroughbred" (associated with animals, and horses in particular) seems inappropriate here and in any case is not supported by reliable sources. Etymology is not semantics. --Macrakis (talk) 19:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for "translations of words or phrases are rarely sourced; you need to find one saying it's wrong before changing i", that is clearly an untenable guideline. I am not likely to find a source saying that gennaion pseudos does not mean "Jay Z's uncle's pinky ring", either. Seriously, there are scores of translations of The Republic; I see no reason we have to invent our own translation. --Macrakis (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect removal of reliably sourced information from the article[edit]

The following has been removed from the article:

The point is that the BBC is a reliable source, and it's a documentary that covers the topic, and deals with Strauss in this context; Strauss is well known to deal with concept of noble lies as desirable in political contexts. This is a reliable source for the information, and the information is on topic.Teapeat (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with this removal, and I can only question the motives of people who are doing this.Teapeat (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has made a large number of edits, you don't seem to have quite gotten the message on civility when interacting with other editors. You aren't supposed to "question the motives" of editors with whom you have disputes (without strong evidence), nor leave hostile messages on their talk pages. A controversial BBC documentary about the rise of Islamism and neo-conservatism that briefly (some would say superficially) summarizes Strauss' ideas is not notable for such a prominent quote. There isn't any sense in denying that the film is critical of Strauss and seeks to relate him to the broader issues of modern American politics, and it does so in a manner which is slightly misleading--it portrays Strauss’s thought as a reaction to the apathy of American suburban life, as opposed to Strauss' experiences in Weimar Germany. More importantly, do you see any other tangentially related popular documentaries cited in the article? The source sticks out like a sore thumb, thus I was relieved when a different editor removed it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We almost always improve articles by adding in material, not removing it. Your general approach is opposite to that used by Wikipedia. The source explicitly talks about Strauss in this context, it is not in any way tangential.Teapeat (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have other reliable sources that have a different take on Strauss with respect to noble lies then bring them and add them to the article. In the meantime this meets the letter and spirit of WP:RELIABLE and it's clear from your comments above that you have removed it based on OR, specifically your own personal opinion of the source. That's not allowed here.Teapeat (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is not the absence of bias, it's inclusion of all the difference biases.Teapeat (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article with no biased sources is always an empty article. All sources have biases, errors and omissions and we combine them to make a reliable, balanced and informative article.Teapeat (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The quote isn't sourced or footnoted. Even then, quoting from television shows is generally not used in academic articles on wikipedia - also putting it in a quote box, as the only quote, is considered POV, unless it's a primary source or very notable comment. For an academic article, it's best to use academic sources, and to put the quote in the text as an inline citation. Avaya1 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a 'television show' it's a documentary, an award winning documentary, published by one of the biggest and most reliable and overall, least biased media producers in the world, and it is trivially sourced to that documentary.Teapeat (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Documentaries are perfectly acceptable second sources; and in this case it's also a primary source about what a well known documentary writer said.Teapeat (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a primary source in that it is a quote about Strauss, not a quote from Strauss. I don't think that you understand what is meant by sourcing: you might want to give WP:RS a look. See specifically, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Best, CCS81 (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a primary, reliable source for what Adam Curtis believes about Strauss, and it's a secondary source about what Strauss believes. And it's a reliable source. It seems to me that you're removing it because you disagree with what the source is saying, and you don't have a contrary source that refutes it. In other words: you're engaging in OR.Teapeat (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do give WP:RS a look as to why Curtis's quote gives undue weight to a non-academic viewpoint, particularly when indented, and fails to qualify as a primary source. I have no horse in this race: my opinion on Curtis, Strauss and noble lies do not bear on this discussion, nor have I made any edits in this section of the article. I'm just an outside editor casually monitoring this debate who is weighing in with an opinion on the source itself. Best, CCS81 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
give WP:RS a look yourself!:"News reporting" from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"Wran (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "news reporting". It's popular media. It's the opinion of a non-academic source. It's not a primary source: if the section was on Curtis's views of noble lies, it would be a primary source, but it's not, it's about Strauss. It's not a particularly good quote, and is completely unhelpful, and gives undue weight to a non-expert. Please, please, please stop. Best, CCS81 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS also says that "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact". The documentary is not mere reportage; it includes editorial content.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary is not mere editorial content; it also includes facts and cites the matter here as such, so it stands as a FACT, unless you find a reliable source refuting it Wran (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary cites one popular (i.e., non-scholarly, non-academic) filmmaker's opinion on a scholarly, academic subject. It is not a scholarly, academic source, and the subject of the noble lie is scholarly and academic. Therefore, it would only qualify for inclusion in, e.g., an "In popular culture" section. Furthermore, the section is about Strauss, and therefore should only use indented quotes directly from Strauss (i.e., primary sources) rather than quotes about Strauss (i.e., secondary sources.) The quote is not fit for inclusion as it is presented, and, I would argue, should not be included at all. Best, CCS81 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
virtually everything you say is incorrect: it is "news reporting", and from from one of the world's most respected sources; It's a particularly good quote, and is very helpful, as it summarizes expert knowledge and fits perfectly in the text where it now is (you are right it shouldn't have been indented), before the The City and Man" and Hersh examples of what it expresses more generally; your distinction between academic and popular is totally subjective and prejudicial, as Strauss has been the subject of much popular commentary, as Plato perpetually is. please stop:unsourced deletions violate policy! Wran (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated why I think your claims are wrong. I moved the quote to the end of the section with a clear indication of its origins in popular media and fixed the formatting problems. Best, CCS81 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm just an outside editor casually monitoring this debate"Teapeat (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see that you're quoting my previous entry, but I can't begin to glean the point of your doing so. You will have to explain what you mean by that. Best, CCS81 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge request discussion[edit]

Further information: Talk:Pious fiction § Proposed merger

Keep, don't merge I noticed the merge tag, and it looks like all the discussion of merging was at Pious fiction. As I noted there, it seems like people are confused about what these terms mean and their application. This article is for a concept within political science and Plato. The other article is about a concept within the scope of religion and it seems like the only reason people wanted to delete it was a fear of their religious views being challenged, with the merger a backdoor way to get rid of the article, rather than any proper wikipedia policy. It's just like the problem where people freak out because they don't know the difference between a myth and a statement of the truth value of their religious narrative. (Hint: talking about a myth in the context of religion has NOTHING to do with the truth value of its claims, it is a term that applies to all such narratives.) In any case since there is a merge tag on this article, and a threat to potentially delete both articles from people who admit to using blanking, and at best the inclusion of completely unrelated material into this article, I thought it was a good idea to make sure people editing this article are aware of the merge proposal and can have a voice in this. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could Martin Luther's "good strong lie" be mentioned here?[edit]

Would this be a good place to discuss Martin Luther's "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." as discussed at great length at http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=40318 ? Paulburnett (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ngram[edit]

Google Ngram: pious fiction vs.noble lie

Two takeaways:

  • Despite the term being attributed to Plato, Google found no book mentions of "noble lie" before 1817 (maybe they didn't scan enough old books)
  • The two terms were in roughly equal usage between 1940 and 1984; after that "noble lie" has really taken off (because of Sea of Faith??)

— Wbm1058 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noble lie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Noble lie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Re: "most the that the story was formulated" - the that seems wrong to me. ϢereSpielChequers 18:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unscourced gloss on gennaion pseudos[edit]

I removed the gloss on gennaion pseudos which read "literally, 'a lie or wrong opinion about origin' ", mostly because there was no source cited, but also because it appears to be a mistranslation. I added a citation from Allan Bloom's translation of the Republic (p. 455 n. 65, The Republic of Plato, 2nd edition, New York: Basic Books, 1991):

The word is gennaion which is, primarily, "noble" in the sense of "nobly born" or "well bred" (cf. [Republic] 375a and 409c).

Isokrates (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noble_lie&oldid=1201269449"