Talk:Alternative facts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Value of transcript

User:Gabel1960 has added a line-by-line transcript of the conversation reasoning that "context always makes a difference, because meaning in communication always is contextual". What does this add that we don't get from the following quoted summary in the section below it?

Conway said, "Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What...You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving... our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that, but the point remains that..." Todd interrupted her by saying "Wait a minute. Alternative facts?" Conway, speaking on: "that there is". Todd, continuing: "...alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

The only real difference I can see is that the transcript "answer the question of why the president asked the White House press secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood? Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office …" gets summarised as "a question from Todd about Trump's false claims and the loss of credibility". Is that a misleading summary? --McGeddon (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

User McGeddon first rearranges the transcript for easy readability, thereby, unavoidably, reading it closely word by word and concentrating even on the dotted left out words. After this close reading he decides to cut it all out and to regress to a "summary" with the "same meaning" that singles out one sentence and leaves the communicative context, the interrupting and pushing forward of the interviewer. Everybody reading the interview section closely with the singled out quote in context, will be aware of the communicative meaning of "alternative facts". By referring to a different set of information that Spicer got from the government, Conway is clearly not putting forward a blatant lie. And her efforts to explain what she meant by "alternative facts" are obviously blocked by Todd's incessant interruptions in order to interpret the expression, to add a spin to them, in order to make Conway look ridiculous. By cutting out the transcript, McGeddon forgot to go back in the text history: I replaced a misleading mixture of quotation and interpretation by the exact transcript. Nobody interested in "facts" can object to that.--Gabel1960 (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to see there were others who do not find 11 lines of a dialogue transcript too much reading, a text with a phrase standing out for some people as giving evidence for the turn of US politics towards a post-truth Orwellian evil empire.

But I have also to apologize to McGeddon because he did not go back to the very first version of singled out and simplified "quotes" but to my second but last version that I discarded for the real transcript in order to enhance readability and understanding, and in order to get down to the facts as far as possible. For really judging about the use of the phrase one should listen to the interview and look also at the faces.

I would like to add a personal comment on my "intentions" and "POV". Yes, there are a lot of reasons to worry about Trump and his government, also and in particular about his "rhetoric" and his treatment of "facts". It doesn`t seem unlikely to me that he won't see the end of his term. But it is not right to do the wrong things for the right purpose. As we are all interested in facts and truth, the day he gets expelled I wish that to happen for substantial reasons and not for the alleged fake news he is criticizing. There are substantial reasons enough to hold against him. Let's concentrate on them.

Delegitimizing Trump and his government for the wrong reasons will only backfire by reassuring his adherents. Do we want to deepen the split of the USA in two halves even more? Beating Trump can only mean winning over his adherents by giving them truth and facts, the truth about immigration risks and benefits, about the reasons of industrial decline, about who gains from free trade etc. Moreover, opting for facts and truth means that we have to measure ourselves first by the highest possible standard to be really trustworthy. Twisting somebody's words doesn't make us look very respectable. It is just unfair, and won't convince serious people of our good intentions. Moreover, there are media hypes that, after cooling down, will make us feel embarrassed or ashamed of what was said and thought. I am quite sure, in a little while, the debate about alternative facts will be appearing to everybody as hysterical as it really is. --Gabel1960 (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I am opposed to including a transcript excerpt at the top of the background section, in tiny typeface. First, ti was not faithfully reproduced. em dashes turned into ellipses, and WP:OR determined what would be included and what would not. It's also out of place at the top of the background section with no context. I recommend simply linking to the Washington Post article in the external links section.- MrX 11:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If the transcript isn*t correct, the mistakes could easily fixed by copying the exact text from WP. The text must be here in the article, because it is about Conways interview. If we could simple refer the reader to information outside the article, we could just write articles as lists of links. It is of high importance to know, what was really said, how and in which context. Only taken out of context the phrase "alternative facts" could attract misinterpretations, as absurd as supposing Conway being competely mad, believing to live in a parallel universe. Facts must be judged as facts, not in the form of an interpretation of a "summary". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabel1960 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A really big problem of the transcript is not whether to include it or not, but whether it corresponds to the video of the interview. But the differences make it even more important giving a correct transcript excerpt, a reference would not be enough then. Texting the words of an interview here cannot be OR, it is quite clear that the interview given first is the text all the interpretations below must have as their reference, if we do not want to suppose that each newspaper writing about the interview had a different text in mind.--Gabel1960 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the reasons why we try to use secondary sources is so that editors don't have to make the decision about what is important and what is not. The third paragraph of the background section faithfully reflects Conway's slip of the tongue, with enough context to show that she was responding to Todd's assertion that Spicer made false statements. The additional information does not add important information for our readers. Linking to the source is appropriate for those wishing to take a deep dive.- MrX 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Our readers, especially those interested in facts, will perhaps find it strange that a quote from facebook is stretched out and highlighted, whereas the incriminated phrase in question taken from an interview is lacking factually accurate representation in its communicative context. The present form of rendering is far better than the former, but a transcript excerpt would be even better. Nobody knowing the meaning and risks of contextomy, informal fallacy, false attribution, straw man, Cherry picking (fallacy), Recontextualization, Half-truth, Framing effect (psychology) will object to 11 lines of a transcript with the excuse that people willing to dig or dive deeper could revert to a newspaper. And saying, nobody needs fuller information because one doesn't see a reason personally, is just putting one's limited understanding above the community of "our readers" who should be able to judge by themselves.--Gabel1960 (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the topic of the article is based on the "famous" two words in this interview, the transcript is necessary. Without it the article doesn't present a full picture of the usage and context. --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Transcript excerpt of the interview

Chuck Todd: (…) answer the question of why the president asked the White House press secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood? Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office …

Kellyanne Conway: No it doesn’t.

Chuck Todd: … on day one.

Kellyanne Conway: Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What … you’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving... Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains …

Chuck Todd: Wait a minute. Alternative facts?

Kellyanne Conway: … that there’s …

Chuck Todd: Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered – the one thing he got right …

Kellyanne Conway: … hey, Chuck, why … Hey, Chuck …

Chuck Todd: … was Zeke Miller. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.

References

Again, I disagree. That's not the entire transcript. It's part of the Washington Post's version that has been copied into the article and it probably violates fair use. The section heading is disjointed, it lacks analysis, it's confusing to readers, and the small font is not supported by WP:MOS. Please consider an RfC if you think consensus can be found for including this lengthy source material.- MrX 12:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You do not discuss the mentioned aspects of the problem. You do not prove violation of fair use. The problem of fonts would be easy to resolve, it is no reason for cutting out the section. Analysis is in the part below. That the analysis in most media refers to a singled out quote and not to the context is no reason for cutting out the context. "Lengthy" is a ridiculous evaluation compared to the facebook quote here in the article. I cannot see a serious attempt on your part for improving the article and giving "our readers" the best information possible to form their opinion on the expression "alternative facts" as used by Conway. Leaving out the context poses the risk of contextomy, informal fallacy, false attribution, straw man, Cherry picking (fallacy), Recontextualization, Half-truth, Framing effect (psychology). I don't think readers are interested to rely on your preselection, nor on the focus of a facebook comment, I believe they want the facts of the expression in its context as close to reality as possible.--Gabel1960 (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair use is an exception to the protections of U.S. Copyright law, not something that can be violated, so yes, I did not prove it. The core issues is that you have not demonstrated the need to include the transcript. Most of our sources include the relevant excerpts, as we have done in this article. While you may consider those excerpts cherry picked, the fact is that you have cherry picked the one source that include the full transcript, and you want to include a large portion of it without having demonstrated how it would improve the article. Let's also examine what actually happened: Spicer made several false statements. Conway attempted to defend those false statements, by redefining them as alternative facts. Todd correctly told Conway that false statements are not facts (or any kind). That's the story. Everything else is fluff that adds nothing to the widely accepted view of what happened.- MrX 23:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

While paraphrasing and having information presented in the neutral wikipedia tone is critical. For Alternate Facts I believe it is important to include the word for word transcript of the conversation between Chuck Todd and Kellyanne Conway. This whole topic revolves around the specific words used by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Todd, and Conway and thus it is important to maintain it verbatim so readers are able to understand and make their own opinions about them. --Emaier138 (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Emaier138. Including the entire transcript is important in order to avoid confusion about how and where the term "alternative facts" first came about. In an encyclopedia like Wikipedia there should be no fear of including too much information, only too little.-- Nickzatopa (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That is not remotely consistent with how Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia works. As tertiary sources, encyclopedias summarize. A case can be made for including the transcript, but not in this format, and not based on these sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

There are endless examples of quotes from primary sources in encyclopedic texts, even in WP with its limited focus on secondary sources. All sources are in a way summarized, most quotes are selected or shortened. There is no reason to object to an excerpt of a quote in context in an article that even quotes a facebook entry in length. The argument against the transcript boils down to the supposition that, as apparently no secondary source has printed exactly this excerpt oder analyzes the quote in its context - which if true would be just hilarious - WP should also cut out the basis for every form of reasonable understanding of Conway's phrase, the interpretation of which forms the very core of this article. WP is a tool of reliable information for intelligent people, not for nit-pickers.--Gabel1960 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC).

Even if direct quotations were not consistent with Wikipedia (a separate discussion) there are times when an exception must be made. If you want to cite precedent, it should at least support your point. Just take a look at other political scandals where specific wording was/is important and you will see that direct quotes are always present. In just a minute you can find Nixon's resignation address in the Watergate scandal page, as well as not only the transcript, but also an embedded video of Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," speech on the Lewinsky scandal page. --Emaier138 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to present the "full picture of the usage" as RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom suggested, while not using the transcript format that seems to be concerning people. Hopefully, we can all agree that the excerpt of the transcript someone included in this talk page is the essential part of understanding the term "alternative facts;" so I suggest that we present this information in a way that follows the Wikipedia format while still clearly shows the conversation that went down between Conway and Todd. A summary of the interview up until the point where Todd asks Conway to "answer the question of why the president asked the White House press secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood?" and then using direct quotes to capture the first usage of the phrase "alternative facts" by Conway seems like it would sufficiently present how, why, and when the phrase was first used. It also seems important to use the actual transcript and the actual video of the interview from NBCnews.com as the source material, rather than the Washington Post articles, which seem to present a slightly bias view.

--Mychin8 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)mychin8

+1 I find this proposal highly convincing and well balanced. @Grayfell, @Mr How long are members of a discussion expected to wait for a reply before being allowed to make changes to the article? I think a week should be enough for everybody to think it over. I suggest Mychin8 should go ahead with the modifications he has sketched out.--Gabel1960 (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You're expected to get consensus when an edit is objected to in good faith. You have not made convincing policy-based arguments to counter the arguments about original research, copyright, third-party-analysis, and common practice. You might want to consider an RFC to get outside input and a definitive determination of consensus.- MrX 13:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a larger group in agreement to posting the entire transcript. I recommend that the modifications be made. The inclusion of only specific lines from the transcript blindsides the situational point of "alternative facts" to the entirety of the discourse.Iamalc (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)iamalc

(edit conflict) CONSENSUS is NOTAVOTE. The inclusion of specific lines is because that's how reliable sources report it.- MrX 17:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX, we do seem to have a pretty good consensus here, but, what you seem to be looking for a consensus that agrees with your point. At this point most of the members in this talk page now agree to some sort of summary and inclusion of part of the transcript. I believe we can present this information in a way that complies with the standard rules of wikipedia while also maintaining the "full picture of the usage" @RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom pointed out the importance of. --Emaier138 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You're wrong. You have a slight majority of people in this discussion favoring the full transcript. We don't resolve content disputes by counting heads. I'm also suspicious that there may be some WP:MEATPUPPETRY or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY at play.- MrX 17:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think we can do without the transcript. I don't see what it adds that isn't already available via the text we have in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a literal count of heads or vote. Simply looking at the various arguments for/against. I would also again cite the precedent of using direct quotes/transcripts from other political scandals. The importance of the individual words from the mouth of the subject cannot be understated. We could all sit here and go through our biases on whether we think Conway is conniving and manipulative, or a genius orator, but the point of wikipedia is to provide unbiased facts for people to make their own opinions on and begin further research, there is nothing less biased than the actual words spoken. If transcript format is truly against wikipedia policy and abhorrent to you, I would ask you to aid in developing a format that can preserve the wording and conform to standards --Emaier138 (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mr you're being super unhelpful in this discussion. Yes, there are some new editors here (myself included), so help us out and be constructive rather than criticizing editors for being biased. It seemed as though you only objected to a short version of the transcript from a biased source? I understand that a short excerpt of the transcript can be taken out of context but I don't agree that a short summary is more helpful and less biased than the original text. Could we just add a video of the interview? Either way, I do think some form of the transcript should be included in the page. Nickzatopa (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Dissent should not be regarded as being unhelpful. I never criticised editors for being biased. I retract my comments about sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry as I now see that you are all classmates in a sophomore rhetoric class. If I were to argue for inclusion of the entire transcript, I would first find reliable sources that have also reproduced it in toto. I would then argue specifically why the additional comments from both Conway and Todd would increase readers' understanding of this subject. Does including "hey, Chuck, why … Hey, Chuck" inform the reader? As I mentioned before, external links are the common means of providing the readers with the complete information. Remember, an encyclopedia is summary of the most important information, WP:NOTEVERYTHING not an exhaustive data dump.- MrX 12:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@MrX No person in their sane mind is arguing for including the transcript in its entirety. I agree with you that "hey, Chuck, why ... Hey, Chuck" isn't entirely relevant to the reader, however as soon as you start removing pieces of what was said, you change the context, and change what the readers see based on OUR choices of inclusion or omission. I would argue that the benefit of keeping the integrity of the words spoken, outweighs having a small irrelevant line. As for reliable sources, your point about not using the WP source is completely valid. NBC has a full transcript for the episode available online, presumably typed up by someone paid to reproduce it verbatim. There have been various proposals in this talk page regarding inclusion of the transcript, substituting transcript with summary, or for the omittance of the transcript. My classmates and I have developed a section that we think provides a good balance. There is quite a lot of information in the article about what Spicer said (including a video), as well as the background of the event. However, Conway's words get a small paragraph. Don't get me wrong, the background information is important and deserves to be included, but, without Conway's response on Meet the Press, the whole situation might have been forgotten soon after. Without Conway's interview this wikipedia article would not exist, and as such it deserves more emphasis. --Emaier138 (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Emaier138: We're not making much headway here. I think the best dispute resolution option would be to initiate an WP:RfC to attract comments from some outside editors.- MrX 19:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Would like to add my opinion that I don't think there is a need to include the transcript. @Gabel1960:'s concern/reason for including the transcript("By referring to a different set of information that Spicer got from the government, Conway is clearly not putting forward a blatant lie. And her efforts to explain what she meant by "alternative facts" are obviously blocked by Todd's incessant interruptions in order to interpret the expression, to add a spin to them, in order to make Conway look ridiculous.") seems to be based on WP:OR and not Wikipedia policy. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: I think you are mixing up Emaier's reasons, which are also partly mine, and my supposed motives/concerns, which are not his.--Gabel1960 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

My reverted edit.

@MrX:

The statement was not false, but misinterpreted. false

The reply of some pundit to a use of a phrase is not note worthy enough to be in the lead. Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods.

Not demonstrably false but misinterpreted. to describe demonstrable falsehoods

That fact that someone was holding the high office of the White House Press Secretary is more important than the specific timing. on January 21, 2017 Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, what statement was not false? Please provide some context to your comments. I don't understand what it is you're trying to say.- MrX 15:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The statement that was not false about the inauguration, as to whether it was the crowd size that was being discussed on the total viewership. This is why it was an alternative fact.

References

Nothing in the Fox News article supports your claim that Spicer's statement was not false. There is no claim that his statement was true in Fox News' voice. On the other hand, CNN says "His statement included several specific misstatements of fact in addition to the overarching one."[1]. This is also consistent with what many other sources report, and is explained in exhaustive detail in the 'background' section of the article. You seem intent on promoting a fringe narrative by using WP:OR, and that's not going to fly here.- MrX 16:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: The figures for the 2005 and 2009 inaugurations are not relevant as they are not being compared with any suggested ridership by Spicer or Conway. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)e

Editing and Consensus

@MrX @Gabel1960 @Bennv3771 It seems as if everyone is engaging in WP:EDIT WARRING and has abandoned the talk page. Not only have half a dozen sections been removed and re-added in the last week or so, but an entire discussion section has been removed from this page. We have the talk page for a reason and it is ridiculous to keep going back and forth with no discourse other than the edit comment left on the addition and removal of large sections of text. I would urge everyone to return to the talk page where we can discuss and hopefully reach a consensus through civility and communication. --Emaier138 (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss. But sometimes the answers just seem obstructive, I do not see a serious intention to participate in the improving the article's quality, impartiality, informative value etc. The introduction is still characterized by a strong bias, but nobody cares. Opinions are presented as facts. Judgements about others are mixed with their intentions. I rephrased the introduction, knowing it would be reverted, but I wanted at least a page in the text history showing en unbiased summary of the communicative transactions of the contextualized quote.

"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she explained White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's confirmation of a mistaken statement of President Donald Trump about the attendance numbers at his inauguration. When Chuck Todd pressed her during the interview into acknowledging and explaining that Spicer "utter[ed] a provable falsehood", Conway tried to fend off what she saw as Todd's deceitful insinuations. She explained Spicer had been giving "alternative facts" about mass gatherings the size of which she regarded as impossible to assess with certainty. Todd, interrupting her, confronted her with his interpretation of her words, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, in which she defended White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's false statement about the attendance at Donald Trump's inauguration as President of the United States. When pressed during the interview with Chuck Todd to explain why Spicer "utter[ed] a provable falsehood", Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts". Todd responded, "Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."

In the following portion I changed biased phrasing:

References

Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" as interpreted to describe demonstrable falsehoods was widely mocked on social media and sharply criticized by journalists and media organizations, including Dan Rather, Jill Abramson, and the Public Relations Society of America. The phrase was extensively rated as "Orwellian".

I think it is quite clear that expressions like "defend" - lead to the suggestion there was really a point in the accusation, whereas Conway didn't even accept the allegations. So she couldn't have defended him, she just explained what he meant. "to explain why" also insinuates that there was a reason for an explanation, even though this is just Todd's opinion. "false statement" is an oversimplification of what Spicer did and said. It was not his idea, he was referring what he was given to present to the public. Even his boss's assessment was not just "false" it was mistaken, for sure, but not an intentional "lie": "false" leaves open everything from intentional lying to paranoia, "mistaken" is far more accurate and backed by all we know about the way Trump came to believe in his - erroneous - assessment of the mass gathering. "rated" as "Orwellian" - leaves it to the reader to judge....this is neutral. Writing "described as Orwellian" suggests ist was the way as described, a description is normally close to reality, but in this case, saying "X is Z" makes it a judgment, not a description, and using Orwellian without marks makes it a strong evaluation, put forward as a fact.--Gabel1960 (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Emaier138:@Gabel1960: Hi. You're claiming that "The introduction is still characterized by a strong bias"...according to who? You? Other editors? Or reliable sources? Because wikipedia only takes into account the latter. The way it is currently written seems to be reflective of how majority of the reliable sources describe the incident such as in this TIME article. I oppose changing the lead to your version as it seems to be WP:OR. It is not up to editors to interpret things themselves, we should only report what reliable sources have reported, regardless of whether we think they have reported the events "correctly" or not. By the way, that is not how you notify a user about a conversation you have involved them in. Please see Template:Reply to; I had no idea this conversation existed until I randomly checked on this talk page. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposed rewrite misprepresents the sources. Sources are pretty consistent that Spicer was defending Trump's lies and Conway was defending Spicer's. Conway was not in a position to explain the unexplainable, so she resorted to what sources characterize as Newspeak. Regarding the Robert Stoker material, I have no opinion one way or another, but I do know that other editors like Neutrality and MelanieN have previously objected to it while Gabel1960 has reinserted it at least once without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. I recommend an RfC for this to get a few more outside opinions.- MrX 20:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: I think you have me confused with Gabel1960, I have no major problems with the introduction. I was simply pointing out that a lot of editing and undoing was occurring without any talk page discussion, and I wanted to bring the conversation back here to ensure consensus. My edit was a previous one you removed, I personally believe that more emphasis should be placed on Conway's MtP interview. (You can read my last post in the "Value of Transcript" section above. I also think including a partial transcript will allow a reader to make their own opinions about the event rather than us cherry picking pieces of it. If thats not the consensus then thats fine, again I simply wanted to return to discussion here, rather than this back and forth undoing. (PS. Thank you for the correction on my tagging) --Emaier138 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Emaier138: Yes, I did confuse you for another user. Sorry about that. Again, wikipedia should be concerned with reflecting what the RS say, and for example, if they outright call Spicer's statement false/untrue, then that's what we should say itself of watering it down to "mistaken". Bennv3771 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bennv - we should follow what the large array/spectrum of reliable sources says, which is that the statement was false. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX @Bennv3771 I am sorry if I should have broken rules of WP unintentionally or offended users. As to the introduction, the bias I see is not extreme, it is more of the subtle form which you note when you put yourself in another person's place. I admit empathy is sometimes difficult, especially with persons like DT, so I understand that some people cannot see a bias. But everybody sees and feels the difference between: "He is a liar", "He was regarded by the majority of media as lying". I don't think we need secondary sources to avoid a bias, this would make no sense. WP should avoid a bias, if the media have one, this is no excuse for presenting their judgements as descriptions, their opinions as truth. Neutrality obliges us to name the sources and sum them up without taking a side ourselves, not even the "majority side".--Gabel1960 (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. "Empirical assertion X is false" or "empirical assertion Y is true" are not "judgments" but statements of fact. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice."; see also WP:FALSEBALANCE, False balance. If the reliable sources differ on what the truth is, then we should explain that. But where the reliable journalistic/scholarly/expert opinion definitively makes a statement we must treat it as such.

By the way, this article at no point calls anyone a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice. (We quote Dan Rather and Jill Abramson saying this, essentially, which is proper under WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). But we don't call anyone a liar in our own voice; that would imply an intentional falsity and go beyond what the non-opinion sources say. Saying something is false is very different from saying it is a lie. Neutrality^talk 06:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality Thanks for adding more precision to this discussion. One example: "Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" to describe demonstrable falsehoods.....": If you see "she used the term (fact) to describe (intention) falsehoods (fact)" as an empirical assertion, there should at least be secondary sources about her intention, because it makes a difference if you say something which is wrong believing it is right (subjective truthfulness) and saying something wrong and knowing that it is wrong (intentionally giving wrong information - close to lying). As far as I know there is no consensus on her intention to use the term (in order) to describe what she knew were falsehoods. Apart from that, telling somebodys intentions is never an empirical statement of fact, it is always a psychological judgement. Moreovcer, without reference to secondary sources, this sentence must be understood as in WP's own voice. So WP seems to say here: Conway used the phrase. By doing so she intended to describe falsehoods. The falsehoods were demonstrated to be falsehoods. She knew that and used the term "alternative facts" to dissimulate that. By saying that more elegantly in the phrase "she used the term to "describe" (whatever that is supposed to mean) demonstrable falsehoods" she is put very close to somebody who is lying - in WP's voice.--Gabel1960 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I should have checked the talk page first. But I still would have made my edit. It's not for us to judge whether SPicer's statement was false, even if the preponderance of media believe it to be. It was a statement. Leave it at that.DeknMike (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

One problem with the POV affirmed by this article is that it relies on disputed sources regarded by some as authoritative. Another is that those that used the term did so to show ignorance of the DIKW pyramid, which identifies facts as having no objective truth, but only observable data interpreted in a context to become information. Such a distinction is beyond the scope of this article for now, but a partisan newspaper disputing the clear intent of the speaker making a statement is not in this case a reliable source. Removing the word "false" in no way changes either the validity of the sentence nor the tone of the conclusion, but only removes a dispute.DeknMike (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The subject "Alternative Facts" has a wikipedia article already, as it is a legal term. If certain editors feel that Kellyanne Conway's use of the term is so important as to need to be mentioned, it should be done within that article. There is no need for another article. This entire article seems like a political hit piece meant to mock someone that the author disagrees with. Are we going to have articles for every utterance that a politician makes? Should we create an article titled 'Visit all 57 States" to mock Obama's flub? Or is it only Conservative politicians that should be mocked on Wikipedia? Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer who used a legal term. The subject is already covered on Wikipedia. This article is an embarrassment and represents a severe political bias. It should be removed, with certain parts merged into the real article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts_(law) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion on 22 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.- MrX 21:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Contrasting subsets of facts

Can these 'sets' not be seen rather as contrasting subsets of facts? MaynardClark (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

'Inconsistent facts' is another name for them. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I see that this refers to a legal use of the term (rather than as a logical discussion of the broader idea). MaynardClark (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Restoring material with no sourcing/WP:SYNTH

Volunteer, I see you restored your content here, which contained some original research (none of the sources say anything about false statements). Would you care to come to the talk page and explain, please? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "original research". You are claiming that it's "original research" only because the precise word "false" does not appear in them. But they all say the same thing in one way or another. This is just a way of paraphrasing and summarizing multiple sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. Using wikivoice to say a statement is "false" must be supported by sources that also say the statement is false. We can't add material on the basis that you think that the sources are saying what you think they're saying, even if we really think they're "paraphrasing." Just to be clear, you don't have any interest in compromise? You're just going to keep reverting if anyone changes the material that you think belongs in the article? If that's your intention we can just skip all this and seek another means to resolve this content dispute. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead fixing

The original lead here said, in essence, "Here is something Kellyanne Conway said and here are excruciating details about it." It did not really establishing notability nor did it really define a topic, per se, for the article. I created a new lead paragraph as follows based on two cited sources, one of which was a dictionary:

"Alternative facts" are assertions, typically unverifiable, made to contradict more provable assertions, particularly in the context of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. More broadly, the concept of alternative facts describes the supposed post-truth era that some observers claim the United States entered in the period leading up to the 2016 presidential campaign.

The intent was to define a topic rather than just mention a quote, and to base that definition on an authoritative source. I also trimmed a little of the discussion on Conway in the lead as it was a bit excessive (if the only thing that makes this notable is that Conway said it, then it is not really notable; so do not need to beat people over the head with Conway's having originated it).

One of the other editors seems to have a concern about what I wrote so I wanted to offer my explanations here.

-- MC

This article is not about "alternative fact", it is about the phrase "alternative facts" in the context of Kellyanne Conway's use of the phase. Please don't change the subject of the article. If you want to write an article about alternative fact, feel free to do so.- MrX 15:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I liked the new lede as more comprehensive, and I added better sourcing to it.

"Alternative facts" are assertions, typically unverifiable, made to contradict more provable assertions, particularly in the context of the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump. More broadly, the concept of alternative facts describes the supposed post-truth era that some observers have described in recent American and British politics.

Sources

I guess the question here is the subject of the article: Is this just about something Kellyanne Conway said, or is it about the concept of alternative facts? If people want to keep it as just about Kellyanne, maybe we could add something about the broader implications to the article text instead. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The subject of the article has always been the phrase used by Conway. The collinsdictionary source doesn't define alternative facts, it defines "alternative fact" which is another article altogether. There is a reason why this article title ends in an 's'. The Guardian article doesn't mention alternative facts, does it? Finally, the lead rewrite was very weasely and not an accurate summary of the article subject. - MrX 16:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My two cents: Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. The fact that somebody famous said something does not make it notable. Granted there are some quotes (e.g. "I Have a Dream") that are inherently notable, not because of who said them, but because the quote itself was intrinsically memorable and important. But I don't think "alternative facts" qualifies. What has made this phrase stick is that it is a convenient shorthand for the current political situation. In other words, it became a convenient name for the situation. But it is the situation, or concept, that is notable, not the fact that Conway said it.

To Mr. X's comments, quite frankly I don't know how to interpret your comments except WP:OWN. The notion that another editor does not have the right to offer edits directly in the article is a violation of WP:BOLD. If the article were FA, or even GA, one could argue a certain degree of extra caution is warranted. But your criticism is unwarranted. And I frankly have no idea what to say about the singular/plural distinction. If we are going to say that the plural of each article title constitutes a new article we have a lot of work to do ... :-)

-- MC

BTW, MelanieN, thanks for your edit. -- MC

You're welcome. But note that a "notability" argument is not going to work here. This article was Kept at an AfD, which means there was a community consensus that the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW instead of just "MC", or in addition to it, would you please sign your notes with ~~~~, so that we can see who is speaking and get a date/time stamp? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll respectfully disagree. Though the question was not explicitly asked in the AfD discussion, the comments to me seem to indicate that the main reason the editors considered the article worth preserving was the situation the phrase represented, not the fact that Conway said uttered those words. Obviously there is no way to prove that but the opposite cannot be proven either (could do an RfC I suppose but seems like an overkill).

--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@141.131.2.3: You don't have to interpret my comment as they were quite clear. This article is about Conway's phrase "alternative facts". It's not about other things. You can't just swoop in and change the article subject. It would like going to Binders full of women and adding material about three ring binders versus four ring binders. Also, if you can link to policies like WP:OWN you should know to sign your comments. - MrX 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I sign all my comments. Unless you want to advertise your legal name and address I recommend checking the attitude. --MC

What does that even mean? - MrX 17:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It means that "MC" doesn't understand what is meant by the term "sign" in a Wikipedia sense. The clue is in the use of the old-school " --" BBS sig. MC seems to believe either that signing means declaring real names, or that just appending "MC" after a statement is adequate. Whereas signing in a Wikipedian sense means appending ~~~~ at the end of a post, so that the correct date & time is included. Perhaps somebody should explain this to "MC". Oh, wait...

Well, perhaps this then: Wikipedia:Signatures - "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed" - emphasis in original. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See also section

Due to the countless attempts to list numerous links in the now removed section, I suggest we require consensus (maybe keep it in this discussion section) to list links, obviously the first link with consensus would restore the section. This will also give patrolling editors a place (this thread) to check for consensus and to point to when reverting attempts without consensus. - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that the page has stabilized a bit, do we want to reconsider the (perhaps over-expanded) See Also section again? It currently contains a link to Animal Farm along with a description justifying the link. To me, the association seems like a stretch. And more importantly, we don't have any sources linking the two. How do people feel about removing the link? BenKuykendall (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree the See Also section is overstuffed. I am going to remove Animal Farm. I am also going to remove Nineteen Eighty-Four since it is already cited in the text. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, what about the link to Epistemic relativism? Best I can tell, epistemic relativism is a serious philosophical stance that questions the use of scientific method to derive "facts". But surely Conway was asserting the truth of the figures in the usual sense of the word, not trying to evoke some sort of epistemological subtly. Unless someone has a tighter argument for why the two are related (or even better a source making that claim) I think the link should go. BenKuykendall (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bias showing

The article assumes the statements are false, and makes a point to say so. The point of Wikipedia is to be a neutral encyclopedia. To call Spicer's statements 'false' in the lede makes a value judgement not shared by all. It was a statement made by Spicer, yes. Chuck Todd called it false. And the phrase was not about "demonstrable falsehoods" but instead is a valid term about differing interpretations based on a separate subset of facts. Just because it was widely mocked doesn't make it true.DeknMike (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The subject has a long history; see Disinformation, a political tactic invented by Joseph Stalin. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Fact" has a specific meaning, like subway attendance numbers recorded at the turnstiles. That is, they aren't opinions or just made-up info, they are actual direct data. I don't believe Spicer had anything like that, which pointed to different conclusions. So, he didn't have actual alternate facts, just unsupported opinions. (Note that there are real cases of alternate facts, such as peer-reviewed dietary studies reaching opposing conclusions. This would seem to be a paradox, but subtle differences in the sample group populations and test methods can account for the differences.) StuRat (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Our NPOV policy does not allow Wikipedia editors to sanitize/neutralize accurate descriptions from sources. (Also, neither sources nor content must be neutral, only editors in the way they edit. More here.) Spicer's statement was indeed false, and that's how RS describe it. We are bound by policy to describe it using accurate terminology.

From: Presidency of Donald Trump#False and misleading statements

Trump's presidency started out with a series of falsehoods initiated by Trump himself. The day after his inauguration, he falsely accused the media of lying about the size of the inauguration crowd. Then he proceeded to exaggerate the size, and Sean Spicer backed up his claims. When Spicer was accused of intentionally misstating the figures, Kellyanne Conway, in an interview with NBC's Chuck Todd, defended Spicer by stating that he merely presented "alternative facts".

Sources

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Facts are data, and are meaningless without context. The context of this article is the assumption, asserted by BullRangifer that the Presidency started with a series of falsehood, such as Trump Tower being 'wiretapped' (new information shows it was) or there was no collusion with Russia (the jury is still out on this - a year an no conclusions). Indeed, Steven Long noted "facts divorced from context can be almost be as bad as downright porkies (lies)." "Facts without context are almost as bad as downright porkies". ABC Australia. August 23, 2013. Retrieved June 8, 2018. It is clear to those without a bias against Mr Trump that a second set of facts were in play, and Ms Conway was interpreting the facts in a different context, using a common scientific understanding but an imprecise term (alternative instead of alternate). Even in this article, by choosing sources that meet a particular viewpoint, instead of providing more than one context, the article remains biased - interesting for describing an event, but not encyclopedic. DeknMike (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative encyclopedia would meet your needs? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

honestly don't know if the statement was false

I made a minor edit removing a word. I think to call the statement false right off the bat without a citation (THIS IS IMPORTANT. Without a citation that statement looks a bit strong) just makes Wikipedia look bad. If someone is going to revert that change, then they ought to provide a source which demonstrates that the statement was false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morzas (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If one reads the paragraph at face value, the way you have just phrased 'the statement', means the statement is actually a narrative, without making judgement true or false. Do you really want this? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Motion to delete this article

I don’t understand why there is an article on this phrase/incident. There is nothing—absolutely nothing!—inherently contradictory, let alone “Orwellian,” about it, so why is it noteworthy? Alternative facts are presented all the time when trying to ascertain the truth of many situations, from criminal cases (eyewitnesses against the accused vs. alibi witnesses (both in fact exist, though only one can be correct)), to making judgments about the superiority of one racehorse to another: one had more career victories while the other had a higher winning percentage and retired younger, etc.

Chuck Todd reacted in a mocking manner to an on the face of it perfectly legitimate comment by Trump staffer Kellyanne Conway and, of course, the legions of anti-Trumpers picked up on it to make political hay. If Sean Spicer’s example of an alternative fact (such as the number of subway riders) was incorrect in attempting to prove his point, then he got the fact wrong, but that doesn’t mean the information he was attempting to use didn’t exist as if it came from his imagination, i.e., there is a subway and there are riders, no different than in my above example where both eyewitnesses against a suspect and alibi witnesses for him or her do exist, though one or the other must be incorrect.

Therefore, this entire article is biased POV supporting what Todd tried to make of Conway’s statement rather than what it was. Therefore, the article should be deleted as having no objective value.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The article was taken to "Articles for deletion" in 2017. The result was "keep". You can see the link to the discussion at the top of this talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN I encountered you once before on the Donald Trump article and found you to be an eminently objective and fair administrator, and you were very helpful to me then. Therefore, in deference to you I shall drop this matter and not try to resurrect the deletion effort as you seem to be satisfied with the original result. Thank you again, and please leave a message on my Talk Page should you ever run for higher Wiki office and would like my vote (if I am eligible to vote)! Motion withdrawn.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sympathy for the devil's advocate

Kellyann's quote deserves the honor of at least some minimum context. How about:

"Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that [Donald Trump's inaugural crowd size]."

Also, why not back this quote up with an NBC News transcript that people can study: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-01-22-17-n710491 Page Notes (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree about context and have made your suggested edit. As for the transcript, we don't usually link to primary sources like that. Our current entry gives enough information and context IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ridership box

I object to that huge box showing WMATA ridership - ridership not just for the dates specified by Spicer, but adding two others, which suggests this is original research or synthesis. It also lacks a reference for full-day ridership. We already give the actual figures in the text; those could be restated to show the comparisons more clearly.

Alternatively (no pun intended), if people really think the table adds value, can we at least shrink its size? It takes up most of the page width and squeezes out the text. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

cannot add bs =

I was trying to add a link to the very relevant wiki page on B***S*** but the vandalism filter won't let me. I need an alternative link I guess.73.62.184.213 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a link to Bullshit in the Disinformation template at the bottom of the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Page title and content

While in the US context, this incident may merit its own page, it is not a page with this title or at least not the whole of it. While the term became widespread in the English speaking world in its critical sense since the incident, in the continental Europe, it was used in defence of counter-factual statements long before. Compare e.g. Däniken as a representative of "alternative archaeology" and other "alternative" movements of fringe science. Maybe renaming it to something like "2017 alternative facts incident" would work? Muflon 83 (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Muflon 83: we call Daniken's works pseudoarchaeology, not "alternative archaeology". That's a bad example. But this isn't an NPOV issue. I'm removing the tag, what you want to do is a move request. See Wikipedia:Requested moves which will get you input. Read it carefully first. Doug Weller talk 10:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural closed. See WP:MERGE on how to suggest merging pages. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 13:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Alternative facts → Sean Spicer – A couple of things I see... Firsts, the title alternative facts seems generic and I think this article could be merged into Sean Spicer or Kellyanne Conway. From my perspective, this was a short lived issue. Would love to hear others comments. DoctorTexan (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose An RM isn't a merge request; see WP:MERGE. 162 etc. (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American Thinker

@Jclemens: you recently reverted David Gerard's removal of content sourced to and describing an American Thinker opinion piece. Why do you support including the content? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, has that source been blacklisted somewhere? WP:RSP says nothing about it. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish "has not been specifically and formally deprecated" from "totally great source to use in any Wikipedia article", I suggest closer review of WP:RS and indeed the top section of WP:RSP itself - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed it again. No way is the weird white nationalist blog of due weight for this article - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thewardoctor221997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Orwellian Themes

Following the use of Alternative Facts, many people were quick to note the disturbing similarity to the idea behind it and that found in the George Orwell's novel, 1984, of doublethinkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink . The ability to hold two contradictory viewpoints and to accept them. A comparison can be made of the Trump administration and INSOCG in how both confidently lied about events yet claim to be true.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewardoctor221997 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References