Talk:The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Meaning - local allusion

"A simple example is the introduction of alien species such as the Asian carp, which has become a nuisance due to unexpected proliferation and behaviour.[4]" This should at least specify where Asian carp has been introduced, because it is certainly not alien to Asia, and Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia. A more general example, of worldwide application, would be better, for example the introduction of a predator to a new area to deal with a pest species, but which then goes on to predate on endangered species.

Chronology

Removed part of sentence in first paragraph that said the economic policies of the 1920s were in part a response to the Wall Street crash (chronology incorrect). Also removed portion of sentence that said WWII was a result of economic policies of the 1920s -- Maybe this can be argued but I couldn't find anything in the reference link indicating a causal relationship - Maybe a simpler example could be given to illustrate this phrase? Cmck1980 (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• The chronology is not especially inaccurate as we're talking about WW1 as well. WW2 is specifically given as an example by th source cited. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally it said 30s. I thought you couldn't claim that the policies of the 30s led to the Great Depression (that's presumably the New Deal) and after a revision to 20s further revised to generalise as I wasn't sure what was meant by the source. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as it currently stands, it is a nonsense. An example is the economic policies of the 1920s. These were intended to be a prudent response to the economic turmoil following World War I and the Wall Street Crash but they were one of the causes of the Great Depression and World War II in which millions of people suffered and died. [3] There is a clear implication that the economic policies of the 1920s were a response to the Wall Street Crash of October 1929, which makes no sense at all. Maybe it needs to be broken up: the policies of the 1920s were largely a response to WWI, and the policies of the 1930s were largely a response to the crash.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Image not relevant

I don't quite see the relevance of the image accompanying this article. It is simply of a road in Scotland that descends into 'Hell's Glen' and has no connection with the proverb. Also, the image is not referred to in the article. I think the article would be more neutral without this image. 131.211.45.123 (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It was recently added again[1], but I have removed it as I also dont see the relevance. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd sentence

"During negotiation, groups that are encouraged to understand the point of view of the other parties do worse than those whose perspective is not enlightened." I'm probably an idiot for asking but what is this sentence trying to convey? Is it that "those who are encouraged to understand the point of view of the other parties do a worse job at convincingly arguing for their own interests then those who don't try to understand the point of view of the other party" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.183.179 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit dispute

Thank you for your warm welcome, 7&6. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning how to edit. I have read a number of the main pages,including several that you referred me to, and have learned a lot. I must say that overall I find the process tedious and have no intention of spending a lot of time here which brings me to... Why I Edited This Article I have been using Wikipedia since its inception and have never before felt compelled to edit an article. When I looked up this old adage, I was quite shocked to see the following statement which I consider to be politically biased.

An example are the economic policies of the 1930s. Intended to be a prudent response to the Wall Street Crash, these were a major cause of the Great Depression and thus eventually of World War II in which millions of people suffered and died.

To read this, it sounds like FDR and the New Deal policies are solely to blame for two terrible events. Economics is not a science and there are many schools of thought about what caused this catastrophes. The statement does have a verifiable source, but that does not mean it is not refutable. The question is: is an article discussing the meaning of a proverb the appropriate venue for discussing the causes of wars and collapses. I think not. The above statement might be more suitable on a page about Herbert Hoover or the WPA. My intentions are good. I would not want a young person who looked up this page to be mislead by a biased statement so I deleted it. Anyone interested in 1930's economic policy can refer to an article on the subject. I think the example about Asian Carp sufficiently explains the meaning of the adage that is the subject of this page.
Edit Warning There are probably as many truths in the world as there are individual people. What I consider to be biased may be considered by others to be fact. For instance, you tell me that I am edit warring after I deleted a biased statement. From my point of view, you are the one who is edit warring because you continually revert my edits. Do you not feel that the statement is biased? Do you feel that it is necessary to explain the meaning about "the road to hell..."? Is my edit not valid, or is validity determined by who has made the most edits?
While looking over your own page, I see that you are an 'inclusionist', so perhaps I can assume that you are undoing my edit in an effort to ensure 'free speech for all', even those with whom you disagree. If so, I commend you. I, too, feel that everyone should get their say. Still, I think deleting may sometimes be needed to ensure neutrality.
Neutral Solution
Since my original edit, I have noticed on the page history that the above statement was edited on Feb 1st of this year. The original statement reads:

An example are the economic policies of the 1920s and 1930s. Intended to be a prudent response to the economic turmoil following World War I and the Wall Street Crash respectively, these were a major cause of the Great Depression and thus eventually of World War II in which millions of people suffered and died.

I have no problem with this statement, and I think it is much closer to the intent of the authors who wrote the cited book. I would like to change the article back to this version but I thought I would consult you first since you are more experienced in these matters than I am. If you are agreed, then we can both avoid a petty edit war. Janedoe743 (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was also troubled, however, with your removal of the reference. In any event, I am adopting your suggestion, but I do not mean to close the discussion here. WP:BRD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps fleshing out the reference to Asian carp might be preferable to retaining the Depression Era reference which has already shown itself to be a potential distraction (as exemplified in the very existence of this thread). As it stands, if I hadn't already had some pre-existing knowledge of situations with Asian carp coming in to reading this article I doubt I could have parsed anything useful from the current reference. I'm able to make sense of it's inclusion only from what I've brought with me rather than anything I was given in the article. To better speak to 'hell' and 'good intentions' I think that both 'intentions' and 'results' should be spelled out, explicitly.

I think biological anecdotes are likely to provide plenty of pretty safe 'cut-n-dry' examples. Kudzu and cane toads come to mind. Tangible cases where both 'intent' and 'result' are well documented and not in dispute. Mongoose introduction to Hawaii comes to mind as well. Likely many more such examples, y'all probably know a few as well ...

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense to retain a controversial subject like the economic policies of the 20s and 30s when there are far less controversial examples to cite. In this statements new form, we are not even linking to a policy which can be contrasted with the subject matter. As such, there is no value or sense in retaining it as exemplar material. We don't need coddle the hands of editors who are insistent on pushing economic, or otherwise irrelevant policies all over wikipedia. I find it extremely humorous that 7&6 most recently restored this section because the editor removing the material did not provide evidence to the contrary, and yet if you review the wikipedia articles on this subject (ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Legacy) there is an abundance of controversy to be seen. We shouldn't even be having this conversation.

--Jamarr81 (talk)

We had this conversation six months ago, and you were nowhere to be found. I find your belated epiphany humorous and ill advised. We shouldn't even be having this conversation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You've failed to address any of the issues/points I've made. If you are capable of citing a specific economic policy enacted in good faith, and shown by a majority of non-partisan economists to have worsened the economic outcome, then by all means include that example. In the mean time, stop trying to push controversial examples (as defined by wikipedia itself), of which you cannot even cite a specific case to use as exemplary material. Jamarr81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur in that as better/less contentious examples may be found persisting in clinging to one which 'comes across' to some as politically loaded is both unseemly and unnecessary. Is the goal of this article to help readers gain a better understanding of the phrase "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" or to promote a political statement? I'm inclined to defer to the former. --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty pathetic, as-is.

But I guess you all know that. I find the irony pretty tasty.  ;) Themadchopper (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Thumbsup emote.gif --Kevjonesin (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Verses

Agreed. The real meaning is about doing something deemed "good" that ends causing harm instead of "helping", which is not what was intended. Yes there are biblical references within the phrase, but the "meaning" that without faith any good action is useless, is an evangelical POV, read: "if a good action is not from US then is not a GOOD action..." Another wiki article ruined by a single minded fanaticism. But I won't risk to edit it because I will be flagged as an "intolerant" or my actions being "religious prosecution"(even when they are majority)...--FaustoLG (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The bible references had no innate relation to this phrase. None of them had any sources to provide any feasibility of relation. The editors even had to gaul to claim originality, which is patently false; the meaning of this phrase can be dated back to at least the Aeneid, written almost a century prior to the gospels. The particular verses they quoted had nothing at all to do with the meaning of this phrase as documented on Wikipedia. The original verse was added by an nonce (used only once for this particular edit) account (M.glasper). The second verse was added later by an anonymous user. This is clearly vandalism for proselytizing. Due to the many Wikipedia Policy violations, I have taken the liberty to remove this content. If any relevant biblical verses do exist, they should be added under the Artistic References section. Jamarr81 (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-direct to this page from "No good deed goes unpunished"

This does not seem appropriate in the slightest. And, indeed, is in stark contrast's of Wiktionary's page on this adage (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/no_good_deed_goes_unpunished). Unless someone can justify the re-direct, I don't see why it should stay. These are two entirely different concepts. 66.153.154.25 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Studies section

The following is only my opinion. I do not think that the Studies section of this article is appropriate. There are some extraordinarily bold claims made in the section, particularly those based on David Messick's "Ethics in Groups". Here is the content that uses that source.

Attempts to improve the ethical behaviour of groups are often counter-productive. If legislation is used then people will observe the letter of the law rather than improving the desired behaviour. During negotiation, groups that are encouraged to understand the point of view of the other parties do worse than those whose perspective is not enlightened. The threat of punishment may worsen ethical behaviour rather than improve it.

The claims above might be true, at least in some ways and under some conditions, but to their usage in this article does not seem appropriate. First, to put such claims in this particular article does not seem appropriate, as it is a proverb. There is no need to prove that a proverb is true or false, except perhaps in those cases where it is obviously false, given modern knowledge. Second, these are claims that I doubt have a general consensus in the field that they are correct. Third, the studies or experiments that these claims come from probably did not make such sweeping claims in their conclusions or abstract. Instead, they probably carefully crafted language stating under which specific conditions the behavior may occur, along with any caveats.

This source should be used in articles about ethics in groups. However, even then, I suggest more information be given when making such claims. For example, the claim is made that, "groups that are encouraged to understand the point of view of the other parties do worse than those whose perspective is not enlightened." However, it is not stated what "do worse" means. If it means that they get fewer of the things that they want, it could be argued that a better compromise was reached. This may not be how the study or experiment measured success at all. It is just an example of how more information is needed for such a claim. If I were writing using this book as a source and making these claims, I would devote at least a paragraph to each claim.

I suggest that the content be removed from the article, not just the content above, but perhaps all of the content in the Studies section. However, I would evaluate all of the content before removing it. If you wish to contact me, please use my user talk page. I will not otherwise see a reply on this talk page. Thanks, Kjkolb (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• David Messick is a professor and so seems to be a reasonably reliable source for the topic. If others have studied this and came to different conclusions, we can report those too. We should expand the section, not delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)