Talk:Truthiness/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wordiness

I have a 4.0 in my minor in philosophy, and I have hard time reading the first sentence of the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.30.58.143 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a 4.0 in something (which I fail to see how this is relevant), and I find it fine. Ismouton (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Church Sign

Hey, I think the church sign is a fake [1] What do other people think? 128.32.3.102 19:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not fake, I did a doubletake when I first saw it one night, I was driving with my dogs in the car, and turned around to go look again, but didn't want to stop with the dogs in the car. I came back the next day with my camera and shot several photos. I didn't know what to do with the images, but figured it would be funny to have a picture of it anway. I can provide photos of alternate angles, and of the sign in it's current state, if that helps. ReignMan 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs)

The sign looks faker than Fake Fakerson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.252.235 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Call the church, if you don't believe me, and ask them if they ever had that on their sign... If you still don't believe me, you can have the photo, and all the originals, examined by a professional for doctoring. ReignMan 05:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's fake. Anyone can see that. I vote that it gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.156.80 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Protect it!

Please, the damn thing is being vandalised 20 times a minute! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReignMan (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Apparent Redirect from List of neologisms on The Colbert Report

Well... it was an AfD and there was no consensus about what should be done... Then it gets redirected to here. Like it wasn't even merged or anything useful -- just a redirect and after someone put up 4 words from the larger list that this has apparently taken the place of. I'm stating my intention to either copy and merge the entire list as it was under the former article or remove the redirect and then put up a possible merger scenario. Anyone want to give me their opinion on what they think is best? MrMacMan 05:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

* My Explanation of my edit Alright people... I was probably a little speedy with decision to manually edit the old list of neo and manually 'merge' them into this article. I deleted some content, I tried to put better wiki-links, I kept the picture because it refers to 2 of the neologisms. I tried to shorten some of the definitions from the list so I could make sure I didn't take up a more significant amount of this page. I tried to keep the definitions as concise as possible (I felt wikilobbying needed to be explained in greater depth). I chose not to flush out Lincolnish, superstantial, and freem because other than Lincolnish it seemed like they were defined well enough and with Lincolnish it is very easy to understand what that word implies. I know I was probably a little too hasty and should have waited for other users to chime in with their feelings, but please talk on this page and tell me what you think about the changes. Thanks. MrMacMan 19:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the result was no concensus, and the person who redirected it shouldn't have redirected it since there was no consensus. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no proposed merge tag on Truthiness, and since one of the things that was being proposed as part of the Afd was a merge of at least part of the article to here, there should have been a tag on the article, letting people who watch this article know about that discussion. That list really doesn't belong on this article. I'm going to undo your changes (sorry), and undo the redirect and post a lengthy comment there as well. But good job on catching the redirct without anything to redirect to.Miss Mondegreen 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Theft

Parts of this article were lifted from: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Truthiness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.22.72 (talk • contribs)

That's a site that mirrors Wikipedia. - Ehheh 16:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Worth noting the Speedy Keep?

The article was on afd about an hour and a half before discussion was ended. Is it worth noting that the keep was very speedy, to avoid someone trying this again? Thespian 01:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think tacking "speedy" is necessary. Those who know the article has been AfD'ed multiple times will likely have deduced this by looking at the top of this page and the banner already exhorts future would-be nominators to view the previous debates before re-nominating. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-17 01:52Z

Well for it to be claimed 'speedy' it needs to follow WP:SK. I don't think it follows one of the required guides. Yes it was speedy, but not a speedy keep. MrMacMan^Talk 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a new word

OED records this word as far back as 1832. [2] — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 20:09Z

No one disputes that... but it's not the truthy definition. mattbuck 20:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we can't say it was created by Colbert when it dates back so far. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 20:13Z

Yes we can, because THIS version of truthiness WAS created by Colbert. It's just incidental that there already existed a word truthiness that no one had used for about a hundred years. mattbuck 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We can say Colbert was the first to apply the word to definition X, but not to create the word. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 18:54Z

Even though Colbert reintroduced the word to the English language and with a different application of it, the OED information needs to be incorporated into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swarthier (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So "Falsiness" would seem to be the converse, or something that seems to be untrue to the illogical thought processes of the user, but may in fact be true?

Comment: What we have here is an observer/observed interaction, where it is not possible to determine whether the very act of emotionalizing truth or falsehood somehow makes it more or less factual. What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound? Is this the birth of the Zen of politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.100.57 (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

I removed Image:Truthiness2.JPG because it's superfluous. The lead image might be argued to be invalid fair use (a living person with on-screen text), but this image was the exact same thing with "Word of the Year = Truthiness" instead of just "Truthiness". Luatha 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FA nomination?

I've been checking this article and it seems to be alright to me. There appear to be no problems, and I don't see why it can't be nominated for FA again, seeing as it was last nominated over a year ago. Does anyone else think it should be put forward? ISD 17:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. By the way, the new edition of the Shorter (i.e. only 2 volumes) Oxford English Dictionary was just barely released... anyone know if it has the modern definition of Truthiness? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 17:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll put it up for nomination again. ISD 06:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool... I've started trying to tighten it up for the nomination review. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 07:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can comment on the article now. Just click the "leave comments" link on the template and put your view across. ISD 07:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I will voice an evaluation one way or the other, since I have been heavily involved in this article throughout its history. I'm glad to see it nominated though - thanks. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 07:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

The article has been promoted! Well done everyone. It is currently being put up for consideration for the "Today's featured article" section for October 17, to conicide with the terms 2nd birthday. ISD 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

As you probably know, this article will most likely be subject to vandalism now thats its featured, seeing how Mr. Colbert likes to promote vandalism through his show. Just want everyone to keep their heads up. If anything happens, it might not be a bad idea to protect it for a while... Illinois2011 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TFA protection is strongly discouraged. 130.126.67.144 01:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Didn't know. Just looking out, that's all. Illinois2011 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is that Stephen may bring it up on his show tonight/tomorrow, which will be a whole mess of vandalism. I'm sure someone will be watching for that and do a temporary protection if he does. -- Kesh 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We can only hope :) Raul654 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

His show was recorded before this made the Main Page. By the time his show is broadcast tomorrow, this will be off the Main Page and it can be semi-protected or protected if there's vandalism from his show, though that seems really unlikely. 17Drew 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously missed the Elephant fiasco! -- Kesh 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You sort of beat me to it. I was thinking that if anyone was to attack this page it would be the guys that set up the Elephant page : ) Elikarag

No, I saw the Elephant fallout. But the fact that truthiness is on the front page doesn't mean he's going to talk about Wikipedia on his show tomorrow. 17Drew 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously never seen The Colbert Report. Hee. I can't wait. Good work, Col-baiters! Well played, all. jengod 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Illinois2011 certainly called it right. However, look at the bright side. Look how many vandals have been blocked as a result of their vandalism. Some of the vandals only posted here but others who have had a history of vandalism here and elsewhere have been blocked from 31 hours to indefinitely. A nice little bit of housecleaning. JimCubb 20:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

blah, I hate you all this belongs at wiktionary

Subject says it all. How is this FA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.103.63 (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it talks about the significance and impact of the word's creation itself, amongst other things. It's far from a dictionary definition, which is all that is allowed at Wiktionary. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm involved with Wiktionary and I have to say that I agree at least partially. We actually already have an entry, and all this information that we couldn't make use of doesn't belong there. But does it belong here? I'm surprised that the neologism has been covered here in such depth, when an encyclopedia is supposed to summarize a topic. I don't fully understand the criteria for Wikipedia, but it feels to me like this and the Correspondents' Association Dinner are leaning on Original Research. I mean, has anyone ever written a book on either subject (of course not) or at least anything more than an newspaper article or blog? You know what this feels like is a thesis in itself. There should be some sort of prohibition for quoting so extensively as this is a rather laborious read. It could probably be combined with other accomplishments of Colbert or his impact, and regardless needs a liberal trim. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the definitive analytical source on recent events or on anything. I don't understand how this could have become a featured article. Terrible mistake in my opinion. 70.112.49.77 03:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it really bothers me to see inane drivel like this as the Featured Article when Wikipedia has so much more to offer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.138.19 (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

^Same here Djgranados 04:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content, such as sections on its fame and widespread usage, do not belong to wiktionary. However, I can't help but agree that an article shouldn't be created simply based on a word, and it definitely shouldn't be featured. All these could be reasonably included in the original The Colbert Report article, as the sections on its impact consists of quite a lot of trivia that would not have to be included in the The Colbert Report article - things like how New York times misreported the word; besides, we already have a FA offspring of Stephen Colbert, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, and, though Stephen Colbert may be popular, I don't see why a single person should deserve such a large quantity of articles split off, two of them featured. Aran|heru|nar 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Each Featured Article needs to be judged on its own merits, not on the complete path that it has taken, or that it was split off from another article. As I mentioned the last time this article was nommed for deletion, this article is just too large to pe crammed back into a paragraph or two in the main Colbert Show article. The word itself, while it started as a part of the Colbert Nation, has gained a very serious toehold in the rest of reality.

I would remove the qualification: "This article is just too large" period. There's too much tripe too combine into another article. 70.112.49.77 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, though people don't seem to recognize it, we have many, many articles on Wikipedia that are exactly this; an article about a word. My favourite, btw, is Logorrhoea. --Thespian 06:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has other articles devoted to words. A few weeks ago, the featured article for the day was the word "Thou". ISD 06:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Thou" is a lot more culturally significant than this word. I don't think there's a comparison between the two. One's existed (in some cognate or another) for thousands of years - the other is unlikely to survive five. --MacRusgail 12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Truthiness has received significant coverage (from the press, to the ODE and politicians) outside Stephen Colbert's show, and is therefore notable, by our definition of it. You can also have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness (3rd nomination). I hope that helps understanding why the article is here :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Great, it deserves mention. Does each miniscule bit of trivia deserve mention as well? 70.112.49.77 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but those words are widespread. How many articles does Wikipedia have about a word that only one person uses? You realize that it only barely passes Wiktionary's very liberal critera of three indpendent citations, when most dictionaries require dozens or scores? In the sense Colbert gave it, it isn't slang or colloquial or anything yet. It's still a ripe young neologism, barely deserving an entry at Wiktionary. Likewise, it barely deserves an entry here. There isn't enough material out there on the subject to justify the length of the article. The writing is great, but would it still be featured if it were chopped in half? 70.112.49.77 13:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is horrible. A neologism authored by Wikipedia vandal? Please tell me it is a joke, right??? Grue 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we should work to make all wikipedia articles reach the FA status, regardless of the subject.

If some editors prefer other articles to reach FA instead, they should work to promove them, not remove this. 200.255.9.38 11:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other editors are working on other articles, and featuring this one instead is a slap in the face. It rewards focusing on trendy topics that have not fully played themseles out and are still likely to fizzle into the background noise. It says that thorough analysis is more easily possible the narrower, more accessible, and more trivial the breadth of human knowledge. In fact, I don't think truthiness is covered in as much detail anywhere, and encyclopedias aren't supposed to do that, they're supposed to summarize. The ideas put forth in other Wikipedia articles are repeating points that are not only made elsewhere but also more thoroughly supported there. References are supposed to be used for backing up points that have been connected in other sources, not for connecting the dots here. To apply Colbert's criticism, if Lutheranism was written in as much detail, it would consist of several bound volumes. I say this article should have been nominated for "Best Original In-Depth Coverage" with emphasis on Original. 70.112.49.77 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly notable either. I hadn't heard of it (like most people outside North America no doubt), and doubt anyone will remember this fad in five years time. --MacRusgail 12:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This page actually was deleted at one point in time via AfD for this very reason. Amazing how these things turn out.--CastAStone|^(talk) 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

- Not trying to flame or anything, but I find it particularly hypocritical that someone named "Grue" categorizes this Wiki entry as drivel, when there is an entry for his/her namesake, Grue_(monster), a freaking monster from an old video game. This is a Featured Article, it is above reproach. Thanks for your opinion, but it is in the minority. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a Forum

Remember folks, this is not a forum to discuss the subject. Please keep it to improving the article itself, rather than a criticism of the FA process or personal opinions on the subject. -- Kesh 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to get too far off topic, but was this requested for the main page on a specific day because someone knew about Colbert's presidential announcement ahead of time? I find it highly amusing either way. Nualran 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it ran today (October 17) because it is the two-year anniversary of when he coined the term. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Please direct me to the correct forum for removal of Featured Article status. I imagine a broken star should get the point across. 70.112.49.77 08:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of section 'Colbert ascribes truthiness to Wikipedia'

I find it highly unfortunate and perhaps ominous that this, previously the article's last section, is removed from the article virtually simultaneously with the article becoming Today's Featured Article. __meco 07:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know why that section was removed. Seeing as how Wikipedia is referenced in the introduction, it should be included elsewhere in the article. ISD 08:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history, it was vandalized to a single word, and then someone removed the vandalism. I've restored the section up to the point of the vandalism. mdf 13:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Lutherans v. Truthiness

Just an observation: As of today (which is well over a year after Colbert compared the article lengths), the article on Lutheranism stands at 44,993 bytes, or about 25% longer than Truthiness at 35,906 bytes. Anyone know what the situation was on 2006-07-31? Ipoellet 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Compare yourself: Lutheranism, Truthiness.

Taking the maybe more relevant page length when displayed in the browser, Truthiness looks longer to me. --Xeeron 16:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am dismayed that my addition to this section noting that the section itself made the article that much longer, in turn making the section more truthy and creating a recursive loop inducing widespread seizures, was deleted as perceived vandalism. It was a valid point which far exceeded the scholarly standards of this article.

Introduction misleading

As is stated, with references in this article, Colbert in fact did NOT invent this word, it was an extremely archaic word previous to his usage, with perhaps its own meaning. The article and introduction, I think, needs to be re-written to include these facts. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thought is to rename this article Truthiness (Steven Colbert), and create a Truthiness article on the extremely archaic usage. Judgesurreal777 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does the lede assert that Colbert invented the word. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It says "he created it", how is that any different? Judgesurreal777 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'word' and 'term'. I repeat, nowhere does it assert that Colbert invented the word. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an etymology site. The archaic word truthiness isn't particularly interesting, and barring new revelations (doubtful, since this word has been looked into a lot in the past two years) an article on it would be rightfully deleted. The article covers the issue in the "Origin of the term" section; it's worth about two sentences and I'm not sure what there is to add to it. SnowFire 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So basically it comes down to that the introduction needs to note that he did not actually create the word, as the intro seems to imply, Correct? Judgesurreal777 02:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Truthiness" is a satirical term created by U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] Colbert popularized this definition of the word during the inaugural (pilot) episode...

Well, implicit in the first sentence is "Truthiness (Stephen Colbert's version) is a satirical term created by..." I'll grant that it can be misinterpreted, but it's the opening sentence, which needs to get the general idea across, sometimes at the expense of dotting all the i's and crossing the t's. The following sentence then clarifies somewhat with "popularized _this_ definition of the word." I think that the intro is basically fine; the fact that a basically unrelated word (with, if anything, the reverse meaning) existed beforehand isn't relevant enough to merit mention in the lede, and the intro makes it clear that this article is about Colbert's version. SnowFire 03:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this:

"Truthiness" is a satirical term popularized by U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] Colbert first used this new meaning of the word during the inaugural (pilot) episode...

Still concise, but much more factual. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 03:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

"Truthiness" is a satirical term popularized by U.S. television comedian Stephen Colbert to describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] Colbert first used this definition of the word during the inaugural (pilot) episode...

Gets rid of the "created by," though saying that he created this meaning is technically correct if misleading. Not sure the word "new" is really necessary; yes, it emphasizes that this definition isn't the same, but "this definition" implies itself that there are other definitions, and doesn't feel like it has excess modifiers. SnowFire 05:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, "term" is not the same thing as "word". A term is a word's specific meaning within a specific context. Colbert absolutely created the term. There is nothing misleading or non-factual in the lede. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

From a consensus deleted article to a FA. You've come a long way, truthiness.

The vets tried their damndest to make sure this article never stayed on the site. You fought hard, Truthiness, and you beat the system.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness

"Delete! Neologism!!!!!!" Meeeemories.. 75.65.91.142 21:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At that time (9 days after the term was coined), the term was the very definition of a neologism, without a whole lot of external acknowledgment. In the time since, as is reflected by this article, it has achieved widespread recognition and usage. Wikipedia is a constantly changing encyclopedia, and this article is a good reflection of that. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have to wonder how this article ever got to be an FA in the first place. It's not particularly well written, cohesive or informative, and it reads almost like a trivia list. I'm sure there are heaps more articles that are better than this that have been turned down for GA, let alone FA. Gatoclass 02:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it is a neologism still, falling a few decades and several thousand citations shy of quote-unquote widespread recognition and usage. 70.112.49.77 08:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Truthiness cannot be repressed. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Speak truthiness to power! Kevin Baas^talk 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation to Japanese

I have my willing for the translations and making our interpretations .In Japanese we have the saying ,"Uso kara deta Makoto (嘘から出た真, Truth derived from the false) and Shiroi Karasu wo Iikuromeru (白い烏を言い黒める, The crows are sometimes descrived as "White Birds" with unreliable speakers' mouths.).----The DQN,macbeth 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Irony

I think its ironic that 3.5 hours before Colbert announced he's running for President, this became the days featured article. Actually, the show is taped around 7pm EST (or 11pm GMT), so this came out a few minutes after taping concluded. What a coincidence. SashaCall ^(Sign!)/_(Talk!) 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are so many great answers to this, all involving the word "truthiness" that I wont even bother to write one down. --Xeeron 11:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the librarians! They're up to something! mattbuck 08:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Colbert ever comment on or respond to the featured status of this article? Tuncrypt 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

He said / she said

Things like the section on Huffington need to be fixed, I think. This is written like a newspaper story, not an encyclopaedia article, Where is the independent analysis of this debate? We should be reporting how the sources described it, not documenting it blow-by-blow from our own reading of the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole damn thing is written like a newspaper story, but it's impossible to make a proper encyclopedia article out of because there hasn't been much academic discussion of the word itself. Usually an article will summarize as it reiterates points that others have made. This article uses the references to support arguments that have never been made up to now. 70.112.121.70 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm...

Do we really need to read about every single pop-culture reference to this word? This article is drawn out and tiresome. Two or three condensed sections would have covered it. 70.181.161.24 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Yes we do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.35.217 (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the Reference to Religion

Other than the picture from the church sign, I see no reason why this page should refer someone to look up religion. It seems like whoever put it there was just trying to slap the religious.65.246.25.194 (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I also added truth and feelings in the same edit, am I supposed to be slapping the truth and feelings as well? (Reverted).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page needs to be moved to "Popularization of 'truthiness' by Steven Colbert"

This article is not about the word "truthiness", it is about the way Colbert popularized it. It should be moved to Popularization of 'truthiness' by Steven Colbert. NJGW (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. If people want to know about truthiness, this is what they're looking for, and moving this to a new page won't help matters. This isn't wiktionary, we don't just cover etymology & definition. Truthiness isn't notable enough to warrant two articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's imagine the scenario you suggest: Someone hears that Colbert uses the word (or hears him use it) and looks it up on Google to see if there's more information out there about it. They get pointed to the Wikipedia article about it, at which they finds out... Colbert uses the word. And the press has noticed. Great, the whole article reads like a huge trivia section exported from some other article. Let's at least give the article a title that explains what the reader will learn by reading it. "Truthiness" would then become either a redirect or maybe even a page that tries to find something encyclopedic to say about the word. NJGW (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. This is a wikipedia Featured Article. You don't just move a featured article on a whim. That's like re-arranging the Bible just because you feel like it. You don't even present any argument on why it should be moved. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Bible, and your suggestion that this is like the bible may lie at the root of your disagreement... or not. "This article is not about the word "truthiness"" sounds to me like a rational, and I haven't moved anything on a whim. NJGW (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If a user is looking for this page, they'll look for it by typing in "truthiness", therefor that's where the article belongs. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. Regardless, this article should be about its title. NJGW (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I emphasize with your desire for precision, but I oppose a move. I believe the article name fits what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize and understand for its topic. Cf. the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy. (Incidentally, I respectfully disagree with Fippy Darkpaw's reasoning.) JonathanFreed (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about precision as it is about having the proper topic. There is a word "truthiness", and it seems that word and its usage should be the topic of this article (or at the very least the first sentence of the article). Instead, the actual definition is pushed aside to claim that SC coined the phrase. How can you coin a word that already exists? NJGW (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't. But people add new meanings to existing words all the time. And if any meaning becomes the most popular usage, then we have to move the articles around to match that, because articles in the wikipedia are about a meaning, not a term.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. "Truthiness" is a term, not a meaning. I found it by typing the term "truthiness" in the search box. I don't know how to type meanings. I think the article gives undue weight to Colbert and ignores the long history of the word, e.g. on usenet, as a jocular synonym for "truth". Qemist (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary Censorship

In the "Arianna Huffington" section, Colbert is quoted as saying, "F--- Them!" Under the impression that Wikipedia is uncensored, I changed it to, "Fuck them!" I then recieved an "automatic message" stating that the change had been "automatically reverted." I find this to be fucked up. --71.205.219.29 (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because it's censored in the original source. Stating that he said "Fuck them" is original research. Powers ^T 16:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research? I didn't do any research at all! --71.205.219.29 (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wp:Original research- Wolfkeeper 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Even worse. You assumed that the bleeped word was "fuck" but we can't simply assume that. Powers ^T 19:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Stephen

The one-para reference to Operation Iraqi Stephen needs to be quoted, some reference, link, something. --173.76.64.246 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Colbert-truthiness.jpg

FYI, File:Colbert-truthiness.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

US Focus

This is an article that focuses on the US as that is where the action round "truthiness" seems to have been. The problem is that it doesn't say "US public conciousness" but just says "public conciousness". I don't think there was any controversy in the rest of the English speaking world, in spite of the BBC piece, I am not sure that it noticed that much. I think we were still trying to deal with "I'm loving it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 10:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This reads like a Colbert Puff-Piece

Someone complained: "This article is not about the word "truthiness", it is about the way Colbert popularized it." I agree with that thrust. The article has the feel of being authored by a fawning Colbert fan(atic). Please keep in mind that words (like concepts) owe no loyalty to their origin, and in general that origin is only slightly of interest. For example, Colbert nor any other person has ANY authority regarding it's current, evolving definition and meaning. All words are defined by current usage, often with optional side-notes of any past or obsolete meanings. It is possible this word will quickly fade into obscurity, since face it, unless one is a Comedy Central or dictionary fan, one would naturally assume nearly the opposite definition...a fool's truth is a good joke but this is an unnatural word and definition.

1). Truthy: Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition.
2). Truthy: Dictionary.com: Truthy, a. Truthful; likely; probable.
3). Verisimilitude: the appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true

In any case, Colbert seems to be repeatably, gratuitously mentioned (fawned over) in the article, to the point of distraction or confusion regarding the topic of "Truthiness." This needs to be cleaned up or moved to Stephen Colbert or elsewhere. The topic is the word or concept: Truthiness, this article ain't.
--68.127.90.135 (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Doug Bashford

Most of the sources here are primary, not secondary. Such a vast account of the popularization of this word is not given anywhere else. DAVilla (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't for Colbert, we wouldn't have an article at all. It would be as notable (or less) as the word "truthfulness", which redirects to the pitifully stubby Honesty. The puff is the only thing holding this cookie together. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides, this is a Featured Article so your opinion is in the minority. Not to say it is a perfect article but merging it into another article is not a good idea. Fix don't destroy. 184.88.242.142 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Better link?

Not to add fuel to the fire, but here's a suggested link for ref5: http://wikiality.wikia.com/Truthiness#Wikiality kthxbai TheLastWordSword (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikis generally aren't acceptable as citations, because they're not WP:Reliable sources.

What we want, in this case, is simply an uptodate link for the episode in question. I suspect this is the udpated link (but I don't live in the US and therefor cannot see it or confirm that it works).

That link is indeed the updated link, all the Colbert Report shows and clips were moved to his separate site. Also, it does work, at least where I am. Rubenpuma (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If no link can be found, then a non-web-linked citation is also completely acceptable. –Quiddity (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Truthiness in programming

I've been wondering if it may be of interest to mention that "truthiness" has been in used colloquially in the context of some programming languages for quite a while. Its not easy to find reliable sources, but for instance the Mozilla Developer Network defines "truthy" as an adjective.

Gerold H (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It's completely unrelated to this topic, but feel free to add it to programming-related articles if it's not already covered.GliderMaven (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Truthiness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Truthiness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)