Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Truthiness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Truthiness

This article, which already has achieved good status, has been brought to higher quality recently, especially with the help of Reaverdrop's conversion of the reference section to the web cite/news cite rather than simple ref tags... With Stephen Colbert's WHCD already achieving FA status, this would help compliment the other article. If you disagree, please state why in actionable terms so that this article may eventually achieve FA status :) --kizzle 06:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support. An incredibly factual and referenced article for a subject which is essentially a pop-culture fad. Great work to all involved, and may Colbert give Wikipedia a "Who's Honoring Me Now?" segment for what should be two FAs related to him. Harro5 07:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment why do you between using OED and Oxford English Dictionary? Should introduce the abbrev after it is first spelled out and then use the abbrev. Rlevse 10:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object. Doesn't seem to present a worldwide view of truthiness, etc (lots of American stuff though, as usual) - also, the Additional attention section bullet point list should be converted into prose. — Wackymacs 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object - All fair use images need rationales. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent article on a pop culture subject. I also believe the "worldwide view of truthiness" objection is out of line b/c this is an American pop culture event that has, to my knowledge, not yet spread overseas.--Alabamaboy 13:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "to my knowledge" - thats a good source... also, if there isnt a "worldwide view", the article should say so. — Wackymacs 13:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wacky, your sarcasm is out of place here. "Truthiness" is a comic neoligism invented by an American comic tto lampoon American politicians for an American TV Show. What's more, the character Colbert plays is a rabid American "patriot" who is intentionally portrayed as interested only in an American viewpoint. Alabamaboy's qualifier "to my knowledge" is clearly just a polite acknowledgment that he is not omniscient; "Truthiness" is very clearly an American concept related to parodying current American political attitudes; if you know otherwise, please illuminate us.Reimelt 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - my problem with this article is comprehensiveness. While it goes into a ton of detail talking about reaction to the word, including individual CNN and ABC segments days after the word was introduced, it's more of a play-by-play of the word's gradual publicitization (if Colbert can coin words, then so can I) than it is an article about truthiness itself. The fact that various organizations named it Word of the Year deserves mention, as does the reaction of the press/public. But it's sorely lacking in commentary on the meaning of the word, outside of a basic definition. I sense a bit of original research in the "Similar Concepts" section, and the article relies too heavily on quotes from Colbert. As a more minor point, the bulleted list has got to go. Overall, this article needs a good deal of work before it's ready to be featured. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 14:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree, Disco King. In the Origins section, I think that providing Colbert's two definitions, one in character, one not, is quite comprehensive. We're talking about a pretty straightforward concept. I fear that the outside commentary you seek would be characterized as yet more press "reactions to the word." There exists the simple defintion in the lead text and the two definitions in the Origins section. Being a Colbert fan myself, I don't think I could add anything more salient to the explanation of the concept itself without simply tacking on reactions by the press. If we're defining a word that originated from Colbert, I don't think its possible for the article to rely "too heavily on quotes from Colbert." Anything less than what's on there from the originator of the word would be irresponsible. Finally, as for original research, I don't think the similarities between the concepts are that controversial or original, but that's simply my opinion. Personally, I think it adds more to the article and is pretty straightforward. --kizzle 14:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. "Similar concepts" and "Scientific basis" are both Original Research. "Additional attention" should be de-listified and perhaps merged with the James Frey controversy section. The sections on news coverage — "CNN and ABC" followed by "New York Times" — could be merged under one heading, but that's more a matter of preference. Images need fair use rationales. Also, somebody might want to work the following bit into the article:

Colbert was recently interviewed by San Francisco Chronicle TV critic Tim Goodman as part of the Chronicle's City Arts & Lectures program, and you can listen to all four parts of the interview here in podcast form. About halfway through Part 3, Colbert talks about the honor of having truthiness named Word of the Year. He goes on to say how ecstatic he was that the AP didn't mention him, since his character was in need of a persecution complex à la Bill O'Reilly.

(from Language Log) Anville 14:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The passage about Larry Nation - although in itself thought-provoking - is not an apt example of truthiness. First, the word truthiness doesn't seem to have been used in the cited story nor in the award ceremony itself (though, as a non-subscriber to the Times I can't confirm this). Second, there's nothing deluded in the observation that a work of fiction may have a "ring of truth", and there are plenty of precedents in works of fiction being seen as having journalistic value, e.g. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Third, Crichton's book is openly acknowledged as a work of fiction, whereas the fictions inherent in truthiness are not, either being declared true or their truth-status being dismissed as irrelevant. Pinkville 15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The article does as fine a job as it can do, I think, but this term is a satirical gambit and a characterization of something Colbert had earlier critiqued (in the best and most ruthless TV satire I've ever seen, just before the 2004 election) on The Daily Show, when he posited that the accomplishments of the current Bush are a battle of "the President's words" against reality. My objection is on comprehensiveness, but simply because I don't think the borders of the concept are in place yet. It's too new, still, and too much, as the nomination suggests, a fad at this point. As a characterization, or as the winning characterization, of the "right wing echo chamber" (as Al Franken among other calls it)/"punditocracy" or whatever term we use for the phenomenon of self-martyring volume merchants who have gone from Rush Limbaugh's appeals to "persecuted" "angry white men" to a position of baffled power, it will be a valuable phenomenon (rather than fad) to discuss, but we have to be passed the events to determine that. Since the terminology and phenomena are still ongoing, we can't really speak of them definitively or comprehensively. Geogre 15:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obect. The statement "He came up with the idea of 'truthiness' just moments before filming for the show began" is "backed up" by a source that does not mention that at all. Very truthy, even if merely a simple mistake. How many other cited "facts" have no support in the citation? zafiroblue05 | Talk 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support from an active editor of the page - with a few responses to the remarks here:
  • Thanks for keeping us honest, Zafiroblue05. But with all due respect, check page 3, first paragraph of that reference: "For those interested in the historical record, Colbert coined the T word moments before he went on the air for his first show; no one on staff had any idea what great things it would achieve." (If there's any alternative hypothesis on the identity of "the T word" that Colbert introduces in the first show that goes on to achieve great things, see the extensive prior discussion of truthiness.) As for any of the other references, feel free to keep checking to make sure we've got things nailed tight.

I apologize; I thought I read that thoroughly, and just missed it. Sorry for being a little harsh. zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• • As for the reliance on Colbert, he was the one who sparked the "truthiness" phenomenon, and other commentators have heavily referenced his role as such - the AP being the notable exception of course.
  • As for a few of the other remarks here: as for it being heavily American, I believe that is because the phenomenon originated on a program shown only in America and Canada, so that "truthiness" has only really caught on in those two countries - and we do have the Canadian angle covered with the heavy reference to Truthiness by one of the Liberal Party's leading politicians. I began articles on "truthiness" and Stephen Colbert in the Dutch Wikipedia, and truthiness seems to have been a novelty, although other editors in the Netherlands started adding to Colbert quickly after his appearance in front of George Bush.
  • As for the shortness of time or lack of distant perspective, I'm not sure that's a useful criterion to judge the feature-worthiness of an article - it seems more like importing a standard from a paper encyclopedia for whom it is enforced by non-electronic publishing. And it didn't stop the feature-worthiness of Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents'_Association_Dinner.
  • As for fair use rationales for the images: those have now been added.
  • - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the "Scientific basis" section is a textbook WP:NOR violation. Jkelly 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• That it's a 19th century English word isn't important enough to be the very first thing mentioned in the article, in my view. Apparently it was an obscure word even back then. The word is really notable for its use as a neologism recently; the history of it is only interesting because people got curious after Colbert started playing with the word. Also, I don't like calling it a "19th century word" in general—I'd rather elaborate slightly and call it a word "referenced from the 19th century" or something like that, because we apparently don't really know when the word first started being used and when it dropped off the map entirely, or when it was at its peak usage. Everyking 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Implementation of a few changes responsive to this discussion have been made to the truthiness article:
  • Comments that the 19th century references to "truthiness", listed as "obscure" in the OED, do not belong in the introductory sentence of the article, are spot on. That was put in place recently, after the intro had been long settled after substantial discussion on the talk page. It was only the enterprising research of one linguistics professor (who happens to be a consultant to the OED) who brought attention to the reference in the full OED, but even then, with the OED noting it was obscure and dialectical during its brief usage 170 years ago, the Colbert-introduced truthiness has received far more attention than the original word ever did. The mention a few lines down of the OED reference, as was agreed earlier on the talk page, is sufficient.
  • Lots of comments that the "similar concepts" and "scientific basis" sections have also been quite correct. I removed those. I wrote a decent chunk of those sections in the first place, before becoming familiar with the WP:OR policy. Besides being OR the "similar concepts" section is just an open invitation for everyone to add their pet examples of faulty epistemology, which has led to an inordinate variety of material added to and removed from the section.

A corresponding explanation has also been posted on the truthiness talk page. I hope these alterations improve the general outlook on the feature-worthiness of the article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 05:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Object - the section of this article is sloppy. A few experienced editors need to really sit down, read all the material, and organize it in a more top-down hierarchical pattern. Most sections are the result of one editor wanting to add something that was missing rather than an organized holistic approach. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)