Talk:Truthiness/Archive 1

2005 deletions
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)

2005 Word of the Year
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)
 * See also the Talk section of the main article, The Colbert Report. - Reaverdrop 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The deletanistas can suck on the word of the year --69.221.208.121 02:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness in OED?
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)
 * 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)
 * You have online access to the OED... I am filled with envy. Thanks for the confirmation though. - Reaverdrop 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (Liberman Edit War moved from here to its own section, below) - Reaverdrop 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness entry on Wikipedia homepage! Hooray!
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)
 * Yeah! You people get it. 67.39.23.154 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Truthiness vs. Truth
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)

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

Not coined by Colbert
Although the previously obscure word was popularized and redefined by Colbert, we need to make it clearer that he didn't actually coin it. The reference was in the OED prior to his broadcast. Rhobite 15:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, Colbert doesn't make up his scripts. He has a team of writers. Cews 21:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Contribution by Chris Hanson 22:56 EST 3 March 2006
 * The original sense reported in the OED, from what I can gather from Rhobite's quote above, was that of "truthfullness" rather than the sense implied on Colbert's show. The sense I gather from Colbert's usage is to refer to a truth-like substance with the appearance of (or insistence of its possession of) the truth but not actual truth itself. So, in this new sense at least, it may be somewhat of a coinage by the Colbert show. --Fire Star 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Associated Press released an article January 7, 2006 to report the 2005 word of the year. This article, while naming other celebrities for popular words used in 2005 such as Cruisazy, completely ommited any mention of Cobert.  Later that week the AP topped Cobert's list as the number one threat facing America.  Number two was bears.  On January 12 the AP issued another article discussing this feud.
 * As to the fact that the word dates back to the 1800s and can be found in the OED, Cobert had this to say: "The fact that they (the AP) looked it up in a book just shows that they don't get the idea of truthiness at all. You don't look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut."
 * Just because "truthiness" was included as a variant of "truthy" in the full OED (which takes up an entire shelf), and apparently no other dictionary, does not mean Colbert did not independently re-invent it - if he had no awareness of the previous, very obscure reference, which he apparently didn't. This isn't a great analogy, but the U.S. Patent Office issues patents on inventions made in America regardless of whether they had actually been invented earlier in another country but never published - it recognizes the validity of re-inventing.
 * I get your gist, but it is a bad analogy. Truthiness was published in the OED.  Thus, it is not invented by Colbert. OTOH, he did invent a new definition for the word.  You can patent a new use for an old device as a method of using...  --Lenehey 22:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And, Colbert does indeed participate in writing his own material on the Report, and before the new show, was on the team that writes Jon Stewart's monologues on The Daily Show. -Reaverdrop 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, there's a bit of a contradiction in the opening paragraphs of this article: "The term was coined and popularized by Stephen Colbert. . ." and, two paragraphs later, "Although Colbert did not coin the term. . ." --R.Lange 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tops and bottoms
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)
 * "Top" and "bottom" are sexual slang. --Revolución (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Liberman Edit War

 * (Moved from OED section)

I've removed the prediction by Anatoly Liberman because it isn't encyclopedic. Random comments made by an obscure college professor (even on his subject of research) doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. This strikes me as a vanity entry, even though I'm sure Liberman didn't post the entry himself. If this had been in a published scholarly paper by Liberman that might qualify as encyclopedic. Putting a quote like this in an encyclopedia only exagerates the relevance of the quote. Please stop putting back the Liberman quote. A single quote by an obscure college professor on a local radio station isn't relevant. Don't start an edit war you can't win. I suspect you're either one of his grad students, or a fanboy. This is a vanity quote and irrelevant. --Vellmont 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only capacities in which I am familiar with Dr. Liberman is from his frequent appearances on public radio and from his widely available popular book. I don't understand why you assume only a "fanboy" or student of his would include the statement, but that is only argument by ad hominem, a sign of the weakness of your position. It is an authoritative statement from a well-recognized, popular, and highly respected academic authority on etymology and the origin of English words. I can hardly think why any other sentence of the Truthiness article would be more worthy of inclusion than such an authoritative evaluation from such a widely regarded expert. If you look at the discussion above, the fact that he made a discussion about "truthiness" on public radio was part of the original rationale for having a wikipedia entry on truthiness rather than just a wiktionary entry - it is strong evidence of truthiness as a cultural phenomenon and a touchstone for public commentary. To top it off, it was a statement against interest - Dr. Liberman said he hated the word and wished it wasn't gaining so much cultural currency, but he had to predict its permanent establishment in the English language anyway - and as a statement against interest, in the critical tradition of Bertrand Russell, it has the highest degree of reliability. If you're so anxious for unencyclopedic matter to swat down, spend your time against the curators of the Wikipedia entries on Stephen Colbert's Scorn and Stephen Colbert's Hip-Hopketball. As for the high-interest commentary by Dr. Liberman in the Truthiness entry, I don't find your argument for your edit war persuasive, and I don't think the majority of the wiki-community would either. - Reaverdrop 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are personally biased in this matter, this is not simply an ad-hominem attack. Liberman appearing a local radio station (sorry, but it's not nationwide which seems to be your implication) doesn't make a random quote by him relevent.  From your perspective any local pundit talking about Truthiness on a local radio station is worthy of being quoted on Wikipedia.  This is simply ridiculous.  You only pollute the issue by talking about his "widely" available book here.  It's the relevance of the quote that's at issue.  Last I heard Liberman wasn't an expert on the word Truthiness, and his book isn't on the word truthiness.  He's essentially playing the role of local pundit on minnesota public radio.  I'm removing the quote again, and will soon start a call for arbitration on this matter as you obviously have no ability to see this issue without personal bias attatched to it. (unsigned Vellmont)
 * No one (besides maybe Colbert) is an "expert on the word truthiness". Liberman is an expert on the etymology and origin of English words, widely admired both by academic and popular lay audiences.
 * But, talk is cheap, and objective evidence is more persuasive. The Liberman quote in this Truthiness article has actually already been noted and valued by other language mavens (apparently in between your vandal jobs):

"truthiness back in the news... I just read the exhaustive word on 'the word' in wikipedia! Steve will have the last laugh when it appears in new editions of many dictionaries in the next year." - from Lexical Elitists - a direct reference to the Liberman quote, from a language lover who valued it enough to single it out for comment from among the entire article. And no, before you launch another conspiracy theory, I had no prior "fanboy" connection or knowledge of these people either.
 * You still seem to be the only one with anything against this, while others are supporting me in reverting. Don't bother with arbitration. - Reaverdrop 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Colbert's definition of Truthiness
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)
 * Thanks for this Reaverdrop. I agree that an original & authentic definition as provided by Colbert must stand; this is handled by the first section after the lead. Part of the problem is of course construing a workable definition which is faithful to a formulation delivered as part of a comedy routine. You've done well to put something together. The "but" is that as a matter of form, what we currently have does not read particularly well, while as a matter of substance, it imports subjective terms that are not readily accessible (eg. references to "heart"). So we currently have truthiness as "the quality by which one purports to know something in one's heart, to the neglect of facts or of what one might think with one's head". We can do better than this without losing the integrity of Colbert's formulation, and perhaps gain some accuracy. So how about "the quality by which someone purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence [or without regard to facts] or what the person thinks intellectually". They are no doubt better formulations, and "intellectually" may not fit well, but can I appeal to the truthiness of my claims and have you handle the appropriate changes to the definition? BLUE 06:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, BLUE - like a true "word police" or "wordanista". I like the new definition you've proposed, it is more faithful to the original intent while exercising more precision. Maybe just change the ending, which implicitly assumes that the relier on truthiness has already performed intellectual thought processes parallel to his emotional or instintive reactions - perhaps "the quality by which someone purports to know something emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or to what the person might conclude from intellectual examination"? By the way your edit of the following sentence on the satirical intent is also much tighter - bravo. - Reaverdrop 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Reaverdrop, if by "wordanista" you mean considered, convincing and charming! I'll go ahead with this restatement we've collaboratively developed. BLUE 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, BLUE. - Reaverdrop 17:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow
I was just about to add this, before I realised it was already here. -- user:zanimum
 * I gave the article a "Good article" status. It's part of "Language and linguistics" right now... what's should it be classified as? "Culture and society"? "Media"? "Politics and government"? Or leave it be? --  user:zanimum

Dictionary
I cant wait to tell my brother about this new word and see him look it up in the dictionary. He is a regular scrabble player.user:me
 * Unless he has an absolutely new dictionary, he won't find it. --  user:zanimum
 * Sure he will, if it's expansive and old enough. Read the article; truthiness was already a word, as the noun form of the archaic adjective truthy. -Silence 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realise that. He will see "truthy", which has pretty much the exact same meaning. But the revised spelling and slightly tweaked definition is not in any print dictionary. --  user:zanimum
 * I'd call it more than a "slightly tweaked" definition - the dictionary definition is a variation on straightforward "truthfulness", while this involves imputing truthfulness based on emotional reasoning despite objective evidence and reasoning - this is a very new and different definition that is not in any print dictionary. yet. - Reaverdrop 05:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot of Truthiness as The Wørd?
A screenshot of "truthiness" actually on the bullet point on The Wørd would be a particularly relevant addition, maybe to take the top right place where we now have the iterative portrait. The video is freely available online at. Any volunteers? - Reaverdrop 23:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * uploaded colbert-truthiness.jpg, please use it if appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * sweet, thanks - Reaverdrop 17:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Picture
Is the second picture really necessary? It does not really add to the page, or connect with "truthiness", since after The Word is always a commercial break, making the pose (which I think may actually be a promotional shot for the show, not actually from an episode) more than "moments" after the introduction. Does anyone else feel that it should be deleted? -AtionSong 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have deleted the image from the page. It's a great picture, but really has nothing to do with truthiness.  What would be great is if we could get a non-Colbert, truthiness-related image up in the article, to expand the article beyond the origins of the word (and beyond Colbert). JDoorj a m Talk 14:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, that is an actual screenshot from the premiere episode, when he did a little monologue in front of the portrait of himself in front of another portrait of himself. But I agree that one is disposable from this page now that it's been replaced by the screenshot that actually shows "truthiness" as The Word.
 * As for another, non-Colbert truthiness-related picture, maybe a screenshot of Oprah and Frank Rich during their conversation on "truthiness"? - Reaverdrop 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fantastic idea. I've no idea how to get a screenshot of that, though -- any experts at that?  And on a broader, related issue, I know there are ways of requesting articles, but is there some sort of Wikipedia help desk/clearinghouse where Wikipedians can request screenshots?  Because if not, I feel like that might be a worthwhile project.... (and if so, well, cool.)  JDoorj a m     Talk 22:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

See also: Conscience?!?!
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)
 * Agreed. JDoorj a m    Talk 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro stuff
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? S e  miconscious  •  talk  06:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

3 times?
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)

Popularized vs Invented?
Invent has a specific legal meaning and requires "novelty". If the word existed previously, even with a different meaning, Cobert did not INVENT it. Arguably you can say he redefined it. You can say he rediscovered it. You may say that he "reinvented" it (though it is a meaningless phrase in most uses). But you cannot logically say he "invented" something which already existed in the universe. It doesn't matter if he thought up the word independently. The word clearly existed prior to Oct 17, 05. Therefore "invent" is just flat out wrong and needs to be kept out of this article before the high school kids who use this as a real resource get any more misled. -Jcbarr 07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

- "Popularized"->"Invented" is the most common occurrence of "vandalism" on this page; perhaps "reinvented" would please both parties? 70.225.231.57 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

- Colbert INVENTED the new usage of the word. Good grief, why the hard-on for denying him his invention?


 * - It should read that he "unknowingly reinvented" the word. All the changes saying something like "he took it in a new direction" suggest truthiness was already a common word he must have been familiar with, and did nothing more than come up with a new usage.


 * And for the record, just for a point of comparison on the definition of "invent" (although words are very different from patentable subject matter): even something widely known in other countries, but not patented or published in another country or known in the U.S., can be patented in the U.S., and U.S. patent law treats the patentee as having "invented" it. This pretty authoritative source on the proper usage of "invent" therefore takes "invent" not to mean that it was previously universally unknown, only that it was previously unknown within a bounded region. In this case, if we take our bounded region to be the entire community of English speakers outside of maybe ten or twelve professors in the world who might have been consciously familiar with the OED's rare or dialectal entry on "truthiness" before the premiere of The Colbert Report, then it is fully accurate to say Colbert "invented" the word, and the invention was later shown to be a "reinvention"; but he was not shown not to have "invented" it. - Reaverdrop 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "unknowningly reinvented the archaic word" or something to that effect would be good. Tuf-Kat 08:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * -The invention of engines did not stop after steam. The inventor of the gasoline engine is properly credited for his invention, as is the inventor of the diesel engine.  All three engines share the same characteristics: a piston, valves, and hot expanding gases.  And to add yet more argument pro-invention, when two people have invented the same functional object, we claim them both as inventors.   By all logic, Colbert is the inventor of "truthiness" as the word is used today; and is co-inventor of the spelling "t-r-u-t-h-i-n-e-s-s."  It is not a re-invention: there is no such word.


 * Firstly, "reinvent" is a word (check OED among other dictionaries). Secondly, language is a bit different than technology (must I clarify, or can you see the problems with your logic here?). Stephencelis 15:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * - And come to think of it, the correct description is this: Colbert invented the modern meaning of truthiness, accidently re-using a pre-existing, but obscure, word.
 * I like that version. He did invent the meaning, not the "word". -Jcbarr 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
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) ;)

Reverting rather than deleting
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)


 * 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)
 * I'm under the impression that Tyciol meant to say 'reverting is much easier than deleting'? Remy B 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandals & Greeks
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)

Inserting the language passage back in. These references add an element of truthiness and irony to the story. Firmitas.
 * 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)

Hey how do you do the four tilde thing. I don't find it in the computer. Firmitas.
 * Type four tildes and it will automatically convert it when you save the page. Like this: ~ Remy B 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all thank you for the information. However, I must differ. I do think that highlighting the language expertise of those engaging in a debate about the english language is relevant. 67.72.98.45 15:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

As for the footsie reference I was in the studio audience, but I can't verify it. I apologize and have not posted it since. Firmitas 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)"
 * 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. If not, why are you removing the word in your edit? Remy B 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its implying anything but stating some thing that it is factually correct. I fail to see the logic of removing facts from the story. If the word fuck is in harmony with the rules then sure I will keep it. Sorry. But I do believe what I have argued in the past is relevant. (unsigned)Firmitas 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

I have to say that Huffington's reference to "Winkipedia" as a source of her information was one of the most charming media namechecks we've had in some time - Nunh-huh 17:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay what is wrong with this passage:

In a March 1, 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, but rather only popularized it, as ostensibly stated in Wikipedia. Speaking in his native language, Colbert refuted the claim with the comment, "Fuck them," that was bleeped out. Colbert had previously proclaimed: "I'm not a truthiness fanatic, I'm truthiness' father." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firmitas (talk • contribs)


 * 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)

You are the one making conclusions that are erroneous. All I have stated that expertise in a language is relevant to the discussion, that is why we consult the dictionary on this issue. Wether someone speaks english as a first or second language may be determinant of expertise. That is reasonable, and that is why I insert the language.

I never infered an erroneous correlation, you are the one infering an erroneous correlation from a verifiable fact: English is not Huffinton's native language, for Colbert it is. You are not allowing people decide wether its pertinent or not.

It is clear that some people have alterior motives--guided by political bias. Look at your JcBarr biography:

I volunteered for John Edwards in 2004 primaries - you could have seen me open the door for him at the Virgian J-J dinner (where Elizabeth touched the arm of my coat!)

I watched Bill Clinton, Hillary, Al, Tipper, and Jimmy Carter build a Habitat house in Atlanta during the Republican National Convention of 1992 (and got autographs from the middle 3).

No wonder he wants to protect Huffingtion and at the same time insert profanity into the 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)

Well I dissagree but if your simply following the rules, then I withdraw my objections. Is just that this JCBarr is continuously making changes to my revisions out right. Firmitas 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

hey y'all
here's an interesting link on this topic from

CoolHeadz News

skizzno logic3.1 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous
I enjoy watching the Colbert Report, it's a great show. However do you not see how ridiculous all of this is and how easily this encyclopedia is being manipulated? Two celebrities mention wikipedia on TV and suddenly there are more than 100 edits across three pages in the span of one evening? If Huffington had come on TV and said that the American Heritage Dictionary said Colbert didn't invent the word "truthiness" and he responded by saying "fuck them", do you think there would even be more than a passing mention here? For a supposedly neutral encyclopedia, everyone sure gets excited by a little bit of press. Wikipedia is not a sports team; let's stop basking in the glow of reflected glory and move on. S e  miconscious  •  talk  19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Our response to "fuck them" really should be something more along the lines of "not without dinner and a movie". - Nunh-huh 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Barom-chingg!! --  user:zanimum
 * We cover each topic as extensively as we can. It does create an imbalance between size and relevance, but what can we do? Improve the other 999,999 articles to look this article look puny and weak. --  user:zanimum
 * Wikipedia does have a general policy of avoiding self-reference, but in this case, this very entry that we have created was discussed on national (and Canadian) television in front of over a million viewers. Judged relative to all the other references to "truthiness" infiltrating the media's usage of the English language in the article, that is at least as worthy of mention. - Reaverdrop 08:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A hoax
Nice try! LONG LIVE COLBERT! Morton devonshire 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding doesn't do anything to help this article. Please don't do it again. Rhobite 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * So are you saying "truthiness" is a haox? For a hoax, it's gotten quite a bit of press. S  e  miconscious  •  talk  02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Read my topic one above this. We agree. But it doesn't make it a hoax. S  e  miconscious  •  talk  02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, have at it, I won't spoil your fun (almost turned into one of those pedantic-a_______s I hate -- Thanks for saving me). Peace. Morton devonshire 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The addition may have been done by Colbert himself or Colbert's people. (but probably not since I'm ip tracked it Ontario Canada) The hoax template was all they had to work with. Saying the word existed before because it was in the dictionary violates truthiness. Everyone here (especailly Rhobite) really needs to think and aquire a sense of humour. Blue Leopard 08:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Prolixity
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)

I've started by making what I truthily believe are uncontroversial cuts, such as cutting a description of what Harry Frankfurt doesn't think that bullshitters do. Oh, and changing entitled to titled everywhere other than in a quotation from Colbert: I leave it as it is there not only because it's a quotation (and thus of course untouchable, other than with the help of brackets) but also because Colbert actually uses entitled in an intelligent way. -- Hoary 09:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Unless you and I both would be diagnosed as such, I too believe this article is far more verbose than necessary. Hack away! S  e  miconscious  •  talk  17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Them vs Wikipedia.
There have been alot of edits changing what Stephen said on the March 1 epsiode in response to the statment that he did not create truthiness. What he said was censored so it is hard to say but please vote which word he said then when we have enough votes we can stop the revert war.

"Fuck Them" To me it sounded like "BEEEEEP em" and the em sound is no where in wikipedia --DragonWR12LB 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Them." See online video now linked within article. —Stephencelis

wow.
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. skizzno logic3.1 19:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The No Fact Zone
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)

Church of Jesus Christ mention unneeded
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)

It is incorrect in that it equates a physiological feeling with faith or the Holy Ghost, which is not a correct interpretation of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LDS Scriptures state that faith can come from an agreement of mind and heart. However, I agree that a general discussion of religion is relevant to this article (see below).


 * "...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)


 * 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! JDoorj a m     Talk 03:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The new edit is better; however, I think the title should not be "Independent Observations" but rather something about its possible relation to philosophical, literary, and other works. It's open to discussion.

Second Deletion

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)