Jump to content

Talk:Big lie/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Shouldnt this be mentioned as an exelent example of a Big Lie?

Someday -when passions cool this of course would be a perfect example - a lie so big it was almost unbelievable that it could be untrue. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it is 2010 and Obama is president. Can we mention it now? 81.189.153.130 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC) And the movie "Wag the Dog" is an excellent example of how GW.Bush did it. 81.189.153.130 (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are Holocaust lies "big" or "little"?

Which parts of the Holocaust story are big lies? http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/soaptale.html

Actually the whole Holocaust thing is a good example of the big lie technique in action. --41.151.26.35 (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How is one to fix the problem with the Schopenhauer nested link? --Daniel C. Boyer

There was an extra pair of square brackets - I've taken them out, and it's OK now. --Camembert

How to include information about "Cocaine: The Big Lie" campaign (in US) in article? --Daniel C. Boyer

My sister used to wear a self-designed t-shirt, "Reality: The Big Lie." --Daniel C. Boyer

Added mention of the big lie as a generalized technique in propaganda. It seems this is the far more common usage of the term and merits mention.

Perhaps someone could add a mention of the argumentum ad nauseam, the logical fallacy which this technique uses

Contemporary Examples Needed

Agree with the above comment re cocaine. More modern examples of this insidious techinque are sorely needed, esp as it seems to be the principle technique of George W. Bush's administration with respect to the WMD fiasco. As well, Rush Limbaugh and the other talk radio rightards like Bill O'Reilly seem to be enthusiastic and expert users of the Big Lie and the gaping ignorance of their audience doesnt even know the origins of their method. -User:User

perhaps the Saddam Hussein - al-Qaeda link that was claimed to exist?

Or how about the claim by liberals that Bush lied about WMDs as oppose to recieving bad intelligence. Al Franken and other left wing pundits repeat this hourly.

The "claim" is not made by only liberals as you seem to suggest. Labeling someone as a member of a [political] group you don't like doesn't change the truth of the matter. Research Valerie Plame & her husband for the truth on the Iraq/yellow cake/WMD issue. It's not simply a "claim" as you say; Bush lied but has plausible deniability on his side. Try to look beyond the political labeling system which only serves as a distraction from real, important events that don't get enough attention. Peace. - 68.105.184.37 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, McCarthyism was a great example of the Big Lie technique. I don't know enough about it to add in a reference to it, but perhaps someone else does?VetteDude 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, get a reliable source. It is not enough to show that either Joseph R. McCarthy or George W. Bush used the Big Lie. An opinion by a contemporary politician is not enough. I understand that Harry S. Truman used it to describe Joseph R. McCarthy's empty and destructive crusade. But that's Harry Truman's opinion and not certifiable fact. Some people still believe that McCarthy was a hero for exposing the Communist Menace of the 1950s (others did, but he contributed little except to create and ride a tide of fear) and that George W. Bush told the raw and unvarnished truth about the connection between Saddam Hussein, international terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction.

The Big Lie is so intimately tied to Adolf Hitler that an attempt to associate it with any other leader is almost a travesty. To associate it with anyone else is almost impossible unless the liar admits to using the technique in full knowledge of its association with Adolf Hitler.

Many people have claimed that the Other Side exploits the Big Lie. You can just imagine what segregationists said of Martin Luther King and other proponents of civil rights for blacks. That's the fallacy reductio ad Hitlerum.

So far as I know, J.R. McCarthy never admitted to using the Big Lie in knowledge of its association with Hitler either in spoken words or papers. It's unlikely that anyone would release any part of McCarthy's papers that show (if such papers exist) anything to that effect. Dubya? I expect much the same -- nothing in Presidential papers, no discovery of a volume of Mein Kampf with damning annotations such as "Use this!", no criminal case that shows that Dubya lied. In the end I expect no deathbed confession to reach the general public.

Adolf Hitler is so infamous that comparing anyone else, or anyone else's deeds, borders on the hysterical. Paul from Michigan (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul your denial is itself hysterical. What are so you desperate to hide? 9/11 perhaps? 68.84.185.233 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just read the article and it's pretty solid. It does need to be brought forward to recent times, I think.

It does not matter if JR McCarthy ever admitted to using the Big Lie, or even consciously used it. That has little to do with it. In any potential example facts need be gathered to accumulate the evidence that this propaganda technique was/is being used. If someone's opinion is that the Big Lie was being/is being used, and they can supply evidence for this, then it can be included. To say that no other examples can ever be given makes no sense to me. Hitler coined the phrase, but doesn't own the technique. The reason Hitler used it, and many others too, is because it is a very powerful technique. It worked. It works. It worked for Hitler for a long time, it has worked under different circumstances for others too, and that needs to be brought forward, with contemporary examples.

Also important is to find evidence for the limits of that technique, the reasons why it stopped/stops working. The examples don't have to be American, although a few American ones seem pretty blatant in more recent times, and potentially have the evidence available that is required for inclusion.Nihola (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A very good modern example is Ukraine - Russia did not invade and annex Crimea, and did not invade eastern Ukraine, and the elected government of Ukraine are neo-nazis - according to the Russian Big Lie.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

World War I

So where did Germany lose WWI? According to the WWI article Germany was forced by military means to sign an armistice. While I must concede it's not the same as total oblivion, I still think it counts as "in the field". Any comments? Shinobu 17:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Germans, particularly under the Nazi regime accused the victorious powers of using propaganda and other shady techniques to undermine the German morale on the homefront. The 1917 Revolution was already in full swing after the Russians had been knocked out of the war and the German Bolsheviks were trying to stir up a conflict in Bavaria as well. There were talks about signing an armstice or puting the war on hold so the Germans could deal with the internal problems, which they later accused the western Allies of having incited in the first place. Thats kind of an oversimplification and there were a number of factors, but essentially the moment the Germans began talking peace the support for continuing the war bagan to collapse among the German people. The Allies, particularly US President Wilson promised Germany that it would not be forced to concede territory among numerous other lies. The Allies then imposed the treaty of versailles on the Germany, threatening to start the war back up again if the Germans did not give in. Because the German people had become so demoralized and were fighting internal dissent from Communist elements they could no longer sustain a war effort, thus they were defeated, not militarily but through underhanded trickery, subterfuge, deception and propaganda. The Nazis according to their own words behaved as they did and used sophisticated propaganda in order to 'innoculate' the German people from being undermined from within again in the future, to unite the country into a single mass conciousness whereby it could never be divided by external influences. --Nazrac 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Was or wasn't, the internal Communist political threat largely lead by Jewish elements. This explains alot of Hitler's, et al anti-semitism. Whether it was or wasn't lead by Jewish leaders - I think Hitler and most of Europe thought so ( maybe - incorrectly ). Whoever the Communists or their leaders were it appears the Jews got blamed.159.105.80.141 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfair to say that Bolshevism, particularly in those days, was a Jewish endeavor. Karl Marx was Jewish. The Russian Revolution was financed by American-Jewish bankers from Wall Street, like Jacob Schiff and others. Leon Trotsky (not his real name) was Jewish, Vladimir Lenin was married to a Jewish woman. Look up Karl Sobelsohn and Rosa Luxemburg for examples of German-Jewish Marxists and related persons and organisations. Even Vladimir Putin has stated that 85% of the 1917 Soviet Government was Jewish. Situations similar to those in Russia could be found in Germany and many other countries, where the Marxist/Bolshevik/Communist causes had Jewish origins or Jewish backing.

Looks like a topic without a head or tail

When i read this i initally couldn't make head or tail since the introduction was missing and seems poorly phrased. This looks more like a cut and paste article than something that explains some concept.

Goebbels' quote

I have been searching for a while now, trying both English and German keywords, but I have not been able to find the quote that is attributed to Goebbels. While me not being able to find it is no proof in itself, I personally don't believe Goebbels actually said or wrote it in the form stated, or something resemblant, until I come across the original document containing said quote. Shinobu 23:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it is false then the popular definition of "the big lie technique" is itself a pretty good example of big lie technique. But of course, no one could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.Jim Bowery 07:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article shows the "quoted" locution to be an artifact of the US, not a verifiable Goebbels quote. I cannot read much German but found no such thing in the translated version of "Michael," a 1929 novel by Goebbels. What is interesting in the American context is that here, in the Wikipedia, you can read the planks of US political platforms. I can attest that in none of the US party platforms from 1840 through 1968 is there a single admission that the party doing the writing was ever in the wrong. The Democratic platform of Reconstruction days refers to the Civil War as "happily" ended--to give one of the best examples. Before the Wikipedia we used to have to look these up in "National Party Platforms," published circa 1972. The quote as an attempted tarbrush backfires like one of Walt Kelley's Pogo cartoons I dare not quote here. translator 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the first two sentences from the English translation of the quote: "That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again." These two sentences aren't really relevant to the article, and the first one especially makes no sense without whatever came before it (I don't know what that was).
I've no idea about the authenticity of the quote, but considering where it is alleged to be published, getting a hold of it would be difficult. But I can't see anything particularly controversial about this quote, and it is quite in line with Goebbels in general. I don't see why anyone would doubt it. 76.126.38.210 (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate meaning?

The article says This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The journal Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 30, #2, 3/06, page 44 saysThere is a theory in psychology called the "Big Lie" - if you tell a colossal lie often enough, people will tend to believe it's at least partly true. Is this the same thing, or something different? Bubba73 (talk), 05:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Your Skeptical Inquirer, however, overlooks that telling the lie too often would give it away; in addition, the perceived truth of the lie would depend on the situations in which it were made. Cup o' Java (talk • contribs)

Don't think this should be merged

I don't think this article should be merged into Dolchstosslegende. That article discusses a general theory, which did not originate with Hitler, whereas this article mainly describes a propaganda technique, of which that theory was a prominent part. If it were a really short article I could see it as a section within Dolchstosslegende (something like Use by Hitler as the "big lie"), but it's too long for that, so I think ought to have a separate article, although perhaps Dolchstosslegende should have a "see also" link pointing here. --Delirium 06:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Another example!

Alright wikipedians, this is... possibly... unprecedented in this topic. What? A more contemporary (though not completely) that ISN'T controversial! Can you believe it? Alright: I believe it was elaborated on more in the movie, but I do think the book has it down pretty well too: Matilda by Roald Dahl. In it, Ms. Trunchbull is said to "go the whole hog" and something along those lines; it is right after she hurls a girl through the window by the girl's pigtails. I don't have the book with me, unfortunately, so I can't quote it. But at any rate, if anyone can, I think this would be a less esoteric example of the Big Lie in practice.

Reading the article I catch that the Big Lie concept is somehow related to Hitler. However, is Hitler advocating Big Lies or is he saying that Jews use Big Lies. Without reading MeinKampf I would susprct the second interpretation - any German readers know the answer. The article should be clearer.159.105.80.141 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Also the Goebbel's lack of verification of a quote we have all come to know and love seems really historically important - particularly if a quote was made up ( by whom ).159.105.80.141 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to find - MeinKampf ( wiki link ) Chapter 10. The quote is carefully excised in most sources to omit that Hitler was referencing Jewish forces. He wasn't advocating its use, just warning Germans, etc to beware of the Big Lie. I don't think this is probably a new concept with Hitler - he just used examples in his book. How does this rate a wiki article? 159.105.80.141 19:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Went back and read the opening sentence to the article - about Hitler developing the technique of the Big Lie - instead of saying Hitler developed the technique it would be more accurate to say he was exposing/warning about it.159.105.80.141 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The US pscychological profile - Goebbels - seems suspiciously close to what we now believe Goebbels said - a good paraphrase ( question was it a German to English or English to German paraphrase?159.105.80.141 19:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"developed" by Hitler?

Is it really appropriate or accurate to say that the Big Lie was "developed" by Hitler, when really it was (as he saw it) recognized and implicitly criticized by him? - the academically surplus parenthetical qualification being necessary in, shall we say, a topic as emotive as this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.159.75 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

My sentiments exactly. The article attempts to portray the "big lie" concept as some lying technique invented and used by Adolf Hitler, rather than an observation that was made in Mein Kampf with regards to the political climate in Europe at the time. We see examples of the big lie all around us today in modern politics. The problem with Hitler, is that far from being an incredible liar, he was actually brutally honest and said alot of things that were politically incorrect in his day (and even more so by todays standards) yet he was able to convey them in such a manner that the subtle and underlying thruths showed through in a way that every common person could indentify with and understand. Lies are an incredibly poor substitute for the truth, as they become more transparent and distorted with the advantage of hindsight. Time has a sort of property that sorts the truth from the allegatory and disolves away lies from the truth. The fact is Hitler was not despised in his day for being a liar, but rather for being very skilled at exposing the lies of his opponents, and because he told the truth at any cost. We still see today the after effects of this, still Neo-Nazis follow this man's teachings with a religious fervor, still his ideas hold weight in in modern contexts, and still the status quo politicians laugh on one side of their face at "right wing extremism" and cringe on the other from the mere thought of being outshined by them. The fact that Hitler and his National Socialist doctrine hold such powerful influence even today in the face of supression by the current system politics should reveal the subtle truths of its nature. This is in stark contrast to Bolshevism and the other extremist ideologies from that era whose relevancy and truthfulness continues to thin and dissolve beneath the scrutiny of hindsight while Hitler only continues to become a more powerful icon. When we come to understand this, we see why Hitler never tried to benefit on the short term by using cheap or convenient lies, because they always unravel later. The fact that Hitler hasn't faded into the footnotes of history like so many of his opponents should be attributed to the fact that only truth and the avoidance of lying has such power to preserve ideas. --Nazrac 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I was surprised to see the Big Lie article completely rewtitten. It was accurate and a considerable upgrade from what is now - and in the past - being used. Am I on the wrong site/page? Is there a way to find out who is the author of the current article - the previous one? Who controls the article content - noone? The current attempt seems to hope that noone has/will read Mein Kamp or has/will do even the least bit of independent reading on Goebbels,etc.

PS It appears to be easy to check old versions - the article, back a couple of years ago, was alot better - almost like an encyclopedia. Wiki appears to be getting more political with time. Good work, it will either get more factual or get laughed at - it can only get better. 159.105.80.141 17:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As to the original point here, yes, there appears to be some amount of confusion by virtue of the fact that Mein Kampf does not endorse but rather denounces the big lie. The fact that the Nazis seemingly used the big lie elsewhere subsequently is relevant to the article and the point, but is a potential source of confusion, as it does not directly relate to the fact that Hitler had originally accused his enemies of using it, nor is it a function of that fact. If the Nazis are to be accused of having mastered the big lie technique, this point should not be conflated with the largley unrelated denunciation of it in Mein Kampf. It is my impression that if a given individual is to be characterised as having "developed" the big lie, that would be Goebbels, not Hitler. Hitler merely coined the term. Consequently, I am going to modify the opening to reflect this --Yst 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Long before Hitler et al were born the "big lie" was well established. A quick browse of the internet gives Arthur Schopenhauer ( early 1800s ) who described the phenonmenon and even attributed it to the Jewish race. I am sure that many others beat Hitler to the punch - wiki seems to want to "adjust" history ( really hilarious to see it done in the Big Lie" article.) I can think of Lucifer - wasn't he called the chief of liars ( several thuoosand years before Hitler ) - I bet a classical scholar could find Latin and Greek texts on the "big lie". You are giving Hitler far too much credit for new ideas.159.105.80.141 13:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is getting to be hilarious - the "Big Lie" article has completely changed again. The "Big Lie" appears to be a big lie.159.105.80.141 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE Goebbels' quote - if noone seems to be able to find where he said it, does anyone know where/who said he said it first. It may be possible to trace backwards on this - I am sure someone has already done the legwork, maybe some wikian remembers, thanks. This would make a great example for this article - how propaganda/rumor/etc can create a big lie, etc In a similar vein - wiki can't have been the first - who first attributed the big lie originating from Hitler, this would be another example of either bad translation/poor reading skills/propaganda/etc leading to a big lie. 159.105.80.141 15:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Context!

This article as it is fails in clearly explaining the context in which Hitler used to expression 'Big Lie' which is the heart of this subject. Until this is done, the article is completely insufficient and utterly useless. --68.188.70.138 20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I found hitler using this in chapter 10 (Ursachen des zusammenbruches(WHY THE SECOND REICH COLLAPSED)) Mein Kampf 1938 342-346 auflage munchen (N?DAP) on page 252. The english translation of the text in wich the only two instances of Big Lie are found;

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice. All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true in itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

For more information j.vander.meulen@onsneteindhoven.nl I have the German, Duch, and english version of Mein Kampf

For contempory examples in Dutch politics. The telling of richt wing that left wing is spending to mutch euro's while figures show the opposite. Or that economy is going bad (Pim Fortuin) under Purple while figures show the opposite. The telling that the main problem is immigration, etc. etc.. The big lie technique is wildly usen by richtwing politicians nowedays.

Depending on your viewpoint - Hitler may have defined the Big Lie by making a Big Lie ( Jews and WW1 loss - or a lie versus faulty analysis etc etc etc ). A Big Lie inside a Big Lie - like one of those Russian dolls.159.105.80.141 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Such a claim can only be grounded in pure speculation and is thus a moot point. At-any-rate, Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy. Therefore, the correct thing to do is to explain Hitler's use of the term 'Big Lie' within its proper context. No more, no less. --71.10.168.250 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

                    • ATTRIBUTED TO GOEBBELS **********************************

If I recall correctly, the quotation is attributed to Goebbels by Wiliam L. Shirer in his classic history: "The Rise & Fall of The Third Reich." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence makes no sense!

"Big Lie is a propaganda technique in which the lie is so complex that the public will either dismiss it as impossible or choose not to believe it out of willful ignorance." So the propaganda's usefulness lies in the fact that the public won't believe in it? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Who wrote this? Esn (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Plato?

How is that new text added to the introduction by Thommmurt relevant? Who equated that to a "Big Lie"? Esn (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The heading to this article asks for more citations. What specifically needs more citations?159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)How this article reached it's current level is beyond me - gradually someone out there dragged it kicking a screaming into something actually approaching an encyclopedic article - congratulations to whoever you are ( you must have the scars to show ).159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing copy paste

The concerned sentences are only copy paste of an unknown document according to the display of the references. Besides it is totally original research and its interest is more than questionable.. Please use talk page if there is a problem --Bombastus (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Help ! The Ministry of Truth keeps vandalizing the Big Lie Article.

Please Read 1984 by Orwell ( or at least read the Wiki Article) before removing him. It's like trying to delete George Washington from American History !Bill Ladd (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The quoted section of Mein Kampf is itself a Big Lie

Hannah Arendt, in Totalitarianism, as well as others, have extensively described the tendency of totalitarian regimes to attribute their own motives or planned actions to their enemies: e.g. Hitler accusing the Jews of using the Big Lie, or when he in 1939 said (I'm paraphrasing) If the Jews of Europe succeed in dragging the continent into another world war, they will be utterly destroyed. I can't think of good non-Hitler examples at the moment but I'm inclined to think some reference should be made to this in the opening paragraph.Krazychris81 (talk) 06:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Boy, don't I love the "shades of grey" profound intelligence of the modern liberals :). Guess what, buddy, I don't think even a redneck can be that dumb with the black and white view of the world! Why is it so hard to understand, comrade - that they ALL used Big Lie?! Hitler's enemies used Big Lie. And Hitler's friends and he himself used the Big Lie too! It was normative approach to political propaganda, as it remains to this day amongst each and every propagandist out there. So stop projecting your present day political views and POV onto the subject matter and write a decent NPOV factual encyclopedia article for crying out loud... If Hitler accused the liberals of Big Lie, say so. If liberals accuse Hitler of Big Lie say so too. That's why it's called the ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a pamphlet from UC Berkeley "save the gay whales" rally. 71.232.153.173 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a "normative approach to political propaganda", but a "normal approach to political propaganda", or better still "standard approach to political propaganda". Russia's use of the Big Lie over the invasion of Ukraine is as good an example as we are likely to see, yet this article remains fixated on Hitler.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Technique origins certainly go way back.

While the Big Lie is certainly common to any propaganda program especially a Totalitarian one arguing that Hitler started it is quite silly as evidence abounds that the first "big lie" was probably started by the first Priest unless he got it from previous political leadership. It is a common technique along with other techniques that should be the focus of a wiki article, not who is guilty but how to recognize it and counter it.

http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

Dragonwlkr (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of 9/11?

To people who accept the blatant and obvious evidence the 9/11 was staged by the US government (likely with Israeli assistance), it is the ultimate "big lie" is referred to as such by members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Just google "9/11 + Big Lie." Furthermore Wikipedia itself has article on "9/11: The Big Lie": http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/9/11_The_Big_Lie

Without bothering to check the logs, I have to assume that the it has been erased here as part of the overt Wikipedia censorship program that is so obvious to anybody with a half brain. 68.84.185.233 (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this book is complete nonsense (as are the claims that Wikipedia is censoring conspiracy theorists), but I agree with the IP that it might be worth mentioning here. I'll add a link to the 'in popular culture' section. Robofish (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ditto. 9/11 would have been a phenomenal example of a Big Lie if it was orchestrated by the gov't. It wasn't. The Bush administration would have to be the most competent and tight-lipped organization on the planet for that to happen. I consider the possibility doubtful. Have they profited from it and exploited it? Absolutely. I still don't think they did it. If they did, they could've at least gotten some Iraqis on the plane. Also, they could've hit a building that wasn't loaded with federal agencies and financial co's, preferably an orphanage or senior citizen center, a target resonant with emotion, but without any financial value.
If you've ever worked with the Feds, you'd understand how inefficient they are. The FBI loses guns every year and Customs loses several pounds of heroin. I used to think this was a massive conspiracy. Then I met some of the brain trust. They really are stupid enough to lose bags of dope.
Marxist-Communist infiltration of higher education and support for foreign communist, Pan-African and Pan-Arab Socialist, and Wahhabist gov't is real (follow the money trail, it's mostly filtered through nonprofits - check 990s). It's out in the open. Walk into any university and the professors will tell you they're Marxists and espouse support for Hugo Chavez (he's actively involved in creating campus connections) and other assorted idiots as well as their vehement hatred of America.
Ditto several Fortune 500 business owners ties to oppressive Fascist/totalitarian governments (e.g. Mugabe and Prokhorov, of late). All you need to do to find that is look in the investor's prospectus. The Sierra club and the Soros are also doing some one-world gov't power plays. This isn't secret. They do it in the open. Read their books.
You want truth? Follow the money. Read Gustavus Myers "History of the Great American Fortunes" for starters. We live in a plutocracy. Promoting unfounded conspiracies serves to denigrate exposure of real "Big Lies".
I know this isn't really the place for this, but still: "If they did, they could've at least gotten some Iraqis on the plane." I can't believe this point never occurred to me. It's so obvious in it's simplicity. You're absolutely right- an administration bent on going to war with Iraq (an intention many members had published previously) and capable of orchestrating 9/11 without anyone ever finding solid evidence to link them to it would never have missed the opportunity to actually tie Iraq to 9/11. Duh. My mind is blown, thank you. 76.126.38.210 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. That section went off the rails really fast. However, I do find it interesting. Cup o' Java (talk • contribs)

Tl;DR

This article babbles on and on without defining the big lie with any depth. It just says "it's a propaganda technique" and then goes into a boring, convoluted backstory, like a lot of pages on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.17.34 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bluffing

Shouldn't the article discuss how this propaganda technique closely overlaps with the art of bluffing? Cup o' Java (talk • contribs)

I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym

Isn't Hitler's claim that the Jews made a big lie a big lie in itself? Cup o' Java (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Lack of real-life examples

Shouldn't we add some real life examples? Besides hitlers use of the Big Lie,there are no real examples listed. Why not add some real life examples,such as the phrase "All men are created equal". While it is inflammatory,it is also true,as evidenced by simply thinking about it(e.g,genetic disorders like cyclopia,downs syndrome,intelligence,etc)--182.181.152.111 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

¿Godwin's law?

Besides Nazis (and ironic self demonstration), what does this have to do with a discussion of Big Lie? 71.235.31.212 (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oswald Spengler

According to a quotation ascribed to Oswald Spengler's second volume of the English translation of Der Untergang des Abendlandes by Goodreads (too lazy at the moment to verify), Spengler wrote: “What is truth? For the multitude, that which it continually reads and hears.” This seems to me to be quite reminiscent of Hitler's Big Lie, and possibly a precursor to it. I've read that Hitler esteemed Spengler. Philologick (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Misspelling

The title of the book appears in the article as "A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend". I checked the title, and it does not misspell Hitler's first name (it is "Adolf") as this quote from the article does.Daqu (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

May 2018

I think this concept can be quite well explained without a direct hateful quote from that book. Avinatbezeq (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

OSS Psychological Profile of Hitler - Date?

Do we have no date for when this was put together? A date by which the document was known to exist (earlier than 1999)? Those who know history probably know this was produced during World War II, but all users may not know. Can we say it was produced during WWII or at least give the dates for the existence of the OSS? Ileanadu (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My best guess is that it was produced in late 1942 or early 1943 because none of the sources cited in the Bibliography are dated after 1942. Ileanadu (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Dubious quote attributed to Goebbel

User Polyison keeps trying to insert the following quote into the article:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

If you know better: war is a game that I won; do it better. thumbsupbemoticon

Their single reference is to a HuffPost article that mentions the quote in a contemporary article about Trump. It does not provide a reference for this quote. This fails WP:CONTEXTMATTERS:

Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, this quote has been featured in this article and removed before, as early as 2005. I'm not going to exhaustively list all the times it has been added and removed from this article, but it's clear that this has been given due consideration before, there is no reliable source to back it up, and the consensus has been to keep it out.

This alleged quote is a matter of historical fact. If Polyison or any other user wants to attribute this quote to Goebbel, they should be able to provide a reference that answers the most basic of questions: When and where did Goebbel say or write this? All we're given for references is usage of a quote that is not historically documented anywhere. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Another user has added this:

Various sources, both popular and scholarly, attribute the following passage to Goebbels. However, it is not currently known which piece of writing this is attributed to and when it was written, or if it even was Goebbels who authored it.

I looked at the reference provided, and it says nothing about "scholarly" sources. Rather, it says the following:

Last I checked (December 2011), this shows up on 500,000 web pages and twenty published books (most of which are vanity press productions, evidence for the value of publishers who still believe in editors). It is attributed to Joseph Goebbels. No one ever gives a citation to the source. A fair number of web citations are to “Joseph M. Goebbels.” That wasn’t his middle initial. One book credits it to “Joseph Goebbels.”

What is shows is that there's a plethora of historically worthless usages of this quote. To state it is attributed in "scholarly" sources is giving this attribution more credit than it deserves. If it is desired to keep the dubious quote in, I would like stronger wording on the complete lack of veracity of this quote. The reference sates: "This is the most popular forged quotation." and the name of the page is "Fabricated Nazi Quotations". 73.159.229.5 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I tried to qualify the uncertainty. So why do you insist on the tag if it is being addressed? El_C 22:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Reread the comment you replied to and address the specific concerns. 1) Your reference does not support "scholarly". 2) I want a stronger connotation that shows this quote is likely fabricated, as stated by your own reference. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I still think this is Rightgreatwrongs since a lot of reliable sources claim it is Goebbels quote, but if we accept assumption that it is indeed false which is quite possible, number of issues arise. First, entire Goebbels section makes no since and should be deleted or renamed to Goebbels critique, he critiqued big lie, he did not use it. Holocaust section would probably be false attribution as well, at the very least mention of Goebbels should be removed if not entire section? Polyison (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you should reread WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and apply it to what you are doing here. In particular, "even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". You did not address my WP:CONTEXTMATTERS concerns. You cannot provide a single source that states where and when this was said by Goebbels. Your sole criteria for including this is that a bunch of "reliable" sources include this quote, while ignoring the problems listed above with said sources. It's not unusual for a fabricated quote to be spread around as if it was true. As I've shown, this quote has been rejected for this article for at least 14 years for exactly the reasons I've laid out.
That said, I think this quote should be in the article with Bytwerk's opinion that it's a fabricated quote. He's the closest thing we have to an expert opinion on this. The alleged quote obviously noteworthy, given how widespread it is, and if it's removed again it will likely be reinserted with the same back and forth.
I don't think the entire Goebbels section should be deleted. Yes, he critiqued the "big lie", and that's been documented in the Wikipedia article. Whether Goebbels actually used the big lie technique or not is irrelevant to the actual origins of the "big lie" term.
As for the Holocaust section, that's a separate issue. If you feel that should be deleted, start a separate section in the Talk page. The point of this section is to discuss the historical accuracy of the alleged Goebbels quote. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

User El_C with his text additions already made it clear that it is possibly falsely attributed quote, yet you insist on disputed accuracy tag. I assumed you want it deleted since having tag now makes no sense. Polyison (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I wish you would respond to the specific concerns that I laid out, instead of the strawman version you made up in your head. I will gladly remove the tag when the article reflects the most verifiable, historically accurate take on the matter. 73.159.229.5 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Mhm, you deleting quote multiple times is thing I made up in my head. Now when text is altered in way it should satisfy your concerns consistent with what you are saying here, you still insist on having disputed accuracy tag ? You seem confused. Polyison (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I deleted your quote because your source was invalid, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, as I've already stated several times. You have not once addressed those concerns. I insist that the tag remains up until there's consensus that, "the article reflects the most verifiable, historically accurate take on the matter". I'm not confused. It's you that refuses to engage in strawmen arguments instead of the actual arguments being made.
I have requested two simple changes. To repeat myself: "1) Your reference does not support "scholarly". 2) I want a stronger connotation that shows this quote is likely fabricated, as stated by your own reference." 73.159.229.5 (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Goebbels was complaining about the big lie method.

1.144.111.56 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)It would have been absurd foe Goebbels to have disclosed to his audience that he intended to use 'big lies'. He would have been alerting his audience to distrust him.

Goebbels stated that all propaganda must be truthful. In discussing the 'big lie' he was complaining about its implementation. Can anyone demonstrate any lies that Goebbels told?

== darkestt before dawn ==

it´s a psychological mechanism; it´s not intended to be supposed to be propaganda

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_lie/Archive_1&oldid=1265212468"