Talk:Truth

Improving the quality of images in this article

From all the thousands of articles I've read on Wikipedia, I've never come across one where the images appear to be so jarringly out of place like those in this article. So I spent a good few hours trying to figure out why I found them to be so out of place and did a check of Wikipedia style guides. I found this article to violate a number of these guidelines which should be fixed.

Listed below are excerpts of the guidelines (in italics) which I believe this article violates, followed by my reasoning. For the most part, the images in question are the three nude images. Where other images are concerned, I have made this clear.

Issues with the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines in this article

1. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature

• "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting."

The images in question no doubt exist solely to beautify the article. In particular, the images have no particular relation to the text it is placed adjacent, which in my opinion is usually an indicator of an irrelevant image in a Wikipedia article. If the point of having the paintings really has any value or relevance, you'd expect at least a few words of related text besides which you would be able to place the image. Other images in this article such as "Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge." satisfy this bare minimum requirement by virtue of the discussion on religion, but even this image is only superficial connected to the topic and in my opinion ought not be there. (An aside: this image should be moved down a section to Truth#Christianity if it is to be kept.)

One of the arguments given in favour of keeping these images by an editor is that "children who may see these images of classic paintings will not only be enriched by them... When I was a child, I saw great beauty is such works of art". While my goal is not to rob this editor of the enjoyment of these works of art, this argument is irrelevant given that the purpose of this article is to provide factual information on a specific topic rather than to be a source of pleasure. We should not forget that this is an article on philosophy, not one on fine art.

2. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Offensive_images

• "Wikipedia is not censored: its mission is to present information, including information which some may find offensive. However, a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the "principle of least astonishment": images should respect conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article"

I certainly didn't expect to see such images in an article about the truth and the fact that a number of people have taken the time to argue against the inclusion of these images shows that several others didn't expect to see these images either and found these images if not offensive, out of place.

The justification given by another editor against the removal of these images as "censorship" and that "it is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy" falls flat according to this guideline which clearly states that for images which might be seen to be offensive by some, the onus should be on proving that the omission of these images would make the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate", which, in my opinion would not be the case. These images: a) represent only the vaguest notion of a particular western visual symbolism of the philosophical idea of truth and provide little informative about Truth b) have no direct relevance to the text c) absolutely will not make the text less accurate if removed

3. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Images_for_the_lead

• "For some topics, selecting the lead image can be difficult. While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care (see § Offensive images, above). The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind."

The same arguments made in argument 2 apply here, only more strongly. The two lead images are certainly not ones I expected to see in an article on this topic.

• "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic."

I've had a look at a number of online encyclopedias to see what images they have. The Britannica article on this topic has images of works of art but only because they are of the philosophers mentioned in the adjacent text. There are absolutely no works of abstract representations of truth. Other more advanced sources such as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosphy and the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy don't have even a single image for this topic.

• "Lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred."

I'd argue there is an element of shock to seeing a nude portrait when you expect a discussion on philosophy for reasons explained in argument 2.

In Summary

The fundamental problem I see of including these images is that they are non-sequitur to the philosophical discussion of Truth. While sometimes a representation such as Lady_Justice becomes strongly ingrained in what it represents, this is not the case for these images. That they might be seen as offensive is another reason to remove these images. If someone really finds value in keeping these artistic portrayals of the truth on Wikipedia, perhaps it might be worth creating a separate article on "The Portrayal of Truth in Art".

Further to everything stated previously, I find the fact that three of the eight images on this article are essentially of the same archetype while having only the most tangential relation to the topic astonishing. If one were to only skim through the images on this article, one could quite easily come to the conclusion that white, open-breasted women and renaissance era art [sic] have a massive deal to do with the topic otherwise known as "Truth" when, in reality, I doubt anyone who isn't steeped in 17th century Western art would even make this association.

The arguments given by editors previously against the removal of these images, in my opinion, are misguided attempts at protecting against censorship and a disregard for this encyclopedia's Style Guide which ultimately results in a reduction of the quality of this article. I'm not the only one to find these images objectionable; see other topics in this Talk:Truth such as "pictures" and "Mixing up reality and mind", both of which argue that these images serve no purpose and "Nudes" which argues much the same thing.

Proposals for fixing the issue of inappropriate images in this article

1. Remove the two nude portrayals in the lead section and the one further in. They have nothing to do with the text they are adjacent to nor the topic.
2. Either remove other weakly pertinent images or move them to a more appropriate location:

• Walter Seymour Allward's Veritas (Truth) outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada.
  • As it is, there is no relation of this image to the adjacent text. However, there is a single reference to the 'law' in the lead section. Perhaps this could be made the lead image?
• Truth, holding a mirror and a serpent (1896). Olin Levi Warner, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.
  • As it is, this image is particularly poorly placed because the text next to it is of rigorous mathematical treatment of Truth. If this image is to be kept, it ought to be placed elsewhere where there is a historical or cultural discussion on Truth.
• Quid Est Veritas? Christ and Pilate, by Nikolai Ge.
  • Either remove this image or move it to Truth#Christianity. I'd argue against the inclusion of this image if we are to strictly follow the Style Guide since this image is placed here due to it's artistic merit and not relevance to the textual context (I had to go to the hyperlink John_18:38 to see what this image had at all to do with Truth. In fact, the image is concerned with the literal use of the word Truth and not a deeper philosophical meaning which is not what I had expected from reading the section on Truth#Christianity).

3. For the issue of wanting to beautify this article while at the same time keeping within the Style Guide, we could include more images of philosophers, perhaps with a focus on figures from a variety of cultures and times and not just modern European ones.
--TranquilDragon 09:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As a long-time contributor I remember the enthusiasm with which the suggestion of images was received by a major contributor. So I looked up the context of Edna St Vincent Millay's Sonnet

O blinding hour, O holy, terrible day,
When first the shaft into his vision shone
Of light anatomized! Euclid alone
Has looked on Beauty bare. Fortunate they
Who, though once only and then but far away,
Have heard her massive sandal set on stone.

Given this context, perhaps an illustration of "her massive sandal set on stone" might substitute.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you (TranquilDragon) for this detailed discussion. I agree for most part. I would suggest that we move one of unoffensive images to the lead and remove the other images unless there is a clear relevance to the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Unless there were a section about the depiction of truth in art, almost none of these images seem appropriate to this article. While the image of Kant is so-soish justifiable, the only good case for keeping an image is for Quid Est Veritas? which goes well with the section on Christianity. Perhaps that section is not well articulated, but this scene from the New Testament is philosophically rich. Teishin (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the image of Kant, I agree the image is passable but (apologies for being pedantic) since there are better, more standard portraits, I feel it should be replaced with one such as the lead image here Immanuel_Kant. The current image of Kant also lacks information on when it was painted and who the painter was which raises questions on whether this was an actual commissioned portrait or not.
As someone who is not particularly knowledgeable about Christianity, I found the Quid Est Veritas? confusing. I didn't realise that Jesus was the figure in the shadow until I read the commentary on the relevant verse. Perhaps a rewrite of the caption will help.
Also, it turns out the reason the image of Christ is misplaced is because it predates the section on religion and was included for decoration the same way as the rest of the images.TranquilDragon (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)TranquilDragon (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant images. There is no longer a lead image. I think this is better since now you have that screen space (on a wide screen device) occupied by the vastly more useful Epistemology sidebar. The only potentially irrelevant image I have left is a picture of "Walter Seymour Allward's Veritas", but I have moved it under Truth#Major Theories where it makes more sense since there is a reference to "society" in the adjacent text. The image of "Quid Est Veritas?" has been moved under Truth#Theological Views. The image of Kant has been changed to a standard portrait. I have kept it because the image is relevant to the adjacent text, but it does stick out as odd that Kant is the only philosopher with a portrait. The alternative, adding images for more philosophers, would lead to a needless gallery of philosophers. Also, the image "An angel carrying the banner of 'Truth'" has been right aligned for improved readability.
I would like someone to add a more descriptive caption for "Quid Est Veritas?" (I have no expertise in that domain.) Also, if someone knows how to align this image to the section on Truth#Christianity, please do so.--TranquilDragon (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote the caption on the Christianity image. Is it clearer now? Teishin (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I originally wanted the caption to explain the meaning of "What is Truth?"; like whether Pilate is referring to some sort of relativity of truth. In any case, I think your edit is sufficiently good. Thanks Teishin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TranquilDragon (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that it?

The result of this apparently prudish editing is that once the first image was the arguably inapropriate "Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy", but now it is the at least equally irrelevant image of a weathered angel with an indecipherable banner. Not what one muight call progress. Banno (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-truths? Truths that lie?

The discovery was made in 1989, and published in a book, concerning the discovery of anti+truths, that lie, based on the scientific properties of LIGHT, and similar relationships to TRUTH. Called 'The Jesus Christ Code'.

Does anyone have any legitimate sources of this research? 24.79.147.13 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive 16

Page archived up until start of year - hasn't been done in a while. Still need to fix archive list in TalkHEader Banno (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On inspection, the archives are a mess. Suggest moving to autoarchiving. This would presumably mean reomving the existing archive structure and an initial very long archive - everything up to the archive date. I'll give it a couple of days for comment before implimenting. Banno (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

In the first line of the main text of the Truth Page, kindly interchange links to the fact and the reality wikipage.

Reason for requesting this change is that this was how it was prior to an edit which allowed a user to follow the first link in the main text of every wikipedia page to philosophy which then looped on itself. But now, the truth and fact pages interloop which prevents most wikipedia pages from leading to philosophy. 182.70.65.115 (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We are not here to play WP:Getting to Philosophy. Favonian (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

Reassess the article. Fails B-class criteria #1 with sourcing issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Page Preview - Unrelated Subject Displayed

As of March 20th, 2023 at 8:30 AM PDT, the page preview for "Truth" displays not the article on the subject, but instead includes a flat-Earther argument. Regardless of the veracity of the claims about the Earth being flat, it has no connection to the article on the subject of "Truth". Text taken from the article would be much more appropriate. Currently, when the cursor is hovering over the word "Truth" from the article on "Knowledge", the following preview is given (including the incorrect grammar): "The truth is, the earth is flat and stationary/non-moving. Why are the world's oceans perfectly horizontal and FLAT? We don't live on a fake ball earth spinning at supersonic speed of over 1000 mph. NASA flood the internat and mainstream medica with CGI images o..." A more appropriate text for the preview would be the following, taken from the article itself: "Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality. In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences." JRaithel75 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably some old cached content. That bologna was promptly reverted a couple of hours ago, if I read the history right. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

English variant?

I just copy edited most of this article. It appears to use the spelling of Oxford English throughout, but I am not good at spotting this sort of thing. If someone else were to skim though to check for consistency and then add the appropriate tag at the top of the article, that would be great.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Notable views

This section is too long. Also, much of it is not properly sourced, and a cursory look suggests that the parts that are sourced to secondary sources are already covered above.

My suggestion would be either to find a way to condense it to no more than four paragraphs or else to delete it entirely. Anything of value to a reader seeking knowledge of the concept of truth should already be included above. If there's something here that is not, it should be integrated into the appropriate section.

I am not, however, going to make this change unless I am surprised to find strong support for it here. So, just something to think about.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)