Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypocrisy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Removed prod. Mostly a dictionary definition, which WP isn't supposed to have. At that it appears to be an attempt to normalize a contemporary usage that (in my opinion) is still a misuse of the word. Hypocrisy is about dishonesty, not about failing to live up to one's ideals.

Now, I concede that it would probably be possible to clean this up, if anyone actually wanted to. But does anyone, and is it worth it? As it stands, the article represents an attempt at language reform. --Trovatore (talk)
 * Actually, that isn't true. Hypocrisy is failing to live up to one's ideals - or rather, professing views in which one does not actually hold true to (see Wiktionary definition, though it is slightly vague). For instance, if someone were to tell somebody to work harder despite themselves being lazy, that would be hypocrisy. I feel the subject itself is an interesting enough psychology to warrant an article, despite the policy that says otherwise.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your comment on the article's talk page is exactly right, however.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a modern misuse of the word. It may eventually become standard, but the battle is not yet lost.  A sincere profession, no matter how at odds with the speaker's own life, is not hypocritical.
 * Take the case from the article: If I tell you not to smoke despite being a smoker myself, am I hypocritical? Well, it depends. If I'm a secret smoker, then likely (though not necessarily) yes.  In that case it's likely (though not certain) that my advice not to smoke is based on my perception that people will think well of me because of the advice.
 * On the other hand, if I take my old cigarette out of my mouth, use it to light a new one, and then in the next breath advise you not to smoke, am I being hypocritical? Almost certainly not.  In that case everything is out in the open.
 * There are several possible explanations for my behavior. I might consider that I am a lost cause, but there's still hope for you.  I might want to quit, but haven't been able to summon the will.  Or I might sincerely believe that the standards for me are and should be different from those for you.  All of these attitudes are subject to various forms of criticism, but none of them is hypocritical, not if sincerely held and openly acknowledged. --Trovatore (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hypocrisy is an important enough concept to have its own article. I found it odd the Jesus' use of the word in the Gospels is not mentioned. This must be the most important influence on modern English usage. Redddogg (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment as I sort of implied, I'm OK with a keep, if it can be cleaned up so as to give more weight to the (still preferred) definition related to insincerity, and less to the (modern, but still incorrect) definition related to incongruousness with the speaker's own actions. Are you willing and able to clean it up?  Personally I'm not sure where to find material to discuss, beyond the dictionary def, and references to source it to. --Trovatore (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is off to a reasonable start: Discussion of the word, notation that its parallel means something different in France, origins of the word, some practical application of the concept of hypocrisy, and a few references at the end. Could the article be improved?  Absolutely.  Should it be deleted?  No.  There's no deadline to finish. Townlake (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about French is one of the problems with the article -- it actually means the same thing in English, contrary to the (unsourced) claim in the article. I agree, it could be cleaned up. But even though there's no deadline, the current state of the article is doing harm, by supporting the incorrect usage. --Trovatore (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep there is plenty of material on hypocrisy to support a full article not a WP:DICDEF.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  04:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would please address the point that the definition given is incorrect? Probably there is material available for discussing the referent of the correct definition, but can you find it? --Trovatore (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the lede with sources.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  05:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of your sources supports the first clause, which asserts [h]ypocrisy is acting in a manner contradictory to one's professed beliefs and feelings. For the record, one of your sources is the Merriam–Webster def I cite below, and the other, from Princeton, states a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.  Both of these are at variance with the existing text, even after your rewrite. --Trovatore (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are just fine. Here's the first sentence of the lede: Hypocrisy is acting in a manner contradictory to one's professed beliefs and feelings, or conversely, expressing false beliefs and opinions in order to conceal one's real feelings or motives.  and here are the sources: (for the first clause) a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings (for the second clause) a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he or she does not hold in order to conceal his or her real feelings or motives.  If it were any more word-for-word than that, it would be plagiarism.  So in all honesty, what exactly do you think is wrong with the definition?   LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  05:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting: You looked up hypocrite at Merriam–Webster, whereas I looked up hypocrisy.  You will see that the M–W definition for hypocrisy says nothing about acting in contradiction to one's stated beliefs.  For some reason they have a different definition for hypocrite.
 * In any case, even for hypocrite, they give it as the second definition. In my view this is an erroneous usage, but I suppose it has to be acknowledged, if the article is kept.  It certainly should not be the principal focus, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep my English textbook has over a page on the use of hypocrisy as a rhetorical device so reliable sources do exist on this topic. Icewedge (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And can you give us a summary of what it says? Is it talking about the "insincerity" version, or the "incongruous life" version?
 * I am distressed that commentators are not engaging the point about the incorrect definition. Yes, this can be fixed, and is therefore ordinarily not an AfD issue.  But given Wikipedia's visibility, I do not like to see searches turn up the incorrect one.
 * For reference, here's Merriam—Webster's definition (used here as fair use; I doubt that would fly in the article itself):
 * a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
 * Note that the key point is the pretense. There is nothing whatsoever about not holding oneself to the ideals one holds others to.  It is entirely a question of pretending to be something different. --Trovatore (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest a WP:SNOW close. WP:DELETION says that if improving an article to fix the problems is practical, then it should not be deleted.  I see no reason to believe fixing any issues with this article is inpractical. JulesH (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I will not object. I don't see very much value to an article at this title and had hoped to make the problems go away easily, but it appears that's not going to happen.  It'll just have to be edited to remove the implication that this secondary (and in my opinion, indeed erroneous) usage is the main one. --Trovatore (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per Linguist and JulesH in particular. Some cogent points were raised in this AfD.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though I do agree the page could use much better sourcing to tighten up the prose of the article.  This page is quite susceptible to having personal opinion slipped in as fact.  Chicken Wing (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2009 (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.