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)