Talk:Big lie/Archive 2

Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie'
Trump White House aide was secret author of report used to push ‘big lie'

Valjean (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Term "big lie"
Pinging reverting User:Valjean: "big lie" is a combination of two generic words. In the context of this article (which exclusively covers its usage as propaganda) it is political in nature, and since "big lie" is predominately a term used as propoganda, and its usage as a real term used to describe the propaganda technique itself seems very rare / outdated, labelling it as a term at the start would probably help alongside categorizing it into politics.

I am imagining something like: 'A "big lie" [...] is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth. In politics, the term is used especially as a propaganda technique.'  Ap m  h  14:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That sounds okay to me. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Erasing the subsection "Gender identity"
I don't understand what this subsection has to do with the rest in the article, next to major worldwide political events we talk about a nobody saying things in front of like ten people, that doesn't make any sense. I will erase it in 24h if there isn't any objection.Dimitrius99 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024
Big Lie is two things that are different and the page is very large. I saw some stuff that said that if an article is greater than 15,000 words it should be split into a new page. Somewhere there might be this template added (See invisible text feature): and a good name for it might be "Big lie in the 21st Century" or "Modern political use of Big lie" or whatever title is appropriate. In summary, please change the "Subsequent Use" section to have the addition of a new page request submission. 73.169.153.73 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2024
Fulcrumreset (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Please add these two balancing lines and include the trusted source:

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

Add a trusted Reference :

Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union: A Personal Journal By: Scott Ritter Fulcrumreset (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As should be painfully obvious, Scott Ritter is not a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"big lie" vs. "the big lie"

 * ??? It's about really BIG lies (as in obvious to any normal person) that are boldly and deliberately REPEATED. Such things tend to become aspects of propaganda and conspiracy theories. Don't you agree? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "...there's no widespread agreement on what is true."' Unfortunately, that turns out not to be the case in many instances. Somethings are backed up by facts, they are said to be "true". Other things are backed up by hyperbole, argumentation, supposition, and non-factual statements, these are "false".  When the false things are really large and endlessly repeated for political or propaganda purposes, they are "Big Lies", no matter who tells them.  The most notable recent Big Lie, for instance, is that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election because of massive voting irregularities.  It remains untrue no matter how many times Donald Trump and the MAGA folks who dominate the current Republican Party repeat it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Instead of attaching "the big lie" to this article (which was originally about a propaganda technique), "the big lie" should be either a separate article or perhaps it can be moved into the article about election denial. -- rootsmusic (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting we move the Trump stuff to the Denialism article in the Denialism section. Is that correct? It would make more sense to use Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election as the target, or, better yet, Trump's "stolen election" Big Lie. Otherwise, it's perfectly on topic here as a notable example of how the propaganda technique is being used in the most notable way. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct @Valjean. I'm also proposing a third possible solution: to move "the big lie" into the article about False or misleading statements by Donald Trump.
 * Since "big lie" is defined by this article's first sentence, Donald Trump's lies of a stolen election actually means: Trump employed a propaganda technique to spread "the big lie". As a label, "the big lie" has also been appropriated in a myriad of meanings by others like (according to this article):
 * Biden, who appropriated the label to characterize the joint effort by two Senators to contested the election results.
 * Romney, Toomey and others, who appropriated the label to refer to Trump's false claims about massive election fraud.
 * American conservatives, who have appropriated the label to various controversies under 21st-century use by American conservatives.
 * rootsmusic (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned in the "False or misleading statements..." article. Those three uses are consistent with the meaning we use here, although the last example describes a misappropriation of the term and attempt by conservatives to hijack it.
 * This article is the perfect place to cover all of this stuff. I don't think you're going to get any support for your efforts to move this. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 02:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


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


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