I think that we should include Colbert's definition of Truthiness as being "Truthy, but not facty" somewhere in there. Perhaps as a fifth definition?
Zirka 07:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- There's already too many definitions up... 1 and 2 are pretty much duplicates of each other, I think, but I doubt I could get away with touching this page while it's still a current event. 'Truthy but not facty' may be catchy but it doesn't convey much in the way of meaning. —Muke Tever 01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've combined the second and third definitions since they were so similar; moved the "archaic" definition first, since it was (likely) closer to the standard definition before Colbert "reinvented" the word; attributed Colbert's "definition", although I had to preface it with "quality of" to make it define a noun; see page history/diffs for other, more minor, changes. - dcljr 00:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
References & Quotations
If anything it would make more sense to put the new definition at the top. The article itself states the old definition is rarely used while the new definition is very popular. - RadLink5 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. That, and it's clearly not limited to or even primarily being used comedy. Satire and politics, yes. An example you can already find on Google books:
- Quoting a roundtable discussion: ... I don't ever recall Superman being depicted in the comics as a "Boy Scout." That is one of those "truthiness" descriptions ... like writers talking about Spider-Man suffering from acne - which he never did.
- Nor is that just a simple lucky strike. Now a year and a half since reintroduced into language, and not simply as a book term, it's being used in the news without any reference to Colbert. Some examples:
- So long, truthiness: Middlebury bans Wikipedia in the classroom
- Tales of 9/11 Truthiness
- Threat Level Lavender: the Truthiness of Gay Marriage
- Gates sees no humor in 'Mac vs. PC' ads (note the contrast between truthiness and funny)
- Law on falsity in politics gets attention
- Changing and directing here for --Halliburton Shill 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ruakh, what is this based on? In the news, though not all news, it usually gets quotes around it. But if you look at the sites that follw the Colbert Report most closely - wikiality.com, colboard.com, wikiality.net, and tekjansen.com - quotes are not used. In fact, using them in such a context reverses the meaning. How about restricting the usage note to the news or expanding it to include usage on public forums and blogs?--Halliburton Shill 04:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Psychophant websites are examples of independent use? I think not! Those websites are not usable as citations for numerous reasons, the least of which include that they do not represent mainstream English (let alone mainstream Internet use of English.) Blogs and discussion boards, of course, are even worse. --Connel MacKenzie 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Generally true, yet usenet and blogs are listed as preferable in WT:CFI. Are you familiar with that? Colbert himself doesn't put it in quotes, and it wouldn't hurt to also recognize a few more of the people noted for being better informed (note "fake news" in quotes). We're not talking about fan sites for soap operas and pop singers. Besides, as I mentioned, some news articles are already removing the quotes (cf., all 5 above bulleted citations I provided). Consider it a transition from the archaic to the present and future.--Halliburton Shill 09:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Translations of the word
Can one put the translation of word in the article? I found the Dutch word on the Dutch wikipedia page http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness.
Eurobloke 17:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- The see also section might help. Not sure if there's a direct translation for most languages. It might work combining the equivalent of "truth" + "iness" in the other languages. Sort of a combination of desire + denial + feeling, faith, and belief.--Halliburton Shill 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of February 2009. 07:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)