Talk:Intellectual honesty

Merge
Intellectual honesty is typically an approach to the presentation of information in the absence of intellectual dishonesty. Recommend merge with intellectual dishonesty per WP:COMMONNAME.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jeffro, your retributive remarks and actions are amusing at the least. Something is not defined by what it is not.

--Outsider10 (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think the topic warrants a separate article, then expand the article and supply sources. As it stands at the moment, both this article and the dishonesty article are both of poor quality.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus to redirect this article to Intellectual dishonesty per WP:COMMONNAME was established at Articles_for_deletion/Intellectual_honesty. If you wish to start a new discussion for keeping the article despite the existing consensus, you should raise a third opinion request.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. That wasn't a consensus of any kind.  This article should not have been redirected.  Currently, this article is sourced and the stub on intellectual dishonesty is not and has a single reference to an unreliable/broken link.  I've restored this article as the primary topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, but I couldn't be bothered arguing this inane point with you any longer.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to argue. Just tell me why I'm wrong. There is also a more developed topic named academic honesty that could potentially serve as a redirect target.  For some strange reason, that article is also located at academic dishonesty. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Jay Gould
Shouldn't we use some examples, such as Stephen Jay Gould? 46.194.232.69 (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Too important
How about the philosophical and/or conversational aspect of this issue. On that, the previous article (intellectual dishonesty) was much more informative, sourced or not. That which is referred to as 'intellectual dishonesty' in debates and thought processes is certainly a phenomenon that merits a mention. How about adding this:

"Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are sometimes called intellectual dishonesty."

K.salo.85 (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a poor definition of a narrow case, hence "sometimes," yet the "sometimes" was later removed, and now it reads like a definition. But it's inaccurate. Changewikiback (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been accused of not being intellectually honest numerous times despite not having intentionally committed any logical fallacy and the accuser never gives any evidence. At this point the main use of intellectual (dis)honesty is to accuse people who say things a person doesn't like of something that superficially sounds terrible. Hackwrench (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The article should be much longer, with positive examples. Zezen (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)