Talk:Big lie/Archive 1

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 &bull; 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)


 * Heh. Shirer, eh? Well, let's see Mr. Shirer's source, if he even has one. --Grimgerde (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (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://en.wikipedia.org/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 &bull; 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 &bull; 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 &bull; 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

Vanity Fair
The pharagraph inclusion is not supported, as per WP:SHOAPBOX.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC))


 * Is this an argument or something that's only interpretable by those in the know?
 * It's used to justify Kiengir's repeated deletion of a quotation from a US magazine, Vanity Fair, which appears to me to be a reasonable statement of a third party opinion which is relevant at the present time and hosted by a reputable publisher. President Trump has seemingly convinced around 1/3 of the American population of the idea that he won the recent presidential election and that it was stolen from him despite the fact that he hasn't attempted to produce any evidence and all the allegations produced by his supporters have been thrown out in courts of law. He's done this by (a) normalising his lies over the period of his presidency and (b) repeating this particular lie regularly from at least 5 months before the event to the present time. This seems to me as good an example of a big lie as we've seen since Hitler. Now the report that he has kept a copy of Mein Kampf right up to the present, which is attested to by multiple sources, because of his interest in the big lie, and that his interest goes back 30 years, seems to me to be rather relevant to the present situation. I watched the National Guard bedding down in the capitol this afternoon and they seem to think that the threats of violence that he has precipitated are real. I wouldn't like to see a coup in the US, though I don't choose to live there. I didn't put that paragraph on the page but it seems justified and relevant. Chris55 (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You see Chris, that's the problem, you are heavily influenced by the current Capitol events, and now shoapboxing along with various conpiracy theories, povs, hysteria and even insane assertions, fantasmagories and tabloids are circumventing. Zero relevance, as well these lie accusations as true/not true/partially true is standard part of politics where especially minimum two sides involved, like the in American politics. Scandals, theater, p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s, btw. an everyday game sometimes with bigger or less echo. The book has been read widely, not just politicans, but ordinary people, historians, and they have as well a copy, like from many other books from e.g. Julius Caesar. We should not endorse tabloid here, and remain serious.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Many people will think it is you that are losing touch with reality. I prefer the Washingon Post's version. Chris55 (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, what some people may think and what is in fact the reality is not necessarily one and the same.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

Cruz/Hawley sources
Just to clarify, I am not disputing Cruz and Hawley's involvement in overturning the election. I think that's pretty obvious and I am not requesting a source for that. My point was that these sources don't make a connection between Cruz/Hawley and the "big lie". Seems a bit WP:SYNTH to me. I don't feel strongly enough to edit it out a second time, but figured I'd point it out. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nobody is synthesizing anything. The next sentence names notable people who implicate Cruz and Hawley in the big lie, and the sources at the end of that sentence are not subtle:
 * Biden says Cruz, other Republicans responsible for 'big lie' that fueled Capitol mob"
 * "'Complicit in big lie': Republican senators Hawley and Cruz face calls to resign"
 * Other sources (like Timothy Snyder's New York Times essay) also implicate them even if the title does not say so. There is zero reason to rip the text out. Einsof (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those sources you mention are different and better than the ones at the end of the Cruz/Hawley sentence in the article. Thanks for clarifying. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
Apparently a few editors do not really understand our policies and the reason of some reverts, though the discussion is given in the talk page. In this recent topics explicit consensus has to be built in the talk page, as per the recent events hard shoapboxing is ongoing in these topic areas. The includers as well WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:DUE and naturally WP:SHOAPBOX.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC))

Donald Trump's claim of a stolen election
, in this reversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_lie&curid=201436&diff=1003663305&oldid=1003636781

you remove for the third time the word "falsely" and assert this was previously discussed on Talk. Please would you show me where we discussed that? Do you contend that assertions by Trump and his allies that there was massive election fraud are true? soibangla (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * e.g. Snyder block quote section. What I assert is neutrality, which is a must in our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * That was specifically about the Snyder block quote, not that the assertions are false. The fraud allegations were rejected as totally meritless by numerous state and federal judges, state and local election officials, governors, the Justice and Homeland Security departments, and the Electoral College soibangla (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, I agree with you that we must follow the sources in making clear that the assertions are false, and that this is required by our WP:NPOV and WP:EVALFRINGE policies, among others. Neutralitytalk 02:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, I agree with you that we must follow the sources in making clear that the assertions are false, and that this is required by our WP:NPOV and WP:EVALFRINGE policies, among others. Neutralitytalk 02:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The other problematic part of 's reverts is the repeated watering down of what this big lie entails. It is not just an allegation of election fraud; it is an allegation of election fraud so massive that it changed the outcome of the election. That's why it's a big lie, as opposed to a regular lie. Our sources say as much; e.g., from NPR:
 * ""They say we lost," the president went on. "We didn't lose." Among the thousands of falsehoods Trump has uttered during his presidency, this one in particular has earned the distinction of being called the "big lie.""


 * While we're at it, I'd also like an explanation from about exactly why the edit summary for this revert contains the declaration that there have been dubious issues. Pray tell, what "dubious issues"? Please answer with a full explanation rather than a terse invocation of policy buzzwords. Einsof (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * what you missed that Einsof introduced that edit, and I discussed with him in that section about more things, it is not dependent how the talk page section title is called. I am happy in the end showed up since he got the point even implicitly, there is a difference between the possibility of mass fraud or just occasional frauds, given how much would it influence the outcome, hence I accept his partial reversion (and Einsof also came to similar conclusion, but initially the sentence did not contain that assertion of the outcome). Einsof, all the world knows about some controversial events/issues in connection with the elections, you'll find enough sources or information about them. The real problem is, many editors in this area forget WP is not (and should not be) a propaganda outlet of one political side.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I reject your assertions that any "propaganda" is at play here and I recommend you cease casting such aspersions. soibangla (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * it is not the first time you don't understand apprpopriately our guidelines, what I said has nothing to with aspersions.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I suggest you pause and reconsider what you're saying and doing here. Really. soibangla (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , excuse me, this is again something you should do, you were even debating voluntary and experienced DRN members because you did not want to accept in the beginning what you did wrong. You apparently need more experience.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , on second thought, you just keep right on talkin' soibangla (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So what, why do you think I should not respond when especially you are pinging me?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , on second thought, you just keep right on talkin' soibangla (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So what, why do you think I should not respond when especially you are pinging me?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC))

There is some debate about "falsely". I recently asked about this at MOS:Words to Watch. . I think the takeaways from the discussion are that it's a contentious issue, that sometimes "incorrectly" is a better word than "falsely", and that there are also issues with the word "claim", per MOS:CLAIM. I'm not sure if the debate had a clear consensus, but just be aware that it's a hot issue. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , that's a truism, not an argument. Nobody here is advocating for Wikipedia to function as propaganda. (Similarly, nobody here is advocating for POV-pushing or undue weight. You have to actually explain why you think those policies are violated rather than just name-dropping them—that might be why another editor characterized one of your repeated, terse reverts as vandalism). Your comment is also not a convincing explanation for why you repeatedly removed a strong claim (Trump and allies falsely claimed a stolen election via massive fraud) and replaced it with a weaker one (Trump and allies claimed election fraud), in contravention of how our multiple sources describe this big lie. Einsof (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is not just truism and I don't think I have to list cases or issues which you would as well easily access (or if not, that would mean you did not investigate the subject well). Nobody here is advocating for Wikipedia to function as propaganda & ..POV-pushing or undue weight.. -> in this you are wrong, there are many, and as well this page recently it is an overly phenomenon (of course, it may happen the one did not consider that of it's own activity, but it does not make it exempt). I did not refer just to policies, the talk page is full with discussions, and yes, the editors should read the policies they are faced and should understand (that's a duty I may not substitute). The editor which made that charachterization was utterly false, not understanding what vandalism is, which is commensurable with vandalism itself, despite the reasons were given. On the other hand your representation is flawed, since on that part I just reset the content to the status quo ante version, which is a legal move if there is a disagreement about a new bold edit, next to it I have given the policies. The fact we have found a point what we did not before, it is part of the natural process (and not I was the one who did not engage the talk for a while).(KIENGIR (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I have to agree with Einsof. In clinging to the idea that stating Trump's lies about the election is simply propaganda or a POV, Kiengir is stepping outside of the neutral role of an editor. He claims non-existent discussions and policies in support: SHOAPBOX is presumably a usage on some social media platform but doesn't exist in Wikipedia. The paragraph I added was a summary of a major fact-checking exercise carried out by one of the most prestigious and respected media in the US. He/she may not like the results but it is from a reliable source and I see no reason not to reinstate it. Chris55 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Chris55, I never stated "Trump's lies about the election is simply propaganda or a POV", hence your erroneous assertions about neutral role is utterly false, since I am the one who is recurrently applying NPOV, contrary to your edits, it is even amazying you even try such lame way to identify things differently. WP:SOAPBOX would not exist, or anything else I referred? Are you kidding? You should read and interpret sentences everywhere accuarately, rather than making such erroneous statements. Yes, Washington Post is an RS, despite heavily commited to one direction, and your addition fells not just under those problems I mentioned, but as well WP:EXTRAORDINARY counts here. Can you prove your addition is complying with that?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC))
 * "I am the one who is recurrently applying NPOV": actually your most recent revert was undone on the basis that it did not comport with WP:NPOV, and other editors seem happy to let that diff stand. It also says something that you first declare without elaboration that your edits comply with policy, but then a few sentences later demand that other editors elaborate on why their edits comply with policy. Einsof (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't forget the point stated at 03:20, 30 January 2021, as well the discussion about the word falsely, and that revert was better connected to the evalfringe policy, which we clarified. Furthermore other editors happiness are not really a professional factor here, I explained why I accepted this reversion in the end (and this shows I read and interpret policies or any emerging points). You last sentence does not stand, since I explained all the time, as well in the talk, it's another issue others don't interpet or understand it appropriately. Also have in mind, I was just partially reverted so I had likely right on the other part.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC))

New York Times sentence
cc. From the article: On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt, based on a lie promoted for a political purpose, to subvert the election of the United States was published in The New York Times. Neither cited source uses the term "big lie". I am concerned that this is WP:SYNTH. To keep the Donald Trump section on topic and succinct, I would be in favor of trimming this sentence, but since I was reverted, I'd like to start a discussion here. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jim Rutenberg used the term "big lie" explicitly when he was interviewed by PBS about the "77 Days" analysis (audio here, relevant bit around 05:30). Einsof (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(and others) - Thank you for starting the discussion - I would think my newly posted edit (also see the edit copied below) is a relevant and worthy addition to the "Big lie" main article in the "Big lie" subsection.

QUESTION: Is the NYT News edit worth adding to the "main article" - or Not?

 "On January 31, 2021, a detailed overview of the attempt, based on a lie promoted for a political purpose, to subvert the election of the United States, was published in The New York Times".

Comments Welcome from editors - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think no futher additions should be added to that section, since even the previous issue is not solved, this is a heavy and sensitive issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC))

Snyder block quote

 * Einsof, the previous version totally ok, and I disagree this political shoapboaxing (like Snyder's speculations, although the Republicans received significant much more votes from Afro-Americans and Hispanics than expected, etc.) and adding such quotes, UNDUE. It is fact there have been problematic issues with the elections, but like in most Western countries, these complaints are submitted into committes which investigate and make a final decision. The final descision did not alter the election results, but it does not necessarily mean all claims would be false. Neutrality has to be followed.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Snyder is a notable, widely published expert on the subject of this article and you aren't. His analysis of the subject of this article is relevant for inclusion and yours isn't. If you have sources from other experts showing that Snyder's analysis is out of line, show them, because the procedure for establishing due weight is to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". The second half of your comment (about what "most" Western countries do, and about all claims of fraud being categorically false) are irrelevant non-sequiturs, because the text you removed did not make those arguments. Einsof (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no consensus, he is making speculations, nothing else, a typical fashion of recent events and shining example of political shoapboxing and POV. This article is anyway out scope of representing mass speculations about the recent presidential election. Does not belong here, WP:DUE holds. The second half of my comment is a reinforcement why we should follow WP:NPOV.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

I agree with KIENGIR. I have concerns about Snyder's quote. First, I don't like block quotes in articles. They are not subject to our normal polishing and editing and revision process, since their prose essentially cannot be modified, ever. Second, I don't like how Snyder puts a bunch of words in Donald Trump's mouth without presenting strong evidence. In my opinion, this is a case of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. To go from "Donald Trump doesn't like cities" to "Donald Trump is a racist", with no evidence to link the two together, seems logically dubious. Third, the Snyder sentence and quote take up about 60% of the section. This is a very large amount of weight. As a compromise, I would be OK with including the sentence "Snyder argues that this big lie is an outgrowth of a longstanding pattern of voter suppression in the United States", without the block quote. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you as well, you described more detailed the situation as I would, except that I would not add anything more from Snyder he is already mentioned (and the accusation of voter suppression fells the same category, the time when more votes have been received then ever and in proportionate a larger Afro-American and Latino votes, everyone has to see the political battle between the sides are not over and WP is not a promotional site of any sides shoap).(KIENGIR (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Thanks to the efforts of other editors, the inclusion of the Snyder block quote no longer takes up the majority of the Trump section. And if you really hate block quotes so much, how come you haven't touched any of the other extremely block-quote-heavy sections in this article? The first section seems to be about 90% block quote, but you didn't trim it at all! Einsof (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , are you really encouraging me to rewrite the entire article and get rid of all the block quotes? I don't think that'd be popular. This article is a bit contentious. Anyway, I think I'm going to take this article off my watchlist. I don't really like conflict. I still stand behind all my points, but it's not worth annoying a bunch of experienced editors in order to try to fight for them. Good luck everyone. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump in lead
This was removed on the grounds it is UNDUE. There is a section on Trump that contains sufficient references to make it DUE, so the lead inclusion should be restored, though I would be happy to add references in the lead to make it explicitly DUE there, so as to address the stated objection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_lie&diff=1000595197&oldid=1000585574

soibangla (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is not sufficiency of reliable sources to establish Trump's use of the Big Lie. Rather, it's whether or not the preponderance of published sources on the topic of the Big Lie associate it with Trump. In the overall historical narrative, he is at most a recent footnote, and does not warrant mention in the lead. NedFausa (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. The bulk of the lead is the historical context covered in depth in the body, whereas the very short new sentence carries the appropriate weight of its section in the body. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Shoap, and even dubious the whole Trump issue would be notable next to Hitler or Göbbels, there may milestones more relevant cases, recent political hysteria should not influence the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
 * there may milestones more relevant cases which presumably would have been added to the article by now, but they have not been, which tends to suggest they don’t exist. I hasten to add that there is no attempt to associate Trump with Hitler here, it is simply that the expression has been repurposed within a new historical context. Please see the second sentence in Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. soibangla (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh come on...it's clear all of this is a political game, almost all politicians have great problems of their veracity of statements, but some are more spotted and highlighted...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC))
 * It has nothing to do with politics, and “all politicians lie” does not diminish the objective reality that Trump has stated falsehoods with a frequency and magnitude that far exceeds that of any public figure in modern American history, which has been exhaustively documented by numerous reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal. Donald Trump should not be given heavy WP:WEIGHT in history articles not related to 21st century US politics. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The weight of the sentence is not heavy, it is proportionate to the section in the body. Lead summarizes body. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Novem Linguae.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

, and : To my understanding, none of the stated rationales for exclusion have a plausible basis in Wikipedia policies, and I intend to seek administrator review of the matter. soibangla (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then read again the arguments, like WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Feel free to ask an admin if you wish.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , this seems to me quite a minor dispute, we're just judging the WP:WEIGHT differently. If you prefer I quote a policy, then I choose WP:RECENT. – Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am confident that I have adequately refuted the stated rationales, and I don’t find your newest one plausible, either. Lead summarizes body, proportionate to the body content, and that’s what the sentence does. soibangla (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and in particular WP:RECENTISM. As I wrote above, in the overall historical narrative, Trump is at most a recent footnote, and does not warrant mention in the lead. NedFausa (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead summarizes body, proportionate to the body content, and that’s what the sentence does. The body content is amply supported by reliable sources. Simple. soibangla (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the third time in this thread that you've written Lead summarizes body. Perhaps it's time to stop repeating ourselves and await the administrator review that you intend to seek. Please ping me as appropriate. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with you as well. Yes, lead summarize body, but is as well does not mean we include everything in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

, and : it's not clear if you were pinged on this, so here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Big_Lie soibangla (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pinged originally, so thanks for pinging here. I'll take a look. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unaware of the dispute or discussion, I added the paragraph:
 * The term was used in 2020 to describe US President Trump's effort to discredit the results of the election in favor of Joe Biden. "The big lie" was the idea that the election was fraudulent or stolen.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_lie&diff=1003418710&oldid=1003406485

which was (sensibly) reverted per talk page discussion. My rationale was that the lede should mention all body sections. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though it's against consensus, I don't plan on reverting it for the moment. I think this issue is a bigger deal to some editors than it is to me. If I slowly get out-consensus'd on this, I don't mind. Wikipedia works because multiple people edit an article until it reaches a perfect balance/equilibrium. I don't think that non-standard DRN tag on the article is necessary, but I'll leave it for now. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a consensus against inclusion, at least not anymore. The lede should summarize the body. Einsof (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus was 3-1 earlier, but it is no longer clear. It appears to be 3-3 now, if you include you and UserTwoSix. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I just came across this article and this discussion, and as it seems unresolved, I'll add my opinion: the lede should summarize the body. Yes, that's been said many times before, but that doesn't change that that is quite simply what a lede is for. The section on Trump makes up about a fourth of the article (and it's the only section that doesn't largely consist of direct quotes) and that very simply means the lede should include a summary of it. It seems to me that arguments like WEIGHT and RECENT could be invoked (though not succesfully, I expect) to argue that the section should be shorter, or not exist at all; but that's a different discussion altogether. Given that the section exists, and has the length that it has, there is no valid reason to exclude it from the lede. Lennart97 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please propose a wordage, a how you would include in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the invitation, but I'd really rather leave that to someone else, as I have no experience writing leads and I don't think I'd do a very good job. I also don't feel as if speaking in favour of including something in the lead obligates me to propose a wording myself. Lennart97 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've inserted a few sentences based on text that was ripped out of the lede previously. This way everyone, including uninvolved editors who don't necessarily check the talk page, can iterate on it. Einsof (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Einsof - I think this is a pretty good wording. Lennart97 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Einsof, ok this time, but you should have waited for confirmation and present first here the proposal, as asked.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC))

FWIW - the test posting in the lead seems like *very* good wording - and - is *entirely* ok with me at the moment - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, wish you much health as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Quote
No consensus for adding the quote per WP:DUE AND WP:EXTRAORDINARY, not notable.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC))


 * WP:EXTRAORDINARY deals with exceptional claims. Specifically what text in the quote constitutes an exceptional claim? Einsof (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE states that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view." In this case, the view presented by the house managers was accepted by the majority of the Senate (with the first bipartisan vote on impeachment in US history). And the election which it concerns was one which the majority of the people in the country accept as being just and fair. Those who believe the election was stolen are reckoned to be around a quarter of voters. But the acceptance of democracy in America has been challenged as never before and the majority need to understand how so many people can believe something that flies in the face of all the evidence that has been presented. Chris55 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Einsof,
 * iserting this qoute is exceptional itself, is it considered notable by multiple high-quality sources? I'd be happy if Chris would follow our policies and not have reinstated this until we did not get to any conclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC))
 * "iserting this qoute is exceptional itself" is a nonsensical statement. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to the text in the article, not editorial actions. Einsof (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really know the meaning of the word "notable" Kiengir? If the proceedings of the US Senate are not notable, then nothing is. Chris55 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Einsof, I am talking about the inserted text, I ask again, is it considered notable by multiple high-quality sources? Chris, of course I know, but the subject is not the US Senate, but Joe Neguse.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC))
 * What specifically is the exceptional claim contained in the text? Please state it explicitly. Einsof (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why Joe Neguse's quote would be relevant? It seems exceptional, alltogether, so please answer my question, is it considered notable by multiple high-quality sources?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC))
 * WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to any "exceptional claim". What claim contained in the quote is exceptional? If you cite Wikipedia policies, be prepared to explain why they apply. Einsof (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I already asnwered, and asked you a question which you don't wish to answer (I don't have to point to subsets, I speak from the whole addition, and I also mentioned other policies). So please answer my questions, otherwise the quote needs to removed unless it's relevance is established.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
 * I've asked you explicitly three times to state what exceptional claim in the quote triggers WP:EXTRAORDINARY and you've declined, so at this point I'll consider your invocation of WP:EXTRAORDINARY to be retracted. I'm not answering your WP:EXTRAORDINARY-based question as a matter of principle: it's inappropriate to engage with irrelevant and unelaborated invocations of policy. As to the matter of WP:DUE, Chris55 has already excerpted the gist of it: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. So what part of the quote is a minority view? Einsof (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've answered to you, you declined it, your questions falsely imply something because I don't have to point to subsets, I speak about the whole addition. Moreover Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. So could you please establish the relevance of this particular quote?(KIENGIR (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
 * What viewpoint are you looking for me to establish the prevalence of? Please state it clearly in 50 words or less. Einsof (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That John Neguse's quote is widely considered important, reinforced with reliable sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC))
 * You invoked WP:DUE, which deals with viewpoints, not people. Again, in 50 words or less, please describe the viewpoint that you think is given undue weight in this article. Einsof (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The qoute is representing a viewpoint (brainstorming of one person), so this is not an argument. I'll wait 2 days more to establish the relevance of this qoute, otherwise the article has to be restored to the status quo.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Citing a policy that dictates how we balance viewpoints and then refusing to name the putative viewpoint at issue is indeed not an argument. You'll notice that over the last week nobody besides you has seemed especially interested in removing this quote, aside from wholesale section-blankers who are quickly reverted. Einsof (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Straw-man answer, I answered all of your questions multiple times. Read back 00:07, 3 March 2021. As well, this issue and my question has zero connection that since we discuss who and when what did with the article, neither how numerous are any. I am still waiting to present sources.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Hello all. I'm checking in on this article after a month of it being off my watchlist. I'm disappointed to see a giant quote in the Donald Trump section, giving that section even more WP:UNDUE weight than before. I support removing it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like some IP's are trying to delete the block quote. I put in a request for page protection just now. We should resolve the issue through consensus, not edit warring. I'd like to suggest that everybody with an opinion weigh in here with a clear "keep" or "remove", so we can determine what the consensus is. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, however, the situation is clear, there is no consensus, it is a very rare situation the bold addition was not reverted further (not to endorse edit-warring) and since not the status qou ante version of the article is displayed, it should not mislead anyone the IP's did not harm any tule with this. We cannot avoid our rules and guidelines, relevance has to be established first.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

Survey
Please post your opinion on removing or keeping the Trump section's Neguse block quote here.


 * Remove. Undue weight. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak remove. I would rather include analysis from a secondary source, though that has been ripped out of the article before too (even just the reference to it!). Neguse's quote is essentially a primary source that is recycling secondary analysis, although this article is rife with long, primary-source quotes. Also, mentioning "the Provocation part of the argument" is too much detail for this article; it belongs (if anywhere) in the dedicated article on the second Trump impeachment. Einsof (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove, per the argumentation in the above section. Moreover, the issue is filled with sheer recentism and emotions, so cool and careful editing is necessary in these topics.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Keep it's a significant part of the indictment. It's hard to see how it can be called a primary source since it is not about the speaker. Unfortunately there are too many wikipedians who evidently believe the lie, which the proponent is still disseminating and which still threatens to weaken American democracy in not a dissimilar manner to Nazi Germany. Chris55 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove it's clear this topic was about a specific technique specifically used during the rust of Hitler. Other that Biden saying "big lie" it doesn't appear that the recent material is related to the original topic and seems to be a coatrack. Springee (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit
Einsof,

please avoid spurious edits logs. I reverted (recently partially) a recent bold edit, which did not and could not have consensus, despite you are edit warring, contrary to the earlier discussions on the talk page, and even did not engage now to the talk. So, just revert yourself, because the opposite is true what you are saying.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC))


 * I'll quote the lede of our article on Trump's false claims: Trump and his allies repeated false claims that the election was stolen (emphasis added). If you think there's a problem with calling Trump's election fraud claims "false" in Wikivoice, that's the article where you should raise the issue. Evidently, editorial consensus has already been established there for describing Trump's claims as false, and it is not required (nor is it a good use of editors' time) to litigate that consensus on every single page where Trump's false claims are mentioned. Einsof (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Einsof. soibangla (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would question the use of "false" in the heading. It is not necessary for being on a page about "the Big Lie". It may seem important now, but in two to three years time, the neutrality of the article would dictate against its use. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Other article's issues are not necessarily binding, moreover the issue has a huge recentism, with massive updates and new edits in more articles. I hope once both of you will better understand neutrality. I already explained with the assertion of he would have won as the claimed fraud would be massive enough, or just to refer some more minor issues are not the same weight. I agree with UserTwoSix, and you should be satisfied that one "false" you could insert in the end.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Please, take a look Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch.-- Renat 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The word "False" is not even used in any other parts of the article than the Trump parts. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please check the second source on the pharagraph "In January and February 2021, The New York Times published...", since in the first I did not see such like for years at first glance, just close events, the second I could not fully access. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC))
 * The NYT source does open with "For 77 days between the election and the inauguration, President Donald J. Trump attempted to subvert American democracy with a lie about election fraud that he had been grooming for years." UserTwoSix (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just paraphrased the source better. It read like the NYT article was primarily about how the lie had been building for years instead of how that lie was used for political purposes. UserTwoSix (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, though I have still concerns, while 77 days cannot be measured as years, does any of the sources say that especially such was builded for years? Since such claim is highly dubious, or NYT considers that? We cannot state opinions as facts, could you access the second source fully in the end? Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC))
 * thank you, though I have still concerns, while 77 days cannot be measured as years, does any of the sources say that especially such was builded for years? Since such claim is highly dubious, or NYT considers that? We cannot state opinions as facts, could you access the second source fully in the end? Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC))
 * thank you, though I have still concerns, while 77 days cannot be measured as years, does any of the sources say that especially such was builded for years? Since such claim is highly dubious, or NYT considers that? We cannot state opinions as facts, could you access the second source fully in the end? Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC))

The 2nd source, from the US Congress, has the statement "The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2021, at 9 a.m." and also a PRAYER by Dr. Barry C. Black and also the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE and also the ADJOURNMENT statement "Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the trial adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow, Thursday, February 11, and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the Senate. There being no objection, at 7:40 p.m., the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, adjourned until Thursday, February 11, 2021, at 12 noon. "

but mainly a 30-PAGE record of the Senate hearing on Wed Feb 10 2021 for the matter of TRIAL OF DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES for which the word "year" appears 12 times: UserTwoSix (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it easily could have destroyed—the peaceful transfer of power in the United States for the first time in 233 years. (p1)
 * my dad, who came to this country, as I mentioned, as an immigrant 40 years ago (p6)
 * I am a Texas Democrat, and we have lost a few elections over the years (p7)
 * President TRUMP. People that were dead were signing up for ballots. Not only were they jumping in and putting in a ballot, but dead people were requesting ballots, and they were dead for years, and they were requesting ballots. (p8)
 * Over many years, they built a small business (p12)
 * Over this past weekend, my 11-yearold daughter (p13)
 * known both Scavino and the president for years, (p16)
 * For the first time in more than 200 years, the seat of our government was ransacked on our watch. (p19)
 * This year is 20 years since the attacks of September 11 (p20)
 * Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, a 20-year police veteran (p24)
 * Look, as I mentioned, I was a trial lawyer for 16 years. (p26)
 * I removed the phrase in question. You may add it back it any form once you have found your proof in the sources. UserTwoSix (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking at the wrong sources, UserTwoSix. The article "77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election" contains the sentence "a lie that Mr. Trump had been grooming for years finally overwhelmed the Republican Party". Chris55 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Probably worth me leaving a comment having read this talk page. In regards to who removed the word "falsely", this was perhaps a hasty revert; at a glance, it appeared to be vandalism, but I can now see there are more complex issues regarding WP:MOS here. I believe I flagged it under the wrong policy anyway, so if consensus is reached here to undo my edit then you are welcome to do so. I considered undoing my own revert but feel this would likely overcomplicate matters and not necessarily be a valuable edit while there is still discussion and apparent lack of consensus here.
 * I am not here to contribute towards this discussion as to how that section should be written, and my edit should not be taken as a view on the matter, as it was simply intended to prevent WP:VD. Instead I am here now because I inadvertently reverted something which was not necessarily clear vandalism, and therefore accidentally did not follow WP:ROLL, and so feel an explanation here might be useful. Thanks. Mxtt.prior (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , nah, you were correct. There's an unwritten consensus across Trump related articles that the word falsely should be used when describing his claims about the election. Attempts by IP's to remove the word "falsely" always get reverted. The rationale is that reliable sources use the word "falsely", so we do as well. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * . 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)
 * 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)


 * , 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)

, 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 ( &amp;nbsp; ) 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,  , and   to instead use  and ? (The same for any instances of "World War&amp;nbsp;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 template doesn't affect the spacing of its contents. Compare the rendering of the phrase inside of, vs. using non-breaking spaces:

At least to my eyes, there's a big difference, and the version is immensely preferable. 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, , or similar on any responses so I'll be notified, thx.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Might be easier just to delete the nbsp's completely. I don't personally like them since in particular adds huge template blocks to the visual editor, and  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)
 * Well, that's why this was begun as a discussion, rather than as a WP:BOLD edit. But personally I'd object to — 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 &amp;nbsp; /  and  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)

✅ 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 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)

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 and buttressed by WaPo. 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)
 * ✅ - 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)


 * 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)

, 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Reliable sources describe the Nazis as right wing. You might find Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ to be helpful. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for Donald Trump section
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 [] 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
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Image relevance "20210609 Trump lies, statements after leaving office - horizontal bar chart.svg"
I disagree with this edit and I want to see some adequate explanation why is this content relevant here. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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:
 * Edit:
 * 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. 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)
 * 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. 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)

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)

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)

(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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Big lie.png

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)

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 s inside. Each individual reference in the list has its own  . Right now there is a bulleted list inside a single  . But I don't know how to do that.


 * So for now I propose simply duplicating the NPR reference, once inside the list and once attached to the Snyder name. -- M.boli (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Later: putting a citation on a quote is hardly unnecessary and disruptive to reading. I think you have lost sight of the big picture, but it won't be helpful to argue about it. -- M.boli (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree that I have lost sight of the big picture. Quite the opposite, actually. soibangla (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased sources.
This article has many biases, and isn't objective in the least. 2600:6C4E:1200:5C00:90BB:711B:E394:DD80 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Chill down on the Hitlerism
Bringing Trump into this article is sad to see. It is a political debacle in the times for a few select and has no bearing on the big picture of the term. If one are going to pull in «big lies» in politics one should then also include Bill Clinton's «I did not have sexual relations», «Bush's weapons of mass destruction», «Hillary I won», «The Russia hoax» and a long, long range of others.

Tweakdrum (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There is some analysis of Bush's WMD as a big lie — see, e.g., . It has also been suggested a few times in the past on this talk page, although the momentum fizzled. I wonder if there is enough analysis out there to make a WMD section. Einsof (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it's still very wrong to compare Trump to Hitler. If we look into one 'big lie' then more and more show up the spiral goes out of control. Other than that, "Democratic opposition to restrictive new voter identification requirements" is in fact voter suppression. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VinotTP6R6E) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:4575:d776:fed1:ce7a (talk • contribs)


 * We're not associating Trump with the term. Reliable sources are. VQuakr (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow
Disgusting that Wikipeda has become so ridiculously communist that Trumps BS "Stolen Election" claims are lumped into the same category as Nazi Propaganda techniques that resulted in the death of millions. I am never donating another penny to you clowns. The person that wrote the article should be ashamed, and the clown that allowed it to be published should be ashamed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.210.15 (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove United States Section
The United States portion should be removed. This should be a serious article on the History of the Big Lie in Nazi Germany, it shouldn't venture off topic into past politics in a country on another continent. Lets keep it focused on Germany and add more relevant on topic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:47F:F500:947A:4EA2:B07:8DDB (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The use of the phrase "big lie" to describe Trump's actions is supported by reliable sources. — Czello 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't clearly refer to "big lie" as a phrase but as occurrences of truth distortion. Reddeadfedsaid (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This entire article is in need of serious reconsideration?
It is not exactly a good distribution of examples in truth distortion? But also the organizational structure? Possibly, the entire article should be deleted. If anything it damages the reputation of the website. This is truly awful. Reddeadfedsaid (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The term is extremely well-documented and well-cited, so at the very least we can't delete the article. Possibly the use related to Trump and the use related to the Nazis could be spun off into separate articles, but the former is almost certainly intended as a reference to the latter, and we do have articles related to similar political epithets once they get enough coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, spinning off the Trump content (and leaving a short section here with a "main" link, per WP:Summary style), is something I have considered for some time. I made a start at gathering relevant material here: User:Valjean/Trump's "rigged election" conspiracy theory. Please join me there and ping me when you do. Trump's use of the Big lie propaganda technique is a big part of his Rigged election conspiracy theory. The Firehose of falsehood propaganda technique is one he's used from even before his presidency. Also see Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. -- Valjean (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. I changed my mind. Maybe an edit in the election section clarifying that it was a phrase widely used by the media to describe... Reddeadfedsaid (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We already attribute the phrase to the specific academics and politicians who use it. Attributing it to "the media" (whoever they are) is less specific and also then requires sources backing up the attribution. Einsof (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is poorly structured and the topic deserves more work. I'll start collecting feedback on this Talk page and take action based on it in a week time. LifeDancePro (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback for revamping this article
The topic is more important than ever, but unfortunately this article is poorly structured - see other comments on this Talk page. What I have in mind is to revamp it such that it will have a history section with a compacted version of the existing German background, and section for significant examples from different countries. Any other ideas are welcomed here. LifeDancePro (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * While suggestions for improvements are always welcome, I disagree that it needs to be restructured, with a separate "History" section. It's already pretty neatly arranged in chronological order. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2022
In the quotation from Mein Kampff, bold the use of the 'big lie', and state that bolding is not original. 207.72.1.93 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I don't see that as an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)