The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
If you want to viewed as a credible source for information and to continue to receive donations from readers such as myself, it is important to me that you maintain a broad, fair and objective presentation of the facts. I do not believe this is happening. Biased reporting about the “Big Lie”, steal your credibility and promotes a lack of interest in what is on your site - because it is not credible. I want both sides of the truth. 2600:1700:4E1:8380:CFB:74FA:9759:5F64 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it's a false claim that "the election was stolen through massive voter and electoral fraud." A non trivial number of people do believe it was stolen. That means there's two sides, yes? The problem is these people tend to believe most of the news media is colluding with the Democrats. *If* they are correct, then there ARE no credible sources for them to cite!
Of course, putting information about Trump in article about Hitler... it's hard to escape the impression that this is another form of claiming "Trump is Hitler". 70.115.246.27 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who believe the earth is flat. We have visual evidence that says that it isn't. But that evidence isn't backed up by sources that don't align with what the people who believe that it is flat will accept. Sometimes there is something foul afoot. Other times you have a person who lied 30,000 times in 4 years (more than that, but still) telling you not to believe your lying eyes. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what objective source supports your statement that someone has lied 30,000 times in four years and that I’m choosing “not to believe [my] lying eyes”. Obviously this comment proves the point. It’s impossible to have an objective assessment of this situation. 70.115.246.27 (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a false claim, backed by reliable sources that it's false. Not a single credible source says otherwise. People believe what they wish to believe, but in this reality-based encyclopedia, we don't encourage fantasy created to further personal ambition. Acroterion(talk)22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot more proof of the election being stolen than a flat earth. Flat earth has been completely disproven. Trumps claims of a stolen elections simply haven’t been confirmed. That is not the same. Speaking of a flat earth, the page about the flat earth theory isn’t titled “peoples lies about a flat earth” so why should that be done here? 108.24.127.83 (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, the validity of elections is decided in the courts. About 60 courts, both federal and state, looked at these stolen election claims, and not a single one found substantive problems that could have affected the outcome. What could possibly be more decisive than that? Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very point of this article is that there’s a lie so big almost nobody can believe it’s a lie.
Courts may be “decisive” in the United States, but we’re talking about the concept of the “big lie”. Maybe they too were fooled. The courts make legal decisions but that doesn’t exempt them from being fooled.
This page is a disgrace. The topic is not lies--the topic is the strategy of purposely repeating a known big lie in the hope that people will start to believe it. Making some of Trump's claims a part of this article is childishly partisan. You could just as easily single out Adam Schiff for saying he had proof that Trump colluded with Russia (he didn't) or the 50+ intelligence officials who said Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation (it wasn't). Unless Trump, Schiff, or the intel officials publicly voiced support for repeating lies, they don't belong here. Unfortunately, articles like this expose a problem with crowd-authored articles. Wikipedia has to do a much better job preventing/policing such abuses. Claudeb (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When about 60 courts say "completely unproven" and literally zero courts say "there is a major problem with this election", then that is for all practical purposes "proving the negative", at least in the context of the U.S. justice system. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep on rereading this article over and over again and I think it seems pretty clear-
Hitler used the phrase 'the big lie'- to refer to the supposed 'Jewish Propoganda'-
Trump's critics use the phrase 'the big lie'- to refer to the supposed 'Trump Propaganda'.
I like the analogy.... 185.182.71.25 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Please specify the change you want to make in a "change X to Y" format. And the article doesn't say he is anyway. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 21:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)