Talk:Post-truth politics

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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] 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 [12] 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.[13] 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)

Separating the notable from the mundane

The United Kingdom section bothers me because the lead paragraph gives two examples where politicians (not journalists) from the Labour party accuse SNP of "post truth politics". The first of which isn't "An early use of the phrase" according to the source. The source contains a use of that phrase but whether it is an early example is presumably only the result of an editor going "Google didn't turn up anything earlier when I looked". Both examples smell rather that these politicians had discovered a clever new political weapon to use against their opponents and wrote an opinion piece around it. It is nothing new for politicians in one party to accuse the other of exaggeration, failing to deliver on promises, being misleading and downright lying. That both politicians cited decided to use this phrase in their political attack opinion pieces shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source for whether the party/politicians they attacked actually engaged in post-truth politics. Compare those rather obscure examples with the Brexit debate which is widely regarded as having succumbed to post-truth politics and there's likely some scholarly works that could be cited.

So I propose the the UK section at least, and perhaps others too, that we need to find examples of reliable sources demonstrating examples of post-truth politics. If we can't do that for the examples in the first paragraph then they should be removed. We don't really need to quote politicians going "You're a liar. No, you're a liar." at each other. -- Colin°^Talk 10:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

re: "these politicians had discovered a clever new political weapon to use against their opponents" - That is what every example is. Look over the article. There's no single consistent definition of the term. It's just a piece of jargon used as a political talking point and not a legitimate phenomenon. The fact that a handful of scholars have written about the jargon doesn't change that fact. Disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda have articles all their own. The term "post truth politics" is some melange of the three- possibly with an emotional or cultural component, but maybe not. It should have an entry in wiktionary but not wikipedia. OckRaz ^talk 05:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible COI editor, Jayson Harsin

Last year I posted a COIN discussion regarding a number of IP addresses adding Jayson Harsin based references to articles including this one. [14] This appears to be a case of an academic, likely legitimate in the field, trying to self promote by putting their name in Wikipedia articles. I'm not familiar enough with this topic to decide if the person in question is over represented, correctly represented etc in context of the number of times they are mentioned by name in this article thus I'm not going to outright remove their additions. I would encourage others to take a look. Looking at various additions of Harsin sources, the first instance was by an IP editor here [15]. This addition included name in the article text, not just references. Additional additions by IP editors [16],[17],[18],[19],[20] Springee (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

These are different IP addresses. Do we know for a fact this is a COI? DN (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, these edits are not all confined to Harsin's work. There is a procedure for handling suspicious edits, because under no circumstances are we supposed to compel a typical editor to reveal personal information.

DN (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)