Talk:Post-truth politics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biased article?

Isn't it ironic that this article is blatantly biased in favor of Democrat/liberal sources? e.g., it quotes Salon, The Independent, Los Angeles Times, etc., which are all well-known for their liberal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.0.191 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Then bring forward countering sources. What's the point of complaining? - 175.139.223.64 (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep. What's ironic is attacking the messenger rather than the message, exactly what this article is about.65.196.107.250 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It's ironic to have a Wikipedia article about truth. Whatever anonymous "officials" plant in the mainstream media becomes fact in Wikipedia. This is called "NEUTRAL and UNBIASED". Keith McClary (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

To make it less ironic, here's a Fox News article about Fake News:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/18/fake-news-and-election-why-facebook-is-polluting-media-environment-with-garbage.html

Keith McClary (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to present what sources say. It's all about the messenger. --BurritoBazooka ^Talk Contribs 05:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

There sure is a funny selection of messengers though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

NPR Inclusion?

I am curious why NPR and some of the other things are mentioned in this article as evidence of states attempting to provide influence. It seems to imply that NPR is not based on facts and is instead an engine for the west to provide influence/propoganda. Specifically when it comes to NPR most of their money does not come from the US Government, and a large majority is private contributions. Less than 15% is from the US Government and they do not dictate programming on NPR . The page on their site also lists specifically that Corporations do not influence NPR's coverage and that they remain independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:805A:5E00:7196:6775:A96F:AB2A (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR is often anti-Government, such as their Fresh Air, etc. I would rather suspect Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) influence, and the big questions are who are supporting those and why.

165.91.48.87 (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This has since been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Colbert in a recent interview with John Dickerson made a distinction between post truth and truthiness. Saying that truthiness does not entirely ignore the facts rather the facts are reweighted or discounted.

What he said on his show is not relevant. I am removing it.Jonney2000 (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a see-also link to truthiness, since it's a related concept. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

For all Americans and British

knowing the German wikipedia: Our chancellor Merkel invented a new term: "postfaktisch". The problem is, that the adjective "postfaktisch" does not exist, neither in the Latin language nor in the German language. The offical German dictionary the DUDEN, does not know this term. "Postfacere" does not exist in the Latin language. Even as a neologism the word makes no sense. I tried to make a hint at the Lemma "Postfaktische Politik" (German Wikipedia). What followed? The administrator kicked me out. He denied the access. I think this is devastating ridiculous. Can you help me? I think this earns to be brought into derison in the international Wikipedia community! --217.238.130.102 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please see http://www.duden.de/suchen/sprachwissen/postfaktisch

It was selected as word of the year by the Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache. --Boson (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This has since been added to the article, and we have an interwiki link to the German article by that name. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Nineteen eighty-four

Hmmm not sure Nineteen Eighty-Four politics is post-truth. There is a big difference between presenting lies as truth (the main propaganda tool of the state in the book) and appealing to an irrational emotional response by simply not differentiating between (or attaching any importance to) what is true and what is not. The Ministry of Truth tells you black is white and forces you to agree; post-truth politics says you want black to be white and they are going to make this true. Btljs (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The "daily hate" congregation in Nineteen Eighty-Four is all about emotional response, and although "post-truth" politics doesn't have to appeal to "irrational" emotional responses, it can be argued that Orwell's "daily hate" is indeed exploitation of irrational emotional response (aside from austerity, none of the participants has suffered in the fake wars or from the actions by the fake enemy hate figure). 2.28.151.217 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have been removed from the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Additions

Some sources that might include relevant information: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2041905816680417 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DlyKAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=post+truth+politics&ots=a1JJY4Ch1m&sig=aZ3Npc2vVfzXB4Nfq5l-seYM23Q#v=onepage&q&f=false --Haricotsverts23 (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the lead section is too long. By the second paragraph, it gets pretty specific. I think the information is good but that it should be incorporated in a different part of the article. Dotytwo (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

To add to the article, maybe in the history section to cover propaganda and sensationalism at its earliest form from the formation of the printing press might be a good idea. The examples given seem to be semi-modern but it would be a better idea to go back even further. Those are the earliest forms of "post-truth politics" so mentioning that might be good to say where it got its start.

Independent source for relation to Iran-Contra and 2016 US presidential election.

The Iran-Contra Affair 30 Years Later: A Milestone in Post-Truth Politics:Declassified Records Recall Official Deception in the Name of Protecting a Presidency November 25, 2016; National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 567; Edited by Malcolm Byrne Johnvr4 (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This has since been added to the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

George Orwell quote?

I think the quote "In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell cast a world in which the state changes historic records daily to fit its propaganda goals of the day." at the end of the first paragraph is a bit inappropriate. It imlies a parallel between the world of Orwell's novel and the lines listed above which I think is subjective, not-factual, and not needed. Fishmans017 (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it belongs. Most RS on the issue have been heavily influenced by Orwell. Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This quote has since been removed, but I added a see-also link to Orwellian since it's related. -- Beland (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Right-left bias

Rob Who and his Bias

Who is Rob Boston? Then why is he able to define all of these groups as Post truth? The 9/11 truth movement does not fit into this Post Truth article. How do you do that? Why not mention Netanyahu or the gay movement? The 9/11 truth movement is offensive to Rob, that does not make it post truth. And it certainly does not meet the criteria defined in the lead. They are 100% clear about their methods and how facts are interrogated. Name calling your detractors is post-truth because we are supposed to accept Rob's opinion just because he wrote it? Where is the balance? /signed by 169.0.4.160

Rob Boston is a well published American journalist with hundreds of published articles and 4 books. If you have a balancing statement from an equally well established writer then please add it. Actually you seem to want to read attacks on people you dislike such as Netanyahu and gays. Rjensen (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Bias

The section on the United States conveniently lists right-wing conspiracy theories while leaving out left-wing ones, such as:

1. The 2001 terrorist attacks were staged by the U.S. government.
2. Bush hacked the 2004 election.
3. Christians are secretly plotting a theocratic coup.
4. George W. Bush consciously lied about WMDs in Iraq.
5. There were no disincentive effects in the old AFDC welfare program.
6. GMOs are dangerous.
7. America can cut carbon emissions with neither nuclear power nor fracking.
8. The white working class is uniquely evil.

Joeedh (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree 1. with the right/left assessment, 2. that the above theories are all widespread enough to deserve consideration, and 3. that the above theories are all conspiracy theories. If you have sources then cite them rather than complaining and merely suggesting a bias. 204.11.129.240 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Every US example is against republicans

Every example of post-truth in the US is against republicans. It is an easy inference that the authors of this article have a post-truth world view. If you were really concerned with objective truth, you would cite examples where the democrat party is guilty of fact-twisting and talking-point rhetoric as well, but that isn't the goal is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:87F:B32F:9409:56A0:F380:B1FA (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a duplicate section. See "Bias" above. You can edit if you have sources. 204.11.129.240 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New examples added

In response to the multiple complaints about a leftist bias in this article, I took a quick look around to see if there were any obvious examples of denialism on the left. The article denialism actually had good references supporting denialism surrounding existing GMO foods, which is an environmental/health issue on the left. The anti-vaxxer movement if I remember correctly is mostly happening among liberal, well-educated parents. And I also added the example of dietary supplement de-regulation, which was bi-partisan and has had substantial impact on the retail market. Hopefully folks feel this balances out the article.

Lots of political arguments involve facts, but mostly like "hey, you're ignoring these other facts over here" or with different people attaching different importance to different facts (perhaps based on different values), or controversies over predictions about future effects which are difficult to make or the effects of policies that have not been well-studied. I would lump into this category, among many other things, the claim "we'll never stop climate change without nuclear and coal", which was mentioned above. That depends a lot on future development of technology and economic forces, so is difficult to know for sure. This article seems to only want examples of notable political movements or actions that rely on blatantly falsifiable facts with a strong consensus, to the point that point that there are substantial numbers of people all across the political spectrum accept the assessment of being non-factual, supported by reliable sources Wikipedia can cite (like the fact that carbon dioxide emissions by humans are substantially changing the climate from what it would otherwise be, which has a much stronger scientific consensus). There are also many examples of blatantly non-factual ideas that people have that haven't really gotten national political news coverage in the U.S. (like the Christian coup theory) and which Wikipedia doesn't have an article for, and which as a result I wouldn't include in this article. 9/11 conspiracy theories#Proponents points out that this genre is advanced by people across the political spectrum, so adding that wouldn't rebalance in a leftward direction, though maybe it's good to have more bipartisan examples. But more importantly, it hasn't really gotten any political traction - as far as I know no politician has gotten elected with this as part of their political platform, and certainly no laws have been passed that are supported by it. Those things are not true for climate change denial, which I'm sure also polls show has much more widespread support. There are far too many conspiracy theories in general (even ones we have articles about) to mention all of them in this article, so I don't think this one is particularly worth mentioning here.

I hope that explains why (at least in my opinion) a number of things mentioned above or which people might think of have rightfully been left our of the article. That being said, there might be "post-truth" political movements this article is still missing; like the other editors above, I encourage folks to add them if they can bring citations to reliable sources with them, or at least link to an existing Wikipedia article on the subject.

Wikipedia's coverage is also to some degree tied to actual events. I don't think by any objective measure one could say that President Trump and President Obama have told the same number of blantant lies per month, so if Wikipedia is documenting people's concerns about truth in politics, it's not necessarily political bias on the part of the authors if there are more Trump examples in that article than Obama examples. (That said, I agree that the examples in the article as it stood before I changed did not reflect a balanced selection of actual events.) I think the picture becomes more balanced the larger the scope under examination is. For example, if we look at "blatant lies in American politics" and we go back to before the 1960s, I'm sure we can find some horrible racist lies spread by pro-segregation Democrats. Slander in presidential elections reminiscent of the Birther movement goes all the way back to United States presidential election, 1800, long before the modern political parties even existed. This article might benefit from a re-scope to discuss "blatant lies in politics" rather than just "things that have been referred to by the modern buzzword 'post-truth'", especially since encyclopedia articles are meant to explore ideas rather than document terminology (which is for the dictionary). Anyway, I hope that the examples I just added have balanced the article in the meantime. -- Beland (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Academic corruption in "grievance studies" - Domestic Violence in particular.

Few topics seem less relevant than the information covered at Grievance Studies affair. These talking points were central to the "culture war" that was erupting when the term "post-truth" exploded in usage in 2016-2017. The longest running of these talking points, which had seen decades of truth being something to deride, (and victim blamed if you were male and thinks it happens more than almost never to men or happened to yourself), is Domestic Violence. It has a chronicled history of facts being distorted for political and financial gain (also due to the nature of the subject) since the 1970s. E.g. Strauss [[1]]. It also has been dominated by radical elements from the start [[2]] [[3]]. On a topic that deals with abuse, it is unsurprising to see distortion of facts and institutional victim blaming by the most powerful lobby.

A large part of the "post-truth" phenomenon was the corruption of academia exposed by the grievance studies affair. Society noticed that feminists were not going to accept that e.g. women now got as good an education as men (despite being the majority of the educated, as well as better educated) or that men might have issues that society should take seriously or fund (suicide, homelessness etc), and such debates could be swatted in the media, politics and places like Wikipedia by studies and "knowledge" coming from corrupted radical fields in universities where they had no representation of a counter narrative. Indeed not only was there no counter narrative, any was strongly repressed. Feminists were not going to let any "enemy" movement be validated with research or allow justification to be brought to anything the other side said, or show where they had been fabricating data on their courses. This new cause (corruption of truth by our knowledge creating institutions, and associated "SJWs" running it) created public figures like Milo Yiannopoulos who used the term to justify his actions [[4]][[5]] - now, in the YouTube clip he claims to possibly have been a cause of the explosion of the term, when he used it in the Bloomberg interview. And given his notoriety and how easy it is to attack someone using the term it's not surprising I remember lots of people on the left criticising him with the term as a result of using it, but he used it to talk about issues like this, and these topics in particular. So there's probably some truth to the claim. It was his excuse for playing dirty, and get people to not vote for Hillary or not stay in the EU etc..

It's probably about time Wikipedia stopped playing part in this corruption and included information like this.86.173.104.190 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Description - Synthesis of Material

In early February 2017, the Description section was tagged as possibly containing a synthesis of material, but as far as I can tell, there has been no corresponding discussion of this in the Talk page (nor in the Talk archives). Thus, it is unclear exactly what in the description is purported to be a synthesis of materials. However, from reading through some of the sources in this section, it appears that the tag may apply to the first sentence of this section.

A defining trait of post-truth politics is that campaigners continue to repeat their talking points, even when media outlets, experts in the field in question, and others provide proof that contradicts these talking points.

The article that is cited here does not seem to quite come to this conclusion. In particular, the beginning of the article defines "post-truth politics" in the following quote.

Pause and consider this era of what American commentators call "post-truth politics". They mean politicians (Democrats as well as Republicans) standing on party conference podiums and spraying the hall with phoney facts, which pass into history unchallenged. They mean convenient glosses rather than inconvenient admissions of failure. They mean relentlessly evasive television blah – and they surely reflect a new, narrow-eyed insistence on accuracy heading our way as the British conference season gets going.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss a media environment that is too focused on supporting a false balance and refuses to aggressively fact check false claims or rebut lies when they are told.

They could have fact-checked Ryan as he slithered along, it was said. Fact-checking is what American journalism is all about. The guy with the microphone has a duty of trust, just like the reporter at his terminal. But, apart from a pursed lip or two, CNN let Ryan carry on uncorrected. The media transmitted his message: it did not monitor, explain or test it. And all in the pious name of real "fairness and balance".

This seems to conflict with the defining trait of post-truth politics that this Wikipedia article apparently derives from this cited article. Namely, the Wikipedia article's definition would imply that the media calls out lies and fact checks politicians, but the politicians refuse to acknowledge or accept these refutations and continues to spread lies regardless, whereas the article being cited claims that the media makes very little attempt to check these lies before transmitting them to the viewer. Overall, it appears that this defining trait comes from a synthesis of the material in the rest of this paragraph, which focuses on examples of this apparent trait. However, these examples come from cited sources that describe specific events and do not make conclusions about how they are connected to the concept of "post-truth politics". The closest that any of the subsequent citations in this section come to a discussion on post-truth politics is in the following quote.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think right from the outset there are people within the Leave campaign who acknowledge in private that they know this is not true, but what they are trying to encourage is a discussion about the amount. Well, this is a kind of post-truth politics."

However, this merely asserts that campaigners are knowingly lying, not that they are lying even after being proven wrong in the public sphere. I think the synthesis that needs to be corrected is from the combination of sources that separately show that: the 2016 Brexit campaign for the UK to leave the EU was described as involving post-truth politics, the leave campaigners argued that the UK could save money by leaving the EU, fact checkers refuted the leave campaigners claims, and that leave campaigners continued to argue their claims after it had been proven false in the public sphere. However, there is no cited article that makes the conclusion that the fact that leave campaigners continued to assert claims that fact checkers refuted was what fit the definition of post-truth politics. Rather, the closest conclusion to this from the cited sources is that the fact that leave campaigners were knowingly lying was demonstrative of post-truth politics. There is no mention here of the fact shown from other sources that the lies continued after being proven wrong in the public sphere.

Ultimately, this synthesis seems to come from a larger issue with this section. This is supposed to be giving a description or definition of post-truth politics, but the section is much more focused on a discussion of a few specific examples. This discussion would be better suited later on in the section about examples. This section should be much more narrowly focused on the specific attributes of post-truth politics. The sources should also be about the topic of post-truth politics so as to avoid a need to combine the conclusions of several different articles in order to draw our own conclusions about what defines post-truth politics.

Ovenel (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeremybernick, Haricotsverts23, Katiasasha4. Peer reviewers: Dotytwo, Dreacasillas, Arizona12!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Left Wing Bias

It has been stated numerous times by critics that Wikipedia has a clear left wing bias and this very article is a perfect example of this. The examples given in the article just so happen to only cover right wing cases and not a single left wing one. The agenda of whoever wrote this propaganda is quite clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.228.231 (talk) 06:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a triplicate section. See "Bias" and "Every US example is against republicans" above. Incidentally American politics is far to the right anyway, as it's a country that confuses socialism (normal left of centre) with Communism and wrongly thinks Liberals are socialists. 2.28.151.137 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias In The Examples

Why do the examples given all contain examples from the right side of politics but none from the left? This is a clear agenda going on here. T.Nuvolari (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not true. The South African example refers solely to the ANC, which is a left wing political party. The UK examples refer in part to the SNP, which is a centre-left party. The USA examples refer in part to health issues like anti-vaxination propaganda, which are not political at all. So this seems to cover a reasonable range of post-truth issues from the left, the right and from neither.

If there are any additional left wing examples you would like to suggest then we can consider them here. You will need to provide good WP:RS references to support them, The references need to clearly use the description "post-truth" and they will need to be of equivalent significance to the examples we already have. Non-trivial examples of personal spats and political name-calling are not suitable. We need something with a real issue behind it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Now a quadruplicate section. Do these right-wingers not bother to read? 2.28.151.137 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

the issue keeps getting raised because no one is addressing a legitimate complaint, namely that the term post-truth politics is just a leftist political framing device for when people don't accept their claims about what are proven facts (but not vice versa). it's no less a politically loaded term than the right calling taxes on inheritance a death tax. OckRaz ^talk 19:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Opening sentence is gobbledygook

Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture where true/false, honesty/lying have become a focal concern of public life and are viewed by popular commentators and academic researchers alike as having an important causal role in how politics operates at a particular point in history (especially influenced by new communication and media technologies).

Can't we have a clear intelligible sentence to open the article??
I propose definitions from reliable sources. Examples:

• "a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored." "Post-Truth Politics". European Center for Populism Studies. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
• "where 'alternative facts' replace actual facts and feelings have more weight than evidence" (Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, (MIT Press, 2018) https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262535045/post-truth/)
• "'relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.' " (Oxford Dictionary quoted by NPR)"Is Being 'Post-Truth' A New Concept?". NPR. 2 December 2016. Retrieved 25 October 2022.
  • BTW, why is Oxford Dictionaries and the fact that it declared Post-truth "its international word of the year in 2016" mentioned several times throughout the article, but not what the hell Oxford Dictionaries was actually talking out? i.e. what it gave as a definition for "Post-truth"? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the lede that is gobbledygook. The whole article is a train wreck. Some of it is incomprehensible. Some of it is meaningless jargon.

Most importantly, however, different and contradictory definitions are being used even though the article is written as if post-truth politics is a particular form of objectively observable phenomena. It's not. The label is applied to intentional disinformation campaigns, popular misinformation, and even to true claims when they're viewed as misleading. Post-truth is a philosophical concept, but post-truth politics is just a label used to disparage one's political opposition. It's the claim that one's opponents aren't merely claiming things that are incorrect, but they just don't value truth.

There's a good reason that there are repeated claims of bias in the comments above. If the label described a specific political phenomenon with a consistent definition then you could stack examples against each other from both sides, but since it's actually a pejorative framing that's been incorporated into one side's narrative, any set of examples based on how the label gets used will be implicitly skewed. OckRaz ^talk 19:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find with respect to left-wing gaslighting, but, damn it, we have a situation in the United States where about 35% of the population believes that Trump won the election in 2020, but it was "stolen" from him. Repeated legal cases filed with respect to that assertion were dismissed. There is something solid here; although, I don't know if "Post-truth politics" is what historians will call this era. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"The notion of post-truth was born from a sense of regret by those who worry that truth is being eclipsed. If not overtly partisan, this at least presumes a point of view: that facts and truth are endangered in today’s political arena." McIntyre, Lee. Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) (p. 10). MIT Press. Kindle Edition. User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The thesis of those claiming that we live in a contemporary era of post truth politics is that if you roll up three things into a ball (ie, i. intentional lies, ii. false claims made by people who believe them, and iii. the biased presentation of the truth), then you can say you have proven that there's a new politics in which your opposition no longer even values truth. It's not a real phenomenon. It's a talking point. It shouldn't have an article in a reputable reference work. OckRaz ^talk 07:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

re: damn it, we have a situation - What we have, depending on ones perspective, is either institutions suffering from a loss of credibility or widespread erosion of public trust in institutions, or both. That certainly includes people who don't have faith in the 2020 U.S. presidential election results, who think it was stolen and that the 46th POTUS is not legitimate. It also includes the widespread belief that the 2016 election was 'stolen' and number 45 was illegitimate. If 35% believing Trump won in 2020 is a situation then 67% of Democrats thinking that vote tallies were tampered with in 2016 was also a situation, but rhetoric about election denial and attempts to safeguard against election misinformation only emerged after the more recent election. This is an excellent example of how so-called post truth politics is a partisan narrative and not a new social phenomenon. OckRaz ^talk 08:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pravda should serve as a left-wing example, however, Pravda is an historical phenomena a century old. Post-truth politics is use of misinformation for political purposes now, in the 21st Century. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Brexit claim

Back in 29 Oct 2022, I removed a paragraph with comment "rm paragraph added by IP which is not supported by the sources. Kings fund page has changed, doesn't mention brexit, and included social care spend. Civitas source was speculative pre-brexit so hardly supports the claim about what actually happened post-brexit". Today, an IP has put it back. I think it should be removed again, as it fails WP:V. Civitas isn't a reliable source of financial information, and their pre-Brexit speculation certainly wasn't. -- Colin°^Talk 20:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Limits on content as it relates to sources

Regarding this good faith edit by Springee, the edit summary states "This is clearly an undue section. No reason so much content is devoted to a single source" as justification removing this entire section (which doesn't seem that large, comparatively IMO) because it allegedly only has one source (listed - but there may be other RS that corroborate). However, the title is clear "Solutions from Sophia Rosenfeld", and so it seems properly attributed. Sophia Rosenfeld's education, experience and accolades also seem notable, so I think it won't hurt to discuss it first and see if there is consensus for removal. DN (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Rosenfeld and her book have received coverage in secondary sources.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] That's just a sample, as there are a lot more. It's not undue. Viriditas (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Making an entire section on her claims in her book is very much UNDUE. It's very much improper to basically have an encyclopedia entry that says "this is the solution to the problem identified by this article". Even if we present it in attributed voice it's undue. A section on proposed solutions where various ideas put forth by RSs are discussed (both pro and cons of such ideas) would be due. This content seems like something that is very much due for such a section. However, to have a section just highlighting her views would need several things before it should be allowed to stand. First, it would have to be shown that she is the preeminent voice on the subject and that her views are almost universally accepted as correct. This isn't something like describing the value of the Laplace transform in Pierre-Simon Laplace's voice. Clearly he is the expert in the transform. This person might be an expert in the field but for a stand alone section like this with such detail she would need to be the only expert in the field. Springee (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are reading the material in question in a way that the rest of us are not. That might go a long way towards explaining your position. For example, could you illustrate your overall point with a quote or two from the material you object to, as that would demonstrate my point—the material isn’t undue, you are interpreting it that way based on your own reading. Note, this isn’t all that unusual; I myself have made this mistake before, as have many others. Sometimes we need a fresh set of eyes to get back on track. So please, illustrate how this is undue using Rosenfeld’s material in your reply. I think when you do that, this problem will resolve itself. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears to say these are solutions presented by this source, not this article, am I wrong? If so, I could use some more clarification in that regard. Are you also saying that, only if there were other sources or experts included along with this source, that only then it would be DUE? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your contentions here, I am not trying to misrepresent them, I just want to see if that is accurate or not. DN (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

But the question is why does this article devote a whole section to listing her views as a point by point list? What other sources do we have to establish the weight of this list within this topic? It's clear that we are presenting her views rather that putting these in wiki voice but why present them at all? Are there other opinions on solutions we should present as well? Are there other voices saying these views are wrong or perhaps we don't need to do anything? If so why not present those voices. This is a big NPOV issue because we are giving extreme weight to this set of views. Springee (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Are there other voices saying these views are wrong or perhaps we don't need to do anything? I don't know, are there? You keep making this argument. It's not persuasive or germane. If you know of such views, then add them, otherwise stop saying it. Just because some unknown views might exist doesn't prevent us from adding the views we know about. Viriditas (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying no other author on this subject deserves such treatment? How would you back such a claim? I'm not saying she should get no weight but that she is getting undue weight. 11 Springee (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Which authors on this subject deserve treatment in this section? Please name them. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

That is on those who wish to justify having this topic in the article. I'm saying it isn't correct to have a list of "solutions" sourced to a single author/book. Springee (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. You were the one who claimed there are other POV missing. Who are these authors? If you can’t name names, why would those who support this material need to add unknown POV? You aren’t making any sense. Now you move the goalposts, and say we can’t have a list of solutions sourced to a single author or book. We can, and we do, and there’s nothing wrong with it. Again, you are arguing that there are missing authors and books not being represented. Great, please name them so I can add them. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You have made it clear that is your view on the subject. Perhaps we should see what others think. Springee (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"it would have to be shown that she is the preeminent voice on the subject and that her views are almost universally accepted as correct". I thought that applied more-so to putting things in Wikivoice. I am unfamiliar with that policy or rule. Could you point me in the right direction for this? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I also want to point out that using Rosenfeld in the way that is used is not in any way asserting she is the preeminent voice on the subject, nor is it arguing that her views are correct. This is entirely Springee’s take, which is what I was trying to show up above. Further, I can’t see anything controversial or unusual about what Rosenfeld is saying, to the point that it is contrarian for Springee to cast doubt on its usage here, amounting to an argument from ignorance. For that reason alone, the reversion of Springee’s edit was justified. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If she isn't preeminent then why is she being given an entire section. What has been done in the article to establish she/her opinions should be given this kind of weight. If these are common views on how to handle the issue then other sources will say the same and we can list solutions common to multiple sources. Conversely if she is the only one to suggest these particular solutions then why would we cover them. My concern isn't about what she says, rather how it has been added to the article in a way that puts lots of weight on her views with no similar section for other views. Springee (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What would those other views be, Springee? Please be specific. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

You are totally missing the issue. It's not what those other views might be. It's that the article treats her views as the only ones that deserve special mention by giving them an entire section. Springee (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And what other views deserve to be mentioned? I think I've asked this of you several times now. This really does sound like an argument from ignorance. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The section doesn't seem to state any rules excluding other sources. If more sources are found, surely they can be added. DN (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The ONUS is on you to explain why this single author's opinions on the subject deserve this much weight. The editor who added this content [17] didn't justify it. Can you? Springee (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And yet, you keep using the argument from ignorance to switch the onus from yourself. See how that works? We've already shown how it has received relevant secondary source coverage. Your response to this has been to point to other opinions that may or may not exist and to ask why they aren't also represented. When asked to specify these opinions, you fall back on "her views aren't the only ones". How long are you going to play this game? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No you haven't shown that she deserves a whole section devoted to her opinions. To do that you need the text of the Wikipedia article to establish her credibility. The article never mentions her before listing her solutions. This is a fundamental writing issue. We don't talk about Einstein's views on reality without establishing who Einstein is and why his views are significant. Also, giving so much emphasis to Rosenfeld with no other authors getting similar treatment begs the question why. You seen to miss the point, Rosenfeld may be 100% right etc but the article needs to establish that. The article, not the talk page, needs to establish that she is an expert and her views deserve their own section. That wasn't done when the content was added and you haven't done it either. Springee (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please name these "other authors" that deserve "similar treatment". I’ve repeatedly asked you this question and you keep ignoring it. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As I've already noted, you fail to understand the issue. The issue isn't that we can't include this content in some capacity. The issue is that it's being included as a stand alone topic with no sources justifying the weight it is being given. Springee (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A small sample of those sources justifying its weight were posted in the second reply to this thread, as you’ve been repeatedly informed. You keep moving the goalposts. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And you avoid/fail to understand the issue again. Springee (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This whole article is a mess, but forget that for a moment and forget the undue weight aspects. Why is there a list of "solutions" at all? Wikipedia is not a how to guide. And even more so, there is no scenario where an article about a political concept should have a list of someone's opinions on what political actions people should take. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Strong disagree. We have many articles with experts recommending steps to take in various fields. It’s nothing out of the ordinary, so it’s odd to see you claim it as such. Further, you just added a tag back in that says "What makes this professor's theory notable and no other? Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view". If you had bothered reading this discussion before you did that, you would have noticed that I have repeatedly asked these questions of Springee who is unable to answer the questions. Secondary sources posted above have made this opinion notable, so that is answered already (even though Springee continues to pretend it has not). What are these other POV that you and Springee believe are not being represented? If neither you not Springee can specifically detail what these missing POV are and who should be added, then I’m afraid the tag should be removed. The burden of proof remains on those wishing to add missing POV. You can’t honestly expect other editors to add a missing POV that doesn’t exist. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"I have repeatedly asked these questions of Springee" who is unable to answer the questions". You are missing the point. I'm not claiming Rosenfeld is right or wrong. I'm not saying this content shouldn't appear in the article in any form. The issue is how it's currently presented. If hers is the only worthy POV on the topic and if this list of solutions is absolutely due then where are the sources saying so. The burden to prove that is on those who wish to leave this section alone as is. It is very rare that we would ever have an article with a whole section that references a single source and none of the other sources in the article talk about that author or the source in question. The ONUS is on you to show weight for this material as added to the article. Springee (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. The sources were posted in the second reply to this thread, so you can stop saying they weren’t posted. The onus is entirely on you, as you claimed that there is a missing POV and missing sources, not me. Please name these authors and point out the POV that is missing so I can add them. If you can’t do that, then your entire argument falls apart. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

None of those sources are in the article. Nothing in the article justifies this inclusion or even introduces this person as an expert who's opinions deserve a whole topic section. As for the sources you included, do they include this list or are they just interviews with the author? If this is the only POV on the topic why aren't other sources discussing these solutions? Springee (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason none of those sources is in the article is because I just added them to this discussion. Is there something stopping you from adding them to this article? You’ve graduated from arguments from ignorance to nothing but objections now. Is there something stopping you from improving this content or are you only arguing that it should be deleted regardless of what the sources say? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then please fix the section. Can you point to any other article with a "solutions" section like this? If you think your sources address the issues that others have noted then please go ahead and fix the issue. Else, this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What is stopping you from fixing the problems you think you see? There are plenty of articles with solutions, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm far more interested in why you think this article is a problem. Why are you asking me to fix the problem that only you can see? Harambam & Grusauskaite et al. (2022) list Sophia Rosenfeld (2018) and her focus on the history of post-truth as one of five significant scholars who have worked in this related area. Is there something else you require? Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section as UNDUE. If you want to keep it then fix it. Springee (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it because you refused to do so.[18] Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That certainly is an improvement. I did offer a fix. I removed it as UNDUE which it was as previously presented. Springee (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Goodness me this is a tiresome section. Viriditas the onus really is on you to explain that a (now former) section titled "Solutions from Sophia Rosenfeld" which recommends seven solutions, which we dedicate bullet points for, uncritically and credulously, is not WP:UNDUE and meets WP:NPOV. You gave a lot of links on the talk page but they don't really demonstrate DUE. At least two of the links were actually written by Rosenfeld, so don't count, and one was a podcast featuring them and another an interview. Most of the rest were book reviews and a book getting book reviews doesn't demonstrate that the views in the book are accepted wisdom in the field or dominate reliable sources on the topic. Lots of books gather book reviews, including stupid ones (e.g., The Churchill Factor). What instead you need to do is demonstrate that when reliable sources are discussing the subject comprehensively that they also dedicate substantial space to Rosenfeld's seven solutions. And if we are to present them without criticism, you'd need to demonstrate that Rosenfeld's solutions are universally accepted as wisdom. That's a tall ask, hence you preferred to claim this was Springee's problem. It is also clearly not even remotely DUE, because I can search for post truth politics on a given bookstore website and turn up dozens of books, all offering their wisdoms on cause and solution (should there even be one).

I'm glad the section has been shorted, no longer (in its title) dedicates solutions to one author and offers some criticism. The article is now in a shape where other "solutions" or "countermeasures" by other authors could be added, and over time the prominence of Rosenfeld's likely reduce further. I'm also glad the section is no longer sourced solely to the book. You guys know that Wikipedia is primarily written from secondary sources. -- Colin°^Talk 07:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ping Ost316 who added the tag in 2018. Springee (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

When I tagged this page 5 years ago, it had Nayef Al-Rodhan's ideas for a solution, but I think the basis for the tagging was similar to the argument here. I agree with the basic premise that a solutions section should not present one solution as the sole solution. I don't know what policy requires it, but it also makes sense to me to demonstrate that a solution isn't WP:FRINGE. In the current state, there is some basis for that, given that the solutions have been been discussed in published solutions by other experts. The links above further support that the proposed solution is notable, and adding information from some of those articles may provide a more thorough view.

Additionally, I think that it makes sense to add context as to why a potential solution is notable and making it clear that it may not be the only possible solution. The current content reads closer to content that would be in a criticism section on Democracy and Truth: A Short History. Rephrasing it would likely help, and adding sources may address this.

The actions that I think would help resolve this would be

• Rename Solutions to Proposed solutions or Potential solutions; unless suggestions have been validated, they may not be solutions, and the section name should reflect that
• Explain what needs a solution. The concept of post-truth politics isn't presented as a problem, so it's not clear what needs a solution. Perhaps this section more accurately presents potential counter actions than solutions.
• Include more sources to remove the need to call out the specific political scientists. Summarize the consensus among various sources and use that to support or criticize the book, instead of relying on quotes from specific reviewers.
• Rewrite the current section to better demonstrate that it is one proposed solution. Without adding any more sources and naively summarizing the quotes, I suggest something like:

  Various solutions have been proposed to rectify the ills of post-truth politics. For instance, American historian Sophia A. Rosenfeld's book Democracy and Truth: A Short History (2019) presents potential solutions for dealing with post-truth politics. Rosenfeld highlights seven potential solutions to the problem of post-truth politics: an ethical commitment to truth-telling and fact-checking in public; a proscription against reopening settled debates; a crackdown on disinformation by social media companies; a shift away from free-speech absolutism; protecting the integrity of political institutions; improving information literacy with education; and the support of nonviolent protest against lying and corruption. Political scientists Alfred Moore (University of York), Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti (City University of New York), Elizabeth Markovits (Mount Holyoke College), and Zeynep Pamuk (St John’s College), evaluated the book and its proposed solutions, in what Invernizzi-Accetti calls "remedies for the growing split between populism and technocracy in contemporary democratic regimes". Criticism included that there is no value of truth in politics, democracy requires skepticism, and generational commitment to improvements.

• Add more proposed solutions. The content from 5 years ago may be worth revisiting, and intermediary edits may have additional concepts.

—Ost (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Ost's overall comments. The current text does read a bit too much like a criticism section on Democracy and Truth: A Short History. Especially the way we lead with the critics than the book author (why do all the critics get their institution in brackets in the current text?). And we mustn't get over bogged down listing criticism of one (set of) proposed solutions. It may be enough to list many author's proposed solutions without necessarily countering each with whatever criticism a google search turned up (false balance).

I don't have access to "Beyond populism and technocracy" but the list of authors includes Rosenfeld and it is labelled a "Critical Exchange". I'm not familiar with what that might be but guess it is a bunch of experts choosing to agree and disagree on a topic that makes them all sound intellectual and clever but has the distinct problem that folk may disagree without strongly believing what they are saying, solely to either play devil's advocate or because they can't stand Rosenfeld (for example) or that she's a woman, and so want to publicly demolish them. I could be wrong and it is all good faith stuff, but I'm nervous about using that as a genuine source of criticism. Some points, like "democracy requires skepticism" seem wanting an explanation of how that is a criticism (unless one's politics takes one to the point where one thinks climate change denialism is "healthy skepticism", in which case the demand that "democracy requires skepticism" is itself a post truth.) -- Colin°^Talk 07:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a copy hosted by Harvard. I'm assuming it's not a preprint and it's the same one I used. Feel free to implement whatever changes you and Ost316 desire. If you need me to email you a copy of Rosenfeld's book, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Ah so that source contains separate essays by each author. I'm not knowledgeable enough about political argument to feel confident writing much article text here. It is one thing to spot problems, quite another to write a better section.

Viriditas, it is hard to tell what your "feel free to implement" offer is. I would hope it is an entirely generous offer, rather than a backward way of requiring that those who complain must get their finger out and fix it themselves. It's just that your earlier "I fixed it because you refused to do so" seemed to be in the latter camp. We're all volunteers. Personally I hate doing something if I can't do it well, and doing this section well would require reading lots of books and scholarly works on post truth politics, and being competent enough to summarise them, which I lack the time or ability for. -- Colin°^Talk 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The title of the article is a POV TERM and the ostensible topic of the article is a creation by the term....the creation is done by grouping, renaming and viewing-though-a-lens material that is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. My advice is to zap the material in question and zap 3/4 of the article and make the article just cover the TERM....it's inception, usage etc. A good example on how do to this is at Gay agenda. Note that that the term article is not the place to cover the target of the term......such would be reinforcement of the POV term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not following you, and I don’t see any parallel to this subject and gay agenda. Would you like to link me to policies and guidelines that support your position? "Post-truth politics" is far from a "POV term" like gay agenda. I don’t understand how you see the similarity. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The subjects are both creations by the term rather than something which already exists as a distinct topic. Again, the creation is done by grouping, renaming and viewing-though-a-lens material that is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not occurring. It sounds like something you made up. The sources themselves have indicated this is a distinct topic. I gave you one below. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This title is WP:COMMONNAME, so the POV assumption seems to be a moot point. "Zapping" RS seems like the opposite direction of WP:PRESERVE and doesn't take any actual effort to "improve" an article IMO. The article you are comparing this one to also has about third of the references here, is littered with cn tags etc. and looks like WP:PNA. Do you already patrol that article as well? If not, perhaps you could go spend some time there and improve it by making it more like this one? DN (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't watch either article, I saw this at a noticeboard. I do have a lot of interest and activity on the concept of how to cover topics which created by the term rather than already existing as a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree this article seems to go between treating this as a concept and sources that treat it as an accepted fact. I'm sure I don't have enough interest in the topic to really try to clean things up. My original concern was the COI evidence I presented at COIN. I suspect not many people actually follow this topic but it does appear an IP editor out of France was trying to promote the topic. Springee (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The tricky part is when it is prima facie about what is clearly accepted facts. For example, Gay agenda is prima facie about gay related initiatives which themselves are clearly accepted fact. But the concept/term creates a bundling and view of them and the bundling/view is itself is a creation by the concept/term. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not seeing anything tricky or any kind of bundling occurring. This topic has been covered extensively in the literature. Here’s an overview from 2017. I hope you can imagine that in the six years since that editorial was published the amount of information on this topic has only grown. I think you’re seeing things in this article that just aren’t there. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Your request is still unclear. I think explaining your perception of what you think would improve the article "Post-truth politics" would be more productive if you cited some actual sources. There are plenty of academic sources, experts and journals for you to choose from. I'll list a few to see if that helps to get you started. Cheers.

Jane Suiter

Stewart Lockie

Michael Peters (education academic)

DN (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)