Talk:Big lie/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

International inclusion

Currently the article starts with the context from Hitler's Germany, then continues with one non-Nazi example: Trump's Big Lie. As several national governments use this propaganda technique around the world (read this NYT article to start with), I recommend we start listing a broader set of international examples. I propose having a section named ``Around the world``, under which we list the nations and their governments with recent examples. Any feedback is welcome. --LifeDancePro (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I think rather than a "around the world" section, examples should be listed chronologically regardless of geography. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks VQuakr for your input. To me, a per-country structure seems more organized; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news#By_country LifeDancePro (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Birtherism

Carol Anderson, professor of African-American studies, points out that Trump's big lie started with birtherism.

1. Which seems true on its face in broad terms, both the 2016 and 2021 lies are: the presidency was stolen.
2. But is also true in its racist theme: African-Americans, the core of the Democratic party, did this.
3. And both are congruent with Hitler's big lie: the German government was stolen, the Jews are behind it.

At a minimum I think a sentence or two making the link from birtherism is warranted, if there are clear statements in reliable sources. -- M.boli (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Bulleted list of references, Snyder quote

I was trying to separate Snyder's quote with its own reference, and keep the preceding text with @Soibangla's lovely list of references intact.

I seem to have mangled that a bit, by including Snyder's quote twice. And now things are back to their original configuration.

I still think separating the one cite, attach to the quote, is the right idea. The bulleted list would remain attached to the preceding text. -- M.boli (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The NPR ref supports the whole paragraph, not just Snyder quote, it should be bundled with the rest. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to do both? Conventionally, quotes come with a citation of the source. I think it is user-unfriendly to put a quote, and then make readers search through a long list of references to find the source of the quote. Maybe we restore the NPR reference back into your list, but also leave it as a separate citation attached to Snyder.

Installing the same reference twice is mildly unbeautiful, but may be a decent solution.

I think as a matter of wiki-technique, I've seen a list of cites coded as a {{refn}} macro containing a list of Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika

   Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union: A Personal Journal
   By: Scott Ritter Fulcrumreset (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As should be painfully obvious, Scott Ritter is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"big lie" vs. "the big lie"

Striked-out by rootsmusic

Is the definition applicable outside of politics and international relations? Do political scientists define it as a propaganda technique? If the answer is "no", then it's just an adjective that describes the comprehensiveness of any untruth that isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. The sections of this article cite instances when a politician used the propaganda technique to spread a conspiracy theory. Other sections (e.g. 21st-century use by American conservatives) acknowledge that opposing politicians have also misappropriated the label ("big lie") in order to redefine its usage. If its definition is subjectively defined depending on the propagandist, then the definition becomes unreliable because there's no widespread agreement on what is true. rootsmusic (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

??? It's about really BIG lies (as in obvious to any normal person) that are boldly and deliberately REPEATED. Such things tend to become aspects of propaganda and conspiracy theories. Don't you agree? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"...there's no widespread agreement on what is true."' Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case in many instances. Somethings are backed up by facts, they are said to be "true". Other things are backed up by hyperbole, argumentation, supposition, and non-factual statements, these are "false". When the false things are really large and endlessly repeated for political or propaganda purposes, they are "Big Lies", no matter who tells them. The most notable recent Big Lie, for instance, is that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election because of massive voting irregularities. It remains untrue no matter how many times Donald Trump and the MAGA folks who dominate the current Republican Party repeat it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

(Sorry, I'm striking my previous questions because they were too rhetorical. Hopefully, my point below explains why I find this article confusing.)

This article's title is "Big lie". Then the U.S. examples cited under Subsequent use introduces "the big lie", which shares two words with the article's title and adds a preceding article word. These are phrases that this article defines very differently.

Under Donald Trump's lies of a stolen election, the first paragraph is about "big lie propaganda techniques". Then the second paragraph introduces "the big lie" as a label, but that label isn't defining any propaganda technique. (Biden labeled the joint effort by two Senators to contest the election results as "the big lie". Others used the label to refer to Trump's false claims about massive election fraud but not to the propaganda technique that he employed to spread false claims.)

In the subsequent section, American conservatives have appropriated that label for other controversies. So the label's appropriation is unreliable, because it's subjectively appropriated.

Instead of attaching "the big lie" to this article (which was originally about a propaganda technique), "the big lie" should be either a separate article or perhaps it can be moved into the article about election denial. -- rootsmusic (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we move the Trump stuff to the Denialism article in the Denialism#Election denial section. Is that correct? It would make more sense to use Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election as the _target, or, better yet, Trump's "stolen election" Big Lie. Otherwise, it's perfectly on topic here as a notable example of how the propaganda technique is being used in the most notable way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct @Valjean. I'm also proposing a third possible solution: to move "the big lie" into the article about False or misleading statements by Donald Trump.

Since "big lie" is defined by this article's first sentence (A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique.), Donald Trump's lies of a stolen election actually means: Trump employed a propaganda technique to spread "the big lie". As a label, "the big lie" has also been appropriated in a myriad of meanings by others like (according to this article):

• Biden, who appropriated the label to characterize the joint effort by two Senators to contested the election results.
• Romney, Toomey and others, who appropriated the label to refer to Trump's false claims about massive election fraud.
• American conservatives, who have appropriated the label to various controversies under 21st-century use by American conservatives.

rootsmusic (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the "False or misleading statements..." article. Those three uses are consistent with the meaning we use here, although the last example describes a misappropriation of the term and attempt by conservatives to hijack it.

This article is the perfect place to cover all of this stuff. I don't think you're going to get any support for your efforts to move this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hat misunderstanding
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I really don't understand your point. You write: "If its definition is subjectively defined depending on the propagandist, then the definition becomes unreliable because there's no widespread agreement on what is true." The definition is not subjective or based on the propagandist. It is defined by whether a false claim is repeated, and whether the propagandist is the one telling that lie. A repeated claim that is true, or a propagandist that repeats a true statement, is not what we're talking about. The lie of a stolen election is undoubtedly a huge lie, and those who tell it are propagandists who are lying. While Trump and MAGA claim otherwise, there actually is "widespread agreement on what is true" about this in all mainstream RS and all courts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) @Valjean Yesterday, I striked-out what you're quoting. (Your reply from yesterday helped me to realize that my questions didn't explain my point well.) Please see if you can understand my point on 16 May 2024. Thanks. rootsmusic (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC) Oops! Sorry about that. In this editorial page viewing, I didn't notice that you had done that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• The phrase was not invented for the Trump instance of usage, but throwing out the most current usage of it sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, and seems utterly pedantic to me. I strongly oppose removing the contemporary material from this article. "THE big lie" (current usage) is simply the most recent example of the "big lie". I see no need for the suggested changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

About China's "committing human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang"

this accusation currently has no conclusion, so it's inappropriate to label this thing as "big lie". Coddlebean (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried adding "pov section", but it got reverted Coddlebean (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ask yourself one question: "Is that content backed by a RS?" Whether there is "no conclusion" is rather irrelevant. Accusations, in this case a false one by CCP, are common, and they are misusing the term "big lie" in their defense. If there's a better way to frame and word the content, feel free to improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources will do what they do, we just follow the sources. What would be innaproriate would be trying to overrule the sources with a personal POV, I hope thats not what you're attempting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the 2020 election a good example?

I mean, doesn't it work both ways? What if Trump really did win, the election was actually stolen from him? Couldn't the big lie be that Biden won? If your instinctive reaction is something like "that can't possibly be true", that's the whole point. 70.115.246.27 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

He didn't win, and it wasn't stolen. No credible source says otherwise. This encyclopedia is based on reality. There are not two sides. Acroterion (talk)

Is the 2020 election a good example?

I mean, doesn't it work both ways? What if Trump really did win, the election was actually stolen from him? Couldn't the big lie be that Biden won? If your instinctive reaction is something like "that can't possibly be true", that's the whole point. 70.115.246.27 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

He didn't win, and it wasn't stolen. No credible source says otherwise. This encyclopedia is based on reality. There are not two sides. Acroterion (talk)