Talk:Big lie/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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

[1] 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

KIENGIR, 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)

Soibangla,

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. Neutrality^talk 02:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The other problematic part of KIENGIR'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 KIENGIR 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)

Soibangla,

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 Neutrality 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))

KIENGIR, 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)

soibangla,

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))

KIENGIR, I suggest you pause and reconsider what you're saying and doing here. Really. soibangla (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, 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))

KIENGIR, 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. [2]. 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)

KIENGIR, 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 Drbogdan. 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)

@Novem Linguae: (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#Donald Trump's claim of a stolen election" 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".

References

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)

Einsof, 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))

NedFausa, KIENGIR and Novem Linguae: 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))

soibangla, 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)

@Soibangla: 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))

NedFausa, KIENGIR and Novem Linguae: 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#Falsely.--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)

@UserTwoSix:,

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)

@KIENGIR:, 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)

@UserTwoSix:,

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:

• 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)

UserTwoSix (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

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 my edit reverting an IP 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)

Mxtt.prior, 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)