Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator - convinced that this is not about an neologism. (non-admin closure) Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Political hypocrisy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Articles on neologisms need to provide a discussion of the use of the term. It is taken from Runciman (2008) but not evidence that the neologism has ever caught on. "Case study" seems more like original research, but probably lifted from Runciman too. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello. To solve the problem with the title of the article ("Political hypocrisy"), and neologisms policy, I could easily change the title to Hypocrisy in policy. As for the case study, it took and me a lot of work to edit the section in my sandbox before publishing it, and if it is still problematic, we could work on it more if we know where exactly it looks like a original research. Ghazaalch (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello ! The title 'Case study' is certainly not lifted from Runciman; I've never read that source. About the content of that section, while I was only involved in editing the article, it's evidently taken from various sources (besides probably Runciman) and is very unlikely to be original research based on my prior interactions with . Albertatiran (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was too hasty in nominating the article and should have posted on the talk page instead. I couldn't tell whether the article was supposed to be about the book, the neologism or the subject. I thought it was about the neologism, as the main sources were Runciman (who coined it) and Ghosh, who is reviewing the book. Although Michael Gerson uses it (again, quoting Runciman's book), so maybe it is getting a bit of traction. Deletion is not cleanup so I will close the AfD unless someone else wants to weigh in. But since we are here:
 * The article needs to make it clear whether it is about the book, the neologism or the subject. This lack of clarity is what brought it here.
 * The first sentence needs to make it clear whether it refers to intra-state (party) politics or state actors. Or, for that matter, individuals. ie the scope of the article is uncertain.
 * Political philosophers, practitioners, and authors have dealt with hypocrisy in politics and when it is cause for concern in democracies. This is supposed to be a summary of the article, but the article never comes to grips with this issue. Like when exactly is it a cause for concern, and what are the "certain varieties of hypocrisy" that "are fundamentally harmful to liberalism"?
 * Today, the word hypocrisy commonly refers to public statements of principle that differ from an individual's private practices. But we go on to talk about public practices not private ones.
 * This definition is problematic; if a junkie tells you that doing smack is a bad idea, she can be accused of hypocrisy under that definition, but it won't make her wrong. In the words of the lead, "it is these acts that matter in the end, not the actor's hypocrisy". Except that that issue is not in the body either.
 * Another definition of hypocrisy is "the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or... the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion." I think that definition is what is being used in many cases. The connection to moral authority and religion should be explored.
 * While you're at it, move the footnotes section header down to where References is and move References below the reflist template. And link liberal democracy.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I tried to modify the article accordingly.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2022 (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.