Talk:Cheating

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and the consensus was to keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cheating

Marion Jones

Is that part in the first sentence supposed to be there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertCollin (talk • contribs) 12:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Academic dishonesty

This article doesn't mention about academic dishonesty, which is a form of cheating. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

France cheat in World cup Qualifier

{{editsemiprotected}} On the 18th of Nov 2009, France played Ireland in a 2010 world cup qualifier, in the closing minutes of extra time the French captain Thierry Henry clearly handeled the ball in the Irish box, not once but twice, the second directing the ball to William Gallas who scored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dohray (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Before adding this, could you please provide a reliable source for the information. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• After further thought, I do not feel that this should be in the "Cheating" article, as there is not a list of incidents into which that could be put. This incident is referred to in France_national_football_team#2010_FIFA_World_Cup_Qualification -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of coverage of the fan response, the question is whether it's WP:RECENTism to give this much weight to a football match from yesterday. Is this going to become as big a reference point as Maradona, or are most people going to have forgotten about it in a month's time? We can't list every single controversial sport cheat in this article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's too recent. And Henry hasn't made any claims about "the hand of God". William Avery (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

is tactical use of fouls cheating or not in sports?

Although this article seems to equate "cheating" with "not playing by the rules", I feel that it should be noted that in some sports, at least, tactical use of fouls (i.e., "breaking the rules") is an accepted practice. This is particularly true of basketball, with situations like the team behind fouling to both preserve game time as well as potentially limit opponents scoring. Such tactics are commonly accepted as legitimate, not cheating. In other sports it is less clear whether or not similar sorts of tactics are accepted as legitimate, but are certainly common enough, and announcers on radio/tv will often offer opinions about whether or not a given foul was "good" or "bad" from a tactical standpoint. In general, it seems to me that coaches and players consider that, if the trade-off between the presumed advantage offered by fouling is greater than the mandated penalty, it can be a good thing to do and is not considered "cheating". This, of course, assumes that there is little or no attempt to hide the infraction, as compared with, for example, a baseball pitcher who surreptitiously defaces the ball, hoping to both gain an advantage while avoiding detection. Wschart (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Sampling

So... buried deep in this page one person feels like "Sampling" is not a legitimate concept simply because it has never been brought to their attention before and "the wikipedian curator of curators" is legitimized for casting out of the canon on the topic of infidelity? I'm not pleased, not at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaine5 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is about verifiable things. A word that you yourself invented, and are trying to sell books that contain, does not belong on the project. If you have references that are are not published by yourself showing that this new word is actually entering the language, becoming commonly used, then there might be an argument to be made for it's inclusion. But until it reaches the level of use where it has references totally independent of you, the word's creator, then the word simply does not belong on the project. Please see WP:NEO and Neologism for reasons why it does not belong here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also the issue of Spam. With the link to your website, the paragraph is spam. But even without the link, it appears that you are trying to increase awareness of your word, and Wikipedia is expressly not intended to be used to increase awareness of things. The project is here to reflect what is already notable, not to get things to the point of notability.

Without the link, the addition is unreferenced. References are required for all facts, so that people can confirm for themselves what is true and what is not. But since you cannot provide references to your book, for spam reasons and WP:OR, we are back to you needing independent references. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Video Games

please please please delete the section on video games, it is a topic that is only pertinent to an extremely small portion of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.169.215 (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A better definition of cheating

I think there is a better definition of cheating than I have found to date. Maybe I should say, more philosophically based and more generally applicable. My thoughts; cheating consists of: 1) Obtaining a goal or desired outcome 2) Doing so outside of norms, rules, tradition, etc. in a way easier for the cheater 3) Usually at other persons' expense (literally or figuratively)

Ex 1: Cheating on an exam.

 1) a person desires an improved score
 2) they use unapproved sources of information during the exam (crib notes which is easier
    than studying)
 3) they obtain a higher score, unfavorably shifting a grade curve, obtaining a scholarship 
    someone else should have obtained, passing a course they should not have (and damaging
    the reputation of a university), etc.

Ex 2:

 1) a person desired improved sports performance
 2) they use unapproved medications (steroids, which make it easier to reach peak physical
    conditions with less exercise)
 3) they obtain improved performance, but since "performance" is relative to others, it 
    diminishes the results of other players in comparison (they in turn lose out on 
    desired positions, promotions, financial opportunities, etc.)  

Tsbrownie (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

HAI I AM VARUN

WILL BE YOU MEKED FRENDSHIPME — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.154.7 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)