Talk:Truthiness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Factiness

Factiness has been stubbed here as its page on wikipedia has been locked. Perhapes an admin can settle this or at least facilitate a legitmante debate on the articles merits.

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)

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

Piss off Colbert hater. Superior1 04:04, 14 August 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)

Neologisminess

If Truthiness is not neologism neither is moralphobia! The neologisminess value of a word fades in proportion to the fame of the one who utters the word? Misunderestimate must have an even lower neologisminess than truthiness's neologisminess! Neolojism 11:56, 01 Jan 2007 (PST)

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)

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.

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.TStein 07:17, 16 September 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)

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

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)

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)

To authors look at this

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)

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. 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.--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. —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)

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)

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

But my point still stands, this entry is perfectly formed, yet meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your talk page edits with four tildes (~~~~). --Emufarmers^(T/C) 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.) Kim Bruning 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: systematic bias moved from article

DominicCronin (talk · contribs) 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)

Broken link

Footnote 17 is broken and is not in the Internet Archive. --Sertorius 20:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Footnote 17 is live, but 19 is broken and not in the Internet Archive. Dmc28 04:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening line

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)

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). 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= savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 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.

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)

Wikiality as a seperate article?

Why isn't wikiality a separate 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. --Zebraic 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well...I've thought this before too, but everytime I keep going back to it being a part of Truthiness. While 'wikiality' has taken off in the sense that Colbert's rabbid fans have a new game to play and there are watchdog groups on wiki just to watch for them--it isn't this big THING. Since it isn't a big THING and since according to Colbert, Wikiality is simply Wikipedia following his "philosophy of truthiness." (that's a quote from wikiality on wikipedia not a Colbert quote.)

I have however changed the link that from Truthiness to Wikiality to Wikiality#Wikiality so that readers get to the right section. TStein 21:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Uses of 'Truthiness' largely absent

There are plenty of mentions of 'truthiness' in the article, hence descriptions of, e.g., its history, its aptness for this kind of situation or that, its alleged meaning(s), and so on. But there are very few examples provided of the word in use. To become familiar with the meaning of a word, one must be exposed to instances of its use. One has to use the word to teach it, and this cannot be done by still more mentions of it.

External links missing titles

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

Word of The Year

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).

pwn3d? --A Good Anon 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

External link

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)

Banishment

Truthiness made LSSU's banished words list. I, however, have no clue how to properly add this fact. Here is the link:

http://www.lssu.edu/banished/current.php

Truthiness has an old meaning.

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)

That's already been addressed in the "Origin" section of the article. schi ^talk 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why italics?

I'm confused about why the term is always italicized. Croctotheface 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the Use-mention distinction. Trebor 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiworld cartoon

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)