Talk:Hypocrisy/Archive 2

a list of hypocrisy
It would be a good idea to make a list of hypocrisys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.80.96 (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be an inordinately long list, and would probably cause a lot of controversy. Just to name a few:
 * All religions which exclude other religions from being true.
 * Blacks discriminating against gays.
 * People with interracial marriages discriminating against gays.
 * Atheists who say that others aren't capable of being atheists.
 * Transsexuals who say otherkin are crazy.
 * Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
 * The Palestinians' treatment of Israelis.
 * Anyone who opposes racism and supports affirmative action.
 * Ect. It'd just be asking for a flame war, plus the list would be incredibly long. Virtually every group of note commits hypocrisy, and virtually all social debates involve hypocrisy. Unless it was a major part of an article, I don't think a list would be very constructive. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not hypocrisy to oppose racism while advocating affirmative action. It's hypocrisy not to, affirmative action is simply a corrective measure.--Part Time Security 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On reading through the rest, I'd have to say that only the Israeli's treatment of the Palestinians can really be called hypocrisy in that list.--Part Time Security 10:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect example
The whole father/son example is wrong. The article's claim that the father would have only been a hypocrite if he stated he didn't swear (when it was previously acknowleged that he did) is incorrect. The father would have been a liar not a hypocrite. The whole article reads very poorly. A two paragraph definition in the dictionary (e.g. Mirriam-Webster) gives much better clarity without the verbose and misleading examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.207.14 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree
Upon further research, I agree. I will adjust it accordingly.

Better? :)

Incidentally, I did not, and have not, edited below the 'Etymology' mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecifyIt (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good article and the doctor example
I'd like to add that a smoking doctor might be speaking from experience especially that smoking is addictive.--41.17.164.90 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Remarks on the Etymology section
A spiritus asper seems to missing on "υποκρίνομαι (hypokrinomai)". Also it seems slightly inconsistent to have 'krinein' in the second paragraph in the infinitive rather than first person singular and only in Roman transcription, without the Greek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.248.85 (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself
"Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions." "It is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done." These two sentences contradict each other - on a very simple level. I suggest 'actions' is changed to 'beliefs', if this is the correct definition.

Also, the next example seems to highlight why merely basing the definition on hypocrisy on incompatibility between stated beliefs and true beliefs is troublesome: "A finer distinction that circumvents this apparent contradiction would be that to espouse an idea, but not live up to it, might simply mean one hasn't yet conquered some self perceived shortfall (as in Samuel Johnson's example). However to condemn others for behavior that the condemner engages in clearly falls outside this gray area and into hypocrisy." Why does it 'clearly fall outside this grey area'? Using the stated definition, I see no justification. While perverse, one could condemn someone for behaviour one commits, believing that one's behaviour is wrong but content in living in condemnation. Using the stated definition, this is then not hypocrisy. If the definition allows such absurdities, perhaps the definition needs fixing. 130.88.246.82 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your observation. I believe the definition is something closer to "the false profession of beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, and/or standards that one does not possess." What do you think of this?
 * - Macgyver89 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Resisting hypocrisy
(Re Bakhtin on how in resisting hypocrisy, laughing truth degraded power)

Why is his alleged methods of "combating hypocrisy" sourced or relevant. We only have his word for it, and, even if there were a secondary source, we wouldn't have one for notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is that there should be a section in this article on ways in which hypocrisy can be resisted and the implications of so doing. Eg you can stand up to those in power who are guilty of it, like Jesus did in John 8 (throwing stones), perhaps the most well-known and eloquent encapsulation. Or you can laugh, for which this is pretty good, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I could argue NOT, but I don't really feel that applies here. However, we would need reliable secondary sources as to the methods; Bakhtin is primary.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Error: etymology ?
The definition of Hypocrisy it is not so controversial as here seems to be depicted (cfr. definition in other languages; this word exist in all the European languages, introduced by the middleaged Logical and Theological schools). It is not true it means "Jealous" "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling". This meanings are metaphoricals. The etymology of hypocrisy comes from the ancient Greek υποκρίνομαι (hypokrinomai), that means "sub-judgment" (verb form), in the sense of "not to be able to correctly judge things or people, situations, or themselves". It indicates an inhability to be objective, or more usually the choice to not be objective. In this sense, it metaphorically advocates all the other listed meanings. (Frank Castle) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.130.5 (Frank Castle talk) 11:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hypocrisy = Hippocrates? Isn't fair to assume that there is an obvious connection between a hypocrite (a person that betrays the given word) and the Hippocratic Oath? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath Does anyone knows a source for a such connection? Bigshotnews 04:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs)
 * No. There is no connection, which is why they are spelt differently and mean different things.  Hippocratic Oath comes from the man Hippocrates, Hypocrisy comes from, well, see above and this article. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Deception is essential to hypocrisy
There seems to be an on going battle between those that believe hypocrisy requires deception of others and those that believe hypocrisy is any act of an individual that is incongruous with some system of right or wrong implied by that individual's religion or philosophy. Let me emphasize that most definitions of hypocrisy include the idea of a deception. If that requirement is relaxed then nearly everyone that tries to improve himself or herself by adopting a religion or any philosophy becomes a hypocrite since the entire point of adopting a particular worldview is to in part correct problems of character. Perfect people don't need religion or philosophy. The imperfect that try to modify their behavior and character will inevitably fail on occasion. It is unfair to call such people hypocrites. The word is reserved for those people that know they lack virtue but attempt to convince others that they really are virtuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.203.69 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The opening statement is clearly written by a drunkard
The person who wrote the 'opening statement' is obviously a drunkard. I feel that hypocrisy is "cut and dry" in the sense that somebody who does not practice what they preach is a hypocrite. I feel that this a logical conclusion and I think that the 'opening statement' misleads the public. Let us not be temperate in correcting this please! After all, we're only doing what we do in an effort to help humanity are we not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.122.213 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can feel all you want, but the definition of hypocrisy includes the requirement that the hypocrite be deceptive. Without that requirement, anyone trying to warn others off vices that entangle them would be called hypocrite. Such people don't deserve that reproach. A drug addict cautioning others against drug use isn't a villain and is simply trying to help others. The secret drug addict pretending to moral superiority by denouncing other drug addicts, though, is a hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.159 (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Jung section?
Are Jung's views of hypocrisy so central to our understanding of the concept that they warrant being the only example of a major thinker getting his or her own section of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenntwo (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

April 17 2014 edits
I made several edits to reflect recent studies, while keeping prior text (mainly in footnotes). More than 20 new Notes & References - details in History. I removed the Cleanup flag. Please edit as you see fit. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Pure Evil
This section seems to be nothing but a single example of hypocrisy elevated to a section whose content seems more relevant to an article on evil than on hypocrisy. Any objection to moving it to an evil article ? Diggers2004 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This article has a lot of original research and improper synthesis
This article seems to contain a lot of original research (e.g., citing single psychological studies to support broad assertions) and improper synthesis (cf. the sentence that claims that those in power are both often unfaithful and talk more about morality to support the inference that hypocrisy comes with power). The concept of hypocrisy is a philosophical topic as well as a sociological and psychological one. As far as I'm aware, having read some of the psych literature and most of the philosophical literature, there's not an uncontested definition or characterization of the idea. This page seems like it needs major work, maybe a re-write.68.80.219.115 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

LeoRomero is a Hypocrite
In making this edit to the lead I failed to give credit to The Quixotic Potato who last month got me thinking about  Hypocrisy, which was flagged for cleanup on 8/13, and which I "fixed" on 3/14. Here is our conversation in full, from my Talk page:

Hypocrisy
I think the first sentence of the article Hypocrisy can be improved, but I am not sure how:

Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues that one does not truly hold.

In many cases the person does actually hold those beliefs, standards, behaviors, or virtues but fails to apply them in that case/makes an exception to the rule. Maybe that person doesn't always follow them, but they generally still believe in them. Do you agree? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. I don't remember writing/editing that first line, but if I missed it, that was my mistake. It looks like a dictionary definition, and sure enough, it's the Wiktionary definition from the early 1200s. I transported Wikt into the early 2000s by adding a remix of the OED definition, so it now reads: "The contrivance of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, while concealing real character or inclinations, esp. with respect to religious and moral beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretence, sham; an occurrence of this." If you would be so good as to edit that lede as you please, I'd have the privilege of working with you on a page that took me a week to fix. You rock TQP. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I like Merriam-Webster's version:
 * the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do
 * behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel
 * What do you think?
 * The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That works, although it's limited to behavior, and defines hypocritical more than it does hypocrisy. Also, it's not very definitive: smokers ought to tell their kids that smoking may kill them; doing so does not make them hypocritical. Jesus said "see ya real soon" - that he gave us a coupla extra millennia to get things right before Judgment Day doesn't make him a hypocrite (that he said "judge not" while slamming the poor pharisees - maybe. But who am I to judge?). Verily I say unto you, whatever definition you post will be fine by me, esp if you choose "A large, chiefly aquatic African herbivorous mammal having thick, dark, almost hairless skin, short legs with four toes, and a broad, wide-mouthed muzzle." LeoRomero (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, QTP, LeoRomero (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)