Talk:Bad faith

message: What this article needs is a complete workover. As it stands, it is messy, fragmented, and confusing: Why is there one heading for the question of the possibility of Bad Faith (in Sartre's ontology), one for Phenomenology and Existentialism, and then another, separate heading for Existentialism? I suggest a more unitary approach where one could start with Freud and move on to existentialist accounts through Sartres criticism of Freudian psychoanalysis. The feminist perspective could then easily be introduced through Beauvoir.Der Zeitgeist (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merging phenom and existentlsm sections. Use in feminism started in exististentialism, but is now outside of it. The "problem of bad faith" is considered inside and outside of existentialism; Sartre is quoted only because he stated the problem so well. Some psychologists look at psychoanalysis without looking at existentialism, so it is difficult to blend psychoanalysis with only existentialist response to it. As to workover, I add that the article also needs section expansions. Especially the section on Mackie, for making it more clear what and why he is saying this. PPdd (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Workover needed

message: Sorry, I went a bit tag crazy.  This article is reading more and more like a very complicated essay rather than a clear encyclopedic overview.  Very aware of the effort that's gone into improving it.  Hopefully this will just provide some notes on which direction might be next. Ocaasi (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags are never too many, if not done in (intentional or unintentional) bad faith. PPdd (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: I reworked the definition to mean what it means in a common dictionary or legal text.  We can't synthesize our own complicated, nuanced, or novel formulations (even if they are useful). Ocaasi (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: The reason this article reads like an essay, is that it primarily relies on philosophical primary texts.  These may be authoritative and seminal, but we should be using secondary articles which describe and summarize the points made in these texts.  The only place "Being and Nothingness" should be used is in a quotation box, and it's significance should be supported by a secondary RS.  In this context, no primary philosophical source should be used, except to augment a secondary source.  Boring, yes.  Distant from the original works, yes.  How encyclopedias necessarily function, yes.  One caveat is that occasionally primary sources are secondary sources for material contained therein.  For example, if Satre wrote a comprehensive history of an idea dating back to Aristotle, then maybe that info could be sourced directly.  Still, given how old many of these great texts are, we should be able to find more current cites for anything like that. Ocaasi (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Refs were put in before I understood "primary/secondary', and even if secondary, no page numbers. I removed almost all such refs except in a couple of places like the direct quote from the book (which still lacks page numbers). I removed the refs for both Being and Nothingness and The Second Sex. I did not put cit needed tags since the lines are not controversial, but I will still try to find sources, because I like a ref on every line, even if not controversial, so a reader (like me) who trusts nothing in Wikipedia they do not independently verify from the source, can verify. PPdd (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with sources

message: :The article was organized roughly as the expression was used chronologically, with forks as its use in one feild influenced other fields. It is highly fragmented in to sections so people with expertise in the fields into which it is framented can easily make edits, without reading other sections in too much detail. This can be undone if no other editors contribute after a while, giving it a more encylopedia like style. I like a highly fragmented style, but I was a student of PoS Ian Hacking, and found that his fragmented outline writing style in his many books made difficult topics easier to read. (Aside- Hacking was chair of the phil dept at stanford, and got drunk at some social function, and fell asleep in his office. Some prankster called the cops and reported that a drunk had fallen asleep in the phil dept. chair's office. The rumor was that when the cops tried to throw Hacking out of his own office, he punched one of him, and shortly thereafter left stanford.)
::Your edit of the first lede paragraph indicates a greater problem with the article. Bad faith is usually unintenitonal, via self deception, as is repeated over and over with RS in the article body. For example, a believer in some pseudoscience or alternative medicine does not realize they are believing in bad faith, and usually has no intention of deceipt. Even in the law section, there are objections even there about bad faith being different than fraud (e.g., as pointed out with RS, fraud is punishable by imprisonment, bad faith is not). If you are unfamiliar with the very difficult concept of bad faith, and could not get this from reading the article, the article needs content adjustment to fix this, since that is the main point of the article.  (Take a look at the article lede first paragraph before and after your edits, in the context of the article body.) PPdd (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Being and Nothingness is used as a secondary source when discussing bad faith as it was generally understood at the time, in the context of historical use, e.g., in general use, use in prior philosophies, and in psychology and psychoanalysis. When Sartre expressed a new idea of his own, it was quoted - "Sartre said, '...'", or paraphased with a qualificaion - "Sartre said that...". PPdd (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General reply 

message: A section is needed for nonspecialized use, and should be the first section. RS is needed so please help out. PPdd (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing is that the expression "bad faith" only recently degenerated into an ordinary English expression with a different meaning from use in academia, when it was traslated from "mauvaise foi", because Sartre's existentialism was de rigueur; and from a highly inconsistent use in law, where even Black's Law Dicionary's definition is inconsistent with usage in law (you go to jail for fraud, not bad faith.) PPdd (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for RS for general uses 

message: The Christian and Sartrean views of being of two minds are like opposite sides of the same coin. The biblical view finds fault in being too "of the world", instead of following dogmatic faith. The sartrean existentialism view leads to the opposite; finding fault in following dogma in the face of fact (Creationists believe that the dino bones were planted there as a test of faith). The psychological analysis does not find fault at all, but accepts the fact of two minds in one total mind, and examines it as such, the third side of the coin. PPdd (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three sides of the coin of two minds 

message: From Post-Modern Reflections on the Ethics of Naming, The Ethics of Diagnosis Philosophy and Medicine, 1992, Volume 40, Section V, 275-300, George Khushf. - “POST-MODERN REFLECTIONS ON THE ETHICS OF NAMING 283 had a pathoanatomical or
pathophysiological truth value. Absent a lesion or a physiologi- cal disturbance to account readily
for the complaint, the complaint was likely to be regarded as male fide" Does anyone have expertise in the area of bad faith self deception by hypochondriacs? If so, please ad it to the bad faith article. PPdd (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith and hypochondria 

message: Well, it's everywhere. Add it to the article. Tell me why not if you have the time for it and I may be able to continue this (starting)discussion, if I'm good enough that is which I doubt but it's well worth the try.
If no one answers within a day or two I'll add some sentences.93.82.141.224 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith on Wikipedia 

message: Section "In philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis, and social sciences" Should be broken up half way. Everything below Psychology are more abstract subjects instead of sciences, and should be broken up into an Other section I believe. These are more examples, rather than actual schools of thoughts (if that's the correct word). I'd almost argue that some of the points should be removed (The Medicine sub-section is only one sentence) but I think the points are still important. If I think of a good solution, I will implement it. Shaded0 (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Structure

message: This article is terribly written. A major rewrite is called for. According to the sources, "Bad faith" has two different usages. The first is "deliberate deception", a generalizaion of the concept of perfidy, and as used by John Foster Dulles in his inherent bad faith model for negotiation with the Soviets. The second is more subtle, and involves something similar to, but not identical with, self deception. This is the kind of mental state that slave owners, Nazis, religious finatics, etc. have. An expert familiar with the sources (thats a lot of difficult reading to do) needs to do the rewrite, and make it more intelligable, especially in the lede, to a lay reader. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is such a muddle, it would be better (imo) to start over.  --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is terribly written 

message: There appears to be some bias in this article; such as in the last line of the last paragraph, which implies that egalitarian democracy is better than racist totalitarianism. Whether it is or is not is not for a wiki article to say, hence this comes across as POV. LeapUK (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bad faith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110209064343/http://insurance.lawyers.com:80/insurance-bad-faith/Insurance-Bad-Faith-Claims-FAQs.html to http://insurance.lawyers.com/insurance-bad-faith/Insurance-Bad-Faith-Claims-FAQs.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110718143857/http://www.yourdictionary.com/pharisaic to http://www.yourdictionary.com/pharisaic
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101127053912/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org:80/definitions/Tropism?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Tropism&sa=Search#922 to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/Tropism?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=Tropism&sa=Search#922
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110316150610/http://www.counterpunch.org:80/soldz08012006.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz08012006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: When I click on "french" in the choice of the languages, the page opens on "Existencialisme", this is not correct !
But I don't find where the link fr is coded for correcting it !
The link in french would be "Mauvaise foi". 
AXRL (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages problem