Talk:Truthiness/Archive 2

message: 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. Mysticfeline 23:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Reaverdrop 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuffing this back into the Stephen Colbert article would be like leaving bifocals as a mere mention in the Benjamin Franklin article, reducing the atomic bomb to a subsection of Robert Oppenheimer's page or the concept of super duper hotness to Bianca Beauchamps' page! Why, it would be madness! The word has grown past its mere origins and grown to be so much more! It's no longer merely a word, but is in fact a phenomenon and like other phenomena such as alien abductions and raining fish we should report it as such! 204.69.40.7 13:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous comment is obviously Colbert himself. At least, I really hope that's Sarcasm.Eaglizard 07:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --bī-RŌ 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Piss off Colbert hater. Superior1 04:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Size 

message: This is one article that should just be a stub. 75.3.4.54 06:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: iawtc. --bī-RŌ 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: The analogous article Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents%27_Association_Dinner reached featured article status in about a month. Some tweaking to this one should be able to accomplish the same. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The gauntlet is thrown: newer Colbert-related article gets featured status

message: 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? --kizzle 22:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --kizzle 00:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I've begun the cite upgrades by section. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Cite upgrades complete. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work Reaverdrop!  Going to put it up for an initial FA listing. --kizzle 06:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. --kizzle 06:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First round of objections up, if people would like to take a look. --kizzle 14:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations 

message: 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. RJII 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --kizzle 05:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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." RJII 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC RJII 05:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 09:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: To 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. Pinkville 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthiness is mysticism

message: The consensus criticism at the truthiness entry at the Featured Article candidate page, which is apt, is that:
*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 entire "similar concepts" and "scientific basis" sections are textbook 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.
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. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes motivated by consensus criticism at Featured Article candidate page 

message: First discussion, please be kind.
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,  , 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.
What would you suggest as the best way to handle this error in Wiki?
: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. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - --Postmark Jensen 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect reference  

message: 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. --Aeroxima 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Colbert or any of his viewers are serious about mistrusting books; it's all a joke. -Unknownwarrior33 21:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Colbert and his viewers 

message: This article is incorrect. Stephen Colbert did not invent the word Truthiness, see 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 Alleged snubbing by the Associated Press, and Colbert's response. JDoorjam     Talk 18:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To authors look at this 

message: 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.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs) 
:First time I've ever heard "over referenced" as a derogatory statement. --kizzle 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  JDoorjam     Talk 05:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can...can we do that?  That'd be so cool. -Zebraic 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  JDoorjam     Talk 07:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please remember to sign your talk page edits with four tildes (~~~~). --Emufarmers(T/C) 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfect for Wikipedia 

message: 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. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment re: systematic bias moved from article 

message: Footnote 17 is broken and is not in the Internet Archive.  --Sertorius 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: Warning: POV suggestion follows. Start the opening line with the word "Sadly" thus: "Sadly, Truthiness is a humorous term... "  --hydnjo talk 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening line

message: 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). Stanley011 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It's just truthy...

message: 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= savidan(talk) (e@) 06:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predecessor? 

message: 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.
:Actually, they have a lot to do with Colbert.  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...TStein 07:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: The last three external links are missing titles--and they really need them.  TStein 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links missing titles 

message: http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm
Merriam-Webster just named this as word of the year (even though they still don't recognize it as a word: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truthiness).
1. truthiness (noun)
1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)
2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neoform (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pwn3d? --A Good Anon 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word of The Year 

message: Since there's an entire encyclopedia of truthiness inspired by this term, shouldn't a link to wikiality.com be included in the external links? Angela. 23:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: Unfortunately, the headline claim that the word is invented by Colbert doesn't jive: The OED has a quotation from 1848. We can, however, claim that colbert invented the definition, since the OED defines truthy as Characterized by truth; truthful, true. Hence {sm}truthiness, truthfulness, faithfulness. The definition is listed as rare or dialectical, and the quotation provided is J. J. GURNEY in Braithwaite Mem. (1854) I. 242 Everyone who knows her is aware of her truthiness. I will leave it to others to determine the best way to work this into the article. 207.38.207.53 22:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already been addressed in the "Origin" section of the article. schi talk 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truthiness has an old meaning. 

message: I'm confused about why the term is always italicized.  Croctotheface 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Use-mention distinction. Trebor 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why italics? 

message: What are people's opinions on including this? Personally, I don't think the cartoon has any place in the article, being a self-reference and not being known outside the Wikipedia community. Thoughts? Trebor 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines of the Wikiproject (Illustrated Wikipedia) are not defined yet, but I don't see how this comic has encyclopedic value.  The goals of the Wikiproject say that Greg Williams is just making cartoons based on articles, not for articles.  I guess I don't really get the idea here.  Looks like there is some discussion on the Wikiproject talk page on including the comics in articles. schi talk 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have you actually read the discussion on this? Do you know how this originated? Please check very carefully before you do anything drastic. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really quite a lot of discussion, so I only skimmed it.  Nor do I intend/propose to do anything "drastic" - I was just pointing out a link that could be useful to other folks.  Care to provide a summary of anything important I might have missed? schi talk 19:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion has also been inactive for about a month. I didn't see much consensus for anything, but I changed the image to a template saying the article had been illustrated (as per other illustrated pages). Trebor 19:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's fair enough. Sorry for my hasty intervention but I was worried (previous reactions have been rather uncivil, with one user edit-warring to remove all trace of the cartoons from every article; since the artist had been invited by Danny Wool and given permission to use the Wikipedia logo, this did not go down anything near well). Thanks again for your cooperation. HAND —Phil | Talk 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiworld cartoon