Talk:Truthiness

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Truthiness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Truthiness is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 17, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 18, 2005 Candidate for speedy deletion Deleted October 26, 2005 Articles for deletion Deleted November 5, 2005 Candidate for speedy deletion Deleted November 7, 2005 Candidate for speedy deletion Deleted November 11, 2005 Candidate for speedy deletion Deleted January 31, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 10, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept June 22, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 17, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted October 17, 2007 Today's featured article Main Page March 26, 2022 Featured article review Demoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 13, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that "truthiness," a word made by Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, was selected as the 2005 Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society? ...that Yaroslav of Halych's repudiation of his wife led to a popular uprising, in the course of which his favorite concubine was burnt alive? Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Comedy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spoken articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Caroline McCarthy (1 August 2006). "Colbert speaks, America follows: All hail Wikiality!". CNET.

	Other talk page banners
Truthiness was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon. Click the image to the right for full size version.

The usage of the terms truthy/falsy for... umm, exactly that... in computing contexts has stuck, if anything better than the Colbertian sense. I'm not saying it belongs here, but a "For ... see ..." template might. 76.73.175.43 (talk) 09:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

How is this an article without referencing that this word was created to discredit Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarkamW (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a non-American I'm wondering: do these terms actually pre-date Colbert's penning of the gut-truth definition or are they obvious references us foreigners couldn't possibly spot? In programming the adjectives "truthy" and "falsy" refer to values which evaluate to the booleans "true" and "false" (rather than the boolean values themselves). In JavaScript, for example, the numerical value "0" or the empty array "[]" would both be "falsy", other numerical values or non-empty arrays on the other hand would be "truthy". The terms are probably limited to dynamically typed languages, though some statically typed languages seem to allow using non-booleans as booleans (though this may be related to how booleans and boolean comparisons are implemented, so this may be very different). --- 78.35.107.83 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added a paragraph on this, but it needs a bit of help (eg, with citations). FWIW, here are some relevant links: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/116883/is-truthiness-a-legitimate-programming-term,

http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/713894/Truthy-Vs-Falsy-Values-in-JavaScript RichMorin (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Truthiness (as an intensively discussed topic) has a long history in coding, particularly in weakly-typed languages like JavaScript, SQL or Visual Basic. Crockford would be a solid ref for this. Unlike strongly-typed languages (Pascal being one of the first popular ones to have a specific Boolean type) or like C, where programmers counted every bit mentally, JavaScript and especially the varying notions of false / 0 / null / empty / void made a robust abstract model of their interpretation as truthful essential for reliable coding. I doubt the word truthiness is etymologically any older than Colbert, but the concept certainly is. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hm -- this paragraph seems to have been cut. Strange. Does anyone know why? I've found uses of "truthy" going back years before Colbert. --winterstein (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just the regular edit-warring from GliderMaven, who is equally omniscient on all technical topics.

For sources, Niklaus Wirth might be good as an early one, as he had some heated debate with Kernighan and Ritchie over C's fairly free-wheeling use of truthiness for a wide range of values - probably the first time that such behaviour had been codified in a language spec and encouraged as best practice, rather than being an accidental side effect. Pascal of course took a strictly typed approach with an explicit Boolean type.

The concept of "truthiness" has at least 40 years well-documented and sourceable history in computing, with a meaning of, "That which evaluates as true, no matter its actual value or representation." The specific word used here probably dates from Colbert. I'm in the UK, I've heard the term in use since around 2006, but still don't know what a Colbert is.

For a recent use, Crockford's slim JavaScript book (O'Reilly, Butterfly cover) uses the notion and term. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

None of which has anything at all to do with the topic of the article, which is when a human being believes in something irrespective of facts. The other definition of 'truthiness' is only there because it's been connected to the topic via an on-topic reference saying that the word truthiness already existed, and that was done specifically in context. That doesn't mean you get to list every other definition of truthiness in the article. That's OR, and violates WP:NOT. Even if you reference it, that's not sufficient to some javascript book or whatever; you have to reference it in context.GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

In your opinion. However RS use this word, as a derivation post-Colbert, in the context of computer science.

Why are you against truthiness for CompSci appearing here, but you're OK with "Mathiness" being included? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm opposed to off-topic and unreferenced material appearing in any article, and I would hope you would be too, but apparently not. I hadn't noticed mathiness, but that appears indeed to be off-topic, and I have now tagged it. This contrasts with the pseudoword "trustiness", which is linked by the references.GliderMaven (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@GliderMaven please show respect for your fellow editors. You say that CompSci-truthiness" is separate from Colbert-truthiness -- I expect you're probably right there. But CompSci "truthiness" is a notable topic, arguably more notable than Colbert-truthiness. I think having this article handle both uses is the best solution. An alternative would be to have two articles and a disambiguation page -- that feels like overkill to me, but you could make the case. To resolve this, please could you say: Where and how do you think CompSci "truthiness" should be covered? I think if we answer that, we'll fix this issue. Thanks. --winterstein (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You have to find a place to put your edits. I don't know off-hand where it should go. Generally speaking where it's a 'usage' thing it should be in wiktionary, not wikipedia, or covered in a compsci specific article. It should not go in a non compsci article like this.GliderMaven (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe add it to Boolean data type.GliderMaven (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Truthiness is the opposite of a strongly typed Boolean type. It is the working principle that a pragma of regarding some definable set of values as "truthy" is workable and reliable, even without a strictly defined type system. A "truthy" value is not necessarily True, and cannot (correctly) be compared to a Boolean True. It may be though, and is, assumed to stand in for one. This has much more in common with Colbert's logic than Boole's. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am understating the case to say that I have considerable difficulty in understanding how anyone could ever seriously think that a reader would expect the programming-related definition of the word 'truthiness' in this article, as opposed to in boolean data type, an article which also covers C-related languages, which have no boolean type per se.GliderMaven (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

A page that states, "the effective identity between Booleans and integers is still valid for C programs." is dangerously wrong. People have been killed by that assumption. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That whole article could be completely and dangerously wrong in the extreme, and it would still be the better place to put programming-related information than putting it in this completely unrelated article.GliderMaven (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I came to this article expecting to find information about truthy/falsey in programming and was surprised to find a long article about Stephen Colbert. Korn (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Crockford refers to "truthy" in an article The Elements of JavaScript Style — Part Two: Idioms from 2005-09-21 ... Sept 21, just under a month before Colbert uses "truthiness", however Crockford does not use "truthiness" itself in that article. Sdp61 (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

On a similar vein, I could swear we referenced "truthiness" as an alternative to "topness" in my particle physics class from older papers. Might anyone know more? SamuelRiv (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Off topic because wikipedia is not a dictionary; what are we going to do, add communism to the red article?GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You mean that thing that totally exists? Onceuponajooks (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Truthiness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100919133033/http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2007.php to http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2007.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017001524/http://lssu.edu/banished/archive/2008.php to http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2008.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is his concept of the "faitiche" ('factishness') not somehow related? See his 2010 book listed in the bibliography here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Latour — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.179.75 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you find a reliable source discussing Latour re "truthiness" bring it here and we might have something to add. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

As a part of WP:URFA/2020, I am reviewing this article. I have quite a few concerns regarding the FA status of this article. Currently, it needs significant work to retain that shining bronze star:

• The most major concern is the sourcing of the article. For FAs, we expect the sources to not just be secondary and reliable, but also of the highest quality available.
  • There are various places where a non-primary source is needed.
  • What makes BookLocker.com, Firedoglake, YouTube!, Salon, Vox, languagemonitor.com., Today.com, etc. even reliable sources?
  • There are various inconsistencies and other source formatting issues
• Another major concern in the prose
  • There are too many blockquotes used in the article. Per MOS:QUOTE, "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
  • Lots of duplicate link throughout the article.
  • The article needs a copy-edit; currently, its prose it not upto FA standards.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Reply