Talk:Truthiness: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:18, 18 October 2006

Latest revision as of 18:11, 10 April 2024

(294 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{authoronlinesource2006

{{Article history

|section=

|action1 = CSD

|author=Caroline McCarthy

|action1date = 18 October 2005

|title=Colbert speaks, America follows: All hail Wikiality!

|action1result = speedily deleted

|org=Cnet

|date=8/1/2006

|url=http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6100754.html?part=rss&tag=6100754&subj=news}}

|action2=AFD

{{GA}}

|action2date=15:46, 26 October 2005

{{facfailed}}

|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness

|action2result=deleted

| action3 = CSD

<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->

| action3date = 5 November 2005

{| class="infobox" width="315px"

| action3result = speedily deleted

|-

! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

----

|-

|

# [[Talk:Truthiness/Archive 1|November 2005 &ndash; March 2006]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

| action4 = CSD

| action4date = 7 November 2005

| action4result = speedily deleted

| action5 = CSD

== Article Size ==

| action5date = 11 November 2005

As much as we all love Stephen Colbert, this article is really bloated. I'm not suggesting it for deletion (don't worry, I love you all far too much), but it seems to me that it would be better served as either a subset of the article for [[Stephen Colbert]], or a much, much, smaller article. Specifically, the "Scientific Basis for Truthiness" section could be removed entirely, most of the quotations could be eliminated, and all mentions of media references to the word could be consolidated into one heading. [[User:Mysticfeline|Mysticfeline]] 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

| action5result = speedily deleted

:The article makes the point though that truthiness is not just a schtick by Colbert anymore, it has suddenly entered the larger lexicon, has already been cited by a mainstream dictionary in its new meaning, and has been seized on by lots of media to describe other ongoing events in the news and to signify peculiar aspects of contemporary society. It has also been nominated as a "good article". Shredding it would not be justified. - [[User:Reaverdrop|Reaverdrop]] 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::Stuffing this back into the [[Jesus Christ Superstar|Stephen Colbert]] article would be like leaving [[old people|bifocals]] as a mere mention in the [[nude beach|Benjamin Franklin]] article, reducing the [[William Howard Taft|atomic bomb]] to a subsection of [[Conan the Barbarian|Robert Oppenheimer's]] page or the concept of [[plastic surgery|super duper hotness]] to [[plastic|Bianca Beauchamps']] page! Why, it would be [[sadness|madness]]! The word has grown past its mere [[Darwin|origins]] and [[The Amazing Colossal Man|grown]] to be so much more! It's no longer merely a [[sword|word]], but is in fact a [[Phnom Penh|phenomenon]] and like other [[nom de plume|phenomena]] such as [[cottaging|alien abductions]] and [[King Triton|raining fish]] we should report it as such! [[User:204.69.40.7|204.69.40.7]] 13:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Previous comment is ''obviously'' Colbert himself. At least, I really ''hope'' that's [[Sarcasm]].[[User:Eaglizard|Eaglizard]] 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:iawtc. Jesus Christ, when I clicked on this page I thought it would be a little stub. Holy crap! This is WAY too long. Not that I'm hating on Colbert or anything, just...you know...it sounds like it was written by Stephen Colbert fanboys. --[[User:BIRO|bī-RŌ]] 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

|action6=GAN

:Amazing, this article actually is longer than the one on lutherans. [[User:Raemie|Raemie]] 14:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

|action6date=23:28, 31 January 2006

|action6result=listed

|action6oldid=37592567

|action7=AFD

:Piss off Colbert hater. [[User:Superior1|Superior1]] 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

|action7date=08:53, 10 March 2006

|action7link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness (2nd nomination)

|action7result=withdrawn

|action7oldid=43107422

|action8=FAC

== Stub ==

|action8date=01:13, 22 June 2006

|action8link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truthiness/archive1

|action8result=not promoted

|action8oldid=59636675

|action9=PR

This is one article that should just be a stub. [[User:75.3.4.54|75.3.4.54]] 06:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

|action9date=21:21, 11 January 2007

:iawtc. --[[User:BIRO|bī-RŌ]] 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

|action9link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Truthiness/archive1

|action9result=reviewed

|action9oldid=100070472

|action10=AFD

==The gauntlet is thrown: newer Colbert-related article gets featured status==

|action10date=00:37, 17 April 2007

The analogous article [[Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner]] reached [[Talk:Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner|featured article status]] in about a month. Some tweaking to this one should be able to accomplish the same. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|wp:space]])</font></small> 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

|action10link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truthiness (3rd nomination)

|action10result=kept

|action10oldid=123401110

|action11=FAC

== citations ==

|action11date=01:38, 29 September 2007

|action11link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truthiness

|action11result=promoted

|action11oldid=160624544

|action12=WPR

seems like one of the next steps if we were to aim for featured status would be to convert the ref tags to web cite and news cite tags... anyone agree? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

|action12date=17 October 2007

|action12link=Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 17, 2007

|action12result=Maindate

|action12oldid=165074568

|action13 = FAR

:I think the next step was to get your involvement here, Kizzle; you've done great work at [[Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner]]. But the step after that should indeed probably be to make that tag upgrade; maybe one editor per section at a time, to break up the task. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|wp:space]])</font></small> 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

|action13date = 2022-03-26

::I will say, I think this article has been very well researched and includes quality prose as well, I figure we upgrade the citations, make sure there aren't any citations needed sentences, then put it up for an initial nomination. People should probably begin listing problems they have with this article as soon as possible so we can address them before the nomination. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

|action13link = Wikipedia:Featured article review/Truthiness/archive1

:::Cool. I've begun the cite upgrades by section. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes|ub]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]]/[[WP:LDS|w:l]])</font></small> 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

|action13result = demoted

|action13oldid = 1076364647

|currentstatus=FFA

I've done all the cites into the upgraded format except in the [[Truthiness#Additional_attention_to_.22truthiness.22]] and [[Truthiness#Colbert_uses_defining_qualities_of_truthiness_to_describe_President_Bush_in_person]] sections. I'm out of time now, but someone else feel free to get these last two sections. The second might be easier by ripping the corresponding upgraded cites from the main article. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes|ub]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]]/[[WP:LDS|w:l]])</font></small> 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

|maindate=October 17, 2007

|topic=langlit

|dykentry=...that "'''[[truthiness]]'''," a word made by [[Stephen Colbert]] of ''[[The Colbert Report]]'', was selected as the [[2005]] Word of the Year by the [[American Dialect Society]]?<li>...that '''[[Yaroslav Osmomysl|Yaroslav of Halych's]]''' repudiation of his wife led to a popular [[rebellion|uprising]], in the course of which his favorite [[concubine]] was [[burning at the stake|burnt alive]]?

|dykdate=13 January 2006

|four=no

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Comedy|importance= Mid}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Linguistics|importance= Mid}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid |logic=yes}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid |American=y |American-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Television|importance= Mid}}

}}

{{Press|year=2006|section=|author=Caroline McCarthy|title=Colbert speaks, America follows: All hail Wikiality!|org=CNET|date=1 August 2006|url=http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6100754.html?part=rss&tag=6100754&subj=news}}

{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|

{{WikiWorld|Image:Truthiness_comic.jpg}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 4

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:Truthiness/Archive %(counter)d

}}

==Still missing==

:Cite upgrades complete. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[User:Reaverdrop/Userboxes|ub]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]]/[[WP:LDS|w:l]])</font></small> 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the terms truthy/falsy for... umm, exactly that... in computing contexts has stuck, if anything better than the Colbertian sense. I'm not saying it belongs here, but a "For ... see ..." template might. [[Special:Contributions/76.73.175.43|76.73.175.43]] ([[User talk:76.73.175.43|talk]]) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::Excellent work Reaverdrop! Going to put it up for an initial FA listing. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 06:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

== Did we forget what this was all about? ==

::Done. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this an article without referencing that this word was created to discredit Wikipedia? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SarkamW|SarkamW]] ([[User talk:SarkamW#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SarkamW|contribs]]) 07:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "Truthy" and "falsy" in programming: pre-Colbert or post-Colbert? ==

::First round of objections up, if people would like to take a look. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As a non-American I'm wondering: do these terms actually pre-date Colbert's penning of the gut-truth definition or are they obvious references us foreigners couldn't possibly spot? In programming the adjectives "truthy" and "falsy" refer to values which evaluate to the booleans "true" and "false" (rather than the boolean values themselves). In JavaScript, for example, the numerical value "0" or the empty array "[]" would both be "falsy", other numerical values or non-empty arrays on the other hand would be "truthy". The terms are probably limited to dynamically typed languages, though some statically typed languages seem to allow using non-booleans as booleans (though this may be related to how booleans and boolean comparisons are implemented, so this may be very different). --- [[Special:Contributions/78.35.107.83|78.35.107.83]] ([[User talk:78.35.107.83|talk]]) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

: I added a paragraph on this, but it needs a bit of help (eg, with citations). FWIW, here are some relevant links: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116883/is-truthiness-a-legitimate-programming-term,

==Truthiness is mysticism==

http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/713894/Truthy-Vs-Falsy-Values-in-JavaScript

This is the first I've heard of the word "truthiness." However, the concept it appears Colbert is trying to get at is not new, and what it's referring to there was already a word for. The word is "mysticism," which is used sometimes in epistemology. For example, Ayn Rand defines "mysticism" as "the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as 'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing.'" Also, the Dictionary of Theories by Bothamley says the word "mysticism" is used in a pejorative sense to refer to beliefs not based in empirical evidence. So, if someone is basing their beliefs on emotion, for example, then you would say they're guilty of "mysticism." I'll stick with that term. "Truthiness" sounds really cheesy. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[[User:RichMorin|RichMorin]] ([[User talk:RichMorin|talk]]) 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:It would seem that "mysticism" refers to supernatural events while "truthiness" concerns normal events... but that's just a guess. The definition makes sense, but I don't think saying "Bush's vote for Harriet Miers had a ring of mysticism to it," because that would conjur up voodoo spells or something... just my opinion. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

::That's another use of the word "mysticism." When the term is used in epistemology, it's doesn't have anything to do with the supernatural. Maybe that's why the term is not used much, because of that confusion. I've used the term in my everyday life for a long time though, as have some others I associate with. For example, if a friend tells me they're going to bet really big on the next roll of the Roulette table because they feel very strongly that it's going to land on Red next, I may say, "That's mysticism, man. You don't know what the hell you're doing. You can't base your belief on what you feel. The probability between Red and Black is the same as it was last roll." [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC [[User:RJII|RJII]] 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Nightline, the New York Times, Oprah etc. have not been running around making references to mysticism or Ayn Rand. There are a lot of other variations on faulty epistemology, but this article is about "truthiness". - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]])</font></small> 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Truthiness (as an intensively discussed topic) has a long history in coding, particularly in weakly-typed languages like JavaScript, SQL or Visual Basic. Crockford would be a solid ref for this. Unlike strongly-typed languages (Pascal being one of the first popular ones to have a specific Boolean type) or like C, where programmers counted every bit mentally, JavaScript and especially the varying notions of false / 0 / null / empty / void made a robust abstract model of their interpretation as truthful essential for reliable coding. I doubt the word truthiness is etymologically any older than Colbert, but the concept certainly is. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

:To [[User:RJII|RJII]], you're talking about the academic meaning and use of the term ''mysticism'' (akin to Barthes's conception of mythology and mythifying, and many other related terms), which is fine in that context, but ''truthiness'' operates in a different milieux altogether. It's ''intended'' to be cheesy; that's what makes it satirical rather than simply analytical. [[User:Pinkville|Pinkville]] 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:: Hm -- this paragraph seems to have been cut. Strange. Does anyone know why? I've found uses of "truthy" going back years before Colbert. --[[User:Winterstein|winterstein]] ([[User talk:Winterstein|talk]]) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

== Changes motivated by consensus criticism at Featured Article candidate page ==

::: Just the regular edit-warring from {{u|GliderMaven}}, who is equally omniscient on all technical topics.

The consensus criticism at the [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Truthiness|truthiness entry]] at the Featured Article candidate page, which is apt, is that:

::: For sources, [[Niklaus Wirth]] might be good as an early one, as he had some heated debate with [[Kernighan and Ritchie]] over [[C (programming language)|C]]'s fairly free-wheeling use of truthiness for a wide range of values - probably the first time that such behaviour had been codified in a language spec and encouraged as best practice, rather than being an accidental side effect. Pascal of course took a strictly typed approach with an explicit Boolean type.

*the recent change to put the reference to the 19th century "truthiness" at the very beginning of the article is not appropriate, because it was an obscure word even then and only careful sleuthing by a linguistics professor even revealed the existence of that prior reference; and

::: The concept of "truthiness" has at least 40 years well-documented and sourceable history in computing, with a meaning of, "That which evaluates as true, no matter its actual value or representation." The specific word used here probably dates from Colbert. I'm in the UK, I've heard the term in use since around 2006, but still don't know what a Colbert is.

*the entire "similar concepts" and "scientific basis" sections are textbook [[WP:OR|original research]] and not appropriate. Cute as I find them, and having written much of them in the first place, I have to agree on this.

::: For a recent use, [[Douglas Crockford|Crockford]]'s slim JavaScript book (O'Reilly, Butterfly cover) uses the notion and term. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

::::None of which has anything at all to do with the topic of the article, which is when a human being believes in something irrespective of facts. The other definition of 'truthiness' is only there because it's been connected to the topic via an on-topic reference saying that the word truthiness already existed, and that was done specifically in context. That doesn't mean you get to list every other definition of truthiness in the article. That's OR, and violates WP:NOT. Even if you reference it, that's not sufficient to some javascript book or whatever; you have to reference it in context.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

These changes are being made after substantial discussion on the Featured Article candidate page. Anyone who has a serious argument to make in contradiction of these changes should try to lay out that argument convincingly before changing these back. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]])</font></small> 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::::: ''In your opinion.'' However RS use this word, as a derivation post-Colbert, in the context of computer science.

::::: Why are you against truthiness for CompSci appearing here, but you're OK with "Mathiness" being included? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

::::::I'm opposed to off-topic and unreferenced material appearing in any article, and I would hope you would be too, but apparently not. I hadn't noticed mathiness, but that appears indeed to be off-topic, and I have now tagged it. This contrasts with the pseudoword "trustiness", which is linked by the references.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 22:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

::::::: @GliderMaven please show respect for your fellow editors. You say that CompSci-truthiness" is separate from Colbert-truthiness -- I expect you're probably right there. But CompSci "truthiness" is a notable topic, arguably more notable than Colbert-truthiness. I think having this article handle both uses is the best solution. An alternative would be to have two articles and a disambiguation page -- that feels like overkill to me, but you could make the case. To resolve this, please could you say: Where and how do you think CompSci "truthiness" should be covered? I think if we answer that, we'll fix this issue. Thanks. --[[User:Winterstein|winterstein]] ([[User talk:Winterstein|talk]]) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::You have to find a place to put your edits. I don't know off-hand where it should go. Generally speaking where it's a 'usage' thing it should be in wiktionary, not wikipedia, or covered in a compsci specific article. It should not go in a non compsci article like this.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::Maybe add it to [[Boolean data type]].[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

== An Objection ==

:::::::::: Truthiness is the ''opposite'' of a strongly typed Boolean type. It is the working principle that a pragma of regarding some definable set of values as "truthy" is workable and reliable, even without a strictly defined type system. A "truthy" value is not necessarily True, and cannot (correctly) be compared to a Boolean True. It may be though, and is, assumed to stand in for one. This has much more in common with Colbert's logic than Boole's. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::I am understating the case to say that I have considerable difficulty in understanding how anyone could ever seriously think that a reader would expect the programming-related definition of the word 'truthiness' in this article, as opposed to in [[boolean data type]], an article which also covers C-related languages, which have no boolean type per se.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I '''strongly object''' to the current opening sentence of this article, which presents the word as if it were -- well, a ''word'', which, technically, it isn't, dictionary inclusion notwithstanding. If it's included in dictionaries in 10 years, I'll change my opinion. Right now, it's a fad (or a media 'gambit' to use one 'pedian's great word for it). I don't object to it being included, now, but I think the opening sentence should ''clearly'' state the "[[meme|meme-like]]" nature of this phenomena, such as:

:::::::::::: A page that states, ''"the effective identity between Booleans and integers is still valid for C programs."'' is dangerously wrong. People have been killed by that assumption. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 19:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

*"'''Truthiness''' is a [[neologism]] coined by popular American television commentator Stephen blah blah blah..."

:::::::::::::That whole article could be completely and dangerously wrong in the extreme, and it would still be the better place to put programming-related information than putting it in ''this'' completely unrelated article.[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::::: I came to this article expecting to find information about truthy/falsey in programming and was surprised to find a long article about Stephen Colbert. [[User:Korn|Korn]] ([[User talk:Korn|talk]]) 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

::: [[Douglas Crockford|Crockford]] refers to "truthy" in an article [http://javascript.crockford.com/style2.html The Elements of JavaScript Style — Part Two: Idioms] from 2005-09-21 ... Sept 21, just under a month before Colbert uses "truthiness", however Crockford does not use "truthiness" itself in that article. [[User:Sdp61|Sdp61]] ([[User talk:Sdp61|talk]]) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

=== Truthiness in particle physics ===

Normally, I'd just boldly edit away, but ... not here. Not tonite. Not like this... I mean, that first sentence is just so... so, special, you know?[[User:Eaglizard|Eaglizard]] 07:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On a similar vein, I could swear we referenced "truthiness" as an alternative to [[Topness|"topness"]] in my particle physics class from older papers. Might anyone know more? [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:Off topic because wikipedia is not a dictionary; what are we going to do, add communism to the [[red]] article?[[User:GliderMaven|GliderMaven]] ([[User talk:GliderMaven|talk]]) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

:Dictionaries describe language as it's used; words don't sit around as illegal immigrants until the major dictionaries line up to baptize them into linguistic canon. But that is not even an issue in this case: as cited in the article, not only is the word in the ultimate authority, the Oxford English Dictionary, under a different definition, but the Macmillan dictionary has already adopted essentially the definition propounded by Colbert and featured it as a word of the week on its website - with no disclaimers or qualifications about it being a neologism. They were pretty well justified, considering the great mass of documented usages in a wide variety of major newspapers, magazines, TV news programs, and in the Canadian Parliament, and most of it with no reference to Colbert - while the article already makes clear its meme-like origin, the word has long since flown free from the nest where it was hatched. You want it to continue in use for ten years before acknowledging it as a word? That is far more restrictive than the criteria for inclusion used by the Oxford English Dictionary itself. I think the current opening is far more appropriate than disputing a major dictionary to downgrade it to a "fake" word. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]])</font></small> 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

::You mean [[Red#Use_by_political_movements|that thing that totally exists?]] [[User:Onceuponajooks|Onceuponajooks]] ([[User talk:Onceuponajooks|talk]]) 18:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

::Using the words 'fad', and 'gambit', might have given you the impression I'm denigrating ''Truthiness''; and that's not the truth. :)

::A [[neologism]] is not a 'fake' word, nor is 10 years too conservative; the Wikipedia cites ''e-mail'' as an example of a current neologism. If this word had simply arisen to popularity on its own, without having been propelled by Colbert, then I fail to see how it would even be encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as I'm sure you know. Let me rephrase: my contention is that, as it stands right now, the vastly important first sentence of this article would give a reader the impression that the word is nothing more nor less interesting than a simple adjective. The essential 'nature' of this phenomena is that it exists due to a surprising and unexpected confluence of events and popularity first initiated by Colbert. The current opening sentence does not reflect this, and is a misleading definition of the 'thing' that is this word. Beyond the word-in-itself as adjective, of course, which is not even encyclopedic in the first place, and belongs in Wiktionary, instead. If the word is ''here'', then it must be here as a ''phenomenon'', and not merely another English word. My point is simply the rather pedantic and technical one that the ''opening sentence'' of an article is by far it's most important, as it will often be picked up as a single line by services that use Wikipedia content. This line should '''fully''' reflect the most important underlying aspects of the idea or phenomenon defined; in this case, the fact that Colbert is responsible for this word -- responsible for us even discussing this right here, right now -- is essential, and should be in the first sentence.[[User:Eaglizard|Eaglizard]] 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Bootylicious was first used in 1992 according to the OED. Yes, it's in there. Now, would it be in the OED at all without destiny's child? (''Survivor'' 2001) No. Bootylicious wasn't in use in the American vernacular at all preceding Destiny's Child' ''Survivor'' and then, when it was on every tv set being used over and over again and in every interview being used over and over again, it became a part of the American vernacular. Now, it isn't quite the same as Stephan Colbert pushing it truthiness, but it's pretty damn close, because the word was being pushed, and it wouldn't have caught on nearly as quickly otherwise.

== External links modified ==

:::No matter how much a high profile individual pushes a word, no matter how much the press pushes a word, whether or not something catches on and is used outside of that circle depends on a lot of other things, not just pop culture. If there isn't a suitable word that's similar, that can be used in the same instances then the word has longer staying power then that of simple come and go pop-culture phenomenon. Now, I won't deny that truthiness has been used a lot in reference to colbert, but I also think that it's unfair to call it a pop-culture phenomenon. One of the hard parts about writing a wikipedia entry, is that you're writing about something while it's happening. You don't want to write too much in the present, and there are major overtones of that in this article and discussion. And yet you don't want to write looking too much ahead because you can't predict what will happen. This is one of the major tone issues that I think needs to be dealt with when trimming the fat.'''[[User:TStein|TStein]] 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)'''

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Truthiness]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=801699883 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919133033/http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2007.php to http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2007.php

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017001524/http://lssu.edu/banished/archive/2008.php to http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2008.php

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

:::How about if we say "Truthiness, a word that has been recently coined by [[Stephen Colbert]], is the quality..."? After all, if one looks as [[Neologism]], it flatly states in the first sentence that "A neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created ("coined")". Also, remember the word technically existed before Colbert invented a new definition for it, which complicates things slightly. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 02:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 08:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

::::It's clear from all the content in the article that truthiness is a phenomenon as well as a word; and, the great majority of references to it since October have not mentioned Colbert at all, and simply used the word or referred to its definition by itself. The current first sentence accurately reflects this status of the word's and phenomenon's usage, the great majority of which does not include reference to Colbert. At the same time, the very second sentence begins with "Stephen Colbert created this definition of the word..." That will be pretty hard to miss, even for the hypothetical user who turns to this page only for the couple of seconds needed to glance at the first couple lines before clicking away; and appropriately emphasizes Colbert's role in launching the phenomenon which would soon take on a (non-Colbert-referencing) life of its own. Is further effort and parsing really needed? - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]])</font></small> 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

== Relevance of Bruno Latour to this subject ==

First of all, what amuses me about Eaglizard's initial objection is that it's ''exactly'' what Colbert is satirizing. Juxtapose Eaglizard's comment that truthiness is not a word, "dictionary inclusion notwithstanding," with the opening comments of the monologue discussed in this article. I guess that Eaglizard, like the people Colbert is satirizing, is no fan of dictionaries or reference books when it comes to determining how objective someone's facts are. Eaglizard's comment that truthiness isn't really a word seems to boil down to, forget about how language works or about whether or not we can verify the facts! "Truthiness" just doesn't ''feel'' like a word, and therefore it must not be! Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you, man, but how can you not see this irony in your own argument? Second of all, if you guys really are going to have a discussion about whether or not "truthiness" is a word, and what kind of word it is, everyone should stop referring to "truthiness" as an adjective. As a word, truthiness is a NOUN. Basic grammar, people! A NOUN is a word that directly indicates a person, place or a thing, an ADJECTIVE is a word that directly describes a noun. "Truthy" would be the adjective form of the word "truthiness." -- Minaker, August 21, 2006

Is his concept of the "faitiche" ('factishness') not somehow related? See his 2010 book listed in the bibliography here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.17.179.75|173.17.179.75]] ([[User talk:173.17.179.75#top|talk]]) 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Incorrect reference ==

:If you find a reliable source discussing Latour re "truthiness" bring it here and we might have something to add. - <span style="color:#D70270;background-color:white;">Sum</span><span style="color:#734F96;background-color:white;">mer</span><span style="color:#0038A8;background-color:white;">PhD</span>^{[[User talk:SummerPhDv2.0|v2.0]]} 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

== FA status concerns ==

First discussion, please be kind.

As a part of [[WP:URFA/2020]], I am reviewing this article. I have quite a few concerns regarding the FA status of this article. Currently, it needs significant work to retain that shining bronze star:

Under "Origin", an editor has added "He came up with the idea of "truthiness" just moments before filming for the show began.[4]" This reference, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182033/site/newsweek/], has no mention of Colbert coming up with the idea "just moments before filming". It seems unlikely that the staff would be able to create the script and graphics for "truthiness" mere moments before filming.

* The most major concern is the sourcing of the article. For FAs, we expect the sources to not just be secondary and reliable, but also of the highest quality available.

** There are various places where a non-primary source is needed.

What would you suggest as the best way to handle this error in Wiki?

** What makes BookLocker.com, ''Firedoglake'', YouTube!, ''Salon'', ''Vox'', ''languagemonitor.com.'', ''Today.com'', etc. even reliable sources?

** There are various inconsistencies and other source formatting issues

:We have been through this. It is not an error; the magazine provides this information clearly. Look again: third page, first paragraph. Look at the discussion for the nomination of this article for featured status, someone there accused this passage of being erroneously referenced, then apologized after admitting their error. - [[User:Reaverdrop|'''Reaverdrop''']] <small><font color="green">([[User_talk:Reaverdrop|talk]]/[[:nl:Gebruiker:Reaverdrop|nl]]/[[WP:SPACE|w:s]])</font></small> 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* Another major concern in the prose

** There are too many blockquotes used in the article. Per [[MOS:QUOTE]], "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style&nbsp;... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".

::You are correct. I still doubt that claim from the source material though. I'll have to check colbertnation forum to see if anyone has more info on it. Thank you. - --[[User:Postmark Jensen|Postmark Jensen]] 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

** Lots of duplicate link throughout the article.

** The article needs a copy-edit; currently, its prose it not upto [[WP:FA?|FA standards]].

== To Colbert and his viewers ==

– [[User:Kavyansh.Singh|Kavyansh.Singh]] ([[User talk:Kavyansh.Singh|talk]]) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding a good place to say this, so sorry if this isn't the place. Information entered on Wikipedia relies on a certain amount of trust. People often criticize it for this, but I challenge those people to find ANY source of information that doesn't also rely heavily on trust. Books are no better than wikipedia, as anybody can write them - they actually may have less checks and balances in many cases. --[[User:Aeroxima|Aeroxima]] 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:I don't think Colbert or any of his viewers are serious about mistrusting books; it's all a joke. -[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]] 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

== To authors look at this ==

This article is incorrect. Stephen Colbert did not invent the word Truthiness, see [http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2006/01/11/News/Colbert.Puts.Professor.on.Notice-1322846.shtml?norewrite200608021352&sourcedomain=www.technicianonline.com this article for information].

Even if it is still believed that he invented the word, this deserves mention...

:Fret not: this is mentioned in the section entitled [[Truthiness#Alleged snubbing by the Associated Press, and Colbert's response|Alleged snubbing by the Associated Press, and Colbert's response]]. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who read this article in its entirety and understands the nature behind the word would tell you he didn't invent the word... he invented the definition ''by'' definition. [[User:MrBucket|MrBucket]] 04:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert did invent the word truthiness, since he said that someone else invented it when he did, hence the author of the news article being placed on his "dead to me" list and the "inventor of the word" being placed on the "on watch" list.--[[User:Scareslamfist|scareslamfist]] 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

== Perfect for Wikipedia ==

It just dont get no more truthy than this folks. This article is well formed, over referenced and essentially full of meaningless current events trivial commentary. Perfect for Wikipedia. Danielcreech previously censored this bit of talk. {{unsigned|210.239.48.141}}

:First time I've ever heard "over referenced" as a derogatory statement. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::Over-referenced is also the opposite of truthiness, which relies on gut feeling instead of fact. If this were truly truthy, it would be three lines long and have a picture of a shirtless Stephen Colbert stabbing a bear to death with a flagpole bearing the Stars and Stripes. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

::: Can...can we ''do'' that? That'd be so cool. -[[User:Zebraic|Zebraic]] 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But my point still stands, this entry is perfectly formed, yet meaningless. {{unsigned|210.239.48.141}}

:That has to do with the way the article developed. In the beginning, editors were throwing every reference under the sun into the article to demonstrate its notability. Pretty soon it took off on its own and didn't need that. But now it's hard to draw the line as to what should be included and what's unhelpful. I think you're absolutely right, and we should look at paring down a good number of the references once the current Colberrorism blows over. [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]] 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert himself is not the point. The point is this article obeys all the dictats of the Wikiocracy, yet contributes nothing of any value to anyone except trivia fans. Other articles on more obscure subjects which may be "under referenced" or contain subject matter not found on the Internet are quickly labeled as "hoaxes" and deleted. I just cant see why this article is held up as stellar example. {{unsigned|211.10.18.77}}

:Please remember to sign your talk page edits with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). --[[User:Emufarmers|Emufarmers]]^{<small>([[User_talk:Emufarmers|T]]/[[Special:contributions/Emufarmers|C]])</small>} 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly formed but meaningless? Hmm, possible. I think there's a flaw in NPOV that does this for heavily edited articles (I'd first discussed this with other editors wrt [[global warming]] and [[evolution]] way back when.) [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Comment re: systematic bias moved from article ==

{{User|DominicCronin}} inserted this comment into the article under the "Popularity and widespread use" header:

:US-based readers may wish to note that the aforegoing use of the term 'widespread' makes certain assumptions. Some of us (I'm in the Netherlands) haven't even heard of Stephen Colbert.

Since that was more of a talk-page comment, I've moved it here. -- [[User:Antaeus Feldspar|Antaeus Feldspar]] 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

== Broken link ==

Footnote 17 is broken and is not in the Internet Archive. --[[User:Sertorius|Sertorius]] 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

==Opening line==

Warning: POV suggestion follows. Start the opening line with the word "Sadly" thus: "Sadly, '''Truthiness''' is a humorous term... " --[[User:Hydnjo|hydnjo]] [[User talk:Hydnjo|talk]] 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

==It's just truthy...==

to assume that Colbert "unknowingly reinvented" the word "truthiness." Unless a source can be provided that proves Colbert was unaware of its previous existence, this phrase should go...because we at wikipedia strive to be truthFUL not truthY. What say you?--and remember, keep it pithy (or not). [[User:Stanley011|Stanley011]] 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

== Wikiality, Falsiness and every quote ever in existance - how to scale, scale scale, scale down ==

I have a few problems with this page. While it was fascinating to read, I found liked it because I found it fascinating to see how the pop culture and news media aspects unfolded, and that had little to do with the actual article, and it didn't make it a good article. It was interesting, because I could go back and see much of what has unfolded and how it had. But, that makes for a crappy article. I was also surprised at what wasn't there.

I though that the wikiality section should be expanded, even if it's only in the footnotes. Colbert may not be as popular sliced bread, but it's to Wikipedia's credit that there aren't a lot of protected articles, which meant that I thought it was worth mentioning that Wikiality got 22 articles protected at the time, and some are still protected, and just from my browsing I've noticed that his fans have not given up wikiality. It appears that all he has to do is mention something (saginaw spirit anyone?) and it's protected, if only temporarily. I'd suggest only adding a line or two, but it's something that I think is necessary, because the article makes it sound like a one episode blip.

Also, I was surprised to see what appeared to be every article mention and Colbert mention of truthiness ever, and not some of the larger things like falsiness.org which, while not as major as many of the other things in the article, involved moveon, and US representatives who had been on the show before.

In my opinion, the truthiness article should have how it was created and short stubs on the major things. A brief thing on Colbert's version of the word v. the OED, a brief overlook at how the media covered it (not a section for every news cycle, article and interview), a section on wikiality, and maybe a small section on falsiness.

For example, the area on "Describing President Bush in person" doesn't need to know which news sources quoted what or even which ones used truthiness. That section should simply have a link to that main article, basic info about the dinner, information about truthiness and blogging and the key point that was made, "even though he did not actually use the word at the dinner, demonstrating the widespread association of Colbert with 'truthiness.'" Everything else in that paragraph is completely unnecessary and detracts from the rest of the article.

Doing this all the way through cuts the article size drastically, takes out what isn't important, organizes it well (I hope), and leaves room for growth and change. Might the OED change the definition? Might there be other spin-offs or what not? Yes. This leaves room for growth.

== Predecessor? ==

Uses the word "fact-esque" in this Dean segment. Seems similiar to this truthiness concept. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Lvj1kdV7o&mode=related&search= [[User:Savidan|savidan]]^{[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]} 06:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Notes ==

The notes at the bottom of the article have links on them that have nothing to do with the Colbet Report, such as the African Bush elephant, Hitler and Babar. Please delete it and save Wikipedia's creditability.

:<s>Actually, they have a lot to do with Colbert.</s> OK, I take that back. You are correct. The content of the articles linked to in the footnote have little do with Stephen Colbert, the Colbert Report, Truthiness or anything Colbert related. Now, lets read what the footnote was referring to: "He also called on people to edit Wikipedia so it says certain things, such as the African elephant population has tripled in six months, which spurred a rash of joke edits."

:Well, that is highly relevant. The footnote is simply a list of a few of the things that were locked (and some still remain locked) due to Colbert related vandalism. In fact, there were news articles about how Colbert activity on Wikipedia was so prevelant that it actually downed the site for a few hours. Wikipedia provides links to it's own articles when it has them, and since the case in point here is Wikipedia's articles, this kinda makes a lot of sense.

:I actually have a list of things that either were or are locked due to Colbert related vandalism and it's much longer than that. Much much longer than that, and while you may charge that they are not related to the Colbert Report, his fans generally go out and edit Wikipedia in direct response to whatever he says on his show. Many things Colbert mentions on his show are truthy, but not quite the truth, so his followers edit wikipedia so that at least momentarily, the world according to wikipedia reflects the world according to Stephen Colbert. His fans are sometimes working on what he tells them to do, and sometimes just interpreting things, but it's working off of his definition of wikiality and his call for people to edit wikipedia and take things into their own hands. The fact that some of these articles still can't be unlocked and that new ones are regularly locked says a lot about Colbert, his listeners, wikipedia and is it's importance is tantamount to this article. The fact that when elephant articles are locked and cannot be edited his fans mess with Babar the elephant--well, I don't know exactly what that says, but who knows, maybe the population of Babar the elephant tripled recently also. Stephan ''is'' an expert on these things.

:Also, when commenting please sign your name. You can do that with four ~. Like I'm about to do right now...'''[[User:TStein|TStein]] 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)'''

==Wikiality as a seperate article?==

Why isn't wikiality a seperate article? It is a seperate concept. Certainly, it is similar to 'truthiness', but any satirical concept Stephen Colbert comes up with is going to hold similarities, because his character is satirical of specific political traits and occurrences. 'Wikiality' redirects to 'Wikipedia In Pop Culture', but concurrently is mentioned here under 'truthiness'. Shouldn't it be 1)Removed from the "Truthiness" article if it is covered in "Wikipedia In Pop Culture", 2)Removed from the "Wikipedia In Pop Culture" (at least as a redirect) and redirected to "Truthiness" since it is covered here, or 3)Removed from both and given its own article? Just a thought. --[[User:Zebraic|Zebraic]] 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)