Talk:Big lie

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Big lie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Big lie. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Big lie at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Military history: Intelligence / European / German C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fulcrumreset (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Please add these two balancing lines and include the trusted source:[reply]

1).The Big Lie that the UKRAINE conflict began in February 2022. 2). The Big Lie that NATO has not expanded EAST of Berlin since Perestroika

Add a trusted Reference :

   Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).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)[reply]

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

"big lie" vs. "the big lie"[edit]

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)[reply]

??? 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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]