Talk:Truthiness

Archives
November 2005 – March 2006

To authors look at this

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

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

Article Size

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)

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)

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)

Previous comment is obviously Colbert himself. At least, I really hope that's Sarcasm.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. --bī-RŌ 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Stub

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

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

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

The analogous article Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_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)

citations

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)

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)

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)

Cool. I've begun the cite upgrades by section. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 00:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 02:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite upgrades complete. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Truthiness is mysticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Changes motivated by consensus criticism at Featured Article candidate page

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)

An Objection

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-like" nature of this phenomena, such as:

• "Truthiness is a neologism coined by popular American television commentator Stephen blah blah blah..."

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?Eaglizard 07:26, 17 July 2006 (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. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 21:06, 17 July 2006 (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.Eaglizard 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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. --kizzle 02:56, 18 July 2006 (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? - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect reference

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, [1], 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)

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)

To Colbert and his viewers

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)