Talk:Sincerity

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Untitled

Feelings are qualia and therefore not communicable by ordinary language. Or any language, for that matter. Read Wittgenstein and weep.

The last point in the main article is probably incorrect, and it is also contradicted by the first point under "See Also" as well as the OED and most reputable etymological sources.

Where does the idea that sincerity has been under assault by several modern developments such as psychoanalysis and postmodern developments such as deconstruction? One could view them as ways of getting rid of the barriers that hinder sincerity. Hackwrench 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of false etymology

The article seems to want the "without wax" etymology to be true. I've changed the POV "The OED ... sadly informs" to "The OED ... states". The etymologies given seem to be clear that there is no substance to the "without wax" etymology, so why does the article think that the etymology is controversial? "Some people" (these are weasel words) might well believe this false etymology, but that's no reason for the article to be sentimental about it or to promote it as a possibility. — Paul G 08:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took out some more things from that section. Calling the first etymology a "story" and "charming" also felt really POV. I figure if the reader gets that far in the article he can make his own judgements about the "without wax" etymology. --Shroom Mage 04:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for the OED's statement is never given with source, though. Three citations are given of experts simply stating it's improbable or not correct, but none explaining what evidence ties the word in its Latin form to the earlier Indo-European alternative, or why specifically the "without wax" story is invalid. Wikipedia standards require sources for that sort of definitive statement, so we shouldn't treat an unsourced statement as definitive either. I grew up hearing the "without wax" story, so I probably have a bias, but a source should be found for treating the "one growth" version as definitive. Merennulli (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reference: Digital Fortress

Would it be appropriate to add a reference in the etymology section to Dan Brown's book Digital Fortress, in which one of the characters gives the "without wax" etymology? It is a spoiler and it might not be relevant, so I haven't added it. — Paul G 08:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference is relevant (and I was just coming over here to post this!) as it shows how many, including an author who prides himself on his research, are easily taken in by this mistaken belief. (I believed it, too, when I read the book, and I bet a lot of other people did as well.) Presumably, the character would have known better than to believe this, so clearly it is the author who did not. 72.131.11.47 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors

The Bad faith article needs help from available editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations Section

The formatting of the quotations section makes it difficult to read, visually distasteful, aesthetically displeasing, and it sucks.

Actually, I really don't think this section belongs in this article, but maybe that's just me. I'd recommend removing it, or at least cleaning it up somehow or other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.230.101 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]