Talk:Veridicality

Learn more about this page

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Philosophy: Logic / Language Low‑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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

General treatment

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article was not about veridicality, but about how veridicality is treated in some specific theory. Many of the statements were false from a more general perspective. — kwami (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, this article seems to be more about polarity items than veridicality. --Lomacar (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The flaw I see is that we have on Wiki "Veridicality" as a W header, without "Nonveridicality" even though the property the former expresses implies the opposite; otherwise it would have no meaning. If one is notable and definable, so too is the inverse. To define and wiki one without the other is at best an incomplete statemtn. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic