Talk:Lie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism

This page seems to be a constant target for vandalism. Any way we could semi-protect the page?Jay42 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Paradox of lying -> Use of lying in paradoxes

The section "Paradox of lying" starts by saying "a person who we know is consistently lying would paradoxically be a source of truth". With a definition of lie making this statement true, the word obviously would describe the situation better than paradoxically. The mentioned paradoxes are related to logic not lying as described in this article (i.e. intent rather than truthfulness). I'm reverting to an older version and changing the section to "Use of lying in paradoxes". Bergsten (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with removing this introduction to the subject of paradoxes: Within any scenario where dualistic (e.g., yes/no, black/white) answers are always given, a person who we know is consistently lying would paradoxically be a source of truth. I don't think it is useful to qualify that statement as obvious though it may well be so. It correctly expresses the simplistic binary logic employed in the paradoxes regarding speakers who speak always true or always false. Those speakers' intents are neither implied nor relevant since the paradoxes concern interpretation of statements after they are made. I am replacing the introduction.Cuddlyable3 22:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I still disagree, but as there are no other comments on this I will leave it as it stands. Bergsten (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss your disagreement. The adverb paradoxically (which you considered replacing) in the introductory sentence characterises the peculiar situation that arises where a speaker's presumed intention to mislead by stating untruths is negated by a hearer somehow having separate knowledge that he speaks the opposite of the truth. The "paradox" lies in the fact that true facts are obtained here by "false" interpretation. The sentence also establishes that an artificial two-value logic is used by the example paradoxes about lying.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I made my edit to start with, was that I felt that lying (as described in the article) had little to do with any of the paradoxes mentioned, and rather is used as a real life gadget to illustrate an abstract idea in logic (hence my heading "Use of lying in paradoxes"). To be honest I'm no fan of the word paradox, but if used I think it should describe a situation where seemingly true statements lead you to what appears to be a contradiction. Here the best I can come up with in terms of a contradiction is something like "I receive misinformation but still know the truth" or "I receive false information that I can use". In any way I understand your point and agree that the concept itself is important/interesting, just not well described by the word paradox (or really about lying). Bergsten (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Question 2: Failure to correct an engineered misunderstanding.

It seems to me that there is another form of lying which revolves around taking a passive approach to enlightening another about their misunderstanding. If someone said to me: "I would like to meet you again." I would not understand this as meaning: "If I had the chance to do this again then I wouldn't waste so much time with you.". It would be clear that I had misunderstood the speaker if I then engaged in a process of trying to set up another meeting! This may sound like a weird example but in other cultures no responsibility is taken by individuals for anothers interpretations of shared current circumstance unless it is in that individuals own self-interest. I have seen this in Finnish, West Indian and middle-eastern cultural contexts. Thinking about it this may even be the norm. But it seems to me to be a form of deceit that is a passive form of lying. It is comprised of crafting sentences that appear to be firnedly, welcoming. positive etc whereas they are in fact at best neutral and more often negative. The cultures in point find it extremely hard to manage personal confrontation of even the mildest form and craft social etiquette to avoid it at all costs. I can find no words in English to describe this sort of interaction. A slap stick example is walking along the street in earnest debate with a "friend", who engages you in eye contact and appears fully concentrated on what you are saying. You then walk into a lamp-post. The deceit in this case is in the body language of the "friend", which omits to share the observation of the impending collision with you.
LookingGlass (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We already note "Lying by omission" as a type of lie. I recognise the cultural face-saving that LookingGlass describes but I think it goes too far to label an ordinary friendly welcome as "a passive form of lying" Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: Isn't Careful Speaking the same thing as an Omission Lie?

In a lie by omission you are leaving out certain information, isn't careful speaking the same thing. e.g. My friend has something valuable that he doesn't know is valuable. I do and convince him to give it to me without mentioning said value.

Isn't it the same or am I misunderstanding something? 71.247.168.19 (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the words "careful speaking" straightforwardly from the dictionary meaning of careful which is painstaking, attentive, cautious. Of what one is to be careful is not specified! For example a speaker could be exercising care in pronunciation. However the article seems to introduce a different, loaded notion of Careful Speaking which someone apparently believes must imply a scenario of a posed question (interrogation?) and a particular threshold of lying. Is there any reputable source for this narrow definition of common words, or should it be removed? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that IMHO it is definitely is not the same thing. The problem you have identified is composed of two parts. The first is the ommission to disclose all information in the this context that of a negotiation. The second part is the nature of truth. The only absolute truth is reality itself. Every other expression of reality must be a conversion, or translatation of some sort. It is therefore only partial. With regard to the first part of the problem, it should be clear that a negotiation is taking place to both parties. If it is not clear then, even under the crude interpretation of UK law, no contract can exist as both parties to the resulting contract (the transfer of ownership) were not of one mind. However, if it is clear that a negotiation was being carried out then the term "caveat emptor" or some such comes into play. We each have a duty to look after our own interests. The key is whether a knowing deception as to the circumstances was taking place. The phrase "Careful speaking" seems odd. To speak carefully cannot be bad. It is the best we can ever do.
LookingGlass (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem to agree that "Careful speaking" is not per se lying. I shall remove it (keeping a mention of the phrase only).Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lies in the Bible

The article contains a section on "Lying in the Bible" with some quotes from the bible, but there is absolutely no mention that many people consider the bible itself to be one of the biggest, longest-running lies in the history of mankind. I realize that Christians don't look at it this way, but non-Christians certainly do. Is there any possibility that the WP article on Lie could acknowledge that not everyone considers the bible to be truth? Is is simply a matter of quoting references that state that the bible is itself full of lies? For example, do people still consider that the stars, sun, planets, animals, plants, humans, etc. were created in 6 days? Will people go to heaven for eternity if certain conditions are met (and these conditions vary considerably, depending on denomination)? Or to put it another way, if the bible is not the biggest, longest running lie in the history of mankind, what is? Some of the People, Some of the Time (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the policy advice Wikipedia is not a soapbox. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. We don't need any more speeches here, but to answer your question, the accepted path is to find one or more documented, authoritative sources who classify the bible as "lies". Difficult, but perhaps not impossible. It is not our role to vote on what is the "biggest, longest running lie in the history of mankind". SusanRSK (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example that meets those criteria: Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, and author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom considered much of the new testament of the Bible to be lies. He edited his own version of the bible that omitted what he considered to be falsehoods. He described these as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture". He described the "roguery of others of His disciples", and called them a "band of dupes and impostors" and describing Paul as the "first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus

The source is THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON: BEING HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY, CORRESPONDENCE, REPORTS, MESSAGES, ADDRESSES, AND OTHER WRITINGS, OFFICIAL AND PRIVATE. PUBLISHED BY THE ORDER OF The JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY, FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, DEPOSITED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES, TABLES OF CONTENTS, AND A COPIOUS INDEX TO EACH VOLUME, AS WELL AS A GENERAL INDEX TO THE WHOLE, BY THE EDITOR H. A. WASHINGTON. VOL. VII. PUBLISHED BY TAYLOR MAURY, WASHINGTON, D. C 1854. which is viewable at http://books.google.com/books?id=1mIFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=%22band+of+dupes+and+impostors%22&source=web&ots=TIDs6_2BAb&sig=kx7XvpKTbbekRWxY119a10T0PlQ#PPR1,M1

and here is the text:

---

Letter To William Short. Monticello, April 13, 1820.

DEAR SIR, Your favor of March the 27th is received, and as you request, a copy of the syllabus is now enclosed. It was originally written to Dr. Rush. On his death, fearing that the inquisition of the public might get hold of it, I asked the return of it from the family, which they kindly complied with. At the request of another friend, I had given him a copy. He lent it to his friend to read, who copied it, and in a few months it appeared in the Theological Magazine of London. Happily that repository is scarcely known in this country, and the syllabus, therefore, is still a secret, and in your hands I am sure it will continue so.

But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true and high light, as no impostor Himself, but a great Reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with Him in all His doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require counterpoise of good works to redeem it, etc., etc. It is the innocence of His character, the purity and sublimity of His moral precepts, the eloquence of His inculcations, the beauty of the apologues in which He conveys them, that I so much admire; sometimes, indeed, needing indulgence to eastern hyperbolism. My eulogies, too, may be founded on a postulate which all may not be ready to grant. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of His disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of His doctrines, led me to try to sift them apart. I found the work obvious and easy, and that His past composed the most beautiful morsel of morality which has been given to us by man. The syllabus is therefore of His doctrines, not all of mine. I read them as I do those of other ancient and modern moralists, with a mixture of approbation and dissent...

---

(Jefferson then removed large sections fo the New Testiment from the Bible that he edited)

A neutral presentation of this source may provide the balance that Some of the People seeks in the WP article. ThomasJeff (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your suggestions. I have added a brief summary of Jefferson's conclusions, with a reference. Some of the People, Some of the Time (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

briefly semiprotected

The recent IP vandals seem connected - I'm semi-protecting the article for 48 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bible Contradictions

"It also states in the bible that it is not wrong to lie, in other words it is alright to lie, in the passages Joshua 2:4-6, James 2:25, Exodus 1:18-20, 1 Kings 22:21-22, and 2 Kings 8:10. Is it wrong to lie? Yes or No? The Bible seems to go in the direction of both on the subject. The bible blatantly contradicts itself on the subject."

Whether or not this is true, it seems off. I'm not sure if it really fits the standards... 67.185.232.36 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Kain

"Types of lies" section

I gave the whole section a badly needed copy edit. For instance, "bold-faced lie" is a mistake in English, resulting from a mishearing. It shouldn't be perpetuated. The real term is "bald-faced lie." And I removed the last sentence of that subsection because it wasn't accurate. Many lies are called "bald-faced" when the liar, or the alleged liar, has tried to conceal their falsity.

Sentences that define something by using the form "XXX is when..." are ungrammatical.

There were several other changes. Generally, this section was not well written. Someone with excellent writing skills should take a look at the whole article.

Cognita (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lying and Religion

Although the discussion of Christianity and lying is not out of place here, the absence of discussion of lying in the contexts of other religions renders it incomplete. 67.172.109.240 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the german wp-article about lying (Lüge) contains some interesting bible quotes for not telling the truth. someone who can formulate good in english might have already satisfying information, if she/he knows what passages were quoted from the bible - being able the read german might somehow be an advantage...--84.157.246.226 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandelisem

Hey i spotted Vandelisem here, we should put semi-protect-Boba fett 32 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy encourages keeping almost everything editable for newbie experiments, and this article is not vandalized frequently enough to warrant protection. Just revert vandalism as it goes in. There are lots of eyes on this page, so test edits usually get fixed quickly. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we add a section regarding lies stated by famous individuals?

Many individuals that have claimed certain amounts of fame, power, and/or respect lie. I can think of many examples, of which Bill Clinton's saying ... "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is the most famous.--96.232.54.22 (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Other famous presidential lies are Richard Nixon's denial of knowledge of the Watergate break-in and the one that George Washington didn't tell about a cherry tree. But please don't contemplate having a section for accumulating lies by so-called famous individuals. It would strain WP:NPOV and attract endless vandalism.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You could have some here, it would probably be encyclopedic to do so, but the wikipedia isn't wikiquote, so they should be used as examples of a more general principle with surrounding support text rather than just 'cool quotes'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What more general principle? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Cuddlyable3. Not much benefit, attractive nuisince for POV and vandalism. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A whole section called "Symbols of lying" has been added. It is nothing more than a political attack on the incumbent president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against whom the POV epithet shameless is levelled. The accusations are disputable and should be deleted see WP:POV. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC). Now deleted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Lying in Islam

As the article includes some detailed description on lying from a Biblical viewpoint, shouldn't it also describe the Islamic provisions for presenting untruths, which I understand are considerable. __meco (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have added a section on Lying in the Quran. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct definition

The article said:

To lie is to state something that is false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

That allows an innocent error to be a lie. E.g. if one states that 6 × 7 = 44, intending it to be taken for the truth by oneself and others, that would be a lie according to the definition above, but in reality it could be simply a flawed understanding of arithmetic — an innocent error. That is not a "lie" as I understand the term, and I altered the sentence accordingly. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The new version says:

To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.

I think this is still too broad a definition. If someone wants to know what the capital of Scotland is, and I tell them Glasgow, honestly believing this to be true, this surely cannot be considered a lie. But I clearly cannot claim to have reasonably ascertained whether my answer was true.

We need a philosopher's definition with a citation. Stevvers (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable is not the same as correct. If you honestly believe it (somehow), I believe you can claim to have reasonably ascertained that Glasgow is the capital of Scotland (even though you have not correctly ascertained it). --70.160.98.192 (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolute correctness is not humanly attainable. We want to define the quality that makes a statement a truism. "Reasonably ascertained" or "due diligence" are less clear than "honestly believe". The latter allows for the above cases.

I propose this wording:

To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's not a good idea to use "honestly" in the definition of a lie. There's probably some recursiveness to be found there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.98.192 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you an alternative to suggest? If not, my proposed definition seems to answer the points made by Michael Hardy and Stevvers so I shall edit the article accordingly in a few days. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC). Done. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas

A confusing statement here. The following from the section "The Morality of Lying" doesn't make sense: "The philosophers Saint Augustine, as well as Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, condemned all lying. However, Thomas Aquinas also had an argument for lying. According to all three, there are no circumstances in which one may lie." There is no follow up or explanation of Thomas Aquinas's statement. Can anyone help? Alpalfour (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this the argument that Thomas Aquinas supported ? "Consider the case where telling a lie would mean that 10 other lies would not be told. If 10 lies are worse than 1 lie then it would seem to be a good thing to tell the first lie, but if lying is always wrong then it's wrong to tell the first lie...".
My personal feelings, upon a brief glance of above riddle, is, it answers itself does it not. It is always wrong to tell the first lie. Maybe someone could provide me with an example of where one lie would actually prevent ten, I'm genuinly interested as my mind refuses to contemplate that scenario. In return though I would love to ask you to contemplate the possibility that any following debate should then focus on the dilema, in order to protect that one lie (which prevented ten) would it mean you telling up to 100 more ? I personally like to believe, 'Prevention is better than the cure'. I found this link at the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml
--92.10.1.54 (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Island of liars?

I just heard on the radio there is or was a pacific island where the aboriginal culture was centered on being dishonest. The one who lied and forged most, mislead, cheated others with the highest efficiency was the most admired person. This culture brought misery to the whole population, with much higher homicide and suicide rates than on other islands and total lack of any trust in each other allowed zero material progress. Supposedly this island was studied much by cultural anthropologists. I would like to find the name of the island, is there a Wikipedia article on it? Thanks in advance! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The story of Saint Timothy is also a great reference to such a phenomena. However "Wight" lies appears to be the most popular regressive subject of late...Your welcome from the past!
--92.10.1.54 (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Prevarication As Such

Is probably what should be in the place of the § "Careful Speaking" which I have tagged for multiple issues, the principle one being that careful speaking has, in practice, a small logical intersection with speech intended to deceive. It must be the case, except in primitive and degenerate cultures and the individuals they spawn, that careful speech is, rather, a purposeful attempt to reach truth, diametrically opposite to what's here and in that yet another Wiki Especiale. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudologia Fantastica

There should be some info about compulsive lying or pseudologia fantastica

Done. Cuddlyable3 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Pseudologia fantastica is a term applied by psychiatrists to the behaviour of habitual or compulsive lying.
Mythomania is the condition where there is an excessive or abnormal propensity for lying and exaggerating.

Pseudologia fantastica abd Mythomania are mentioned distinctly in this article, but they both redirect to the same article. --74.185.249.234 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All Lies are Selfish in nature

'A lie is self-serving, therefore logically selfish.'
: I would like to point any debate about this 'truth' to those who study to understand self, selfishness and selflessness; a buddhist researcher: timothy.josef@hotmail.co.uk
--92.10.1.54 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sourced information on Lie in Buddhism could be put in a subsection under Belief Systems. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for debate, original research or soapboxing on behalf of a particular moral viewpoint. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

lying is evil >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.166.100 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thaks wiki, I read that back and apologies if you thought I might be soapboxing, I was confuzed as to where we may add original discussion and was determined to hopefully get the buddhists a mention on this point. It was through a basic understanding of some buddhist viewpoints and then a personal situation which helped me form the view that 'Lies' indeed are selfish, and importantly still have yet to find an example of otherwise.
--92.10.1.54 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What about lies to protect or benefit another? In the article, some forms of lie-to-children and false reassurances would be a good examples of altruistic lies.66.41.44.102 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal cake reference

Portal on wikiquotes leads here and i was wondering if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Representations_of_lying_in_fiction could add a portal reference about said cake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.186.135 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson is not a "Christian theologian" or even a notable religious thinker

I'm not sure why Jefferson or his ideas are listed in "Lying in the Bible" or in this article in general. He is not a Christian theologian, and his beliefs, while informed by 19th century deism, are not by any means seminal.206.190.72.205 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes a lie is the truth

... 'cuz, I believe the truth is were it lies... @ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.98 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lying and evolution

The volume of content on speculative evolutionary grounds seems entirely out of place here, and also feels very wrong as a conclusion to the article. Personally, I would cut this or move it elsewhere, but at the very least I would consider tightening it up and finishing on a stronger subject. If you want to keep it here, perhaps consider moving it to after Deception and Lies in Other Species, then the other sections will fall more naturally at the end. Covering Up Lies, for instance, feels like a more suitable point to close upon. This is just a suggestion, of course, but it would improve the flow of the piece. 67.172.109.240 11:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The following below is a good explanation (for the most part, excluding the part about Thomas Jefferson), yet I agree with the original poster in that it cannot be placed in this section until the other religions described have sections about falsehoods or self-contradictions themselves. In order to preserve the artist's work, it is written below:

Whereas most Christian theologians conclude that the Bible does not contain any intentional untruths, some scholars believe differently. Among those who conclude that the Bible contains lies and intentional untruths is Thomas Jefferson. He edited his own version of the Bible and omitted what he considered to be falsehoods. In describing the Bible, Jefferson wrote of "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture", "roguery", "dupes and impostors", "corruptor" and "falsifications". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.93.46 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

References

I tell a lie

"I tell a lie" is a conversational clause in English that is often used when the speaker has merely spoken an unintentional untruth in the course of talking, and has just come to realise that he has said something false, most usually without having had any intention to deceive. It is easier to say than I have just said something false, or I have spoken an untruth, which would be more accurate expressions. However, "I tell a lie" is usually an unsatisfactory expression as usually no lie has been spoken. Can anyone recommend a better conversational clause if one has just realised one has unintentionally spoken an untruth, and wants to correct the misunderstanding that might have been created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.64.48 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Belief Systems

I re-titled this Religious Perspectives as every given BS was a religion. If someone wants to add in stuff about asymmetric information in game theory, doxastic attitudes in AI and the like then Belief Systems should come back as a top level section with Secular Perspectives and Religious Perspective subsections. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Paranoia Agent has a story line where a lie figures but it's not apparently about lying. Put it back (and update the main article) if it is. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mystery text?

[[File:Link to screenshot]] Was looking under Lying through Teeth, found the text "it also helps nowhere" at the end of the passage (as seen in screenshot), but when I went to Edit the page, I couldn't find the string "it also helps nowhere" anywhere in the article. Could someone fix this out-of-place phrase? --130.85.56.85 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason you couldn't find the text is Cluebot removed it by the time you finished reading it. See this diff. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Koko broken sink

Hello, I'm not familiar with the editing conventions of wikipedia. So I'd be more comfortable allowing someone else to make the change. But I have tracked down a heavily cited article that mentions Koko lying about the sink she inadvertently broke by sitting on it. There is a "citation needed" on her blaiming her cat. She apparently blamed a certain "kate". A link to the pdf http://www.gorillakoko.com/bibliography/pdfs/B36_Patterson_1994_Parker.pdf bottom of pg. 6. I suppose I should make an account and learn to edit. Thanks Adam 68.12.192.43 (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Drive by and unsubstantiated tagging

The article is a model of clarity as it stands now.There isn't a lot to the core concept and the lede reflects this. The body shows the various variants, details. This is an encyclopedia not a place for essay writing on deception, though there are other articles where indulgence of that impulse can likely find outlet. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Also "disorganized and lacks clarity" is itself a lie, not sure which variant. As it currently stands it's a model of both. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Same thing now apparently, with a request to expand lede that's going nowhere. An essay on mendacity under this title isn't going to work, a long process resulted in the current text. Suggest removal of the tags if no suggestion about what to do about them. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Question from anon

Um, isn't lie also a synonym for lay, as in lie down/lay down...? It's a bit weird that there is no mention of that given that is an equally common use for the word... Perhaps this section should be named "Lie (falsehood)" and the other could be named "Lie (position)"? 92.234.58.169 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

At the top: For other uses, see Lie (disambiguation). --Onorem (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Carelessness

What about being careless with the facts? When I act as if I know something, do I incur a responsibility to be more careful in speaking? When I am expected to know something, when I am an expert on the subject, or when I was present at the event, shouldn't I be faithful to that trust by going through more work before speaking? "Yes, I was present at Kennedy's assassination, but I don't know any more than you do" as opposed to "I was there, and here is what happened". "I have a Ph.D. in Irish history of the 19th century, but I haven't studied the potato famine in many years, so I don't really know such-and-such." TomS TDotO (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is It a Lie if you Deceive a Machine or System?

I live in a country which doesn't have postal codes. Quite often, when I'm ordering something online I have to put in a "dummy" code at the end of my address, for example xxxxx or the like. Otherwise, the system won't take my order. Is that a lie? After all, xxxxx (or whatever) is not my postal code - I don't have one. (I live in a small country which doesn't need, or use, postal codes.) If I enter the dummy code, I receive the order. If it is a lie, what would you call it and should it be included? Is it only a lie if someone (i.e. a human, not a machine or a system) happens to see it and thinks that that is actually my postal code (rather than a dummy one)? Why would the human status of the observer make any difference in a moral sense? And if it wouldn't, are there comparable lies (outside of the realm of dummy postal codes) that are also justifiable? (In other words, lies told to facilitate the receipt of a service, that don't disadvantage anyone?)89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it suborning perjury to put one into the situation which forces a lie? TomS TDotO (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thinking that you lie to a machine in this case is like thinking that you lie to a piece of paper when you fill an equivalent paper form and send it to the relevant subject. Still, the question is interesting if considered in the context of, e.g., chatting with AI. --Asdrubalissimo (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Verbal deception VS Lies

This voice on lying, if the pun is allowed, is dramatically misleading.

In this page, every kind of verbal deception is discussed, but lying is just a subset of verbal deception.

Just look at the Oxford Dictionary Definition, or any other definition, to see that this page is based on a misunderstanding of what lying is.

There is actually a huge academic debate about how lying is to be defined (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/), but no definition embraces the protean collection of cases of verbal deception discussed in this page

I suggest that the whole "Types of lying" part is redirected to another page, and that only lying (literally stating something that you believe to be false) be discussed here. --Asdrubalissimo (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The initial definition is inconsistent with what comes shortly after.

To wit, the article begins with 'a lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a known untruth expressed as truth'.

But then subsequently it states: 'To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth.'

Clearly something that one does not honestly believe to be true may, nevertheless, be true. (Hence 'true lies' must be possible.) But a 'known untruth' must be untrue if, as is standard on philosophical accounts of knowledge, knowledge implies truth. (So from 'I know that "It is false that p"', it follows that 'It is false that p' is true.)

In short, this entry is confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.75.165 (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the difinition given here and referenced elsewhere is incorrect. The current text reads "A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false." However, according to multiple online dictionaries a lie need not be intentionally incorrect. citations:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie - "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie - "an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker"

The source given for the current text is from a text by Armindo_Freitas-Magalhães, who is a psychologist. I'm not sure why this source would be recognized as authoritative on the definition when it contradicts dictionaries.

Mojo9000 (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I definitely see where you're coming from here, especially about the ref. I think the definition is as it is now because a distinction is typically made between lying (in the sense of making an untrue statement either with knowledge that it is untrue or with reckless disregard for its truthfulness) and being wrong (in the sense of making an untrue statement without knowledge that it is untrue and without reckless disregard for its truthfulness). I'm not saying that the intro needs to stay exactly as it is but I think it's important to retain that distinction in the intro. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The opening sentence addresses the source of the lie and the dictionary definition addresses the speaker of the lie. We try to avoid articles about words as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think this way of looking at a lie was done to avoid just addressing the word as defined and instead address the human phenomena. I do not like the ref in the lead as well. I would not oppose it being removed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the reference. I think that the first sentence still works for the reasons I identified above, but if there's further discussion to be had about it let's go ahead and hash it out. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The definition as it stands still conflicts with later sections. The section on "Honest lie" says that there must be an intent to deceive for something to be a lie, which is consistent with general use of the term. The word "lie" has multiple dictionary definitions, which are all valid in context (by definition), and to pick and choose (such as "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.") and not mention other definitions is itself lying by omission or telling a half truth. As the definition stands, an actor would be lying simply by being in a performance, even though there would be no intent to deceive. While the word "lie" does mean "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood" in some contexts, that's not what is generally understood when using the term unqualified. In order to be consistent with all other points in the article, it should be clear that it's generally understood that there's a false statement made with the intent to deceive. The primary definition should take into account that an "Honest lie" isn't generally considered a lie, and neither are fictional accounts that are known to be fiction. Hagrinas (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Hagrinas. Currently the article starts with A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false. This seems to me to be pretty consistent with what you wrote above. Is there anything you think should be changed about it? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Known or intended...to be false" means that either fits the definition. "known and intended..." makes more sense to me. If something in known to be false (such as a line by an actor in a play) it might not be intended to be misleading. With "or" it would still qualify as a lie. With "and", a statement would have to be known to be misleading, inaccurate or false, and intended to be misleading, inaccurate or false. There would be nine logical combinations, and it would come down to whether any of them are questionable, or whether something can be known to be one of the three, not intended to be one of the three, and still be a lie. If it's not known to be one of the three, there's no issue.

At minimum it would have to be "a false statement known and intended...." That wouldn't categorize misleading or inaccurate statements as lies per se. The article says that a misleading statement isn't an outright lie, so perhaps all bases would be covered with "A lie is a false or inaccurate statement known and intended...." It would have to be one of those two, it would have to be known to be one of those two, and it would have to be intended to be misleading. A person could make a false statement intended to be false but not intended to mislead, or make an intentionally inaccurate statement not intended to mislead. For example, if an advertisement says that a car can "fly around the track" meaning it is fast, the statement is inaccurate, the person who wrote it would have known that it's inaccurate, but there would be no attempt to mislead because the presumption would be that the audience would know what was meant. "A lie is a false or inaccurate statement that is known and intended by its source to be misleading" reorders the words in a way that appears to me to cover all bases.

It would still be logically possible with that definition for a person to make a false statement with the intent to mislead, think that the statement is misleading but not realize that it's false, in which case it's arguably not a lie, (in the sense that the person meant to make a true statement with the intent to mislead but it turned out to be false and misleading) but the article does go on to discuss misleading statements. Trying to cover every possibility would create something so long and confusing that it wouldn't serve the purpose of defining anything clearly. I think the final version of the statement I mentioned is clear and concise enough, but the statement as it is in the article (especially with "or") mischaracterizes things in several ways. Hagrinas (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While I think I get your point, I also think it is possible to lie without knowing that one is making a false statement. Think of the used car salesman who says to a potential buyer "Oh yeah, this car only had one previous owner" when in fact he does not know this to be true but neither does he know that it is false. He intends to create a certain impression of the car's condition and/or value in the buyer's mind regardless of whether his actual statement about the car's number of previous owners is actually true or false. For reasons like this I think the language "known or intended . . . to be false" ought to be retained. Lying, I think, encompasses not only deliberate falsehoods but also statements made with reckless disregard for for the truth. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What about something like "a lie is a statement intended to induce a belief in the listener which the speaker does not in fact share" ? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Instrumental, interpersonal, and psychological functions

An IP editor has added a tag to this language in the lede, and from their edit summary I am not sure I understand their reasoning. I've reverted and am opening a section here so a consensus can be reached. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"White lie" to additionally have its own article

Would it be beneficial to create a page for white lie? Having some historical examples and psychology statistics behind lies that have resulted in net good results might provide some powerful insights into the subject of lying that haven't been documented here so far.151.207.250.51 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

There were some attempts to create an article for white lie. See the history here. But the only content was basically a definition which lead to a short deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White lie. But if you can come up with more content perhaps it would stick. I would say add the content to this article (perhaps under Lie#Psychology) and if it gets large, we could justify a spin off article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2016

T mon (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC) i want to help elaborate on the information on the page

This is not an edit request. SPERs are to make edit requests, not to request permission. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602222042/https://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf to https://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604112456/http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861711798 to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861711798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211154019/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228070349/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050912100548/http://vta.gamall-steinn.org/havamal.htm to http://vta.gamall-steinn.org/havamal.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105203909/http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/PUB/SRC/OIP/117/OIP117.html to http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/PUB/SRC/OIP/117/OIP117.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228070349/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228070349/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf to http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/boneill/bibjer5.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530060832/http://people.tribe.net/dancepanther/blog/93a51179-7ff3-4089-9818-8a2a47f81b45 to http://people.tribe.net/dancepanther/blog/93a51179-7ff3-4089-9818-8a2a47f81b45

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing bookmark #Lying_by_omission

The page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation contains the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission which is broken on this page and there is no 'Edit' ability. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.241.63 (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018

{{subst:trim|1=

 Not done Empty request. Deli nk (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Definition of lying

There is general consensus that the definition of lying employed when I commented (a statement intended to deceive) in the opening of this page is incorrect. Here's some academic work on the subject:

Mahon, James Edwin, "The Definition of Lying and Deception", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lying-definition/>

Mahon, James Edwin (2008). Two Definitions of Lying. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):211-230.

More scholarship on this topic can be found with a simple search in google scholar.

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22definition+of+lying%22+-developmental&btnG=

A correct definition would be: a lie is a an assertion (a serious statement) that is believed to be false, typically uttered with the intention to deceive someone.

I will modify the definition accordingly, but I encourage discussion in case someone disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdrubalissimo (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Asdrubalissimo: As long as it is sourced, I am okay. Sources you are citing are RS.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2018

Please change: Truthfulness is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[66][71] To: Lying is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[66][71] Please change word Truthfulness to Lying because the meaning does not reflect the meaning of the book cited in footnote.Vigilfree (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Vigilfree (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. It appears that "untruthfulness" was accidentally changed to "truthfulness" when text was copied into this article from Five precepts#Fourth precept. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vigilfree:, @Gulumeemee:, my bad, sorry.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2019

Greetings, I would like to ask that in the "LIE" page, that where religions are being used, "In paganism, branch of the Heathen's" replace "In paganism", as it refers to Odin, a God exclusive to the Norse Heathen, pagan. Not all pagans believe Odin's teachings, and don't believe lying to be at all acceptable.

Thank you kindly, Rev David Wikoff, pagan minister. Wikoffsr (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the heading to "Norse paganism". – Þjarkur (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why I removed a file

I don't typically remove images from articles, but I did in this edit [1] because it doesn't seem to be directly related to lying. It's a graph that compares the percentages of Wikipedia vandals, sockpuppets, spammers and good faith editors. For one thing, it's probably confusing to someone not familiar with wikispeak... especially the sockpuppet part. But the main reason I removed it is that it just doesn't seem to be directly relevant to the topic. Since I removed a file from the article, I thought that I should write about why on the talk page. Clovermoss (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Appropriateness B-class, and need for cleanup/update/improvement

This article is rated B-class, but it really is a terrible mess. To be sure, many sources are quoted, but not the important ones. Key work in psychology is missing and minor pop-culture curiosities are mentioned. There is nothing on political lying and on linguistics. I have a PhD in this area, so I can help, and will keep coming and making small modifications. However, a LOT of work is needed, and surely I cannot sort this mess out alone. Perhaps flagging it as C-class (who would also more accurately reflect its quality) could help to motivate other users to contribute? Asdrubalissimo (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please do contribute. --GHcool (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: A discussion of the phenomenon of the avoidance of using the word "lie"

It appears that using the word lie is to be avoided in some circumstances, particularly in politics. I gather that using the word is tantamount to making an accusation of malintent, hence it isn't done. I've just been working with the Donald Trump article in which it appears, despite all evidence to the contrary, the word "lie" cannot be used. There is a long history of avoiding the word in such circumstances as politics, an electric third rail, so to speak. See, e.g., CBSNEWS which describes how Colin Powell comes to state that Trump lies and how such language has rarely been used before. Bdushaw (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Audiebert (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No edit request made. Closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

willful ignorance / deniability

Among the Types of lies should be included the "I don't know" or "not to my knowledge" which are only tortuously contrived to be so-called-'true' because they have been carefully cultivated by willful neglect of duty. Because some people want a certain outcome, a person who should be responsible may willfully avoid asking critical questions, and their subordinates may know to preserve their willful ignorance to maintain deniability.

• "Do you think the owner will mind if we throw our garbage on their property?" "You know perfectly well they'd mind... just ask them." "No, I'd rather just say I didn't know they would mind."
• "I didn't know that smoking our product was killing people." (Because I did everything in my power to avoid the evidence that I suspected was true.) DKEdwards (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, but do you have any citations that are not WP:FRINGE? Sounds like something that might get address in the practice of Law. Lack of due diligence or something like that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Error to fix

The article say: “The discovery of a lie may discredit other statements by the same speaker, staining his reputation.”

“staining his reputation” is entirely unnecessary gendered, it should ideally say “staining their reputation” to be all inclusive, and as such, accurate. I however am unable to make this edit myself due to the articles protection status 2600:1700:BA0:FC40:E404:97A4:1AE9:8922 (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Discussion or inclusion of the topic of "gaslighting"

Under the "Types and associated terms" section, there seems to be a lack of discussion around the aspect of gaslighting, where false or untrue narratives are presented to the other person(s) which often makes them question their own reality or truth. I feel this is a unique and important form of lying which is not currently in this section. Antiquetwerp (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1984first.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)