Talk:Big lie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie'

Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie'

Valjean (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

This article is about the term 'big lie'. Source that do not mention this phrase can't be used here, just because an editor thinks they support the narrative. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The references support this paragraph:

By January 2022, Republicans were taking actions to impose new voting restrictions and to take complete control of voting and the administrative management of elections, all while a large majority of Republicans continued to believe that the 2020 election had been stolen from them and asserted that democracy was at risk of failing. Extensive press coverage indicated the Republican efforts themselves appeared to present a threat to democracy

which is relevant to the article, regardless of whether "the big lie" is explicitly stated. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

that's your opinion, but you need to read WP:SYNTH. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe make an argument to remove the content as SYNTH rather than remove its sources. soibangla (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've made the argument: These sources don't mention 'big lie". There's no need to remove the content as some of the sources do mention the 'big lie', but the ones I'm removing do not. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In fact you are providing shifting rationales: first big lie isn't mentioned, then the content is SYNTH. soibangla (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No, you just need to read more carefully - I am not advocating for removing the content, and did not so so, I am removing source that do not mention the 'big lie' - that is what I stated in my first comment - "Source[sic] that do not mention this phrase can't be used here" Izzy Borden (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Go back to what I said at the outset, before you pivoted to something else. It stands. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The first comment in this thread is mine. It says "Source[sic] that do not mention this phrase can't be used here". Izzy Borden (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. What do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Then as I wrote, you need to read WP:SYNTH; "A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research" Izzy Borden (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Seek support from others for consensus, you won't get it from me. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't need your agreement to remove material that violates wikipedia policies. Izzy Borden (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You haven't established it does. Persuade others. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, sources do need to explicitly mention the Big Lie in order to establish notability for inclusion in the article, per WP:NOR. That said, it seems likely that a little digging will unearth RS which use this phrase in a similar context. Until such time as these sources are provided, WP:ONUS dictates that the disputed content stays out of the article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The references are used relative to the paragraph above, which describes a consequence of the big lie, rather than the big lie itself, but the content of the sources make clear why they are reporting that consequence without explicitly using the term. If someone wants to make a SYNTH argument for removing the content altogether, that's a whole different matter, and they should have done that from the outset, rather than pivot to it later. soibangla (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

you need to stop misrepresenting others' actions. I have only removed sources that do not explicitly mention the "big lie", using the same unchanged rationale as originally given, The sources that do support it are fine to stay, as is the content. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what Izzy did, so everyone, please stop this silly argument. It's really childish. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Generalrelative and Izzy Borden are correct that sources must mention Big lie. The key reason is that this article is not primarily about Trump's "rigged election" conspiracy theory (currently a redirect I created, but an article we actually need). The section in this article is about the use of the term "big lie" to describe Trump's false claims. This whole article is very specific and limited, while Trump's "rigged election" conspiracy theory is a much broader topic and would have a section that duplicates the section here. It would also logically include the GOP and Trump attempts to rig elections. As usual, when Trump accuses others of wrongdoing, he is telling us what he is doing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Generalrelative (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Here's an example that just came out: [1]. FiveThirtyEight is (in my view) one of the most reliable and objective sources for US politics. And here's a previous article by the same author covering some other candidates pushing Trump's Big Lie in 2022: [2]. I can't imagine any good-faith objections to including these. Generalrelative (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Trump section deserves its own article. Just imagine how much content there is for Trump’s big lie of a stolen election. RS cover the subject quite well. Start with Trump’s use of the lie, then follow with how all his sycophants use it. It could be a fairly good-sized article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been poles showing that if the Hunter Biden laptop story had not been falsely dismissed as "Russian disinformation", and social media had not blocked The New York Post and others, then enough US voters would have voted for Trump to enable his win. This "big lie" stuff--sourced by media outlets who perpetuated this in the first place--is kinda looking a bit unencyclopedic. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Seriously?! What kind of forbidden advocacy of fringe POV is this? What part of "Trump lost the election bigly and his claims of massive voter fraud are a big lie" do you or RS doubt? I'm curious about you, but for the article's sake, only RS count. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you need to read some counterweight sources. [3][4][5] -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

All three sources are by the same author...about a different election. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops! I had them handy for another purpose and got mixed up. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Trump's big lie that the election was rigged and his 60+ lost lawsuits? What does that have to do with the fact that Trump marched his Proud Boys and Oath Keepers into the people's capitol building to try to stop certification of the electoral college while in private he was pressing his lawyers to find anything, anything at all that could help him win including pressuring secretaries of state to send alternate elector slates? Andre🚐 20:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the bit about American Conservatives and Mein Kampf (sourced by NPR). Shameful. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

By an expert historian. Andre🚐 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I read about Snyder in City-Journal. Nothing sells like sensationalism. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a review of his work that only contributes to his validity. Andre🚐 00:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Term "big lie"

Pinging reverting User:Valjean: "big lie" is a combination of two generic words. In the context of this article (which exclusively covers its usage as propaganda) it is political in nature, and since "big lie" is predominately a term used as propoganda, and its usage as a real term used to describe the propaganda technique itself seems very rare / outdated, labelling it as a term at the start would probably help alongside categorizing it into politics.

I am imagining something like: 'A "big lie" [...] is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth. In politics, the term is used especially as a propaganda technique.'
Apmh 14:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Erasing the subsection "Gender identity"

I don't understand what this subsection has to do with the rest in the article, next to major worldwide political events we talk about a nobody saying things in front of like ten people, that doesn't make any sense. I will erase it in 24h if there isn't any objection.Dimitrius99 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

Big Lie is two things that are different and the page is very large. I saw some stuff that said that if an article is greater than 15,000 words it should be split into a new page. Somewhere there might be this template added (See invisible text feature): and a good name for it might be "Big lie in the 21st Century" or "Modern political use of Big lie" or whatever title is appropriate. In summary, please change the "Subsequent Use" section to have the addition of a new page request submission. 73.169.153.73 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)