Talk:Truthiness

message: 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. 76.73.175.43 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Still missing

message: How is this an article without referencing that this word was created to discredit Wikipedia?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarkamW (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did we forget what this was all about? 

message: On a similar vein, I could swear we referenced "truthiness" as an alternative to "topness" in my particle physics class from older papers. Might anyone know more? SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic because wikipedia is not a dictionary; what are we going to do, add communism to the red article?GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean that thing that totally exists? Onceuponajooks (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truthiness in particle physics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 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:
*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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you find a reliable source discussing Latour re "truthiness" bring it here and we might have something to add. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Bruno Latour to this subject 

message: 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:
* 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 makes BookLocker.com, Firedoglake, YouTube!, Salon, Vox, languagemonitor.com., Today.com, etc. even reliable sources?
** There are various inconsistencies and other source formatting issues
* 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 ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
** Lots of duplicate link throughout the article.
** The article needs a copy-edit; currently, its prose it not upto FA standards.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA status concerns