Talk:Truthiness/Archive 1

message: If this page is going to keep getting deleted, then I am going to remove the link to it in The Colbert Report episode guide. There is no sense in having a link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.135.26.206 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2005
An article here was deleted several times in 2005; see the log and the afd. Melchoir 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 deletions

message: I don't know the history of this page's creation and deletion, but the term was just named the American Dialect Society's "2005 Word of the Year". That seems to me to justify a short entry.ERobson 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the Talk section of the main article, The Colbert Report. - Reaverdrop 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer, Reaverdrop. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary argument seems sound, and if the entry gets voted for deletion, I won't argue.ERobson 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, "truthiness" is not just a word and a candidate for a dictionary; it is also a cultural phenomenon, as demonstrated best by its selection by the American Dialect Society as its 2005 Word of the Year. They didn't make that choice, over competing words "podcast" and "Katrinagate", just because it was a word - they selected it as a touchstone of today's social and cultural issues. It's also peculiar in its mode of introduction to the language, as a sign that Colbert's "The Wørd" has the cultural power to deliver a word invented by him into the popular language, and bring etymology professors like Anatoly Liberman to predict it will soon be included in the dictionaries (see The Colbert Report). As a cultural phenomenon rather than merely a word, it is of interest for a wikipedia article rather than just a dictionary entry. - Reaverdrop 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Dictionaries are not meant to discuss the cultural significance of words or their history.  The topic of this article is not the definition of the word, but rather its history. --Chris 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto.  I think the article discusses the cultural context of the word, how it came to be, etc. which isn't really appropriate subject matter for a dictionary.  It seems to be more of a pop culture or urban legend reference, because I can imagine "truthiness" hitting legend status 20 years from now. I think it should stay. --TsuKata 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The deletanistas can suck on the word of the year --69.221.208.121 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005 Word of the Year

message: Someone at a library should check the full-size OED to confirm that it contains an entry on "truthiness". - Reaverdrop 17:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need - I have access to the online database. "Truthiness" is mentioned in the entry for "truthy", a rarely-used word. There is even an example of "truthiness" from 1824: "1824 J. J. GURNEY in Braithwaite Mem. (1854) I. 242 Everyone who knows her is aware of her truthiness." However "truthiness" doesn't have its own entry in the OED. Rhobite 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have online access to the OED... I am filled with envy. Thanks for the confirmation though. - Reaverdrop 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, it's through my school. I'll get cut off after I graduate. I'm going to miss Proquest and Lexis too. Rhobite 01:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the next four weeks, the online OED will be free for all for the two days (from late on Monday, all of Tuesday, to late on Wednesday) following the broadcast of Balderdash and Piffle on BBC1. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (Liberman Edit War moved from here to its own section, below) - Reaverdrop 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthiness in OED?

message: This article, urged for deletion by a few untruthy souls, is now honored in the "Did you know..." section. Good work everyone. - Reaverdrop 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! You people get it. 67.39.23.154 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthiness entry on Wikipedia homepage! Hooray!

message: from the article: In its 16th annual words of the year vote, the American Dialect Society voted truthiness as the word of the year. First heard on the Colbert Report, a satirical mock news show on the Comedy Channel [sic], truthiness refers to the quality of stating concepts or facts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true. As Stephen Colbert put it, "I don’t trust books. They're all fact, no heart."
I think this distinction between truth and 'truthiness' should be mentioned in the intro, to further make it clearer that truthiness is not a silly way of referring to truth. --Revolución (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthiness vs. Truth

message: An amusing article, but isn't it the definition of neologism? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when it's been cited numerous times by people other than the coiner. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologism?

message: I don't think that when Colbert said "liberals and conservatives, tops and bottoms" he was referring to BDSM.  I figured there must have been some reason that those particular meanings were added in, I was just wondering why... -VetteDude 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Top" and "bottom" are sexual slang. --Revolución (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, he could have been refering to quarks (top quark/bottom quark), but I doubt it - must of us are (ups and downs) anyway... What about ins and outs? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing he would be talking about during this discussion, considering it really isn't a well-known thing in popular culture.  I would think it is more likely he was saying this in reference to top and bottom meaning haves and have-nots (ie bourgeois and proletariat)-VetteDude 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed obvious to me, but apparently it isn't so for some.  He's a comedian.  The tops and bottoms reference injects a crude pop-cultural sexual reference into an intellectual discussion that ironically feigns hostility to intellectualism, thus adding to the comedic layers of the "truthiness" joke.  The joke is compounded further by the superficial nature of the division between "tops" and "bottoms", just as America is as superficially divided by politics.  I'm certain he was referring to neither quarks nor class politics, as neither is consistent with his on-air persona, which he maintains at all times.--Rockero 20:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was making a sly double entendre to BDSM, particularly because when he said it he made a hand gesture with one hand over the other, and got extra laughs. BUT, if he was referring to the quarks, that would add even subtler double entendre, because the top quark is also known in the physics literature as the "true" quark (or, the "truthiness" quark?), and the bottom as the "beautiful" quark - and these are the two rarest and most difficult to produce of quarks. Look it up - in your gut. (Or in a book.) - Reaverdrop 21:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just lead a sheltered life, I guess :) Watching the episode again, it does seem from the laughs he got from the audience that this was what he was talking about. -VetteDude 15:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tops and bottoms

message: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness - Reaverdrop 18:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truthiness in the Dutch Wikipedia!

message: As mentioned in the history bynotes, BLUE edited Colbert's definition of truthiness as: "As defined by Colbert, "truthiness" refers to the quality by which one knows something to be true emotionally or instinctively, rather than intellectually."
However, this definition treats "knows something to be true" as if the something were actually true and the subject actually knows that truth. This is not Colbert's definition, rather it is just that tendency which, when gone awry, Colbert the real person was criticising, by defending it from within his satirical character of Colbert the ignorant right-wing blowhard pundit.
The definition I wrote earlier is as nearly as I could paraphrase, in a form fitting for an encyclopedic article, from Colbert's original script, after reviewing the video a few times. "His" definition has been edited now several times by people who seem to think they have a better idea for what truthiness ought to mean, but that destroys the actuality of what he said, which is what we should preserve in a passage that attributes the definition to him.
I restored the accurate definition based on Colbert's delivery, and tried to clarify its satirical nature. That should also address Revolución's concern above in "Truthiness vs. Truth".
BLUE also suggested the lead-in was panegyrical, which one might have taken it as if Colbert is interpreted as an earnest defender of emotion as a valid epistemological basis. When clarified as satire, that objection disappears. - Reaverdrop 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colbert's definition of Truthiness

message: An interesting choice but misguided - does anyone not feel like conscience is too tenuously if at all associated with truthiness to be here? Truthiness is an epistemological fallacy; it might guide someone's moral choices, but it doesn't concern moral judgments per se. I'll give it a few days, then I say we dump Conscience from See Also.  - Reaverdrop 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. JDoorjam     Talk 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also: Conscience?!?!

message: Wow. So I've read through all the popular science reporting on Westen's study and can't find one good representation of the research. I rewrote the section as best as I could based upon the information availible. Westen's faculty profile page has a link to his publications; it seems the research mentioned in this section has yet to be published though it is listed on the site as in review. Once the actual article is published I'll update this section with more accurate information. Does this solution and do my edits seem reasonable to folks here? Semiconscious • talk 06:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also found that faculty page, but couldn't find a peer-reviewed reference, before originally posting that material. The technical description was compiled after comparing what references were available; each individual one refrained from more than one or two neurological terms. We'll keep a lookout for the actual publication. - Reaverdrop 08:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neuro stuff

message: This article reports three separate times that Steven Cobert said "fuck Wikipedia".  I agree, it's exciting, but surely that's excessive? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3 times?

message: To whomever has contributed to this article.  Thank you.  After the article about Japanese Toilets, I think this is the best one I've read on Wikipedia.  --jacobolus (t) 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: In most cases of vandalism when phrases are added (especially when easy to deal with like at the top), deleting is much easier than reverting. To revert, you click on whatever old version to be displayed, click edit, then save changes (with your revert message). It has a warning and stuff about editing an old version that you ignore. Tyciol 08:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting is safer, though. Manually deleting vandalism very often misses part of that vandalism, or fails to fully restore something that was removed. -Silence 11:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm under the impression that Tyciol meant to say 'reverting is much easier than deleting'? Remy B 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting rather than deleting

message: I have removed the reference of the FBI. This institution has a policy of neither confirming or denying a on-going investigations. The profanity was removed; I was unaware this was against policy. I did not inserted, but left it in the passage.
The rest of the information is valid and verified.
In a March 2006 episode of the Colbert Report, Arianna Huffington, who speaks english as a second language, challenged Colbert on his claim that he had invented the word, truthiness. Colbert responded in his native tongue negatively with a comment that was bleeped out. He went on to proclaim: "I'm not a truthiness fanatic, I'm truthiness' father." Firmitas.
:Whats the improvement on the text already in there? Personally I think the references to 'second language' and 'native tongue' is totally irrelevant to the issue. Taking that out, there is less information in the paragraph than what already exists. Remy B 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia articles are not the place to add ironic statements, even if they are interesting. I think the text that is there now sticks to the facts and is of a good length. Remy B 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Type four tildes and it will automatically convert it when you save the page. Like this: ~~~~ Remy B 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *The User:Firmitas who was putting in stuff about them playing footsies as well last night, so yes, I have a bias against the info as not relevant. -Jcbarr 17:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: The above line previously read as: "As for the footsie reference I read on a Blog which I mistook for fact. I apologize and have not posted it since. Firmitas 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Arianna Huffington is perfectly able to speak English, she is a famous blogger after all! It is presumptuous in the least to say that someones language expertise is necessarily affected by which language they first learnt. In this particular case, it doesnt affect her expertise at all, so the text is implying something about her that is not true. The fact that she challenged Colbert about truthiness had nothing to do with her ignorance or lack of a grasp of English, it was entirely in jest to provoke Colbert into his easily predictable fictional outrage. May I suggest that the only reason you are deleting the text is to remove the word 'fuck'? If so, please read this WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. If not, why are you removing the word in your edit? Remy B 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you going to go through the article and comment on the proficiency of English of everyone mentioned? Or just single out Arianna Huffington? I think it is very unfair that you are pointing out her second language in a way that implies she questioned truthiness merely out of her own ill-proficiency of English, which is certainly not true. Remy B 17:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You also mention that we shouldnt remove facts from the story - where is the Wikipedia reference? The text you put in now says the Colbert says 'fuck them' without even referring who he is saying it to. I dare say that without the Wikipedia reference, the whole paragraph is so non-notable it shouldnt even be there. Are we going to report every time Colbert mentions the word? Remy B 17:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the main problem is that you've chosen to emphasize the fact that Huffington's native language is something other than English, as if expertise in a language is primarily correlated with whether that language was the first one learned.  It isn't; it's correlated with how much the language is question has been studied.  A non-native speaker who's studied English extensively can be much more expert than a native speaker who's uneducated.  There's nothing surprising or mysterious about that.  (Before anyone gets any ideas, no, I'm not saying that Colbert is undeducated; I'm just saying that mentioning that Huffington is a non-native speaker is weasely.  If you think she's inexpert in English, find a reliable source that says so.) -GTBacchus(talk) 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Mentioning the fact that English isn't her first language is inappropriate.  It implies something without stating it, and encyclopedia articles state, not imply.  If her language skills are relevant, we must cite that fact to whoever believes it, per WP:CITE, which is policy. Tuf-Kat 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's precisely what JCBarr is supposed to do.  That's the whole point of a wiki. Tuf-Kat 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandals & Greeks 

message: here's an interesting link on this topic from 
CoolHeadz News
skizznologic3.1 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey y'all 

message: Nice try!  LONG LIVE COLBERT!  Morton devonshire 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding  doesn't do anything to help this article. Please don't do it again. Rhobite 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the kind of schtick Colbert is famous for.  Of course it's a gag.  Morton devonshire 02:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Between Wikipedia and the Colbert Report, only one is a comedy show. Try Uncyclopedia next time you feel like adding a joke to an article. Rhobite 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: So are you saying "truthiness" is a haox? For a hoax, it's gotten quite a bit of press. Semiconscious • talk 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admire Colbert's style, and think it's interesting that he would choose Wikipedia as one of his targets.  I guess WP has finally come of age.  Morton devonshire 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my topic one above this. We agree. But it doesn't make it a hoax. Semiconscious • talk 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no question of having a sense of humour - its just that Wikipedia articles are not the place to express it. When an article is mentioned on a TV show, it doesnt do much for the credibility of Wikipedia to have a large number of people visit the article and see people making jokes in the text. I know there is no point in expecting absolutely everyone to refrain from silly edits on high profile articles, but I dont think its much to ask that people accept that those edits will soon be quickly reverted without telling the reverters that they lack a sense of humour. Remy B 09:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a sense of humor, but Wikipedia articles aren't the place for jokes. It's unprofessional. Rhobite 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A hoax

message: This is a most informative and entertaining article, but I don't think that this means it's a good one. Like a lot of articles in WP, it seems prolix. A particularly jarring example is the section "'Truthiness': the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year", which presents a longish and moderately interesting quote from a website together with a slightly revised version of the same. Suggestion: in a general-purpose encyclopedia (as opposed to, say, a dictionary of word coinages), the reader is likely to be bored by this. But before I hack away at the flab here, I should ask whether I'm out of step with majority opinion. -- Hoary 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there is a lot of cruft and disproportionate material in the article. Remember - be bold - you might get a couple of complaints but the majority of people appreciate it when you do a good cleanup. Remy B 10:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement. But I'll wait for a little while, during which time voices may be heard saying "No! Every last mention in a blog is noteworthy!" Yes, as I first skimread the article I was entertained (almost exclusively by the quotation of Colbert discussing Incurious George), informed, but a bit jaded; as I reread it carefully -- e.g. looking for mentions of articles "entitled" this or that -- I was thoroughly bored. But perhaps I just have attention-deficit disorder. -- Hoary 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you and I both would be diagnosed as such, I too believe this article is far more verbose than necessary. Hack away! Semiconscious • talk 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prolixity

message: you guys really protected it?? hehe. I though it was a tuesday nite phenomenon. what's up w/ anons or nobodys (no userpage/history) doing reverts?? so weird. u know it's gott be someone who works on here but for some reason doesn't want to be seen making certain reverts. wow. I gott learn how to track IP's. skizznologic3.1 19:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow. 

message: The article mentions how Colbert came up with "truthiness" just before the show, and I'm sure that he did.  But the general idea behind it, something much discussed in this article, was apparent in the intial fake promos ("It's French bitch") on the Daily Show.  One part was: "Tired of opinions supported by research? Then take a spin in the No-Fact Zone."  "We ignore the evidence and get straight to what I think."  This seems to be the first incarnation of the idea, without the word.  --JGGardiner 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The No Fact Zone

message: I feel that the characterization on the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contained in the "Independent Observations" heading is somewhat offensive.  Commentary on a specific religious group is unnecessary in this article, since it is focused on the etymology and cultural effect of the word; in other words, how it is being applied and not how it could or should be applied.
:For the record, here's the deleted passage: "Truthiness also bears some parallels to religious thought. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints explicitly teaches that faith can never come through rational understanding, but only by gaining a feeling that something is true, which they teach is the witness of the Holy Ghost."
:Was there anything there that wasn't doctrinally correct according to LDS teachings?
:Anyway, hopefully the current version will be more agreeable. The article doesn't so much discuss the cultural impact of "truthiness", but its rapid adoption as a sharper way to describe preexisting cultural phenomena - which would include the potential parallel to religious faith. This is relevant to Colbert's usage, since the peculiarities of religious faith are one of the most frequent targets of his humor - while he is also a practicing Catholic. - Reaverdrop 03:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right." D&C 9:8. Sounds a whole lot like truthiness to me - and the LDS church teaches this passage as divine instructions for knowing what is true. It prefaces this by saying to study it out in your mind, but it doesn't say studying it out in your mind is how you arrive at the truth - nor do the missionaries teach investigators to study the Book of Mormon out in their mind to know if it is true - they teach them to "ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."  It doesn't purport to be a merely physiological feeling, but my point is, how do you tell the difference... and that is not at all a trivial question. - Reaverdrop 08:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not offended per se, this does seem a little bit like original research.  I'd be ok with "Colbert often points out the 'truthiness' in organized religion" (except, well, he doesn't), or "Colbert said 'X' about religion", but I don't like it as an independent unsourced observation.  It's not verifiable in its current incarnation.  Gimme a quote, man! JDoorjam     Talk 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church of Jesus Christ mention unneeded

message: :WHY? Why does this need to be deleted? Stephen Colbert often refers to this word in his show and MANY OTHER NEWSCASTORS have used this word as well. This article is more about the current event revolving the word than the actual definition. Why the hell does everyone on the wiki want to delete everything that isn't 100% perfect? --DragonWR12LB 08:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He apparently just made a mistake - somebody apparently added it to a list of hoaxes—as a hoax, and he fell for it.  Should links for these deletion attempts be added to this page? Шизомби 09:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD nomination: Sorry but this, to me, is utter crap. Is there a word for that, sort of instinctively knowing something without evidence? :-) Weregerbil 14:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Deletion