Talk:Post-truth politics

Reviving "Description - Synthesis of Material"

In 2019, I had posted a (now archived) section in this talk page about the "Description" section which has been marked as containing original synthesis since 2017. There had been no discussion since I had added the section in the talk page (and the original editor that flagged the section as containing original research did not discuss the rationale in the talk page), but I see that the section is still marked as containing a synthesis of material.

In 2019, I had reviewed the sources, and I concluded that no individual source had quite supported the assertion that "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." Instead, the cited source seemed to indicate that media organizations were slow or unwilling to fact check lies, but some of the sources later on involve examples that support this definition. However, these later sources do not define post-truth politics itself, so it would be original research to draw out the definition from the qualities described in these sources.

I recall that when I was originally looking into this, I was having trouble finding a source that clearly defined "post-truth politics" as it was still relatively new. It does appear that a new source has been added to the lead sentence of this section since my original discussion, but I only have access to the abstract, and it does not seem to quite define this term.

Ultimately, as this section is still marked with this original synthesis, I think we need to keep this discussion alive. I'll see if I can find some better sources which define the term and hopefully be able to resolve this issue, but if anybody has any comments about this, that would be great.

Ovenel (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand why there is any conflict or dispute at this point, given that there are hundreds of reliable sources on this topic now. Is the problem simply that nobody wants to write a well sourced article? Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Viriditas I believe that is the case. I was just looking back at some of my history and saw that this article still had the same issues in the description section. I know that six years ago, I had posted the section in the talk page with the hope that whoever flagged the section in this article would confirm my understanding of the issue, but that never happened, and I didn't revisit this until now. However, a quick search now does seem to give more clear definitions for the term than I was able to easily find before, so when I have some more time and mental energy, I should be able to clean up this section. I just wanted to restore what I had posted previously so that there is something in the talk page to correspond with the flagged section in the main article. Ovenel (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anything small I can do. Viriditas (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I've found a few sources that seem to give a more clear definition of Post-Truth Politics which could be used to fix this section. I think it is primarily the first paragraph that needs to be addressed as the statement, "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" does not quite seem to be supported by the sources.

Overall, I think that there is a bit of confusion in the layout of this article. The definition of "Post-Truth Politics" seems to be split out between the "Concepts" and "Description" section, and most of the "Description" section appears to be focused on explaining the causes rather than explaining what it is. So I believe a bit more reorganization in this article as a whole may be warranted.

Post-truth refers to a situation whereby facts have lost their currency in contemporary political and public debate. The concept is not so much used to suggest that the truth does not exist, but that facts have become secondary to our political point of view.

— "Post-Truth - an overview". ScienceDirect.

Post-truth politics, also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics, is 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.

Post-truth politics is a term used to describe a political environment where objective facts are overshadowed by subjective emotions and beliefs. In this landscape, the boundaries between truth and falsehood become blurred, allowing politicians to manipulate information by intermingling misleading claims with facts to craft narratives that resonate emotionally with the public.

— "Post-truth politics". EBSCO.

What we are left with is “post-truth” politics, which I broadly define as an epistemically dysfunctional type of discourse which is unconcerned with objective facts.

— Rietdijk, Natascha (March 2024). "Post-truth Politics and Collective Gaslighting". Episteme. 21 (1): 229–245. doi:10.1017/epi.2021.24. Retrieved 9 September 2025.

Ovenel (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

What I would normally do in a situation like this is rewrite the entire thing in my sandbox. Then, slowly replace key parts with the new version, watching carefully for any feedback on the talk page. It would also help if you explain that you are doing this on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

Should "the public (not scientific or philosophical) distinction between truth and falsity—as well as honesty and lying—have become a focal concern of public life, and are" be replaced with "the public (not scientific or philosophical) distinction between truth and falsity—as well as honesty and lying—has become a focal concern of public life, and is?" Apokrif (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The entire lead needs to be rewritten, not just adjusted with a few minor changes. Its reliance on obfuscatory language seems almost purposeful, as if to hinder understanding, but I realize it is more likely that people actually write like this. Until the 1990s, this was an actual writing style. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2017- Donald Trump veracity - composite graph.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Potential AI-generated text

Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Rationale: this 2023 edit; note WP:AISIGNS of superficial analyses, vocab distro typical of 2023 LLMs etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)