Talk:Big lie/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Add more examples of big lie, besides Hitler and Trump

This article sucks.

In my time first as a communications major and later as a history major, the concept of the big lie was brought up countless times. In fact even outside of the academic setting, any serious discussion of social or political movements tends to bring up the concept of big lie.

This article sucks because it does not bring up any of the various and many times the big lie concept has been used in human history, particularly since world war II, even in such very serious settings and consequences as the ethnic violence which overtook Yugoslavia in the 90s for example.

Instead this article only mentions the concept in relation to hitler, and then mentions Donald Trump, as if he were the only person accused of using this technique since world war II.

The casual observer who has no background in history is clearly going to draw a conclusion that the two are related, perhaps even as if Trump himself deliberately researched and revived this technique.

To say that this is misleading would be a great understatement.

I searched for this article to verify that the concept did indeed originate with Hitler and not someone else in the Nazi regime, which I did not realize. But I was absolutely amazed to find the state of this article and that the only other person mentioned in regards to this phenomenon was Trump.

This article is in desperate need of attention from experts who can provide a more balanced view of how the big lie concept has been used throughout history, not merely in relation to this most recent election.

I sincerely hope that people maintain this article, of which I am not one, will indeed reach out for this expertise.

Goodbye.

Lantuba54673 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. Einsof (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lantuba54673. I agree with Einsof. You are in the best position to fix it because you are the one with this knowledge about other sources that mention the big lie. Just make sure you use references and cite your sources. Let us know if you need any help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lantuba54673: FWIW - yes - *entirely* agree with others above that an expansion of the main article re other relevant historical figures may be in order - editors with a background in (or are interested in) the related history are more than welcome to add reliably sourced edits of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate the discussion. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to add any good content at the moment. There's a difference between knowing general facts from your education and prior reading, and actually having sources available, which I do not have.

I would recommend this article be added to the relevant projects, perhaps a history project. I have not been active on Wikipedia for a long time so I don't really know which groups would be the most fitting. Also reach out to the groups it is already a part of.

I think this is really top priority because the concept is so much bigger and so much more widespread than the article shows it to be. It is really a lopsided presentation of the concept to a degree that I think is harmful.

I don't have the time to look into these things at the moment, but if I get a chance I will gladly contribute.

Thank you. Lantuba54673 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lantuba54673, do you remember any examples? Feel free to mention. It will make it easier for our editors to google and possibly add content to the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This article does everything but say the exact phrase a big lie. Check the second paragraph. Unfortunately as mentioned it is only useful as background information, but this is a good example of how widespread the concept has been for quite a while. Article dates from 1974.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1978/10/26/hannah-arendt-from-an-interview/

The big lie idea is clearly con—nected to the concept of propaganda, but I don't have time to read Wikipedia s article on that at the moment.

The real problem is that because of the way Google search results work, the entire phrase has essentially been poisoned, because the vast majority of the results will be related to the recent pegging of the term to Donald Trump. This will make it very difficult to research the concept for quite some time into the future, if not a very long time.

Quite the pity indeed.Lantuba54673 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lantuba54673, many times the big lie concept has been used in human history, particularly since World War II, so naturally you can provide many examples we’d be pleased to include, right? soibangla (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Any lie that has ever been told by any government in human history more than likely fits the definition of a big lie. Probably every genocide human history is based on one. However I'm not going to name names, so that one tragedy is not giving more weight than another. Another classic example would be the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is now overwhelmingly believed to be a completely fabricated event, if not 100% believed to be so. There are certainly many other examples in history.

Besides specific examples which would be a veritable laundry list, what I'm really getting at here is that the big lie is merely a method of propaganda. Perhaps the difference is that in normal propaganda an actual fact is distorted, whereas in a big lie, the propaganda has in fact no basis in reality in whatsoever.

My qualm with the article is that is not presenting the big lie as a historiographical or sociological concept, but rather as a specific event which was invented by Hitler and then somehow brought back to life by Trump. At least that is the impression that it gives due to its current format.

The article needs to acknowledge that the concept has a broader life in professional academic circles. Retroactively labeling this thing or that thing a big lie may or may not be useful. But the concept and indeed the specific phrase has had a much larger life outside of recent political events.Lantuba54673 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well see, we depend on reliable sources here. There may, in fact, be many examples you or others can cite, but you'd need to present reliable sources to substantiate them. soibangla (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe this point has already been discussed adequately. You can see the link I posted for an example of the concept being used in presumably reliable source, though it probably falls just short for what we need here. The most useful thing would probably be to get in contact with more knowledgeable and/or more active users in the appropriate wiki projects. Thanks.Lantuba54673 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of "World War I" mentions

I notice this article makes use of non-breaking spaces to keep the roman numeral connected to the preceding word in the phrase "World War I", a practice which is reasonable and supported by MOS:NBSP, Help:Line-break handling, and other guidance.

However, I find that it formats... weird. The phrase "World War I", which has a non-breaking space ( ) placed between "War" and "I", is rendered (at least in my browser/font combination) with a vast desert of space preceding the "I", far more than would normally be found between any two adjacent words. Something about the kerning/spacing just breaks down due to the non-breaking space, most likely because "r" and "I" would normally be kerned quite tightly together ("rI") so a full space between an un-kerned pairing seems excessive by comparison.

Would there be any objections if I were to change all of the instances of World War I, World War{{nbsp}}I, and [[World War I]] to instead use {{nowrap|World War I}} and {{nowrap|[[World War I]]}}? (The same for any instances of "World War II" or other similar phrases, I haven't looked over the entire article source yet.)

In my experience, unlike the use of non-breaking spaces, the {{nowrap}} template doesn't affect the spacing of its contents. Compare the rendering of the phrase inside of {{nowrap}}, vs. using non-breaking spaces:

	Bare	Wikilinked
Using {{nowrap}}	World War I	World War I
Using  	World War I	World War I

At least to my eyes, there's a big difference, and the {{nowrap}} version is immensely preferable. {{nowrap}} around the entire phrase will also prevent a line-wrapping like "World↵War I", which seems preferable for maximum clarity/readability. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

(P.S: Please {{ping|FeRDNYC}}, {{reply to|FeRDNYC}}, or similar on any responses so I'll be notified, thx.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@FeRDNYC: Might be easier just to delete the nbsp's completely. I don't personally like them since {{nbsp}} in particular adds huge template blocks to the visual editor, and {{nowrap}} probably would too. However, I advise you to proceed with caution on this. People get sensitive about MOS issues. It is the subject of ARBCOM discretionary sanctions, and I have gotten a lot of pushback when I have spoken out against nbsp in the past. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Well, that's why this was begun as a discussion, rather than as a WP:BOLD edit. But personally I'd object to just [deleting] the nbsp's completely — IMHO wrapping such as "World War↵I" is problematic and worth preventing, especially if it can be done easily enough. The MOS is equally supportive of   / {{nbsp}} and {{nowrap}} as solutions to that problem, though, so it comes down to a question of local consensus regarding the specific form to be employed. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Having heard no objections, I've made this edit to replace (I believe all) non-breaking-space protected phrases with the same phrase protected inside a {{nowrap}} container. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Worth considering - or not?

Seems the following recent news may be relevant to the article in some way - political use of psychological projection or related? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Republican leadership claiming different meaning of "big lie"

I'm not sure how to treat Republican leadership attempts to redefine "Big Lie". Both Trump and McConnell have used it to refer to different topics associated with the 2020 election. The fact that Republican leadership is using the term gives weight to the inclusion of this section of the "big lie" article.

Trump wants to redefine "THE BIG LIE" to mean the election itself. news source, direct link to Trump statement

Statement by Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States of America

05/03/21

The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!"

Meanwhile, McConnell has used the phrase to refer to opposition to new voter I.D. requirements as "the big lie". news source direct link to McConnell statement

“All the facts disprove the big lie,” McConnell said, referring to polls showing strong support for the kind of voter ID requirements that Georgia will apply to absentee ballots

Some Republican leadership is pushing back against this confusion by using it the same way as the impeachment managers. news source Cheney's tweet

"The 2020 presidential election was not stolen," Cheney tweeted on Monday. "Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system."

What do other editors think about this as a possible new paragraph?

"Some Republican leadership has been using "Big Lie" to refer to multiple other issues associated with the 2020 election. In May 2021, Trump released a statement claiming that the 'Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020' is now known as 'THE BIG LIE'. Mitch McConnell has used 'big lie' to refer to opposition to restrictive new voter ID requirements."

Iseemerollin (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

My attempt to include this yesterday was promptly "trimmed." I alluded to how Trump co-opts, projects and gaslights with this tactic, as he did with "fake news," as noted by Reuters[1] and buttressed by WaPo[2]. Now we see Mitch doing likewise. It needs to be included in some manner. soibangla (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I think I have changed my mind on this. This talk page thread is convincing. A single DJT quote by itself is not necessarily newsworthy. But multiple top Republicans colluding to redefine the big lie is. One suggestion: consider de-capitalizing THE BIG LIE, or change the quote to a paraphrase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, it was your edit and subsequent reversion that led me to seek consensus on the talk page. Though Trump's co-opting of terms is a pattern, the inclusion of "fake news" seems off-topic to me too in this article.

Novem Linguae, agreed that all caps is annoying. Also, I think it's a stronger argument for inclusion when both Trump and McConnell issued statements redefining "the big lie", not just a snarky answer in a Q&A session. Gingrich has also made statements redefining "the big lie", and it's looking likely that Liz Cheney will lose her leadership role partly due to her pushback against Trump's redefinition. I don't believe Cheney's comments merit inclusion at this point but they might in the future. Iseemerollin (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been about a day and there's been no opposition, so I suppose that's at least partial consensus. My updated suggestion after feedback:

In April and May 2021, several prominent Republicans claimed that "the big lie" refers to other issues associated with the 2020 election. Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich said that "the big lie" is that there is opposition to restrictive new voter ID requirements," while in a statement, Trump claimed that it referred to the "Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020".

Iseemerollin (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Valjean, I see you've added a similar section since this talk section was started. Could we get your thoughts? Incorporating your reference, perhaps this text would work for everyone:

In April and May 2021, in an attempt to "redefine the term", several prominent Republicans claimed that "the big lie" refers to other issues associated with the 2020 election. Mitch McConnell and Newt Gingrich said that "the big lie" is that there is opposition to restrictive new voter ID requirements," while in a statement, Trump claimed that it referred to the "Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020".

Iseemerollin (talk) 19:49, May 5, 2021‎ (UTC)

 Done - yes - *entirely agree - updated article to this much better wording and related - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - also another possibly relevant ref - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I agree with this addition and the references used. In fact I came here to repair an earlier version which had reported on Trump's attempt to co-opt the term (remember "no, you're the puppet"?), but the fact that other Republicans are using it for other uses adds strength to the paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that we now need to tweak the heading to include GOP leaders. In fact, the part about the GOP leaders misuse of the term is really a slightly different topic worthy of its own subheading, as the whole paragraph is a well-developed presentation of only Trump's monumental misuse of the term, which is only about the election results and his false claims of a stolen election. The others' misuses deserve a subsection, and it can be developed with more content, as this isn't a new thing. -- Valjean (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The term is in widespread use to mean Trump's claim that he actually won the election; that's the reason it is here and that's the "big lie" referred to in the section heading. The attempts by others to co-opt the term deserve no more than a passing mention. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the attempts by others is on a slightly different topic. Otherwise we agree. -- Valjean (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I don't agree your recent change is better flow, but whatever. soibangla (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Split this article?

Im not a big politics editor here, but it seems to be that this article is actually covering two things; "big lie" as a propaganda technique and "The Big Lie" the term for Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud. would a split be in order?--Found5dollar (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW - current article seems *entirely* ok - and - appropriate to the material - splitting the article does not seem to be in order imo atm - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of the Trump material seems to be rehashing 2020 election misinformation and not really about this propaganda technique. Most should simply be removed from this article as it's currently little more than a coatrack. However, sources that specifically talk about Trump using this propaganda method, not just accusing Trump of telling a big lie but specifically talking about the use of this method are likely DUE. That said, if the method is considered established and Trump is just another example of it's use then it should be included as a summary example, not a long section. Springee (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Characterization of the Nazi party as “extreme right-wing group” in the sentence “This stab-in-the-back myth was spread by extreme right-wing groups, including the Nazis.” is incorrect. The Nazi Party stood for National Socialist Party and at no point upheld any of the right-wing ideology. Levinpl (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The Nazi Party, officially the National Socialist German Workers' Party, was a far-right political party in Germany active between 1920 and 1945. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Reliable sources describe the Nazis as right wing. You might find Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ to be helpful. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for Donald Trump section

@Aoidh and Soibangla: Can you provide us with evidence or anything to indicate there is consensus to include the present Donald Trump content on this article? This content has been challenged multiple times by multiple editors, and there is no obvious consensus here. As there is no consensus to add the material, the status quo is without the content until such time as there is consensus to include it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The content has been part of the status quo for months now, since January. Since that first edit, it's grown to reflect due weight in reliable sources to the section as it exists now, with collaboration by quite a few editors. You cannot simply remove the section after all of that by claiming that there is some status quo that does not include the content. It is well sourced, WP:DUE, has been part of the status quo of the article for some time now and has consensus through that collaborative process so if you want to remove it, you need to get a consensus for its removal; simply claiming that there's "no consensus" for its inclusion flies in the face of the active edit history that's been part of this page since it was included. - Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• This whole article has issues. There are way too many block quotes (about half the article), and the Trump section is too big. I'd be in favor of us having a section for "Other usage", and giving the Trump usage a bullet with 1-2 sentences, or at most a paragraph. I've kind of given up fighting this battle though, as there has been a lot of resistance to condensing the Trump section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is plenty of weighty RS evidence and sourcing for including solid coverage of Trump's unabashed lying about the election. It's a very notable situation, and rather unique in a modern democratic nation that has always led as an example of free elections, to have the president himself lie about it and seek to undermine and overturn the results of the most carefully analyzed and safest election in ages. His efforts are classic "Big Lie" territory. -- Valjean (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see editors make blatantly false claims that this section has consensus on the basis of collaboration. The section has been removed by KIENGIR, Markmelvinhall, Novem Linguae, RustyyShacklefordd, myself and numerous IP editors. Any reading of the edit history shows that there isn't consensus, that this is highly contested, but those in favour of keeping it are more motivated and persistent in edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The section has been removed by KIENGIR, Markmelvinhall, Novem Linguae, RustyyShacklefordd, myself and numerous IP editors. You forgot CrusaderAgainstFakeNews. Anyway, most of the editors who blanked this section didn't write anything on the talk page, and in many cases the edit summaries are empty or uninformative. In one case, an editor attempted to use a Bible quote to justify blanking. Simply counting the number of blankings doesn't indicate much of anything: as with !votes, the quality of the argument is what matters. Einsof (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that is you want the section removed, you're going to have to get consensus for it. So far I've seen nothing even approaching a justification from you why the section should be removed other than that it's been blanked. - Aoidh (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There would also have to be evidence that the content clearly violated policies. So far, the "no consensus" claim appears based on nothing but personal opinions without any basis in policy. -- Valjean (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a stretch to include Trump material here. Just because sources talk about Trump's Big Lie doesn't mean it should be here or if included should get this much coverage. This article appears to be about the concept of using a big lie as a form of propaganda. Since the concept is well defined only material that talked about this classical technique being used by Trump would be due here. It wouldn't be OK to include examples where sources simply said, "Trump was telling a big lie" or even that "Trump's stolen election claims were a Big Lie". Instead we would need something like a source saying something like, "Trump used a rhetorical technique called the big lie. In this technique... [describe mechanism here]." "Big Lie" is a common term and it can't be assumed that sources specifically meant to reference this rhetorical mechanism when using the phrase while talking about Trump. Currently this comes off as a coatrack to put negative Trump content in yet another Wikipedia article. Springee (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This AP article [[3]] suggests that Trump is saying the Big Lie is the "stolen 2020 election". If Trump is the source for the "Big Lie" term then it absolutely would not be proper to suggest that Trump's usage was meant to reference this concept. Springee (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

We had such a source — Tim Snyder's New York Times essay, which described the big lie as a distinct rhetorical phenomenon — but it was deleted er... "trimmed" some months ago. I admit to being baffled as to why the analysis of a scholar uncommonly qualified to comment on big lie rhetoric past and present was repeatedly scrubbed from this article, but there it is. The source does exist. Einsof (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Assuming it was a good article (not an OpEd or some other issue), I think it would be best to cut almost all of the current Trump material and focus on that sort of analysis. Given that Trump is using the phrase to describe what he sees as a stolen election care must be taken to not include sources like the AP article I linked as they aren't using the term to describe this type of rhetorical technique. It's not clear to me that Trump related material needs to be in this article to describe the subject of this article. Springee (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This content is perfectly good here. RS are asserting that Trump is using the rhetorical Big Lie device to deceive his followers into believing the election was stolen from him. Hitler used it about the Jews, and Trump is using it about the election. Trump is clearly using the rhetorical device. It is only the topic that has changed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Bears2077

@Bears2077: About this - diff. I just want to remind you and not only you, that this article is not about Trump, elections in the US, justice, bias, war etc. This article is about a big lie. If a source does not even mention it - please do not use it here. The problem with your addition is that only the last sentence is relevant to the article. The rest is absolutely has nothing to do with the article. So it needs to be reworked.--Renat 17:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

Change "Winter 2021" to "early 2021" in section on trump big lie {IP} 11:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Image relevance "20210609 Trump lies, statements after leaving office - horizontal bar chart.svg"

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.

---

I disagree with this edit and I want to see some adequate explanation why is this content relevant here.
@Soibangla: your explanation in this edit the image is relevant in association with the text of the edit is not answering the question, because I haven't talked about the relevance of the image in the edit to the text in the edit. I talked about the relevance of the content in the edit to the subject of the article. The content of the edit is a combination of the image and the text in it. And both of these components should be relevant to the subject of the article. Their relevance to each other doesn't matter in this case. This article is about the big lie, not about veracity of statements by Donald Trump. And this content has nothing to do with the subject of this article. --Renat 16:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

both of these components should be relevant to the subject of the article and they most certainly are. soibangla (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: how? --Renat 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Because Trump has made tens of thousands of false/misleading statements, but this is the big one that transcends all the rest, and it continues to persist unlike any of the others, as the edit makes clear. soibangla (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Because Trump has made tens of thousands of false/misleading statements ▶▶▶ Veracity of statements by Donald Trump.
but this is the big one that transcends all the rest what is "the big one"? "Stolen/rigged election" statements? The article already talks about that. But what about the other statements? The image shows 10 more types of his statements. Are all ten the big lie? Of course, they might be false, misleading or whatever, but if there is no RS that call them the big lie, then it means we should not use it here.
And I'm not even talking about WP:RSUW. This matter doesn't even require weight analysis, since the connection between the content and the subject of the article has not been established by RS. --Renat 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The point of the edit is that the Big Lie persists months after he lost, and we might even go further to mention that Republicans are using the big lie to justify new legislation to stop supposed voting fraud, but which are in fact measures to rig elections to disenfranchise "those people." the connection between the content and the subject of the article has not been established by RS is incorrect. soibangla (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't talked about the relevance of the image Actually your edit summary specifically objected to the image rather than the text, so the proper approach would have been to remove the image rather than revert the edit. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: the text is also irrelevant, because it is not about the big lie statements, but about his false statements in general. --Renat 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The source and edit refer to "a third have included lies about the election," which is the whole reason that is discussed in this article. soibangla (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about the election and not even about the attempts to overturn the election. It means that the source in order to be used in the article should discuss the big lie itself or discuss something in the context of the big lie, or discuss who used the big lie, how does the big lie relate to a particular thing or at least mention the big lie once. The source in the edit is just expands the American election statements discussion, not the big lie discussion. It is irrelevant here. Just because Trump's statements about the election were called the big lie, doesn't mean that we need to expand the election discussion in this article. How many times do you want to mention Trump in this article?
Editors should stop using the article as a tool to promote their point of view. Like someone really thinks that it's impossible to see what's going on and who and how edit this page? An editor should understand his bias and be neutral when editing the article. Readers read this article and they expect to read about the big lie, not about the election in the US (not all countries in the world are the US if someone doesn't understand that). --Renat 18:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It means that the source in order to be used in the article should discuss the big lie itself or discuss something in the context of the big lie

Section lead sentence:

To support his attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, President Donald Trump and his allies repeatedly and falsely claimed there had been massive election fraud and that Trump had really won the election.

Edit:

CNN fact checker Daniel Dale reported that through June 9, 2021, Trump had issued 132 written statements since leaving office, of which "a third have included lies about the election"—more than any other subject.

I'll pause now and allow others to respond to you. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The image seems just as relevant as everything else in Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election. @RenatUK: can you concisely recap why you don't think the image is relevant? To me it seems pretty self-evidently relevant to the section. VQuakr (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2021 (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.

Obama

"Meanwhile, Obama added: “What’s been called ‘the big lie’ suddenly gains momentum,” which in turn has fueled moves by Republican-controlled legislatures to reduce access to voting and gain more control over voting operations." Obama: Trump broke ‘core tenet’ of democracy with ‘bunch of hooey’ over election, The Guardian

Valjean (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

First use of "Big Lie" in reference to Trump

I think it might be worth adding the use of the term "Big Lie" in the context of Trump appears to have been first used by the prosecutor Jamie Raskin. Details are in one of the citations: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2021/02/10/senate-section/article/S615-4 - unless I'm missing witness statements that references the term, it seems to be entirely used by the prosecution, and then coined by CNN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.7.12 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a secondary RS which asserts this was the first use? -- Valjean (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's summary of the situation

During the 2016 Presidential debate, Hillary Clinton made the following statement about Donald Trump that has become rather foreshadowing: "You know, every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a year long investigation into my emails, they concluded there was no case. He said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus. He lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering; he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn't get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the awards were rigged against him. This is... this is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks. And it's funny, but it's also really troubling. No, that is not the way our democracy works. We've been around for 240 years, we've had free and fair elections, we've accepted the outcome when we may not have liked them, and is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a federal election." Perhaps this should be added to the Trump section because it hammers home the point that blaming his losses on fraud has always been Trump's modus operendi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:5100:26DC:25D5:7A06:52AD:70B (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. But that's 1) WP:PRIMARY (we prefer secondary sources, to get the WP:WEIGHT right), and 2) probably not closely related enough to his "big lie". This probably shouldn't be included in this particular article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Trump is doing more lying about the election than talking about any other subject

This analysis (that's provable by numbers, so worth more than a simple statement of fact) by a top fact-checker is worth including:

• Trump is doing more lying about the election than talking about any other subject, Analysis by Daniel Dale, CNN, June 12, 2021

Valjean (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Big lie? --Renat 00:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

His lies about the election are his big lie. The exact phrase is not required. -- Valjean (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Election fraud is based on mathematics, not the opinions of CNN staffers. 124.169.155.99 (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

In the introduction, the second paragraph detailing the Nazi Party's use of the 'Big Lie' is irrelevant as the necessary example of usage (being used to justify the Holocaust) is presented in the first paragraph.
It's more fitting to delete it, as it is also described in more detail in the actual article and detracts from the introduction's concise nature. Infinitely finite (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The current prose has consensus, and with an article about a controversy it's best to discuss changes. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Big Lie Makes Big Money?

Should this very recent New York Times news report be added, in some way, to the "The Big Lie" article - as perhaps another reason, besides pursuing political power, in the near term and/or later, to continue promoting "The Big Lie"? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drbogdan: The NYT source is not directly related to the topic of the article. And WP:OR says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." --Renat 14:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - yes - *entirely* agree - more direct WP:RS may be helpful re the issue - several such direct references may include The New York Times, NBC News and Yahoo News - there may be more direct references (perhaps many more) - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Besides making Big Money from The Big Lie during the current go-round in 2020-2021 - others are funding the Big Lie with their own Big Money - all in all - Money seems to be a very Big Part of the Big Lie - in one form or another - and, perhaps, should be part of The Big Lie article? - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Drbogdan, this all seems to be very directly related to the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this Trump/GOP angle on the subject deserves its own article? I suspect that some objections to the section in this article are related to WP:COATRACK, and by folding this section and some content from two other articles (Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud) into a meta-article entitled Big Lie (Trump/GOP), we'd have a legitimate and good-sized article. There are likely other possible ways to merge this content, but I feel it needs to be done. The final title can be discussed.

This matter is taking on greater importance as the lie that may succeed in destroying American democracy and American's confidence in their own elections (Putin giggles with glee...). Rs coverage is growing, so it's certainly DUE. What do you think of that idea? Then this article and the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump article would just mention and link to that article. We simply can't do the subject justice here. -- Valjean (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestion - yes - *completely* agree with considering a newly created article re this and related material - perhaps overdue since this may have been going on for some time I would think - flexible with article title, layout and content - your suggested title "Big Lie (Trump/GOP)" may be a good start - could always be changed later - you're more than welcome to use my own related content/references here (and perhaps elsewhere) for the article if you like - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

References