Talk:True

Redirect
Why is True auto redirecting to Truth? Might want a disambigous page w/ also links to True in terms of other things, (I came looking for Computer Science related info) --ORBIT 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition given here is far too feeble. ... Banno 21:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Too feeble???
Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the buoyancy to float above the sea of theist obscurantism in Truth.
 * The definition offered is blatantly POV - see truthBanno 07:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The corespondence theory is one amongst many

This is not about any THEORY ('might be' proposition), sir. Any statement about the actual state of affairs in any particular case is true if and only if it is in accord with the actual state of affairs in that particular case. This is not just a point of view, or a theory, it is the definition of the term, 'true'. What are you, Obscurantist?
 * Read the article truth. Take a look at the archive. You are proposing one definition (corespondence) among many. That is POV. And I do not yet have a knighthood. Banno 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hint: It is only disputed by those who are obscurantist.

 * "Read the article truth. ... Banno 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)"

Been there, done that, got the T shirt, and I have questions about it. 8^)

How about clearing up something for me today, Banno, concerning that article? How can you presume to write about TRUTH (meaning a statement that is true) without first stipulating to the meaning of the more basic term, TRUE (in general usage generally taken to mean "In accord with the actual state of affairs")? Would it be possible for one to explain the term, 'fourth' to a visitor from another planet without first explaining the more basic term, 'four'?


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Please do not delete material from the talk pages. Banno 09:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. Now will you please answer the question?


 * I, and others, have - in the archive you claim to have read.

You mean your screed of theist obscurantism in your article, Truth? Nothing there answers the my question.


 * Again, this is not a forum. Banno 23:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

So you can publish whatever screed of theist obscurantism you please, and it is never open to question? What are these talk pages for then?


 * Certainly not for feeding Trolls. Enough. Banno

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. 67.182.157.6 01:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Better
Reproducing material from truth here seems pointless to me, but if it is important for you.... Banno 22:05, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed
What are your grounds for disputing 1? Maybe you should see Peer review? 67.182.157.6 23:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * .3, as I've pointed out, there are other definitions of "true"; the article truth lists at least 10. For a few more, see Talk:Truth/Archive 3 - in the archive you claimed to have read. Your single use of the correspondence theory is, as I said, POV.


 * As for: True, about a statement, is an evaluation of the truth of that statement. To say "it is true that: it is raining" is to evaluate the statement "it is raining" as being true. This is a variation on the consensus intro to truth, a compromise reached after extensive discussion - not just my work.


 * As for policies, you might benefit from reading Neutral point of view; Wikiquette; Assume good faith; Writers' rules of engagement; read those, and I'll try to stick to Welcome anonymous editing. Banno 00:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
Banno, why don't you and your obscurantist partners stop vandalizing this page, don't you know that is conduct unbecoming a seeker of truth?

Neutrality dispute - admin help needed
The neutrality of having this term, 'true' redirect to the obscurantist babble about theories of truth is in question. Should redirect to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truth


 * The definition of truth is that which is true so it certainly makes sense to have true redirect to truth. If there is a problem with the truth article that needs to be addressed there.  It's impossible for a Wikipedia article to redirect to Wikitionary. --Canderson7 18:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

(Point by point response follows)


 * The definition of truth is that which is true ...

That is one point of view (see bias), but that is not universally accepted, and you have no right to engrave in stone your bias here in Wikiland. In general ussage the term, 'truth' refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. "P is true" simply means P is in accord with the actual state of affairs, so it is redundant. It is perfectly sufficient to simply say P.


 * You are conflating two different, and mutually contradictory, doctrines about truth: The claim that "P is true" is redundant is the claim that
 * "P is true" = P
 * But the doctrine that
 * "'P is true' = P is in accord with the actual state of affairs"
 * is a form of the correspondence theory of truth, which contradicts the claim that "P is true" is redundant. --Nate Ladd 04:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the obscurantist jihad to insist on having it read "THAT which is true" (which is circular by the way), instead of "a statement in accord with the actual state of affairs," because obscurantistism must insist on having the door left open for an argument that belief in the tenet of a religion can be considered known to be true (so-called 'revealed truth'), because, obscurantists argue, "Knowledge is belief." But that is dismissed as the folly of conflation of two entirely different things.
 * so it certainly makes sense to have true redirect to truth.

From the obscurantist point of view, which is not universally accepted.


 * If there is a problem with the truth article that needs to be addressed there.

Resistance to the obscurantist jihad is happening there, here, and other places as well. Learn to deal with it, without bias, if you want to learn to be an encyclopedia writer.


 * It's impossible for a Wikipedia article to redirect to Wikitionary. --Canderson7 18:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Then we need to put in a Request For Change to request a patch to fix that bug. 8^) --207.200.116.130 19:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * DotSix, please stop. You are heading towards formal Dispute resolution. You say "see talk", yet you don't post anything new here. You call other users names, but complain loudly and remove other people's comments when someone criticizes you. There is a reason that Wikipedia articles can't redirect to external sites. First, it would be used for obscene vandalism. Second, we should make an effort to provide that information on Wikipedia, not somewhere else. Rhobite 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

True Magazine
I'd like to make this a disambig to both 'Truth' and 'True (Magazine)', which was published in the 1960s. -Litefantastic 11:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine - but first we need an articel for True (magazine) Banno 12:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Injunction against DotSix
For those that missed it:

DotSix, using any IP is prohibited from editing any Wikipedia page other than his talk page and the pages of this Arbitration case until a final decision is made in this case. 

As I understand it, if he edits here again, we report it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to have him blocked; add a link to the diff of the arbitration decision by way of explanation. Banno 11:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation
There are at current two other articles that relate to the name "True" -- True (taxonomy) and True (album) (Which, ironically enough, are a redirect and disambiguation page respectively) So... shouldn't this be a disambiguation, with an option to go to Truth, rather than a redirect? Or at least give a disambig option in the Truth article? Lilinka 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation page
Since there are several uses of the word "true", I have turned the redirect page into a disambiguation page. --Ixfd64 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)