Wikipedia talk:The Truth

Add Truthiness?

Any objections to adding Truthiness to the See Also: section? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So glad I'm not the only one who sees Stephen's hand in this page... since nobody seems to object, I'll add it. Rissa (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Before reading this talkpage, I added it to the lead. Spooky. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The page is false

I dispute the factual accuracy of this page. However, I don't want to vandalize it, because that would be against the rules and violate consensus.

Instead, as a suggestion on how we could build consensus around this issue, I created a workshop at WP:The truth sandbox. Thank you. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, The Truth is that everyone alive is alive. There's no doubt about it. I'm alive. You're alive. We're alive. Ian (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is worthless

This is fucking horrible, why ruin something with so much potential? I hate this page, it contains no valid inforation, and is a joke. Yes it belongs in Uncyclopedia.

Its worthless, and a waste of time.

Your opinion is what's actually worthless. The proof is simple: you failed to sign your edit. David Spector 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic fallacy. Who someone is has nothing to do with the person being right or not, so it is your proof that is worthless :).

Tiago Becerra Paolini (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is absolutely amazing

5 stars! I could've sworn that I was reading one Uncyclopedia's rare well-written articles. Esn (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen. David Spector 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Well done. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It is koan-like and leads to enlightenment.

Zezen (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I would like to know if someone has an argument against deletion of this article. From what I can tell, this article fails to comply with any of the requirements listed on Wikipedia:Humor namely:
1- Neutral POV: The article is an opinion, solely.
2- Until proven otherwise, it constitutes original research.
3- Reliable sources: as there isn't any source listed at all, reliable sources have yet to be found.
4- verifiability doesn't really apply here (because the article doesn't meet the previous three requirements).

Are there any reason this article should be kept?

Olivier Diotte (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're actually proposing the deletion of an essay by applying the recommendations of another essay to it as requiremens? You're 27 days early. --illythr (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the fact the link I referred was an essay. Still, those requirements do are part of Wikipedia's policy per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Also, I started contributing to Wikipedia a bit earlier than last month though I doubt this is relevant here.

That being said, here there reasons --which I fail to see obviously-- against proposing this article for deletion?

Olivier Diotte (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Essays, being their authors' opinion pieces they are, do not need to adhere to NPOV, OR, RS, V and such. Early - for a specific day, that is more appropriate to start the deletion request of this article than any other day in the year. Other than that, there are no reasons at all against proposing this High-impact essay for deletion. Doing it on the day I suggested would reduce the, uh, high impact, though. --illythr (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I see, apparently I missed the fact the page is an essay. I thought (wrongly) such pages (essays) would be located in their respective authors' user namespace not on the 'wikipedia' namespace, my bad. Out of curiosity though: is it me or is the talk page the actual high-impact page? Or is it the essay itself? Olivier Diotte (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: Seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Essays provides answers to some of my questions. Olivier Diotte (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The essay itself. These WikiProject templates are placed on talk pages to avoid cluttering the main article space. --illythr (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant

Especially point 5. Right on the nose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A bit of wisdom/warning about precision

The more people insist on something being "The Truth", the more precise their definitions and hence language get. My half century of being a savant in the sea of Aspies (collectively known as computer software developers), plus a bit of Phil of Language reading, has left me with some wisdom regarding the phrase "Listen to what I am saying; I choose my words very carefully!". I've said it, and heard it from many others during arguments.

The problem is that the more precise the definitions in your head for all those words, the less likely they are to match the definitions in other people's heads. The complex network of connections between concepts in one brain can only hope to vaguely overlap the networks in other brains. So each person trying to be precise is often heard and misunderstood by the other person being equally precise.

The point: You cant be absolutist in language about the truth (even if it is absolute itself...another topic). You have to say things multiple ways, each in a more hand-wavy fashion to try to get the concept network in your head transmitted into other's heads. Otherwise you think you said something concise/precise, and the other person nods and understand's something else, and replies, and both are talking past each other. 2001:861:8B80:6ED0:DC13:89A4:3805:301A (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

A definition is not an embodiment of The Truth: it is an embodiment of The Agreement, because you and me have to agree upon the definition to proceed further. Clearly, The Agreement may be far away from The Truth. But that's not all. In our heads are Interpretations of The Agreement. Therefore me have to synchronize our Interpretations of The Agreement, i.e., to create The Second-Level Agreement. Guess where this leads us?... --Altenmann >talk 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)