Talk:Bad faith/Archive 1

Talk:Bad fatih/Archive 1

Malfoy

This may be the inspiration for the name Malfoy since the surname Foy (de la Foye, de la Foi) comes from the old French for the latin fides. JKR has said that the name "Malfoy" means "bad faith." 24.77.37.48 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

La mala fe

This wiki formerly linked to a Spanish article which transliterates into "bad faith". The article details an existential concept developed by Jean-Paul Sartre, also named bad faith. me llamo Andrés (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I have reverted the article to its former version of 2010. Recent edits have turned it into a shambles. The unilateral placement of expansion templates carries no weight. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, why did you remove my "constructoin tag", 18 reliable sources, and the only content with RS, and leave only NRS material? HkFnsNGA

Bold edits are frequently reverted per WP:BRD. Please spend some time discussing it before adding content back. Also, major changes may be more easily done as a talkspace or userspace draft, especially if they involve lengthy intermediate edits. If you'd like help setting one up let me know.Ocaasi (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe what Xxanhippe was talking about was "shambles". I had numerous ref errors, making my edit an unreadable shambles. I fixed them and my edits can now be easiliy read and are no longer a shambles, as Xxanthippe correctly pointed out about my original version. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally subscribe to WP:1RR, and you are clearly acting in good faith (appropriately for this article!) so I will only mention at this point that you have more than tripled the length of both this article and its talk page over the course of barely two days – in spite of reversions by other editors and appeals to discuss your changes before making them. The flood of text makes discussion and development of consensus difficult. Note that consensus on difficult articles takes time (often a matter of several days or weeks). I don't think your suggestions are without merit, but if you are reverted again, I suggest (as Ocaasi does above) developing a draft of the article in user space and offering it here for discussion and development before editing the article itself. /ninly_(talk) 23:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your politeness. I think that the reason Xxanthippe reverted was that I left the article in shambles. The very first sentence was completely unreadable due to my errors in opening and closing refs -

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is an attitude taken in actions or positions that involve reasoning[1] to form a belief[2] in which there is deception[3] duplicity[4], insincerity[5], or dishonesty[6], Dictionary Reverso, http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-definition/faithdue to failing to take certain facts into account[7] or using invalid argumentation, which may be intentional[8][9] or unintentional self deception[10].

.

Xanthippe and you probably noticed the lengthy additions, and then began to read the article, but could you not get past the first sentence because it was a shambles. The original article was completely NRS, and makes it look like bad faith is only a "legal concept". I fixed the "shambles" nature of my edits, and opened up discussions for each section I added. Take a look at my corrections and I believe you will find my edits entirely uncontroversial, even without checking the 18 RS I added to the otherwise practically completely NRS prior version. I read the WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss flow chart and it did not apply to this situation. I really believe my error was in no way the introduction of controversial content, but that I made an unreadable article by making opening and closing ref errors. Take a look again (I, of course, like others here, want my edits to be read.) I am an analytic philosopher, who took an ethics course from Philippa Foot, who went over "bad faith" in dsicussion of how an entire nation in Nazi Germany could hold beliefs that they could not hold. The discussion focused on intentionality and intensionality, two concepts I still do not understand. For some reason, this discussion on bad faith stands out among all the classes I took over a ten year student period, so I was happy to come back to it here, only to find the legal definition that I hate, the legal one. (I was involved in 43 insurance bad faith claims, and had to interact with 126 attorneys. It was so miserable I made a list and counted attorneys.)

• I made sections on talk corresponding to article sections I made, or propse making.
• I also put the quotations in the RS as best as I could into the citations list for readability without chasing down links. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Concerns have been expressed by others about verbose and contentious edits made by HkFnsNGA in Pseudoscience and Homeopathy[1]. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

"Verbose"? Maybe the problem is I got my coffee mug here[2].

There was one editor who complained of my accusation of bad faith after he failed to retract his straw man argument to revert all of my edits like dominos, starting with a single straw man. When he said (without explanation) that he did not think his argument was straw man, I apologized. The refusal to acknowledge an error in reasoning is debatably intentional, which is what brought me to this article, since bad faith is deliberately unintentional (self-contradiction? No. Read the RS version of the article.) in some cases, as I RS cited in my edits in this article here. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I started eleven sections on this page to discuss each of the article sections or proposed new sections. They were collapsed below, but please still comment. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the new sections and moved the content to this page below for discussion.

I left the lead, since deleteing it would leave the article with a false statement that bad faith is only a legal concept when it is not.

I then removed the collapse of multiple talk page sections. Collapsing them makes them difficult to edit and comment on, e.g., you can not link from the "contents" box to the section with a collapse. Collapse is best used for a long comment inside a section or subsection, but not for the entire sections themselves, which can be scrolled to from the "contents" box.HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely RS with correct definition and scope, or completely NRS with definition and scope only as used in the law?

• HkFnsNGAwill have to convince other editors that his version is an improvement on the version of October 2010. At least one editor is not yet convinced. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

• (1) NRS- The article you are not convinced is improved upon was almost entirely NRS.

The edits I have made were all RS were reliably sourced (many of them with RS books or articles with the expression "Bad Faith" in the title!).

Articles should be RS, not NRS.

• (2) Bad definition and scope - The article you are not convinced is improved upon, had a definion lede, and scope that only discusses the bad faith in the law.

A lede should have a correct definition and scope (which includes use in the law, but is not limited to that use), as well as specialized uses (as in law) in fields as diverse as theology (where the expression "bad faith" first appeared), ethics, psychoanalysis, African American Studies, existentialism, insurance claims processing, intentionality, Feminism, philosophy of mind, the theory of negotiation, law, psychology, etc.

If you could specifically address these issues, it would be helpful. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please tell us when you have finished your edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

I will take down the construction tag when I am relatively done.

But please indicate with some specificity if there is something you do not like that I am doing now, if there is anything, so that I do not waste time, and so that I can continue to edit with your comments always in mind. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede

This section and its subsection discusses the lede. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

A curious and inappropriate first paragraph has been added to the lede by user:HkFnsNGA. It is not supported by the dictionary definition. I propose to remove it. Comments? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC).

Hi, Xxanthippe (where does that nickname come from?). You should know that I also put an edit in the pseudosciene article distinguishing the general bad faith from pseudoscience in specific, as both "refuse to confront facts" that disconfirm their beliefs, but the expressions are not identical. I am telling you this because you have commented about this here, so may not agree with me there, either, or maybe you ultimately will agree with me in both. I wrote this definition because what was there before only discussed bad faith in the law, not as otherwise commonly used. I got my definition from an ethics class I took long ago. I then found almost identical wording in the hard cover Oxford English Dictionary, and found nearly the same in their brief online entry.

• The hardcover Oxford Dictionay is in accordance with my definition, the Oxford online Dictionary says "refusal to confront facts or choices" and "intent to decieve" here [3], which is consistent with the defintion I gave.
• The previous version was entirely NRS, while mine has the above sources. The Nazi example for believe in bad faith came from lecture notes of an ethics course by Philippa Foot on ethics, discussing "bad faith" as used as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas. The Insurance companies act in bad faith example came from the Wiki article by that name.
• I provided two links in each of the second and third sentence, both in accordance with what I wrote.
• Bad faith does not exist only in the law, but in ethics and is even commonly accused aat Wikipedia. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• My small edit has as many sources as the entire lengthy article (which only has a single source).

The article will need to cite those sources specifically, insofar as they and these changes are appropriately used. This addition needs work before it can be included in the article, however: "...got it from an ethics class I took long ago" amounts to original research, which is not allowed. In this context, the examples you give (Nazis and insurance companies) are not neutral in tone or usage. It looks like three different, technical usages of the term—the general legal sense, the Sartrean/existentialist sense, and the sense used in the insurance industry—all cited as if they referred to one thing.

I'm going to remove the addition for now, but that doesn't mean it won't be used. For myself, I think content something like what HkFnsNGA suggests may be appropriate in a subsection of the article. /ninly_(talk) 13:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Xxanthippe. According to the reference given, that usage is specific to existentialist philosophy. This usage has its own article at Bad faith (existentialism), which can be accessed via the link to the disambiguation page, so perhaps any addition belongs there. This article is about the legal concept. Brunton (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• I did a complete rewrite and put in sources, or links to Insurance bad faith and Bad faith (existentialism).
• I think both articles, Insurance bad faith and Bad faith (existentialism), should either be merged into sectoins of this article, or there should be shorter sections for each writen in this article.

• My edit comes from my own background, doctoral work in philosophy, involvement in 43 insurance bad faith claims, and working with 126 attorneys in associated bad faith related legal cases. So my own background is slanted to the legal use, the way this article was when I found it. Someone with another spcialty background involving bad faith, like theology perhaps, should also contribute so this article is not all about bad faith in the law.
• Ordinary English usage of "bad faith" makes it likely to be universally heard across fields in the news, with statements like "The Republicans are negotiating in bad faith". Someone with background in this should contribute.
• If you have a specialty background other than the law, insurance, or philosophy, please make edits even if you don't have RS. If you don't have sources, and the usage is unfamiliar to me, I will not revert (unless I think it is grossly false), but instead I will put a "citation needed" tag.
• This article's body is very badly sourced and that should be fixed, as the tag at the article top says. It is also only about bad faith in the law, which is a technical and specialized use of the expression.
• There should be a section on Aquinas' discussions and bad faith in theology, which is where I first encountered the expression. But I am not an Aquinas sholar or theologian, so I am not the person to write it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition first sentence in lede

Per MOS, the first sentence should define the subject. The first definition below was changed to the second.

(1) definition - Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is an attitude taken in actions or positions that involve reasoning to form a belief in which there is deception duplicity, insincerity, or dishonesty, due to failing to take certain facts into account or using invalid argumentation, which may be intentional or unintentional self deception.

(2) definition - Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a legal concept in which a malicious motive on the part of a party in a lawsuit undermines their case.

• The second definition only applies to law.
• The second definition has no RS.
• The first definition uses multiple RS.
• The first definition defines bad faith in areas other than the law.

I therfore moved the second definition to the third paragraph about only law, and I reinstated the first definition. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence looks a lot like synthesis. Seriously, ten sources for one sentence? 84.177.95.205 (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

84.177.95.205, its not synthesis, but please feel free to suggest an alternative based on the article body content. Synthesis is the opposite of analysis; integration is synthesis, differentiation is analysis. I wrote a definition of bad faith without looking at any source. It was deleted as NRS. I then came back and looked at each word of my def, one by one, and found RS for that word, which is analysis, not synthesis. I came to the article and found a false, and NRS definition of bad faith. I then replaeced the definition with a good one, and moved the previous "definition as used in law only" to be the first sentence in the law sentence. Defining first sentences can summarize later content. I opened a section discussing putting the RS in the body, not in the lead, but the body parts were deleted for no reason except "shambles", which I assume referred to the fact that I made numerous errors in opening and closing refs, making it a shambles. It was suggested to leave the many new sections out in case there may be comments at talk, and I opened talk sections for comments. I wrote the first sentence from ordinary use, then came back and found RS for each choice of words. The previous first sentence was false, in that it defined bad faith as only a legal concept, when this is only an esoteric use. I am moving your comment to the pre-existing discussion section on the first sentence. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• unintentional self-deception? -

I don't believe this is the correct wording, but I'm not up on the sources for this topic so please correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, self-deception (believing wrong) is not in itself bad faith; bad faith implies that the individual should have known otherwise. Thus, an accountant can be guilty of bad faith practices if he should have been aware of relevant laws (but wasn't), but he would not be considered to be operating in bad faith if his client was doing something illegal outside of his knowledge. we probably want to say something like "intentional deception or unjustifiable ignorance". --Ludwigs2 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Intentionality (and intensionality) are very tricky subjects. There is a question as to whether there is an element of choice in self deception, e.g., in phil of mind, ethics, psychoanalisis, and existentialism. For example Nazis' beliefs in superiority may be self deception, but they may also be either intentional or unintentional self deception. Sartre would say that unintentional self deception is most characteristic of bad faith. Another distinguishing example is recruitment of mentally challenged suicide bombers. The recruiter and the mentally challenged may have the same beliefs, but the recruiter "should have known better", while the mentally challenged (in that they may lack reasoning skills) "could not have known better". While both have the same beliefs, the first holds them in bad faith, and the second does not necessarily do so (although this is often a subject in considerations of guilt and innocence).

I made an edit per your remark, circumventing this complex and very tricky question by adding a comma to the first lede sentence, so it reads "intentional, or unintentional self deception", so that there is only unintentional self deception in the sentence. (PS, thanks for coming to this article. Your contributions, especially insertion of more content or sources to the article, would be welcomed.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sections

Lede paragraphs

Lede paragraphs were shortened to define topic using article body content in first, and provide RS examples in the second. PPdd (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in theology

As far as I know, the concept of bad faith was introduced (in Latin) by St. Thomas Aquainas. This section needs expansion by a person knowledgeable in theology. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis, and social science

The subsections of this section were ordered to flow from one to the other. PPdd (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in existentialism

Section was created with RS material only, and using plain English only. The main article linked to for this section topic is highly NRS and not plain English, and needs work by someone. PPdd (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in law

The bad faith in law material in the article when I first came to it was completely NRS, except for one sentence deep in the article body. I kept the one RS sentence, and rewrote the section with RS material only. PPdd (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsection: Bad faith in insurance claims processing

I removed NRS material from this topic, created its own subsection for it, and rewrote it with only RS material. PPdd (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in politics

Likely the most widely known kind of bad faith is bad faith in politics, because wide base of users wathces the same news programs. The Oxford online dictionary uses bad faith in politics as its only example - "the Republicans accused the Democrats of negotiating in bad faith[4]. Books have been writen on this subject, such as The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future, with reviewers such as Robert Bork claiming "bad faith" is "the most dangerous moral disease of our times"[5]. A section on this should be created. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Content -

Bad faith in potitics and political psychology refers to negotiating strategies in which there is no real intention to reach copromise, or a mode of information processing. inherent bad faith model" of information processing is a theory in political psychology that was first put forth by Ole Holsti to explain the relationship between John Foster Dulles’ beliefs and his mode of information processing.

Section: Bad faith in negotiation

The online Oxford dictionary has a single example of bad faith, "the Republicans accused the Democrats of negotiating in bad faith". More should be added by an editor who is expert in this area, e.g., regarding the Inherent bad faith model for international relations negotiation. PPdd (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section:In pseudosciene

I added content regarding two fields, Creation Science and Nazi eugentics only, since they are incontrovertibly pseudoscience, and there are good RS using them to exemplify bad faith. From my experience in pseudoscience articles, adding other pseudosciences will likely spark edit wars, so be careful adding additional RS content about pseudosciences other than these two. PPdd (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

article scope?

I'm not quite sure how to approach this article. for instance, it you want to talk about 'bad faith' in science, well... either the term doesn't really apply, or you have to start expanding the topic down the philosophical 'logic vs. rhetoric' path that extends all the way to the ancient greeks (the basic principle of Socratic dialog, for instance, was to call into examination 'unsound' logical inferences and work them through to 'sound' logical inferences - same idea as bad faith, though a bit more generous to the opposition). but that seems to run awfully far afield. so what is the scope here? --Ludwigs2 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment (and for the time reading and thinking about what I have written). I truly appreciate you, as an editor, in that your POV appears to be one I do not have, and is of value if only because I like to be as falsifiable as possible, but I often cant get out of my own POV by myself. As you likely noticed, I often change my POV to be one in line with yours, based on how well reasoned and civil most of your comments are. I will delete "science" from the list of examples, until I find RS. I am moving your comment here to be a subsection of the science discussion. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Section:Feminism

Simone de Beuvoir was mother to both modern ideas about bad faith and modern feminism in The Second Sex. A scholar in this should add more RS content, e.g., regarding application of Sartre's "The Look" to bad faith objectivication of women. PPdd (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: Bad faith in editing

Bad faith in editing is a familiar idea for Wiki editors, as it is supposed to be assumed not to exist. RS on its use here is needed, and WP cannot be used to source itself. PPdd (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia article

If you want to use WP:GF as an example, better to find a link to an outside article or book which describes it rather than linking to an internal policy page. That kind of circular referencing of the encyclopedia is not encouraged, since it doesn't involve outside sources. Ocaasi (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm moving this comment to the section on editing above. HkFnsNGA (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Section: "Bad faith" in realism in philosophy of mathematics, arising as a restriction on possible ethical discourse

"Bad faith" arises in a very imprtant conclusion from the mathematical philosophy of mathematical realism, arising as a restriction on all possible ethics discourse. This is difficult stuff, and an expert in this is needed to try to make a plain English explanation of it. PPdd (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)