From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Philosophy / Logic / Ethics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Additional information:
Taskforce icon
Taskforce icon


reversed redirect to deception as the deception article itself contains a link to this article. --Dave 07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant material. The cited reference did not concern subject matter, but fleetingly referred to it:

1980s Caesar Squitti (HBComm’80) writes that he “began research in 1987 into various philosophical paradigms and discovered a negative side to truths; anti-truths (which sound very similar to Jaques Derridas "difference" - only instead of a single word hes talking about a whole idea). The discovery expands the definitions of three concepts ‘half-truths,’ ‘lies,’ and ‘truth,’ while creating a new philosophy, ‘thinking in color.’ The discovery suggests that the biblical story concerning the ‘original sin’ may indeed be true.”

This reference may be relevant to an article about anti-truths, but it does not add anything to an article about half-truths. --Dave 00:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Colors of Truth[edit]

Let me try to explain the correlation betweeen Truth and thinking in color, or colour, or colo(u)rs.

A half-truth, in a specific sense, is a truth, distinct, yet different from other absolute/relative minor truths (half-truths).

If we draw an analogy between LIGHT, colorless full spectrum LIGHT as The Truth, a color is a part of this, a refracted half-truth.

My suggestion is that we also introduce the term, part-of-the-truth, or anti-truth to more directly paint the picture of a half-truth, not a half-truth that is partly true, but a half-truth that is a truth, but not all the truth. --Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write an article about thinking in colour, go ahead and start one. If you want to use the article on half-truth to draw attention to your own theory, please expect me cut such content on the grounds of WP:OR. Also, linking in material that does not maintain context, such as"It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil", will probably be reversed as an obvious attempt to inappropriately introduce a religious point of view (WP:NPOV. Can I suggest you search the web for material that supports your text before editing the article. A good test is to try to find something written by someone other than yourself that supports the assertion. If you can't do that it is more than likely the material will fail the " no original research" test. --Dave 03:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I hope this works, if not please advise as to suggestion. Thanks Jesus Christ or Truth

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about time[edit]

Here is another example given to me:

Half-truth can be a word.

For example: quarter ? Quarter usually represents 25 out of 100.

Then why is a quarter after 3, 15 minutes after 3 ?

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Because 15 minutes is a quarter of an hour!?! — Dunc| 16:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
A quarter does not "usually" represent 25 out of 100, but 1/4 of whatever number. Like 15 is a quarter of 60. Or 20 is a quarter of 80. Or 2.142 is a quarter of 8.568. It is not a half-truth, just a common understanding of the word. There is nothing remotely false about the statement "it's quarter after 3" (if it's really is 3:15). IronChris | (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You are correct and that is the point I am making....the term 'a quarter' can be either 25 or 15 depending on the frame of reference....

Thanks for the observation, I did not realize this until someone mentioned it to me...

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, no matter how you say it, one quarter is always just thef raction 1/4 expressed differntly - and even then not so differnet (since 25/100, 15/60 etc all reduce to 1/4). It isnt half true, its wholly true, just different. -Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talkcontribs) 19:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So, then, that begs the question why is time divided into periods of 60 and not 100? :) I'd better check the wiki article it'll probably tell me. EverSince (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Looks like 'cos um it's based on an old numbering system that we do'nt actually use... seems a bit irrational/making things difficult for ourselves! EverSince (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about part of a paragraph[edit]

Deos the current definition include a statement that is part of a paragraph. The statement ignores of the sentences.

Example: This statement is used to promote war. "no greater love hath any man than to lay down his life for his fellow man......(a few sentences later)...Love oneanother."

So by taking that sentence and eaving out the one about 'loveanother', the statement can be used to manipulate war...

"Lay down your life..." is not suppose to mean a physical death, but merely an abstract lay down...give it up for mankind as in servitude...

HOpe someone may use this to improve the definition...

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Half-truth can be a word.

Violence and abuse.[edit]

There are two classic half-truths that began the revolution into the definition of truth.

"Child abuse: Men who abuse, women and children victims."

While men, women and children are all noted, the model is very polaraizing.

A more correct model of child abuse should be, "Some people who abuse children,( ie some men, some women and some children) including systems and children who abuse themselves" ?

"Spousal Abuse: Stop violence against women"

The real issue is abuse, not violence. In that realm of half-truth logic, silence can be abusive. The model obviously ignores the abuse of men, and promotes a biased polarized model of the heterosexual family unit. The model also infers that violence is by men against women, and ignores the reality that 100% of women abused in lesbian relationships is by other lesbian women.

A more correct model would be 'stop abuse period'.

Problem has been that some social agencies have become 'parsitic' financially feeding off of social 'problems', creating an incentive to expand the definition of 'abuse', and manipulating the reality that 'nothing' and no one is perfect.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are actually understating the problem: There is much modern statistics that show that women are roughly as, or even more, likely to be physical abusers as men are. See e.g. domestic violence. Factoring in verbal and emotional abuse, we might even request "Spousal Abuse: Stop violence against men" as a less misleading half-truth. (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A "word" with two meanings.[edit]

I walk in to a bank and a person looks at me and ask, "are you a nigro?"...

I am thinking this fellow is either out of it or wants to pick a fight.

"Are you a nigro?"

I just ignore him...

"Are you related to the Nigro family ? (ie Mr. and Mrs. Nigro who lived beside me when i was a little boy.)

(I had just come back from a vacation and a little tanned I presumed he was...well it went over my head !!)

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A word that sounds the same as another but with a different meaning.


I go to Church to prey. I go to Church to pray.

The problem here is the difference between written form and the verbal form of communication.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But these are not really half truths, these are just misunderstandings stemming from something called homophones (word sounds the same, meaning different). - Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talkcontribs) 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess there's a point here that communication and linguistically-mediated thought is always inherently flawed because our linguistic structures and embodied existence are inherently imperfect. And if you think/feel differently to the norm, the prevailing linguistic structure can be even more imperfect/unreliable a conveyor of truth EverSince (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

god is a lie, and you know that.

Two more good examples that should be included.[edit]

  • Property tax (rate) increase this year 3%The city announces "that the property tax rate ( the levy ) increase this year is only 3%". This ignores that in the previous three years property tax increases have been 20%, and that the interest increase this year, is compounded on the prior year increases, for a real increase of 25% over four years. (This does not include increases caused by increases in accessed value also part of the property tax calculation- levy x accessed value = property taxes).[1]

The logic of property taxes based on 'property values' is certain to become a classic example of flawed logic.

    Look at the sentence, "the property tax rate ( the levy ) increase this year is only 3%". It is wholly true, because it 
    has stipulated that this change is ONLY over one year (not the previous 3). You could basically follow your logic all the 
    way back to the beggining of tax-time, adding up every tax increase and saying that is the "bad half" of the truth
    Maybe if you said that "Property taxes have only increased 3%" it would be closer to a half truth because it omits the   
    larger breadth of the increase, but i still think it misses the mark. -Eric

- *Canada has Public Health Care System Health care in Canada is often referred to as a public system. In reality it is pubically funded, yet most all services are provided by private entities. It is half public and half private.[2]

    This your closest yet to a genuine half-truth. But it depends on the definition of Public Health care. If all it means 
    is that the health care is publicly funded, then  this statement is fully true. And since I live in Canada, I know that
    all public health care means is that it is that it is provided by (monetarily) and available to the public.
    If it werent for this technicality in definition, i'd say you had a genuine half truth. Heres a closer one using a   
    similar example though.
    We have a "Seperate Schoolboard". It is seperate from the Public Board. But it is still funded with tax money (where    
    taxpayers choose too)and can be attended by any members of the public, and its employees are essentially government 
    workers. - Eric

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some changes to the site, that appear to have offended someone. These are examples, pure and simple. A peeve, perhaps, but still concrete examples.

I hope some unbiased editors will examine them, and see if they are valid.

I know Galilleo went through hell when he stated that he had evidence to prove the earth was round, and not the center of the universe.

Perhaps someone can message me in regards to challenging a situation.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors, but I'm not offended. I'm just agreeing with Kenosis that we need citation that other people have considered these things half-truths. If you have groundbreaking insights into half-truths, blogspot is that-a-way. JChap2007 03:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Half-truthsHalf-truth — should move to singular title per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns WikiSlasher 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support - per above --WikiSlasher 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, per above. IronChris | (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Naming Conventions are unequivocal about this. Part Deux 10:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]


Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dictionary definition as an example[edit]

I recently removed the following from the list of examples:

  • Most definitions of half-truths in many dictionaries past and present, including the current definition in Meriam Webster. Half-truth, defined as 1 : a statement that is only partially true, or 2: a statement that mingles truth and falsehood with deliberate intent to deceive. The definition does not include the half-truth(3), a true statement that is part of the whole truth. [1]

Caesarjbsquitti restored it, so I figured we should discuss rather than getting into an edit war. The problem as I see it is that including this definition under "Examples of half-truths" is saying that the dictionary is offering a half-truth in its definition of the word. I'm not sure whether this is the intention, but if it is, it would constitute original research. The citation for the definition doesn't support the assertion "this definition is a half-truth"; to do that, we would have to have a citation to a reliable source criticizing the dictionary for excluding "a true statement that is part of the whole truth" from its definition. Now, for all I know, such a source exists — but unless it can be supplied, we really can't be criticizing Merriam-Webster here.

Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources have said on a topic, not to promote our own views of the topic. This can be frustrating when you're passionate about a subject, but if your opinions are really notable it should be possible to find reliable sources backing them up. I hope this is helpful and constructive. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The observation is not a 'view' a matter of opinion, merely an observation. Do you needa 'reliable source' to identify, and explain the obvious ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you do — on Wikipedia. That's for a couple of reasons: first, just because you think something is obvious that doesn't mean that everyone thinks it's obvious. Second, the criterion for inclusion of information on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, the purpose of including a reliable source is not to say "this is true" but to say "this is stated by this notable authority".
In this particular case, the point of getting a reliable source for the statement "the dictionary does not include this definition" isn't to prove the self-evident fact that this definition isn't in the dictionary, but to show who (besides Caesar J. B. Squitti) thinks that the omission is noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary wrong about half-truths.[edit]

Dictionary wrong about half-truths.

The definitiono f 'half-truth' in Websters Online site is as follows:


Half-truth One entry found.


Main Entry: half–truth Pronunciation: \-ˌtrüth\ Function: noun Date: 1658 1 : a statement that is only partially true 2 : a statement that mingles truth and falsehood with deliberate intent to deceive

Site Link: July 15, 2008 Websters Defintion of Half-truth - July 15, 2008


The entry is incomplete, for it fails to acknowledge a half-truth as being a statment that ignores other truths, however it is true.

Research discovered this component to half-truth back in 1994, and you can see it has not been corrected in all dictionaries.

So be careful, not everything you read is complete, and may be missing items, important to it....

Is there a 'political agenda' to ignore this dimension of truth.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If the "research" which promoted this new definition is noteworthy, it can be included in the article. However, if it's merely a fringe theory, then Wikipedia is not the place to promote it, or to ask whether its failure to gain mainstream attention reflects a "political agenda". —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Logical void needs explanation.[edit]

Original research lead.

In 1994, I noted that the definition of half-truth was incomplete and one type the truth that lies, was shown to me as being identified by Alfred North Whitehead.

While his statment that 'there are no whole truths and that treating them as whole truths plays the devil', did not specifically define the particular half-truth he was referring to, he obviously knew of them.

So why was this kept a secret ? Alfred was involved in Germany before and after the 2nd world war, so who else used this deceptive form of truth ? There are some references to Alfred Whitehead, however there appears to be a logical void that should be researched.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Meme Theory

How does Whitehead get around the fact that his theory must apply to itself? In other words, by his own logic, should not his understanding that all statements are only half true apply to itself? I which case, it is not then half true that all statements are half true? Here is what must happen then. So say we have one statement, we begin with that one statement being true. Now apply Meme theory, one true statement is divided into "half true". Now introduce the fact that the Meme theory, applies to itself. It could help to imagine it like a formula Truth divided by halftruth divided by halftruth = truth (1=.5/.5=1). Or we can say that it begins true true, then becomes half true that its half true its half true, we end up with our original statement in the affirmative. IT pretty much woprks like a double negative. Therefore the Meme Theory is not only half false, but fully false, and in doing so arrives at the exact conclusion it rejects! Or did I just blow your mind? proud to say, this is original research. - Eric

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talkcontribs) 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC) 

"The fastest growing sport, may not be the most popular". If you assume that fastest growing sport is the most popular, and then felt misled later, you are not the victim of a half truth, but your own conclusion. I understand the original author's point, but although he uses similar languages and terms to describe these misunderstandings, they are not the same type of "half-truths" you are describing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talkcontribs) 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whitehead's comment expanded.[edit]

While this is original research, someone can hopefully clarify the listing for half-truth.

If we accept Mr. Whiteheads observation that all truths are in fact half-truths, we must also accept the conclusion that some half-truths may lead to the proper conclusion, some as explained previously lead to a false conclusion, or a lie.

So the duality of half-truths; some lie, some tell the truth, or at least lead you closer to it, either by mere co-incidence or by being a close lead to it.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Way too much of this article sounds like the research of the user who originally created this page (who appears to be User:Caesarjbsquitti); the fact that entire sections of the article lack citations further backs up my suspicion. Morgan695 17:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Olympics and half-truths.[edit]

Here is modern day half-truth.

The olympics and medal standings.

Some networks show the USA ahead with medal count, while some other networks show China ahead with a point system that rewards gold medals.

You should not treat all medals as equals, for they are not. A point system should be the better system ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. Nor are its talk pages. The medal standings for the Olympics are not relevant to the encyclopedia article about half-truth, unless a reliable source has said something connecting the two. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 01:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop Violence...for your daughters.[edit]


To find another reliable source for half-truths.

It was recently noted that the Canadian Auto Workers have developed a program based on the slogan, "Stop Violence...for your daughers !"

It is obviously missing 'for your sons'

Tried to include this observation, however perhaps those who are so motivated may try to find another reliable source.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Misleading article[edit]

Currently, there is a focus on half-truth as deliberate deception. A half-truth, however, need not be intended, but can also result through lack of knowledge, a simplification, or similar. Consider e.g. a teacher telling a student that the electrons of an atom circle the core as planets does a star: This is a half-truth, possibly even a non-truth, but there is typically no deception intended. (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)