Talk:5G

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashleyatnyu (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joke65andFriends (article contribs).

Section/link on problems with 5G

Hi, I mentioned elsewhere that I looked in vain for anything on potential problems with 5G. This is to signal that, if I get a chance, I hope to start a section, or at least a link, to reputable sources that have flagged these issues: for example the danger that trees that get in the way may be destroyed, aesthetic issues around the proliferation of masts, possible health issues, etc. I intend to use only serious mainstream sources (e.g. newspapers of record) and not amateur blogs and the like. It would save me a lot of time and effort if anyone who has a problem with that idea could let me know before I spend the time on the research, and also indicate what kind of literature is acceptable, as well as what isn't. (I don't have a technical background so I'm winging it a bit on this, but I'll do the best I can.) Thanks.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Some problems that you mentioned were the subject of raving edits to this page that required freezing it. Rather, since much of what you propose presupposes a lot of things that are not specific to 5G, they would fit better in other pages or in a new page altogether. ebahapo (talk)

Thanks :-) That's helpful to know. I wasn't up to speed on the editorial history. The following is the kind of thing I wss thinking of, from the website of RTE, the state broadcaster in Ireland (equivalent of the BBC). The article is balanced, directly relevant to 5G, written by a professor in the area, mentions the issues without over-egging them (as far as I can tell) and cites relevant sources. Would that pass muster, and if not why not? As I said, I'm not an expert in the area so I can only go on what seem to be appropriate sources https://www.rte.ie/eile/brainstorm/2019/0313/1036125-should-we-be-worried-about-radiation-from-5g-networks/Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays. Moreover, 5G will also use low frequency microwaves (below 6 GHz), just like 4G and 3G, and, decades after human exposure to such microwave radiation, no ill effects have been observed. On the other hand, 5G will additionally use high frequency microwaves (above 24 GHz), near and into the mm-wave range. Much of similar alarmist reports focus on this range, but, between the two, this is actually the least concerning. The fallacious argument stems from the fact that 5G in the mm-wave range will necessitate a higher density of antennas to cover an area with signal. The reason is that mm-waves are absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere, which rapidly decreases their range. Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies. However, regardless of the number of antennas or the frequency used, typically the power emitted by the antenna will be less than 10W, the power reaching the user equipment will be in the range between fW to µW and the power emitted by it will be less than ¼W. As a matter of fact, mm-waves are more likely to be mostly absorbed by the skin, unlike low frequency microwaves, which can reach into the muscles. Still, the effect of microwaves being absorbed by living tissue is increased temperature and never genetic mutation. Yet, unlike meat in a microwave oven, whose power is up to 1500W, the temperature increase will be minute and innocuous. I suggest that you read on Electromagnetic radiation and health and Mobile phone radiation and health and, should you still desire to contribute to the discussion, you do it those pages first. ebahapo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm a bit flummoxed here. Obviously I can't begin to argue the case re the technicalities, but I'm puzzled why an article (a) written by a professor in the area and (b) in a reputable publication, would not be regarded as at least having arguable status in this entry. Are you saying that anything that raises health issues is ipso facto to be dismissed without a hearing, even if it's written by Einstein (or whoever the equivalent may be in this area)? But leaving aside the health issues, there are in any case other concerns. As you write yourself: "Thus, with a shorter range per each antenna, more antennas are needed to cover a given area than with lower frequencies." This would potentially raise aesthetic, cultural and environmental issues (extraneous to health matters) which are surely worth noting and including in the discussion. So if I can source material critical of the proliferation of antennae, is it appropriate to include it in the entry, and if not, why not?Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Neither WP:NONFACT nor WP:SOAPBOX will be allowed in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, first - the professor isn't writing in his area. He's a professor of 'Cyber Security' who's writing about medicine here. Second, Wikipedia has special sourcing requirements for medical claims precisely because the popular media gets this kind of thing wrong so frequently. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, so if I can source material from medical experts in reputable publications who question 5G, is that OK? (Though I imagine that people with expertise in both medicine and mobile phone technology are kind of scarce...) Apart from the medical issues though, is there any objection to citing issues that have been raised about the potential proliferation of antennae, from (e.g.) an environmental, aesthetic or cultural POV? NB I do not intend to go down the "Soapbox" road, insofar as I understand the policy/guidelines, simply to note the objections that are out there. Thank you. Be-nice:-) (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to contribute what you find at Mobile phone radiation and health and Cell site and, if it's accepted there (cf. WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOR, WP:NOTABILITY, WP: NPOV ), I'd be glad to link to it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 02:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like a useful site. I'm wondering though why this article doesn't link to it already (?) On a separate matter, can I assume that there is no objection to including non-health issues that have been raised to 5G in this article, e.g. environmental, aesthetic or cultural, due to the proliferation of antennae?Be-nice:-) (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe someone will object, maybe not. Without seeing the proposed source it's hard to know. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Please, see the See also section. Also, I do not think that this article is the right place for aesthetic issues of cell sites. Again, as I pointed out above, contribute your research in Cell site and, after it's integrated there, though I don't pretend to speak for all, I'd be glad to link to it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example of the issues raised re the proliferation of antennae, from the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/30/400000-extra-phone-masts-needed-bring-5g-network-rural-britain/?fbclid=IwAR3GH73TXBkNO4sbuakGjCfup_l6rVLf0pqKro5yX6oWnMmRWud-2q_Uhe8. (There is also a lot of stuff on the Internet re the supposed connection between preparation for 5G and widespread tree-felling in the UK and ROI, though I've struggled to find any "respectable" sources on the tree issue, i.e. not self-published blogs and the like. There is certainly an inordinate amount of tree-felling going on, and 5G is certainly being rolled out, though whether there is any connection between the two is another matter).Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is a perfect example of WP:SOURCE. And, as all the other sources you mentioned, it's written by clueless authors. For instance, it assumes that 5G always requires a dense antenna deployment, which is only true for mm waves. 5G can and will be deployed on the same frequencies and masts as 2G, 3G, 4G as well. Therefore, in rural areas, there just is no ROI in deploying 5G in mm waves. As a matter of fact, it seems that these are the only sources that motivate you. If these are the kind of sources that you are using in your research, then it's not research at all and its results have no place in an encyclopedia, but in Reddit, 4chan, etc. Again, no WP:SOAPBOX. Ebahapo (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

From WP: SOURCE: "Other reliable sources include:

University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Journals Mainstream newspapers"

The Telegraph is undoubtedly a mainstream newspaper, though as it happens I don't normally agree with its politics. It seems to me that you have a somewhat dogmatic view of what should and shouldn't be included here. Anyway, I've better things to do than to get into a Wikipedia squabble. Have a nice day.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I remind everyone, neither Ebahapo nor anyone else has the authority to WP:OWN this page. The whole section above beginning with "No, it does not pass muster. Microwaves are not ionizing radiation (implying something that is emitted by rays) and therefore does not cause cancer, unlike ionizing radiation, like β rays. " is WP:OR without any sources. I assess the text in that section as bullying. I certainly will be keeping an eye open here. 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I assumed that the links at See also section provided enough support for my statement above. Specifically, Mobile phone radiation and health, from Electromagnetic radiation and health. I also recognize that I fell into WP:POVRAILROAD, for which I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebahapo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

this quote from WP:FRINGE explains why it would be (and therefore is) quite wrong to summarily exclude alternative scientific theories about the effects of 5G: “Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted.“ Boscaswell talk 19:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Reading this whole talk I get the impression that owning content and shooting down concerns is a priority. Also, seeing "Radiation FEARS" and "Espionage FEARS" as index points seem very biased. When looking up a hot topic like 5G, one would expect at least a broad spectrum rather than the rather narrow one of technical jargon, which those who DO understand such would not need in detail. I know this balance to be an old discussion, but I DO suggest you make room for (wider) concerns, starting with a change of the index. A central heading just called CONCERNS containing the present concerns, OR a referral from such to separate topic, eg "5G concerns". I mean: 5G implies a changed Earth in the way we communicate and utilise data, and concerns are 4 measly lines, of which 2 are mine! Krabat —Preceding undatedcomment added 10:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On the assumption that, at some state, a section on problems/concerns/criticisms/controversy will be added to this entry (though maybe I'm being too optimistic) here is another article from a mainstream publication, this time the respected magazine the New Yorker. It adds the issues of surveillance/political security to the issues already mentioned (i.e. danger to trees, aesthetic and environmental concerns, health issues, etc.): https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Oops...I just noticed that there is in fact the basis for a surveillance section in the article. The above New Yorker article might be a useful source for expansion of that.Be-nice:-) (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I came across this recent article in The Lancet which may be a useful link for the issue of health effects. It specifically mentions 5G: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltextBe-nice:-) (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like a useful source for scientific research on 5G and potential problems: https://www.emf-portal.org/en/search/results?query=5G&languageIds%5B%5D=enBe-nice:-) (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I came across this, which looks like a useful source on the potential effects of 5G on trees in the UK. I did a "find" on words like "trees," "leaves," "foliage" etc with some interesting results: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684420/OS_Final_report__5g-planning-geospatial-considerations.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2ST3D9it88y1Ie-qrFhJLWFXCiJX9OzVcelTrBLEPJHI7ytH6_VlnMqNABe-nice:-) (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop the agenda editing and move on to something else. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

UN Staff Member: 5G Is War on Humanity

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/un-staff-member-5g-war-humanity?utm_source=Daily+Greenmedinfo.com+Email+List&utm_campaign=743bc53cdc-UN+Staff+Member%3A+5G+Is+War+on+Humanity&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_193c8492fb-743bc53cdc-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t%28Institute+for+Scientific+Freedom_COPY_01%29&mc_cid=743bc53cdc&mc_eid=%5BUNIQID%5D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.230.8.81 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. C933103 (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if we don't discuss whether the source is effective, there is no UN document to prove this.At least I have not seen any relevant information on the official UN website. by 61.224.2.10

Disinformation. Zezen (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Health effects

Scientists have concerns about the health effects from the potential widespread involuntary radiation exposure to the 5G cell towers, so I'd to request that be covered by the article.[1][2][3] Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, because 2 sources of yours violate WP:NPOV and the other (Salon) goes against mainstream scientific opinion see WP:FRINGE, as resolved by numerous edits and reverts, the health effects of microwave radiation, if any (see edits reasoning) should be listed as a link to a separate article at the bottom of the page, not as mainstream opinion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when exactly NPOV started to mean "mainstream point of view"? Are you confusing letters? -- A man without a country (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether health concerns are well-founded, there is concern. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

whether something goes against mainstream scientific opinion or not isn’t necessarily the deciding factor as to inclusion of alternative theories, such as, in this case, the growing analysis of the possibility of 5G having detrimental health effects. Alternative theoretical formulations have a valid case as to their inclusion (or not), as set out in WP:FRINGE and should - therefore - not be dismissed out of hand. Quoting from there: ‘’ “Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted.” ‘’ It may well become vitally important, literally, for the health concerns about 5G to be given space. Boscaswell talk 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I propose adding a sentence or two under the section “Health concerns” referencing the New York Times article from July 2019 that claims one of the original influential studies on the health concerns of wireless technology made a fundamental scientific error. The article claims this study was a major contributing factor to widespread concerns but it was incorrect in its findings. 2020JJ (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The 5G Protocol May Still Be Vulnerable to IMSI Catchers

Could someone take a look? I don't have enough background knowledge to understand how to include this information.

• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/01/5g-protocol-may-still-be-vulnerable-imsi-catchers
• https://boingboing.net/2019/01/29/authentication-and-key-agreeme.html

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Succession-box at bottom of page has omission

4G is correctly identified as 5G's "predecessor". But 6G isn't listed as 5G's successor. Donald Trump tweeted just recently that he wants 6G technology, so it's not like it doesn't exist or something.2604:2000:C682:2D00:2813:62EC:E222:A7F3 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Seriously? Trump tweets about some future technology he knows nothing about, therefore it exists? MrDemeanour (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be talked about as a "successor" for one reason: It barely exists 67.149.244.203 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Censorship health concerns over exponential increase in emf radiation checks over wikipedia neutrality

I urge editors to refrain any further suppression over the matter. And demand the section re-instalment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.230.75.49 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Exponential", eh? You mean, the emf radiation increases at a rate proportional to - er - the amount of emf radiation? I can't make sense of that. Also, I suspect that the term "emf" is being used here by someone who doesn't actually know what it stands for. Otherwise I think they would have simply omitted it - "radiation" nearly always means electromagnetic radiation (which includes light and radiant heat). The kind of electromagnetic radiation you appear to be talking about is microwave radiation. There is no evidence that the amount of microwave radiation involved in mobile telephony is harmful, even if you are close to a cell tower. The acronym "EMF" stands for "electromagnetic field" or "electromotive force". In neither case does the phrase "emf radiation" make any sense. I'm sorry to whine about your misuse of technical terminology, but after all you are trying to refer to a technical subject.

"Censorship" is the active suppression of information by a government. That term is not applicable to private organizations such as WP.

"Demand": that's not how it works. It seems you are new around here. Take some time to read more articles, see how Talk pages work, and learn about the editing process. Have a look at reliable sources as a start. If you would like some help, don't hesitate to post a brief message to my user talk page - I'll pick it up within a day or so. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC) I made a major change by deleting the section on Huawei security controversies. There is a (long) separate article on the subject. It is important, but applies to much more than 5G. It's certainly appropriate for someone to add here some references to 5G, Huawei and security, but please keep it brief and link to the main article. I also made numerous small changes reflecting new information as the first 300,000 users have been connected.

I note the discussion here about radiation dangers. I added two highly credible sources with citations. "In April, 2019, the city of Brussels in Belgium blocked a 5G trial because of radiation fears.[57] In Geneva, Switzerland, a planned upgrade to 5G was stopped for the same reason.[58]" I also added "Most authorities do not believe there is conclusive evidence of harm.[56]" I think this is a neutral, well-sourced section on an issue of concern. Improvements welcome, but I haven't seen solid information that adds much to the discussion.
Dave

It is not just Huawei that is in question. And it is specifically for 5G as you can see in the text.C933103 (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Radiation fears

BoogaLouie The New York times recently made a report that seems like an op-ed that accuses RT America of spreading fake news about 5G radiation effects. I have found many news outlets that are not related to RT that are "spreading fears" of 5G like how it might cause cancer. According to DW around 250 scientists from around the world have signed a petition to slow down the roll out of 5G because they fear that 5G could cause cancer. I don't think that what RT America reported at that day was unusual in mainstream media. Most of American mainstream media have reported news about 5G radiation fears. According to a report from 2019/1/8 [https://www.engadget.com/2019/01/08/verizon-disney-the-new-york-times-5g/ thus source] "Verizon will partner with The New York Times to create a 5G journalism lab, though the full details of how that program will work exactly are still unclear." so for me it does seem suspicious that the only news paper to report this was the New York times and therefore it looks biased towards Verizon. This section in my opinion needs to be updated with real scientific research sources not news outlets agenesis and even if we need to add something like that it should be summarised and not given too much details. So that's why I reverted your addition here --SharabSalam (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalamThe significant issue with the RT report is that RT is an organ of the Russian government and does what the government -- under the leadership of Putin -- wants. What does Putin want? “We need to look forward. The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems.”[ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html ] But that is for Russia, not for the US.--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --207.225.131.140 (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with the text is that it is too much detailed and for that reason it become more about about RT America and Russia topic not 5G->radiation fears topic so because of that I felt that it should be summarised that if it has got significant attention from reliable sources. You can add this paragraph to RT America article it would be very suitable there but here with this amount of details it looks off-topic--SharabSalam (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

BoogaLouie an IP address editted your comment I reverted. Was that you? Please clarify--SharabSalam (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes was me. Did not realize I was not logged in. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a notable topic for inclusion. SharabSalam's characterization of the NYT as an "op-ed" is an opinion that wouldn't hold up to community scrutiny or a RSN review. The NYT article is a top-shelf investigative report that is feature length. Unlike other news sources the NYT has a higher threshold of reliability and fact checking. The inclusion doesn't need to be so lengthy and detailed, I agree, but some mention of it needs to be here. -- GreenC 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the NYT report has got some attention from other news outlets since the time we were talking here. I do feel that the story is worth inclusion now and I think that it should not be detailed. We should stay on the topic of the radiation fears. I think we can remove or squeeze some quotations such as these quotes. Putin: “The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems,” and quoted US-based analysts worrying that “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours” (Ryan Fox of New Knowledge) and that the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards,” these informations doesn't really belong to the section and more about RT America than radiation fears. Would it be okay if I summarised these informations?. I said that the NYT report seems like an op-ed because IMO it wasn't actually accurate and full of baseless accusations. I explained what RT America reported that day about how 5G could cause cancer is not something unusual in the mainstream media but the NYT chose only RT America to attack, then the NYT said that all of radiation fears reports are Russian propaganda. I also pointed out that the NYT report might be biased because it has business relationship with Verizon. I guess I will have to discuss this here WP:V/N.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus that the content that was removed was reliably sourced, relevant, and noteworthy. Some trimming may be in order but the quotes SharabSalam is proposing for deletion definitely belong. R2 (bleep) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I did some trimming/streamlining/sharpening. R2 (bleep) 20:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ahrtoodeetoo, looks good. I honestly couldn't have made it better than what you did. The New York times article is behind unskippable payment wall (although I can see it for just few seconds) all I know about the report is from other sources. I have got one question. I am not so familiar with RT America but is this statement ("RT America, a Russian propaganda outlet") accurate? and can we make it in wiki voice?--SharabSalam (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It is, and we can. We couldn't have a few years ago, but in the last couple of years the reliable media has come around and is now regularly describing RT as a propaganda outlet. I can add sources if necessary. R2 (bleep) 21:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, Hi, I am not sure that what you did is considered as an original research or not I have asked a question in here and I will send you a message so that you be notified about this discussion in case you want to participate. The reason for this is that I am not sure if its original research or not --SharabSalam (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A crazy thought: what if Russian propaganda has taken a leading role in spreading fears over 5G safety not because it wants to undermine its implementation in the West, but to actually discredit these claimed safety issues by associating it with Russia, in the hope they are actually valid? -- A man without a country (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the capacity per area?

20gbps capacity per cell. Great. But what is the theoretical maximum capacity per area? This must obvious relate to the cells being used. As 5G is constantly praised as a serious competitor to wired networks, I wonder how this may actually really work in a world of more and more FTTH networks, which do not use shared networks as 5G obviously does. Any more serious info on this subject available? Yeah 20gbps per cell is great, but what about all those other people who may take that capacity away from me ... 2A00:1398:300:202:0:0:0:102E (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Area for each cell depends on how carriers deploy their network. Note that bottleneck in carrier network at neighborhood/other different section of the network can also occur even if the network standard is like FTTH, as there are no guarantee on the total bandwidth available via fiber from ISP to these intermediate nodes, where the advertised speed usually represent the speed between your local optical router and the nearest node the ISP provide near you. C933103 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Russian disinformation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following paragraph about Russia Today (or substantially similar content) be included in the article? R2 (bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC) The whole paragraph is at issue, though I'm bolding the portion that has been the primary focus of some recent edit warring and discussion.

RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government, aired programming linking 5G to harmful health effects without scientific support. Several RT stories have warned of health impacts such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease" and have spread to hundreds of blogs and websites. Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of Russian 5G network in February 2019. Ryan Fox, an executive of a technology firm that tracks disinformation, said, “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.” Molly McKew, the head a U.S.-based firm that seeks to counter Russian disinformation, said the Russian government “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards.”

sources
References

(Please note, there's a related discussion going on concurrently at WP:ORN#Is this original research or not?.) R2 (bleep) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes but The bolded text should be reworded as the NYT source says something like this "It [RT America] has been described as 'Russian propaganda outlet'". The NYT report is the only source that address the issue of 5G and clearly put the the claim inside a quote not in the NYT voice. The other 1,2,3 sources are about RT(not even RT America) being propaganda outlet not about 5G. This seems like SYNTH to me. The bolded text can reworded like this "media outlet funded by Russia" or "a media outlet that has been described as a 'Russian propaganda'" 'Russian propaganda' can be replaced with 'kremlin propaganda' as per the NYT source--SharabSalam (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
• YES I think it is natural for the propaganda media to deal with biased information about 5G. That is why I am in favor of dealing with the information. Also, I think it is not a lie because it is based on facts.--Wnghksdl (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• yes...and this paragraph obviously need some copy editing work. Viztor (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment There is a discussion in RT talk page regarding the issue of the bolded text. What if the out come of the discussion contradicted the out come of the RfC? I don't know whether editors in that discussion are aware of this RfC or not.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Let's not get ourselves into a knot about trivialities. The statement as it stands is good enough till Russia decides to sue WP. If someone wishes to introduce diplomatic periphrasis while maintaining encyclopedicity readability, and comprehensibility, let them produce an acceptable version first, then worry about arguing the point. JonRichfield (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes relevant, sourced and accurate information. -- GreenC 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• No Way People 'of a certain age' remember when the New York Times ran with the fake news that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which could be considered U.S. Government propaganda in that it had the effect of bolstering the call for war. So I tend to question the NYT to this day. In this case it was warranted. Besides the SYNTH in the beginning portion, which is disallowed, the rest of the proposed section is sourced to the NYT. The piece is a conspiracy theory that suggests the only criticism of 5G comes from Putin or has nefarious origins. The NYT has a major conflict of interest when it comes to 5G. Carlos Slim, majority owner of the NYT (Mexican billionaire, 5th richest person in the world) is a business man, and like Putin, not necessarily an arbiter of truth. In this case, he has a vested interest in 5G's success, with his ownership of American Movil. As well, the NYT itself has a COI with regard to reporting on 5G. In April of this year, they announced that The New York Times has launched a 5G Journalism Lab and has partnered with Verizon (which "has been in a cutthroat competition with AT&T to be the first carrier to offer 5G, and it has now claimed that title)". The piece is inaccurate by suggesting that Russia Today is the only source of 'negative' 5G reporting, Newsweek and CBS have also run stories; and The Lancet has published science showing that "prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects". If this NYT piece is to be mentioned, the section should include a refutation. But don't let WP become a mouthpiece for Carlos Slim et al, unless the reporting is balanced, accurate, and free of COI.  petrarchan47คุก 04:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This comment misrepresents the New York Times piece pretty badly, but what I want to point out is that, all newspapers like the Times have gotten things wrong from time to time, that doesn't mean they're propaganda outlets. There are dozens of reliable sources say that RT is a propaganda outlet. There's not a single one that says the NYT is a propaganda outlet. Sticking with the reliable sources is Wikipedia 101. R2 (bleep) 15:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Petrarchan47 has demonstrated, referring to multiple sources, that NYT is not a neutral source as regards 5G since it has a clear and publicly known conflict of interest with 5G-promoting businesses. What are you trying to achieve by your patronising tone towards Petrarchan47? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I disagree with your POV assertion:

Noam Chomsky: The New York Times is pure propaganda, Salon.

ADL head calls NY Times cartoon ‘vile anti-Semitic propaganda’, The Times of Israel.

The New York Times' role in promoting war on Iraq, The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Spirit of Judy Miller Is Alive and Well at the NYT, and It Does Great Damage, The Intercept.

Correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA , The Guardian.

‘NY Times’ disgracefully joins the propaganda campaign to push for war against Iran, Mondoweiss.

NYT Prints Government-Funded Propaganda About Government-Funded Propaganda, Fair. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Even if NYT is a "biased source" on this subject (I doubt), it is still a highly reliable source per WP:RS. This is not a valid argument for deleting the paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Tobby the NYT is a biased source and there are many instances of their propaganda as Tobby pointed out. Also as Salix alba quoted: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". We only have an analyst POV.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is nothing extraordinary in the claim that RT was "described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government". This is actually a common place, a "majority" view (please see the references on our page). This paragraph used five RS, one of which is NYT. On the other hand, saying that "NYT is a biased source and there are many instances of their propaganda", well, that sounds opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• ​See what the paragraph at the top says "RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government" it makes it in Wikivoice also the extraordinary claim is that RT America is the one that is promoting fear from 5G implementation because Russia can't afford one. This claim is an extraordinary claim when we have a lot of other media outlets who have also promoted concerns about 5G radiation as mentioned before in this discussion. Also we only have the NYT report which is the main source for the 5G-RT_America issue. The other sources are used by the editor as SYNTH in order to support the claim that RT is a propaganda outlet. They aren't about 5G. They are not relevant sources.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Text above does NOT say that RT is the only one making concerns about the safety. To the contrary, page makes it clear there are other sources. As about "a propaganda outlet", this is not an extraordinary statement, but a "majority" view. As our page tells, RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. The United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality and on one occasion found it had broadcast "materially misleading" content. RT's editor-in-chief compared it with the Russian Army and Defence Ministry, and talked about it "waging the information war against the entire Western world." In September 2017, RT America was ordered to register as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act." My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources

• No because it is inaccurate, I have changed my vote after petrarchan47 comment. I have argued with a similar argument here #Radiation fears. I don't think the report in the NYT is accurate because other news outlets have talked about fears from 5G radiation effects and I think the NYT has a conflict of interest particularly when it comes to 5G due to their relationship with Verizon. I still also think that saying "RT America is propaganda outlet" in Wikivoice is not appropriate.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also the NYT claim sounds ridiculous. They say that Putin wants to undermine the 5G implementation in the West because he can't afford one. This claim based one what? How did they know what his intentions are??? I honestly don't know how can we add something like this to an encyclopedic article. Also, Russia has made an agreement with Huawei and they are going to build a 5G network in Russia. The U.S. in other hands has attacked Huawei and now the U.S. 5G roll out is delayed.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

• No This section should focus on genuine health concerns and not focus on controversy regarding media outlets and propoganda wars, which might be best in another section. Probrooks (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes (summoned by bot). Obviously we should say so because that reflects what RS says, and NPOV requires we make it clear when a view (such as one offered by RT) is of dodgy origin. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This "view" was offered also by The Lancet, CBS and Newsweek as linked in my comment; Also the WHO found (PDF) "radio frequency electromagnetic fields — the type transmitted by cellphones — are a possible cause of cancer in humans. A panel of 31 experts from 14 countries found that there was limited evidence of carcinogenicity among users of cellphones for two types of brain tumors, glioma and acoustic neuroma."*;

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content"

WP:COI -- The NYT has partnered with Verizon to create a "5G journalism lab"

WP:UNDUE "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" -- the view that Putin is responsible for any questioning of 5G safety is held by only one source: the NYT.  petrarchan47คุก 23:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• No owing to previously described opposition in terms of contentious labels. (Beyond that, the case of external services is far more complex and nuanced than black and white labels of "propaganda" versus "news." There's an emerging tract of scholarship on this topic within communications science that is helping better contextualize our understanding of external services like RT, teleSUR, etc`.) That said, sourcing this claim to RS would probably be fine, I just don't think we should put it in WP's own voice. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes This is well supported by very good sources. The NYT is a top-tier source, and we absolutely should be following their lead in calling out disinformation campaigns here. - MrOllie (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
• No for the same reasons as User:SharabSalam. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Leaning no For started the wording above "... a propaganda outlet for the Russian Government" is not neutral, a more neutral wording would be to copy from the RT America article saying that it is funded by the Russian Government which is factual and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion. Now we should also consider a case WP:WEIGHT does some programs published in a low quality source (RT) really deserve any mention. We would not really give article space to reports published by Breitbart. The above text is making a quite extravagant claim of a deliberate campaign of disinformation and  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" yet the evidence is a single article depending on the view of one Analysts. Just not strong enough. --Salix alba (talk): 17:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• No – This article is about 5G, not about RT or the NYT. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• No – per Petrarchan47 above and because taking propaganda wars into a technology article is plainly stupid. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We are not making any "propaganda wars" here, but simply say what RS say. I do not see any problem with rewording the phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The NYT is partner with Verizon.. It is simply a promotion/advertisement article, the source has a COI problem. See what Petrarchan47 and I said above this in addition. Also reliability doesn't  mean inclusion. also the fact that the NYT has published 5G related companies advertisements makes it more difficult to believe their analysis.[4][5]--SharabSalam (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the paragraph about covering the 5G technology in Russia should be included per WP:NPOV. There is no any reason to exclude this well sourced and notable information on the subject. Note that the 5G technology is related to a number of political controversies, and there is no reasons to exclude them just because this is a page "on technology". However, I think the paragraph should be phrased differently, i.e. as in the first paragraph here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• No, unless someone presents more sources. RT is definitely propaganda and widely sourceable as propaganda, however I'm only seeing a single source for the paragraph itself. It's undue weight to include junk in an article just because one source mentions that junk exists. I'd want to see a few sources before considering whether this topic warrants any space in an encyclopedia article about 5G. Alsee (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

5.44.170.9 is edit warring over this content and has demanded a non-Western source describing RT as propaganda. So here are two: Hong Kong, Brazil. R2 (bleep) 16:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't help the argument for inclusion since all of those sources are editorials. Prove it or remove it. Wayne Kinoff (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • [6][7][8][9]C933103 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And what, editorial can not be a source?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Demonstrably false, not editorials. R2 (bleep) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

One man's propaganda is another person's 5-o'clock news. Propaganda has a negative connotation, and should be, in most modern cases (imo) be couched as "alleged", "purported", or "several governments and/or organizations call it". Previous propaganda machines, such as existed during WWII are largely and almost universally declared as such by reputable commentators and historians. Modern organizations are usually still building their reputations or modifying them. I would add the paragraph, but specify that claims of a propaganda arm of the Russian government be specifically mentioned by source and date, e.g. "RT, seen by some news outlets (such as the New York Times in June 2019) as a propaganda dissemination arm of the Russian Government". For the record, the Kremlin is a pseudonym for the Russian Government, like the White House or the Hill is for the US Government. —Trumblej1986 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Here I am, opening Propaganda, and it is described as "information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda". Then, here I am, opening RT (TV network), and what do I see in first lines? RT says about itself that it "acquaints international audiences with a Russian viewpoint on major global events". What else do we need? They confess themselves that their aim is spreading propaganda, not objective information. -- A man without a country (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You need more than a source saying of itself that it is presenting a certain viewpoint. Again, propaganda has a negative connotation, usually, so with something as contentious as this, a higher standard should be in place. A reputable third-party source that says that RT is presenting this viewpoint in the furtherance of an agenda is at least the minimum necessary, imo, to substantiate this claim. -Trumblej1986 (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

This part about RT seems to reflect particular editorialising on the part of New York Times, as if it was fact. I am not sure there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims that the Russian government is against the west adopting 5G because of economic reasons. Does this really fit into the section of health effects? Is this really the reason why people are concerned about the health effects of 5G?

It would appear to me that a lot of people are concerned because they are reading the scientific literature regarding how non-ionising microwave radiation can profoundly effect biological life or are already being negatively effected by 4G. This is not mentioned, nor the petitions by scientists which could give the reader some idea as to why people have concerns about the rollout of 5G. I.E. no scientific studies have been carried out to show how the wattage and frequencies of 5G effect the human population.

Probrooks (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

We don't say that the Russian government is against the West adopted 5G because of economic reasons; rather, we stick closely to the source, which is reliable. We don't require reliable sources to lay out their evidence. As for your latter point, if there are reliable sources that describe these concerns, then by all means, feel free to add them. R2 (bleep) 16:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to seem like I'm bludgeoning, but I do think it's inaccurate to claim that because the NYT is deemed RS, it is in all cases reliable and that there are no other concerns. I've raised the NYT/5G/COI issue at RS/N.  petrarchan47คุก 19:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 5G phone - ZTE Axon 10 Pro 5G.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

overview

A lot of this isn't unique to 5G. The main point about 5G is that it's reportedly much faster than 4G and will lead to ubiquity of connectivity. The article as a whole is also written far too much in terms of mobile (voice) telephony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.237.221 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

propaganda

Recent edits delete some statements based on WP:NPOV. As well as I know, that mostly applies to editors. If the majority of WP:RS say something, then it should be good enough for WP. The references are to the Washington Post and New York Times, usually considered reliable sources. Gah4 (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an article on 5G technology and not a place to discuss media outlets. Take it elsewhere if you so badly need to discredit sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. RT's affiliation with the Russian government, however we describe it, is highly relevant to this article. R2 (bleep) 21:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo you are the only one responsible for this mess. You brought irrelevant SYNTH sources to make the claim that RT America is propaganda. You exploited the fact that the NYT article is behind a paywall. I was wrong when I said above that you've done a good job.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's not behind a paywall, and I removed what you're calling synth pending the outcome of that discussion. Let's please stay civil and avoid personalizing this dispute any further. R2 (bleep) 22:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, just to let you know I have removed the whole paragraph. The inclusion should be decided by the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you are trying to own this article. You have been reverting everyone removing that SYNTH and NOW suddenly you admitted you were wrong?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also during the RfC that paragraph should not be in the article. Just like you can't ask the teacher "Can I enter the class?" while you are already in the class. You can't ask for inclusion while it is already in the article.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

According to what policy? R2 (bleep) 23:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

According to common sense. Multiple editors have objected your biased paragraph and you are in the RfC asking for inclusion. In common sense you can't ask for inclusion while it is already included and you are literally owning the article reverting anyone removing the paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Do other editors please back me up and support the inclusion of this content? SharabSalam, I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here. I directly addressed the one issue you raised about this content, which was that you didn't like the combination of content from multiple sources into a single sentence. Everything in the sentence we're edit warring over is sourced to the New York Times article. Why are you fighting over this? R2 (bleep) 23:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahrtoodeetoo you didn't address anything..the issue is your ownership of this article. The RfC which is worded like this :"Should X be included?" It is not worded like "Should X be removed?" The article should not include the paragraph during the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    Per WP:STATUSQUO this should be left up until the RfC process concludes. - MrOllie (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    You mean before the addition of the paragraph? That's when the editwars started.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    I mean when the RfC started. The paragraph had already been there for some time. - MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

    "Sometime" like how much time? You and Ahrtoodeetoo were reverting editors who removed it since it was added. The RfC is asking for inclusion therefore it should not be added until the RfC ends. I fail to understand your reasoning.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• Reworded in the spirit of NPOV as In 2018, RT America began airing programming linking 5G to what they called harmful health effects, such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease". The stories have soon spread to hundreds of blogs and websites.^[106] The channel's claims have not been backed by solid evidence and some suggested that this was merely an effort by the Russian government to discredit the 5G technology. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• There is a standing RfC about it right above on this page. It was not officially closed with any outcome. Modifying disputed text during standing RfC is a bad practice and against the rules. Wait until it is officially closed. And no, this is not an NPOV-consistent version because the majority of independent sources do tell it is a propaganda outlet. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The RfC has run for way longer than the required 30 days and despite a lengthy debate has clearly not reached a consensus to include such statements. Closing it now as "no consensus" is a mere formality. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• If this is closed as "no consensus", then we should restore version that existed at the moment of the RfC. That would one of two versions here [10], you can chose which one. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• If there is no consensus then the paragraph must be removed. The RfC says "Should that paragraph be included?" Clearly there are editors here who think that they own this article.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• The RfC was about including the mentioned text and not about future modifications of the paragraph. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• Kashmiri, listen please. Don't modify the text during the RfC. It should be there to show how garbage it is. Like the SNYTH and all stuff. I have reverted to the text from the RfC.--SharabSalam (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• While R2 asks if the paragraph should exist, it already existed (in some version) prior to the RfC. Therefore, "no consensus" means restoring the status quo, i.e. restoring the paragraph as it existed prior to the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

the status que would be before the garbage paragraph was added. I will remove it myself when the RfC close.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is hard to say because the paragraph was included a couple of weeks prior to the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

5G availability tables

Hello, I've been a bit bold and added (carrier) to the end of each carrier. I realize this is an inelegant solution, so I've opened this talk topic. As it stands, the table is quite confusing since "City" is on the same column as the cities (bottom) but also on the same row as the carriers. It didn't even click for me that each one was supposed to be a carrier, since I'm really not all that familiar with other country's carriers like Three or O2. The point being is that inversely, some readers might just as confused as what "Sprint" is, for instance. I'm not really good enough with tables to know how we should do this. Will wikilinks to carriers suffice? Can we set up the table to make it clearer which is the city and which is the carrier? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Good evening @Hbdragon88:, I should have fixed the problem. Take a look and let me know, please. Thank you --BOSS.mattia (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

update: information now visibile on the page List of 5G NR networks --BOSS.mattia (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

last update: previous version restored in this page. Please view history of List of 5G NR networks --BOSS.mattia (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks great, thanks. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Health concerns

Heading changed from "'Health concerns' tag - please clarify" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

"This section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." It isn't immediately clear what this is referring to, and I'm leaning towards removing the tag unless this can be clarified. petrarchan47คุก 19:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A summary of all protests, if there are multiple, may be appropriate. Writing a paragraph for each demonstration worldwide would be giving each protest undue weight, whether there are many or not. I have removed such a paragraph in Special:Diff/917492497. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be counterpoint in this this 'Health Concerns' section? There are distinct and pointed counterpoints and rebuttals to most of the concerns cited and I am wondering of it would acceptable be for myself or other editors to post any well-sourced rebuttals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.190.228 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this probably is best addressed in the main article: Wireless device radiation and health. 5G § Health concerns should be pared back to summarize Wireless device radiation and health. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The opening statement in this paragraph that "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe" is problematic to say the least. Furthermore, the article referred too to fund this statement claims rather the opposite: "What about risk of 5G? Obviously, we won’t know that until it is actually rolled out and in widespread use."

Here are two article that elaborate more deeply on 5G and health concerns:

- 5G wireless telecommunications expansion Public health and environmental implications: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161

- Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.232.82 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's just flat out wrong that the Novella source claims the "opposite" of "The scientific consensus is that 5G technology is safe". It says that explicitly. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Lede needs to summarize article; tag added

The lede has not been updated as the article has expanded. It's nothing but a bare-bones, overly technical couple of sentences that in no way "provide an accessible overview" of the body. WP:MOSINTRO petrarchan47คุก 20:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's mainly a wild collection of facts without a clear structure. Why is the number of Korean phones so important? Why list the number of Chinese base stations? Why are these without comparison to other numbers?

The first sentence is okay (maybe add "telecommunication"). After that I would have expected a comparison to previous technologies. What makes 5G different? How does this differ between low frequency bands and higher frequency bands? Are the new 5G base stations and phones using the higher frequency bands, or just the lower frequency bands where there is not much to gain? --mfb (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a horrible article. No, the first sentence isn't okay; it doesn't even have the elementary information that these are cellular networks! Talk about WP:VAGUELEAD. Can you imagine your grandmother coming to this article to get information about what 5G is? And the rest of the article is a chaotic pile of promotional rollout info, acronyms and telecom jargon. I added the "Overview" section that originally had an explanation in nontechnical language of the new technologies, and some comparisons to previous 4G technology like mfb wants, but it was eviscerated.

I wonder if many of the editors adding the jargony promotional rollout information that is clogging up this article are working for the provider corporations, or their public relations firms? Most of the article should be scrapped and a more reader-friendly version written. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mfb: Just wanted to say your recent rewrite of the lead paragraph looks like a great start! --Chetvorno^TALK 16:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is a hot mess. It needs to be rewritten with a cohesive narrative. Some of it could maybe be broken off into separate articles, such as the Availability section.  DiscantX 05:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rewrote it. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Shannon limit

It's really not that surprising that 5G in the existing bands does not currently do much better than 4G in terms of throughput: 4G technology already approaches the Shannon limit. Where 5G begins to shine is in the higher bands, with much more abundant bandwidth and shorter range, and hence greater frequency reuseability. We should have a discussion of this in the article, appropriately sourced. There's a good discussion of this here. -- The Anome (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Added lede as requested. Numerous updates based on recent field results. Much more needed. Please help.

speed or frequency

There is a recent edit changing "speed" to "frequency". Does this make sense? There is much discussion about "high speed internet" connections, but none about high frequency. They are connected, but not so simply. Digital communications are often described in terms of bit rate, which also might be described as speed. For a given modulation method, the bit rate is proportional to the frequency bandwidth in use. Radio communications systems require a carrier frequency greater, often much greater, than the system bandwidth. It is not unusual to use a frequency value when a bit rate is needed. This is especially true with more complicated modulation methods. Gah4 (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean this. It has since been reverted back to "frequency". I think what's intended here is Bandwidth (signal processing). ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

NR and 5G Core

Shouldn't some reference be made to the difference between a network being "5G" because it uses New Radio RAT and a "full" 5G service that includes a fully deployed 5G Core (which is needed for things like network slicing, edge computing, etc. which are mentioned here)?

Some sources:

https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/g-core-network-architecture-network-functions-and-interworking-0001

https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wiki/5g-implementation-guidelines/

https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/ericsson-technology-review/articles/simplifying-the-5g-ecosystem-by-reducing-architecture-options

Effectively there's "5G" for subscribers - faster mobile internet - but the rest of 5G technology isn't as widespread/has a separate dependency. -- 213.160.140.100 (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hard to understand

The sentence written are very tough to understand can you make it more simple. Leoshaji (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Verizon 5G

Hello! Editors involved in editing the 5G article might be interested in requests at Talk:Verizon Wireless and Talk:Verizon Communications to update Verizon's 5G efforts. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to review my work and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Samsung Galaxy S10+.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2020 (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:

• Samsung Galaxy S10+.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Remove the mention, that Wired labels certain claims as conspiracy theory. It is basically a straw man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:802:0:340:C371:1584 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Improve the readability of the health risk section. It is just a wall of quotes. Instead it should give people a clear message, that many scientists claim that further research is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:802:0:340:C371:1584 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Tidying

I've made some tidying to the out of control health section, this needs to be good and sharp in these times.

A. Health concerns directly relating to medical effects -> go to Wireless device radiation and health. This page gives a complete breakdown of the issues for any wireless tech.
B. New section - 'Political Opposition', which has the following subsections:
1. Surveillance - related to opposition on grounds of concern about data interception, both public/governmental e.g. Huawei issue
2. Environmental impact - masts blocking views, damaging landmarks, etc...
3. Security concerns - related to opposition due security flaws in the technology
4. Health concerns - reporting public opposition to 5G WITHOUT going into the whys and wherefors

Surv/Sec could be merged, however the issues are not quite the same Jw2036 (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2020

DELETE the word "notoriously" which constitutes an opinion and cannot be proved or disproved.

In the section Political opposition / Surveillance:

Change "A report published by the European Commission and European Agency for Cybersecurity details the security issues surrounding 5G while notoriously trying to avoid mentioning Huawei." to "A report published by the European Commission and European Agency for Cybersecurity details the security issues surrounding 5G while trying to avoid mentioning Huawei." Patra777 (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 21:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

i want to edit dead links Mykoshurtech (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "Please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Stating what "5G" actually means as an acronym

The article opens with "5G is the fifth generation of wireless communications technologies supporting cellular data networks." but nowhere defines precisely what "5G" stands for as an acronym. Can someone find a non-controversial source for the definition please that can be added to the lede? Noting as this was the mentioned in a comedy panel show this week as the "G" in "5G" was something nobody understood. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not an acronym but a name given to what is called the fifth generation of mobile technologies.[11] Really, it's the popular tag for technology conforming to IMT-2020, see here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The current introduction is a totally inadequate mess. It needs to be improved to explain that:

5G is the planned successor to the 3G and 4G cellular networks which provide connectivity to current cellphones. Like its predecessors it is a cellular network in which the service area is divided into small geographical areas called cells. All wireless devices in a cell are connected to the network by a local antenna in the cell. The main advantage of the new network is that it will have greater bandwidth, giving faster download speeds. Due to the increased bandwidth, it is expected that the new network will not just serve cellphones like existing cellular networks but also be used as a general internet provider for laptops and other computers, competing with ISPs. The millimeter waves used in some 5G networks have a shorter range than the microwaves used in current cellular networks, so the size of 5G cells is smaller than current network cells, around a city block in size.

A lot (probably a majority) of the readers coming to this page are going to be general readers who just want a nontechnical explanation of what 5G is. This is more important than the date of 5G rollout in Uruguay. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

The 5G communication range extends within the order of 1e9 Hz. This is well within the Radio Frequency (RF) range. Before proceeding further, remember that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is expressed by the Planck-Einstein relation given by

$E=h\nu$ where $E$ is the energy of the electromagnetic wave $h$ is the Planck's Constant $\nu$ is the frequency of the electromagnetic wave.

This was just a digression to show that the energy of the wave is purely and wholly contained in the value of its frequency. Additionally the power density of electromagnetic radiation is also often used. The ANSI/IEEE recommended exposure for the public is $1.2mW/Cm^{2}$ (see fundamental dimensions for units). There is clearly no plausible harm arising from the exposure of the RF frequencies used in the 5G transmission. 202.91.87.170 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What specific edit do you want to make? Toasted Meter (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Availability by country

Would it make sense to fork this section over to a different article? It gets far more specific than seems necessary for the main article. --Avg W (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. --papageno (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sourcing / POV-pushing / edit-warring

Got a problem with Delerium2k repeatedly trying to insert unreliable content into the article (e.g.[12]), invoking "censorship" when it is removed. Note WP:Biomedical information of Wikipedia needs to be backed by reliable sources, and a six-year old primary source ain't that. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)