This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Could someone fix the formatting in the reactions section? It really looks weird and I'm not sure how to make it look neater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ain515 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The formatting seems correct to me. Please elaborate.- MrX 14:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
How fast!
Amazed to see how fast the term found its way to Wikipedia. Trump's legacy just in two days on power. It may need to be referenced to the term "lie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.214.24 (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the continuous stream of anonymous edits really activates my almonds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullmetalalch (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant plugging of a company
The U.S.-based pizza chain Villa Italian Kitchen announced that they would begin selling a new zero-calorie #Alternative Facts pizza. The pizza is topped with bacon, pepperoni, ham and sausage.[37][38]
This really feels tacked on and unnecessary. This is an informative article not a commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettwardo (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia Brettwardo! I am not married to this content, although it was covered in a few sources. I would like to hear what other editors think about it.- MrX 00:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I think, the pizza thing is a bit off topic to be a "reaction" of the phase. There are t-shirts and other products using this phase already so we are going to list all products if somehow RSs write about it? This is just the one company that tries to capitalize on the phase being catchy right now. If let's say a) the CEO of that company somehow gives a statement to either condem or praise for Conway to use the phase and how that is related to their new pizza, or b) in a month or a year, it turns out that their Alternative Facts pizza is the best selling or something noteworthy, and in either case RSs write about it, then there might be a point to include. For now, the article will read better with the pizza thing removed. Z22 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
This just seems too culturally and politically significant to delete. Wikipedia, in addition to everything else it is, is an educational tool. Designed to inform, and well, educate. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the deletion discussion, you can do so here.- MrX 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Dude, might as well just keep it here since everyone else is raising the issue. Though I did add my own two cents there as well. --173.170.159.16 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an important term and I believe one that should be retained as a stand-alone article (though linked to other, relevant, terms). --AdventurerForHire (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is simply a liberal attack piece, nothing more. Stop trying to convince anyone that it has cultural significance. There is no precedent for creating Wikipedia pages for utterances at press conferences. Where is the Obama Wikipedia detailing the cultural importance e of him claiming that there are 57 states? Delete it!
This is absolutely essential - Do not delete.
I agree with IP above. This is too culturally and politically significant to delete. It documents an important event and allows it to be tracked for the ages to come. This is a brief article that allows a factual basis for discussion and collaboration. Wikipedia allows knowledge to be shared, and this is most certainly knowledge. Please do not delete this. 74.105.133.154 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the deletion discussion, you can do so here.- MrX 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A little bit off, but all the trouble originated during Trump's CIA speech on Saturday
Comment is not related to article improvement. See WP:TPNO.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And this Saturday, he dubbed a judge with "so-called judge". I've watched a campaign rally in Florida on TV where he had humor and spirit and seemed to adhere to the notion of fairness, but where is it now?
Is it fair to bar out innocent foreign people, that happen to be from a country with bad U.S. interference? (Like Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria.) They had been thoroughly vetted and finally got a green card and after that they left their former country to begin a new life in the United States. It's essentially a compact and already the Romans had the saying Pacta sunt servanda.
He should adhere to the custom to have a day off. A day of rest is good for the ordinary people, why not for politicians, too? --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Merge?
Maybe this can be edited and entered into the main Kellyanne Conway article. I doubt this term will emerge as a frequently-used neologism. (Heroeswithmetaphors)talk 23:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the subject stands on it's own. It's really not about the phrase anyway. It's about the administration's distant relationship with the truth, symbolized by Conway's newspeak.- MrX 23:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The article is about nothing BUT the incident surrounding the phrase. There's nothing in there about the 'administration's distant relationship with the truth', and wikipedia isn't a poem. No article should exist to symbolize somthing. Fullmetalalch (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
audience size
When Spicer said the inauguration had the largest audience in history, he was including the television audience. The alternative facts is because they were talking about two different things.Robinrobin (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so that's still false: "Nearly 31 million viewers watched live U.S. television coverage of Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, far fewer than tuned in to Barack Obama's first swearing-in, but otherwise the biggest such audience since Ronald Reagan entered office, ratings firm Nielsen reported on Saturday." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-ratings-idUSKBN15600SOrdinary Person (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Does Nielsen count online streaming viewers? This ain't your daddy's Internet any more… — JFGtalk 00:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Obama's also had more livestreaming viewers: "Trump’s inauguration had 16.9 million live streams on CNN. Obama’s first inauguration, The Guardian reported, had 21 million video streams on CNN, shattering its previous 5 million record. So we do know that estimates show Obama’s 2009 CNN livestream numbers were greater than Trump’s. Here are some other facts about web traffic during Obama’s first inauguration: CNN also reported more than 136 million page views during Obama’s inauguration. Facebook saw 600,000 status updates, CNET reported. Associated Press reported 8 million live video streams during the inauguration. And Mogulus, a live-streaming service for C-SPAN, USA Today, and other newspapers, had 1 million visitors. MSNBC reported 9 million livestreams, and Fox News reported 5 million streams. In addition, Akamai, which worked with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal streams, recorded up to 7 million streams at one time." http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/how-many-people-watched-trump-inauguration-vs-obama-comparisons-tv-streaming-online-viewing-web-traffic-numbers-ratings/Ordinary Person (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the stats, Ordinary Person. Time to sleep on my side of the world… — JFGtalk 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And it's an alternative fact as the exact quote was: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—BOTH in person and around the globe". So no you don't get to disassemble like that. He did mean at the inauguration not just in total — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
So, it's false on all accounts then... Carl Fredrik 💌📧 14:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Notability
I suspect this article has legs and the neologism will get used by others. I would wait a couple of weeks before putting in a PROD or AFD.--Penbat (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think this is going away.- MrX 20:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
While it *might* become a popular phrase, since it isn't, and seems to be more or less a stub that would be fine as a subsection (if that) of Sean Spicer's wiki page, and redirect there until there's enough attention to warrant its own article Fullmetalalch (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The term has a good chance of wider use because it reflects a different attitude than traditional spin doctoring or deception. Where those concepts involve exaggeration or omission of certain facts, the alternative facts concept was involves and reflects an attitude toward and apparent policy for dealing with the press. Where spin or errors of those mission tend to maintain the core truth of a narrative, alternative facts involve an attempt to use the bully pulpit to represent facts in a way that creates an outright. This represents a departure from traditional sparring between sources and the press. Aaprado (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that it is equivalent to similar phrases that have currency in British culture like "Economical with the truth" Robert_Armstrong,_Baron_Armstrong_of_Ilminster and "economical with the actualité" Alan Clark both of which appear in wikipedia Alanshouls (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC).
This does not merit its own entry and should be merged with Kellyanne Conway's entry
The facts are as follows:
1) This is a phrase that was used once by Kellyanne Conway, and never again by any other administration official.
2) This term is a meme. It's being used in social media mostly, but its use in print and online media is almost exclusively to censure the Trump administration.
3) There is no peer-reviewed, scholarly analysis of the term, and thus it is questionable as its own entry.
For these reasons, the article should be condensed down to its essentials and merged into Kellyanne's Wikipedia entry.
Is Kellyanne Conway talking about Richard Feynman's theory of multiple histories?
I get that this is a quote but you can't have competing facts, just like there aren't "alternative" facts. What you might have are alternative perspectives of what the facts of a matter may be.
Frankly, I'm not sure of the relevance of this section to the article. It reads like special pleading from an editor trying to assist Ms Conway in removing one of her feet from her mouth. 124.168.106.61 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The "legal use" section is essential in my opinion, because it changes the complexion of this page. It is always good when the intentions of someone's non-layman terminology can be fleshed out, even if those intentions may seem undermined by a whole lot of backlash through misinterpretation, hearsay and snowball effect of inference that was not supposed to be there. In this event, the whole page is too crucial to simply delete, but I agree it should be monitored for fair application of the wiki editing standards, free of political bias. Also, maybe change the name of this subsection instead of "legal use" which tends to remind me of the word legality, when what was intended may have been, legal terminology but that she has to define for the American people what alternative facts are really underscores the idea that she should vet her words more carefully in a position that requires influencing a lot of people. Thwackings (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to call it "legal terminology" just because it has appeared in court cases. Legal terminology is words and phrases that have a more or less defined meaning in a legal context. Sometimes they are unique to the legal system, and sometimes they are common words that mean something else in a court room than in everyday language (e.g. abandonment). To me, it looks like "alternative facts" in the examples are just an ordinary phrase without a defined meaning. We don't call other common phrases or words legal terminology just because they often appear in textbooks or judgments. The header "Legal terminology" might give a misleading impression that the phrase is an accepted legal term.Sjö (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
You make a good point Sjö. I don't necessarily think think material should be removed, but maybe the heading should be changed to 'Other uses'.- MrX 13:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Other uses is too generic. In both examples, they were phrases used in a court of law. This was never layman terminology until KellyAnne Conway blasted it. And despite that she meant something different, her words are going to be interpreted a certain way due to her reputation for distorting truths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thwackings (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It was never legal terminology either. I think that a "Other uses" section or similar could include examples from other venues (if they can be found), Sjö (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems legitimate that the term is actually a legal term that has been used in legal proceedings. Maybe it is not part of this article but we should have a WP:DAB or something so that people won't get confused with if they really look for the explanation of the term really for the knowledge in law. Here are some explanations on the legal subject:
... and the list goes on. Z22 (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. We need this etymology. Kellyanne did not invent the term, only its new tainted meaning being involved with a gaffe. Thwackings (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposal for a new section
Based on the above, adding the "Other uses" section may be helpful to readers. What do you think about below as the content for the "Other uses" section?
In law, the term "alternative facts" is used to describe inconsistent sets of facts with plausible evidence to support both alternatives.[1] In some jurisdictions, there are rules governing how a party can state two versions of the facts, such as an absence of the person's knowledge on which one of the alternatives is true.[2] In some civil procedures, a party may pledge alternative facts against alternative parties for the same event.[3] In criminal cases, a prosecutor may question a defense witness who testifies as to facts during the cross-examination by offering plausible alternative facts such that the witness may change the opinion.[4]
Oppose - If there is a notable legal phrase called 'alternative facts' you could create an article Alternative facts (legal term). I don't think it has a place in this article because the subject of article is the Orwellian phrase uttered by Kellyanne Conway. The media is still churning out a lots of coverage of this, and how it relates to the lies told during the campaign, fake news, climate change denialism, and so on. I have seen almost no coverage tying the legal phrase to it's use last Sunday. - MrX 12:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your on this. It's Alternative facts (law) article to follow the existing title naming convention. Z22 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, generally - The only problem is that we have no way of knowing whether Kellyanne Conway intended to use this phrase with its meaning from the legal profession. She is a lawyer, but since she was not speaking about a legal matter or in a law-related context, it is hard to tell.
If Kellyanne Conway did intend to use the phrase in the sense that it is used in the legal profession, that that certainly would somewhat mitigate the ridiculousness of her statement. But we just don't know.
If Kellyanne Conway would tell the world that she was using that phrase in its legal terminology sense, then we would know and that could be included in this article. Otherwise we are just speculating, and I suppose such speculation is usually not included in an encyclopedia.
But consider this: What if instead of "alternative facts," Kellyanne Conway had used the phrase "alternative pleading." "Alternative pleading" is a term of art from the legal profession. There has been a Wikipedia article for "alternative pleading" since 2006.
If Kellyanne Conway had said "alternative pleading," would we act like we can't know whether she was pulling that term from the legal profession? Would we treat "alternative pleading" like a ludicrous neologism that Kellyanne Conway coined on "Meet the Press"? I don't think so. And the reason is because "alternative pleading" is more easily recognized by the general public as legalese, a technical term from the legal profession. By contrast, when non-lawyers hear "alternative facts," it never occurs to them that that phrase is a technical term with a special meaning from the legal profession.
So, ultimately, the reason the article no longer has section on the prior history of "alternative facts" as term of art in the legal profession is because most non-lawyers do not recognize it as a term of art in the legal profession. But is that a valid reason for excluding such a section?
Consider also that one of the main reasons why interviewer Chuck Todd and most other people reacted so strongly and negatively to Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts" usage was that they did not recognize that phrase as being a technical terms with special meaning in the legal profession.
So, as writers of an encyclopedia, is it really right for us to withhold all this background information from our readers, and let our readers assume that "alternative facts" is purely a neologism coined by Kellyanne Conway on "Meet the Press"?
It seems that our entire basis for withholding this information from readers is the fact that most people don't perceive "alternative facts" as a technical term with special meaning in the some profession. (By contrast, due to TV police dramas, practically everyone recognizes "probable cause" as a legal technical term.)
By the way, the information that Z22 provides about the meaning of alternative facts in the legal profession the best that I've seen.Credidimus2 (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Kellyanne Conway was not commenting on a legal matter. She was defending her boss's puerile obsession with popularity.- MrX 20:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Why we need to restore the "Legal Terminology" section
I see today that the "Legal Terminology" section was removed entirely from the article.
I think that is unfortunate, because the phrase "alternative facts" as famously used by Kellyanne Conway is a phrase that Kellyanne Conway took from the legal world (she's a lawyer) and brought into the public relations world (her current occupation). Continue reading this comment, and I think you may come to agree that Kellyanne Conway definitely or probably took this phrase from the legal world.
Understanding the origin of the phrase helps greatly in understanding what Kellyanne Conway was trying to say when she famously used the phrase "alternative facts."
Here's a quote from a legal textbook published in 2014 that was in the article and them removed:
"The expression 'alternative facts' might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts. In a civil case, if there weren't alternative possible facts, the case wouldn't be at trial...."
Those authors write "The expression 'alternative facts' might seem contradictory...."
See? This was written in a textbook several years prior to this Kellyanne Conway affair. The authors are saying that lay people, non-attorneys, are apt to view the phrase "alternative facts" as absurd and ridiculous. And that's exactly how interview Chuck Todd and all the other non-lawyers in the world have reacted.
But lawyers and judges don't react this way in this case, at least not necessarily (a quote appears later in this comment to validate this). All-important to this matter is that Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer who was using a phrase from her professional training. Part of what led to a reaction Kellyanne Conway did not expect was that her interviewer and audience did not have legal training.
Kellyanne Conway was really just trying to communicate to the interviewer Chuck Todd that the facts were in dispute and not settled by any competent authority and that press secretary Sean Spicer was giving competing facts that Sean Spicer in good faith believed to be true facts. Now, in this particular case, it can be argued that the facts were settled and were not in dispute. I would take that view myself. But Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway were simply choosing to "litigate" the issue as a lawyer would, so, they were taking the position that the facts were not settled and were in dispute.
Kellyanne Conway and Sean Spicer are being widely mocked and ridiculed for supposedly promoting the idea that the Trump Administration is free to invent its own "facts" that have no basis in reality and ask and expect the media and public to accept them. And, in this particular case, it can be argued that they were indeed trying to inject falsehoods into a discussion in order to cast doubt on the known objective facts.
But I think it is clear that Kellyanne Conway, when she famously used the phrase "alternative facts," did not mean to make the absurd claim that something other than the real factual truth can be truth. She was just saying that no competent authority had come to any final conclusions about the matter at hand.
Again, it can be argued that she was wrong about that. But that's not the issue. As a lawyer, Kellyanne Conway knows that nothing is finally and definitely decided in a legal case until a jury verdict has been reached and all appeals to higher courts have been exhausted. As a lawyer, Kellyanne Conway knows that lawyers regularly present "alternative facts" to the jury in the hopes that the jury will accept their alternative version of events.
Interviewer Chuck Todd was taking the position that the matter at hand was a closed case, while attorney Kellyanne Conway was treating the matter as an open case.
So, without some explanation of the origin of "alternative facts" from the world of lawyers and courts, it is hard to get an accurate and complete view of what Kellyanne Conway meant. Without knowing that legal background, everyone automatically views Kellyanne Conway's use of that phrase with pure mockery and derision.
The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to maintain a Neutral Viewpoint. It is not to defend Kellyanne Conway, or attack her. It is to shed light, not heat.
For all these reasons, I think it is really valuable to present our encyclopedia readers with a little background on the phrase "alternative facts," and not simply report in isolation on the one famous event (the interview on January 22, 2017) that launched "alternative facts" as a new popular political catchphrase.
I think the two quotes that were in this legal background section of the article just before it was deleted were fairly effective at giving this valuable context. Perhaps more effective quotes can be found. But our encyclopedia readers need this background to understand the phrase itself.
One more thing: Consider another quote that was removed earlier from the article's legal terminology section:
"But is Chuck Todd correct, that 'alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods'? Under the circumstances presented, perhaps, but this isn’t necessarily true. We have become inured to the distinction between facts and conclusions. We have come to believe things to be objective facts when they are merely allegations of fact."
That quote, written by a lawyer in New York, was removed on the basis that it was from a non-noteworthy blogger.
But that quote did explain the important distinctions between facts and conclusions drawn from facts, and between settled facts and allegations of facts. It can be argued that interviewer Chuck Todd was taking the view that the matter of the crowd size at Trump's inauguration was was a universally known, closed, settled matter--what lawyers might call "finally and fully adjudicated." Kellyanne Conway was insisting that no final conclusion on that matter had been reached because many of the facts used to reach that widely-held conclusion really were what the lawyer's quote from above calls "allegations of fact." In the courtroom trial context, the every fact in the case, on both sides, merely has the legal status of an allegation of fact, until such time as the jury comes back with a decision in the case.
Kellyanne Conway was saying that Sean Spicer wanted some different facts to be considered by the public (the "jury"). Todd Chuck was saying, in effect, "The case is closed! No more facts are allowed!" Kellyanne Conway was saying the case is not closed. It seems reasonable to ask: Who was Chuck Todd to act like the ultimate and infallible authority on the matter and accuse Kellyanne Conway of promoting "falsehood" if she and Sean Spicer refused to accept that the "case is closed"?
My personal view is that Sean Spicer was attempting to deceive the public, and that he was doing so in order to please his boss, the egoist and narcissist Mr. Trump. Then Kellyanne Conway, acting somewhat like a defense attorney for Sean Spicer, came to his defense by saying, in effect, that what Sean Spicer said was legitimate just as it is legitimate for a lawyer defending a criminal or a corporation to present to the jury "alternative facts" about what happened, in the hopes that the jury would accept those facts instead of the facts presented by the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney.
Even in a murder case with witnesses who testify that they saw the accused kill the victim, the accused's defense attorney is allowed to present to the jury "alternative facts" such as evidence that witnesses have committed perjury in earlier cases, or that there is a witness who saw the accused a hundred miles away from the victim at the time of the murder, or that the lighting was so poor at the time of the murder than no one would be able to accurately identify the perpetrator.
That's all that "alternative facts" means, and that's probably a big part of what Kellyanne Conway meant. She was defending Sean Spicer's right to act like a zealous defense attorney for President Trump.
I still think it is right to ridicule and mock Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, and President Trump for their efforts to mislead the public into thinking that his inauguration had the highest-ever attendance.
But the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to give aid and support to mockers. It is to educate.
I think it is really important to help our encyclopedia readers know that "alternative facts" not always a term that is deserving of mockery--that it is a honorable, ethical, and legitimate term and usage in the world of courtrooms and law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Your argument hinges on the idea that "alternative facts" is a common legal term, common enough that a lawyer might use it without realizing that it would sound ridiculous. That remains to be shown. The section had two examples. If that is all there is or if the phrase isn't found in any list of legal terminology then it's just a phrase from non-legal language. Just appearing in a verdict or in a legal textbook doesn't make a phrase legal terminology; if it did we would have to add a lot more to the category legal terminology. Sjö (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Credidimus2: If you're going to communicate on the internet, you really need to embrace brevity. Our role is to record information about a subject reflected in reliable sources. simplejustice.us does not seem standard for reliable sources. Since the content it supports represents a viewpoint that is contrary to the preponderance of reputable sources, it also fails WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
According to Google Book search there are 15 19th-century publications that use the term. All of them are law related publications. About 20 more publications in 20th century, again all are law-related. About 20 more in 21st century court cases. At least one book in 2016 describes the term as part of a guideline on how to write expert opinion reports to be used in a court as "The expression 'alternative facts' might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts." Z22 (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Credidimus2: As I've already written, this just seems like special pleading to retrospectively change Conway's intent and mitigate on her behalf any damage which might be caused. You make a lot of claims about what Conway was thinking or intending which of course you wouldn't know unless you were able to read her mind. I see nothing here other than, at best, WP:SYNTH and, more probably, WP:OR. 124.168.106.61 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I didn't read all of that but I think I get the gist. Bottomline is that you need a reliable secondary source which links the legal usage to the usage by Conway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Wiktionary suggests that this is an Americanism; see wikt:alternate#English. Since the article is about an American political term, MOS:TIES would apply, and anyway, "alternative" is the term everyone is using. (I'm not sure you were actually suggesting we change it here.) --BDD (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fails verification
The article claims that...
"On January 25, 2017, the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four has been reported as a best seller book, largely as a result of apparent attempts by members of the White House staff to present possible misinformation, including "alternative facts", according to news articles"
...but the sources cited say...
"It's unclear how much Conway's comments affected sales of 1984"
..and..
"It is hard to say for sure how much of the interest is related to Donald Trump's inauguration and the rise of "alternative facts".
So the article says something that the sources cited do no say.
Guy Macon please restore the section you just removed given these RS listed above. It needs changing, not removal. EvergreenFir(talk) 23:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain how any of those are reliable sources for there being causation. How could they (or you) possibly know such a thing? All you have shown is correlation, which the existing citations already established. We cannot claim causation when the citations only show correlation (You did read Correlation does not imply causation, right?).
Here are a bunch of other correlations that you can insert into Wikipedia articles as if there was causation:[1] each of them is as well documented as the one you want to restore to this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: please don't condescend. I teach methods classes so I know the conditions for causality. That said, you seem to forgetting we report what sources say, not what we think to be true (WP:TRUTH, WP:V). We can reword the section so it's clear that media are ascribing the comments to the sale increase. But we cannot omit it given the widespread coverage by high-quality reliable sources (WP:DUE). EvergreenFir(talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Rewording the section so it's clear that media are ascribing the comments to the sale increase works for me. Claiming causality in Wikipedia's voice does not. For that I would need a citation from a recognized expert in the area of what increases or decreases book sales. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I gave it a shot in this edit. I'm on my phone (left laptop in office) so I didn't manage to do the refs perfectly, but I tried to get the info that (1) the term was compared to newspeak from 1984, (2) sales of the book rose, and (3) the media ascribe that rise to Conway's remarks. Let me know what you think. PS - I agree with should not use Wikipedia's voice to say the remarks caused sales to rise.EvergreenFir(talk) 04:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Why does the "Reactions" section only contain negative reactions?
What would you like to add? Bradv 03:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Credidimus2: Are there any (noteworthy) positive reactions?- MrX 13:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Reason for existance of this page
Why does this page exist? This is an entire page about a single line some political staffer said. This is somewhat absurd? Why does this deserve it's own article instead of having it as a subnote on Kellyanne Conway's page? Ergzay (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
It's been the topic of the news for a couple days now. Literally heard about it 4 times on NPR today. EvergreenFir(talk) 04:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a lengthy discussion concerning this already at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative facts. The verdict (of which I did not agree with) was to keep the article, as it was notable enough. Nevertheless, it has obviously exploded into a notable media frenzy of which will probably be forgotten in a few weeks. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 08:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Generally we would need sources explaining what Conway meant and noting the degree of usage of the term. We could also wait to see if there is any commentary about the ethnics of damning Trump for misinformation with what might have been a misstatement by one of his subordinates. The neologism is interesting when compared to Moynihan's statement, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Perhaps it will gain traction, perhaps not. Best to wait a couple of weeks when it undoubtedly will be overtaken by other Trump controversies, and see if it has gained notability before trying for a second AfD. TFD (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedias always mention history, origin & prior uses of popular phrases. Why not this article?
The Wikipedia articles on "Trust, but verify" (made famous by President Reagan) and "Drain the Swamp" (made famous by presidential candidate Donald Trump) both provide information about history, origin and prior uses of those phrases.
Dictionaries always have a section on the etymology of words and phrases.
So, why is it that all information about the history, origin, and prior uses of "alternative facts" has been removed from this article?
Why does the article give the reader the impression that this was a neologism coined by Kellyanne Conway?
The "Categories" section at the bottom of the Alternative facts article has a link to "American political neologisms." But is it a neologism? If it is a neologism, should't the main body of the article say so, by saying explicitly that the no prior uses of the phrase are known? If it is a neologism, perhaps the article could be revised to say something like "The first recorded use of this phrase was by Kellyanne Conway on 'Meet the Press' on January 22, 2017...."
But if that was not the first recorded use of that phrase, shouldn't the article inform the readers of that too?
@Credidimus2: The page and the term is only days old, history takes time. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but do we really need three discussions about your desire to shoehorn this material into the article? There is no history. Conway simple used two very common words in a context that suggested that falsehoods can be considered truths.- MrX 20:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@MrX: You wrote "Conway simple used two very common words in a context that suggested that falsehoods can be considered truths." How do you know that? What source can you cite to establish that fact? How does anyone know that? Unless Kellyanne Conway tells the world, how can anyone know whether she simply put two common English words together in order to communicate to Chuck Todd that the public should accept falsehoods as truths, or whether she was using a technical term from her training and experience as an attorney? It could be relevant that in that same interview with Chuck Todd, Kellyanne Conway also used the word "litigated" to refer to the decision reached by the voters in the presidential election. Here's the passage spoken by Kellyanne Conway: "Hillary Clinton lost that election fairly and squarely basically running on the same messages we heard here yesterday in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. I heard, like, a repeat. It was this awful sequel, as awful as the original. We just litigated all this in the campaign." (full transcipt is on "Meet the Press" web pages on NBC web site) "Litigate" is term from the legal profession, yet Kellyanne Conway was clearly applying this legal term to a non-legal matter. So, if no one knows whether Kellyanne Conway was using "alternative facts" in its legal technical meaning or as a neologism with none of the meaning found in the legal profession's term of art, why should the article state or imply one interpretation or the other? Wouldn't it be more customarily encyclopedic and neutral to simply provide information about earlier similar uses of the phrase, and let the reader decide for themselves if the earlier similar uses have any relevance to what Kellyanne Conway said? After all, the article is titled "Alternative facts." The article is not titled "Alternative facts (Kellyanne Conway)" so as to make clear that the scope of the article is only the now-famous single use of that phrase by Kellyanne Conway. The Wikipedia articles on many similar political catchphrases have information on history, origin, and similar uses prior to the phrase becoming famous. See, for example: "Drain the Swamp," "Trust, but verify," "Blood, toil, tears, and sweat," "City upon a Hill," "Live Free or Die," "Tea Party," "Ich bin ein Berliner," and "New Deal." So if the "Alternative Facts" article is going to be the exception and go without any section for information on history, origin, and earlier similar uses, what is the reason for that? It can't be because there are no known prior similar uses--because there are, as several comments in this Talk have shown, and as anyone who knows how to set date range restrictions on their Google searches can instantly discover. So why then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Credidimus2 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I suspect the real reason is related to the edit history of who is commenting. I won't name names, but some participants here edit a wide number of topics and in general give thoughtful, reasonable, policy-based answers. Others have a here have a long history of mostly editing political articles and have an obvious bias towards one politician/party and against another politician/party. To this second group of editors the very concept of this article even mention any history that might lead the reader to conclude that lawyer Kellyanne Conway might just possibly was using "alternative facts" in its legal technical meaning cannot be allowed. See Wikipedia:The Truth. (And of course there are new editors who don't have a long enough edit history for us to to tell if they are biased). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an interesting point. "Alternative facts" being legalese is likely a factor here. Even if so, the reaction and the fact that it was used in reference to demonstrable and verifiable statements (namely the size of the crowd) is why it's become notable. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to including the legalese part if we can get good sources. EvergreenFir(talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
We need to wait for sources to actually write about the term before we are able to report what they have to say about its origins or what Conway meant. TFD (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Credidimus2 already added that information[2] with citations[3][4][5] only to have his contribution removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That is interesting, and probably although not necessarily what Kelly meant. The problem is that sources need to connect the meaning with what Conway said. TFD (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
We have been over this. The legal phrase has it's own article. There is no established connection between Conway's comments which have nothing to do with legal matters and the arcane legal terminology. Editors are not allowed to construct such a connection themselves. See WP:OR.- MrX 10:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with TFD. People have used those two words before Conway did, but it's not up to us to argue that's connected to Conway's use which gave the phrase what notability it may have and which is the subject of this article. Huon (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
So it is OK on our Drain the swamp, City upon a Hill, and Trust, but verify pages (all of which simply note prior use without arguing that they are connected) but not here? What is so special about this page that it needs a special rule instead of following long-established practice? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
If it is not glaringly obvious why this violates our prohibition on original research in articles, I will be happy to elaborate. On top of that, the sources range from poor to unacceptable.
I request that this material be removed.- MrX 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." --WP:OR. The three sources are reliable for the purpose of establishing that the term was in in colloquial use as of Mar 24th 2015, 12 June 2015, and in legal use (Note that Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer and used the legal term "litigated" in the same statement) as of 30 May 2003.
So yes, please explain -- in detail -- why you think a claim with three citations is a claim "for which no reliable, published sources exist". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." --WP:OR. Don't stop there, keep reading... Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
And can you point out which one of these sources and where exactly supports the text "The term "alternative facts" was in colloquial use long before to January 21, 2017" ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
(Also might want to check the meaning of the word "colloquial") Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about the first two but the third reference is used formally (not colloquially) in law. Z22 (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. The second one isn't colloquial either and the first one... is just weird.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Guy Macon, it looks like Volunteer Marek answered your question. To make sure it's crystal clear, allow me to quote from the policy: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Not only did the editor (and you, by restoring it) misrepresent the sources, none of whom said "The term "alternative facts" was in colloquial use long before to January 21, 2017", but they also added sources that don't discuss or relate to the subject of the article. How could they? The sources predate the event!- MrX 13:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Unwatching this page
It has become clear that many (but not all) of the editors of this page are intent on either whitewashing or blackwashing Trump, and have zero interest in actually following WP:NPOV. I am also fairly certain that somewhere along the line someone is going to roll up a bunch of Trump-related and Clinton-related pages and take the whole mess to ArbCom, followed by the traditional punish everybody phase. Because of this I am giving up, walking away from the entire mess, and unwatching this page. Note that if you reply, I won't see it.
I wish those who have the courage to stay and try to make this page NPOV the best of luck. You will need it. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Aside from from the attempts to fill the article with random, off-topic content consisting of poorly-sourced original research, and attempts by other editors to defend such content with vague edit summaries, I think the article is pretty solid. It reflects what is covered in a variety of highly-reputable sources. Most of the major points in the article are referenced to multiple sources. The editors who have added the content are using the talk page to discuss improving the article and are committed to representing the subject in the most neutral manner possible. - MrX 13:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
An appeal to my fellow editors: Yes, it is sure seems that this page violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and that many of the editors of the page want it to violate NPOV. Isn't this ironic, since Kellyanne Conway and her boss President Trump are infamous for doing something very similar: they invent and concoct fictions and pass them off as respectable facts. Almost all American politicians (excepting maybe Abraham Lincoln) spin and slant things; but Trump and his official spokespersons have crossed over into a level of speaking blatant falsehoods that seems to me to be unprecedented for a U.S. president. Even so, I appeal to everyone: Wikipedia is far more effective at shining the light of truth on liars when Wikipedia itself is free from bias. So, if this article points out that Kellyanne Conway was not the first person to use the phrase "alternative facts," and provides some information on prior uses in various contexts, I do not believe that will not destroy or impede the article's ability to help readers realize that the Trump Administration is engaging in a dangerous, unprecedented level of blatant lying. Those who love the truth should not violate the truth in order to defend it. The ends do not justify the means (at least not in this case). My amateur "psychoanalysis" of Trump is that he is an extreme believer in the adage "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing" (by the way, the Wikipedia article on that gives its history of usage--something being denied to "Alternative facts"). And so, for Trump, words and statements are always just means to the end of winning. For Trump, winning is the only truth, the only reality, the only "fact." "History is written by the victors," and so victory (and loss) are in the end the only real facts. History itself is just the propaganda of the winners, Trump thinks (in my opinion). Even if Trump has never heard of the concept of "Social Darwinism," that is his belief system and value system, in my opinion. So, I appeal to all: Let's not be Social Darwinists ourselves! Let's not be Leninists! Steve Bannon reportedly called himself a Leninist to a reporter a couple years ago. My understanding is that Leninists always believed in using any means necessary to destroy those opposed to the well-being of the Workers and the creation of the new society. To create a fair and balanced society, we need fair and balanced sources like Wikipedia (even if Fox News did pollute the phrase "fair and balanced.") I'm very new to editing contentious Wikipedia pages. I hope more experienced Wikipedia editors can help to improve this article. I really like Wikipedia, and rely on it a great deal. Call me crazy, but I want Wikipedia to be true to its principles.Credidimus2 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you please lay out specific examples of how "this page violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV)" and cite the passages in the policy that support your findings? If you can do that without adding personally reflections unrelated to improving the article, I would be happy to discuss how we can work fix the alleged NPOV violations. - MrX 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Independent and evidence of previous use
1) The Independent is not a RS. It's suffered a huge decline in reputation in recent years: "He also said that the website’s lightweight editorial approach, criticised by some of its own staff as a “click-bait operation”, would be re-focused to better match the quality tone of the print edition." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/12/independent-and-independent-on-sunday-closures-confirmed. They had a huge scandal with Johann Hari's plagiarisms and fabrications which in the editor's admission "severely damaged" the paper's reputation, but they still keep his articles online without any mention of the scandal (try looking at the NYT for some of Jayson Blair's articles - each one haa a very thorough note explaining that his work is not to be relied on. That's what an RS does.
2) This article title is not Kellyanne Conway's use of the phrase. The article title is the phrase itself. I quoted an RSs explanation of what they meant by the phrase. How is that SYNTH? NPalgan2 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Generally, the Independent has been considered reliable on Wikipedia. If something's changed, go to WP:RSN and bring it up there. For now we follow usual practice. Is this article written by Hari? No? So it's irrelevant.
For this not to be SYNTH and OR you need a source which links previous use of the term explicitly to Conway's use of it. Otherwise this is just you drawing conclusions by combining sources, where this conclusion is not actually in any of them - i.e. SYNTH. You need a source which mentions BOTH. This is pretty basic. And it's been explained repeatedly by several editors above, so please stop doing this. I mean, you can try to get consensus for including it but it's very unlikely since it's pretty textbook SYNTH.
The Indy is not reliable, and even if it was once considered reliable by RSN, the "website’s lightweight editorial approach, criticised by some of its own staff as a “click-bait operation”" should be evidence things have changed. Even if it generally were reliable, according to WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis" (and also "even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors"). " We don't blindly repeat a claim from an (at best) borderline source if other sources disagree. The Indy's claim that was cited in this article that the WH 'posted false statistics' about crime is wrong. There are 4 claims on the WH website: "In 2015, homicides increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings rose by 50 percent over the past four years. There were thousands of shootings in Chicago last year alone." Even Politifact only goes so far as to describe the claim about DC as 'mostly false' because 'more recent data shows they fell' (but the rising by 50% over four years is true, and the statement was out of date because new figures ahave been released). The Chicago claim is true. The 50 largest cities/25 years claim is true http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/24/donald-trump/donald-trumps-numbers-homicide-increase-are-solid/ . NPalgan2 (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Take it up at WP:RSN. The Independent has generally been regarded as reliable. As far as the crime statistics go, the claim under discussion is not "crime rose in cities" but "crime rose". Which is what the Indy article addresses, and they're correct. Not sure why you're posting a link to something irrelevant, like the politicfact link, or why you're doing original research by evaluating the claims yourself. The article is fine, please stop edit warring over it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)`
It's not OR to point out that other sources disagree with what the Independent's journalist said. "In just one weekend, the website has posted false statistics about rising crime, when crime has actually gone down over the last eight years." The claim that overall crime is rising is not on that white house page and I cant find an RS that criticizes that particular webpage for making that claim.NPalgan2 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
"For this not to be SYNTH and OR you need a source which links previous use of the term explicitly to Conway's use of it. " Now there is a source in the article (Hahn quoted in Guardian) that explicitly links previous use of the term to Conway's use of it. Do you still maintain the quote you removed is SYNTH? NPalgan2 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian source is fine except your text misrepresents the main gist of the article which is that, quote "Even rightwing sites call out Trump administration over 'alternative facts' The Blaze, the Daily Caller and Fox News take issue with Trump’s claim of ‘a million people’ at his inauguration – but Breitbart stands by president". In other words you're cherry picking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The headline says they 'called out Trump administration over 'alternative facts' ' but the actual article doesn't quote any of them criticizing 'alternative facts' as opposed to the crowd size claims. The Breitbart quote is the only one that discusses "alternative facts". The 'reaction' section is *ostensibly* supposed to be about 'reaction to Conway's words' not 'reaction to the Trump admin's crowd claims'. NPalgan2 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Guardian quote and AF quote
This sentence is currently in the article:
'According to The Guardian, Breitbart News defended Conway's use of "alternative facts" by arguing that it is “a harmless, and accurate, term in a legal setting, where each side of a dispute will lay out its own version of the facts for the court to decide”, but noted themselves that "[a] search of several online legal dictionaries, however, did not yield any results for the term."[27]'
The following sentence has been removed.
'A source which previously used the phrase had noted that "[t]he expression "alternative facts" might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts. In a civil case, if there weren't alternative possible facts, the case wouldn't be at trial, it would have been decided at summary judgement."'
The old argument was that neither Conway (who is a lawyer) nor any of her defenders had claimed that she was using AF with the meaning that other people have used in a legal context. But now an RS has quoted a Conway defender arguing that that is what she did. So how is it SYNTH to quote an RS using the term? What's the new argument? NPalgan2 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this has nothing to do with Guardian. I do not think this is really on the subject of this page. We are talking about this source. This is book published in 2015. It tells about using all competing facts during investigations. The subject of this page is a much newer and a very different controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what argument you are making: one quote says “a harmless, and accurate, term in a legal setting, where each side of a dispute will lay out its own version of the facts for the court to decide” , the other quote says "alternative facts" might seem contradictory, but it simply means competing facts. In a civil case, if there weren't alternative possible facts, the case wouldn't be at trial, it would have been decided at summary judgement.‘ They are clearly talking about the same thing. "I do not think this is really on the subject of this page." The subject of this page may be A, but if one RS talks about B while talking about A, we can quote another RS talking about B to give context. This is not SYNTH in any way. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
In other words, the quoted source uses a combination of words "alternative facts" in a meaning which is very different from the meaning used in other sources currently cited on this page. Same word or even the same combination of words can have several different meanings. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the quote I want to add is talking about Conway. I'm saying that the Guardian/Breitbart quote and the quote I want to add are clearly talking about the same thing. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
If you're talking about your recent edit in which you cite Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations. Yes, that would be original research. Please read the WP:OR policy carefully, especially the part that says: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Computer Forensics and Investigations is not related to Conway defending the press secretary's falsehoods. Here's a hint. If the source doesn't mention Conway's Meet the Press interview, then you can't use it. I hope that helps, and I hope I don't have to keep explaining it.- MrX 21:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The expression is oxymoron. It is now used as synonym of "falsehoods", as reflected on this page. But it was occasionally used before (e.g. in the book from 2015) as "just another set of valid facts", which is something opposite. Perhaps this can be noted somewhere on the page, but not in the way suggested by NPalgan2. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The Guardian part (the first part that was not removed) seems fair to me to be included in the article. It gave a review of reactions in a different perspective. However, I'm not sure whether we should add a bit of clarification into that sentence to describe ×what kind of media Breitbart is because the RS (Guardian) also raises the point about that in their article. So I will let other editors to add thoughts on that. For the second part (a claim of the term used in 2015), the way the sentence was written, it can be argued as OR. Or if we use what said in that source then it becomes irrelevant to this article. I think there is an alternate solution to this. We don't need to add that sentence back to avoid us doing OR here. We can simply link the part that said "term in a legal setting" in the Gurdian part to the Alternative facts (law) article so that readers can go to see for themselves to gain more knowledge about that. Z22 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
NPOV
The Background section says "...ceremony had drawn the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."[9] According to all available data, Spicer's allegations were false." However, the sources following refer to the crowd on the National Mall ("in person") and do not mention national/international viewing via the media ("around the globe"). Clearly WP is being used to present false allegations about what Spicer said. Major NPOV clean-up needed. – S. Rich (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused... rs news outlets have almost unanimously described Spicer's comments as falsehoods. If the issue is the sources in the article, we can fix that. Not a pov issue. EvergreenFir(talk)
CNN source says ""This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period," Spicer said, contradicting all available data." Other sources trying to address the international and telecasted aspect seem to agree: WaPo, Guardian, Reuters, IBTimes, even Daily Mail. EvergreenFir(talk) 07:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
As written, using the sources provided, the article is improperly labeling Spicer's statement as false. With a quick perusal of the sources you provided, I see that the in-person + TV figure puts 2017 lower in the rankings in some previous years (Obama 2009 and RMN). But what about non-TV media? Not to argue Spicer's case, he seems to have included such medium as well. The bigger point, of concern to WP, is whether editors are cherry-picking their own numbers IOT bash Trump. When we present the numbers of angels on the heads of pins, we must describe which pins we are looking at. – S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Sources call it falsehoods, even if your disagree with them. We need to describe it as the sources do. I've not seen a reputable source be equivocal about the falsity of the statements. The burden is on you to show there is a debate. EvergreenFir(talk) 23:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem that neutral to me. I love reading wiki articles normally as it is so impartial, but this one seems quite blatantly demeaning. The summary of the articles second paragraph is just a list of negativities, aren't these normally in some sort of sub topic labeled criticisms?
"Alternative facts" is a phrase used by Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017,[1][2][3][4] 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 said "Don't be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. You're saying it's a falsehood, and ... our press secretary, Sean Spicer, gave alternative facts to that."[5][6] Todd responded by saying "Alternative facts are not facts. They are falsehoods."
Conway's use of the phrase "alternative facts" to describe what are widely regarded as falsehoods was mocked on social media and sharply criticized by Dan Rather, Jill Abramson, and the Public Relations Society of America. The phrase was extensively described as Orwellian; by Thursday, January 26, 2017, sales of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four had increased by 9,500 percent, becoming the number one best seller on Amazon.com.[7][8]
This really doesn't read like the good, neutral summaries I expect from wikipedia. It presents one side, lacks information, and displays clear bias.Brettwardo (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedias always mention history, origin & prior uses of popular phrases. Credimus states another concern I failed to put down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettwardo (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
So can you give reliably sourced examples of the missing positive things about "alternative facts " you feel should be included in the article? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Epipelagic
It isn't that I want the article to give praise to Conway. I just want the negativity culled to a point that would adhere to wikipedias NPOV; Which currently, it isn't doing.Brettwardo (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
If you think that "negativity" should be culled from the article, then you really don't understand how WP:NPOV works.- MrX 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Many more to come, I'm sure. Welcome to 1984.--Quisqualis (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that should be added to the article. Here are more sources [6][7][8][9].- MrX 12:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Not gonna remove the above commentary on American politics or leave a warning on Quisqualis's talk page, eh Mr. X? It's only a problem if the commentary is a critique of Democrats or liberal bias on Wikipedia? But hey, feel free to disparage Republicans and make left-wing conspiracy theory remarks all day long. Good stuff. Just another neutral day on Wikipedia. 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
LOL I just realized the irony, here. A user attacks the United States government as resembling "Big Brother." Meanwhile, editors are scanning talk pages removing anything that they don't want other people to see (non-liberal views). So while one user voices fear of the "Thought Police," the actual Wikipedia Thought Police is hard at work cleaning up non-approved thoughts that don't echo the original user's fear. It's actually a bit meta, when you think about it, no?216.205.224.11 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
User MrX removed my link to the statement by Daniel Patrick Moynihan that "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion -- but not his own facts." He called it "trivia." I disagree -- I think it gets to the very heart of why so-called 'alternative facts' are dangerous and why veracity is necessary when discussing verifiable, quantifiable, checkable facts. Opinions are a bedrock of our American Democracy, but that democracy cannot survive if informed citizens cannot determine what is real in the world and what is not. Many observers, myself among them, are terrified of the slippage of verifiable reality caused by the escalation of "Reality TV" stars and conspiracy theorists into our public discourse. Just my 2¢.Rcarlberg (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, this relates to the earlier heading on the need for the "existance" [sic] of the entry. Rcarlberg (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Because you are injecting an interpretation which is synthesis. In legal cases two sides may present different sets of facts and the jury must decide which to accept. It is possible that is what Conway meant rather than Moynihan's complaint that the other side had false facts. There's an irony in complaining about Trump's disingenuousness by possibly distorting what Conway said. TFD (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Story 1: both Gorsuch and Hardiman are going to DC
Story 2: Only Gorsuch arrived in DC
Why? maybe it's a Reality TV scenario, except that an entire nation is participating?
It starts to matter when our shared values are called into question, such as respect for matters of life and death, or perhaps when our group cohesion is lessened. Eventually a construed narrative degenerates into "do I care about this?", and the group stops acting together. This happened, for example, in Vichy France.
User TFD states: "In legal cases two sides may present different sets of facts and the jury must decide which to accept." This is EXACTLY the kind of danger I'm talking about, where two interpretations of reality are given equal weight by both being labeled "facts." Only one can be factual -- and the jury must decide who is lying. In Trump's case he said his inauguration had the largest attendance in history, when photographic proof showed about 1/3 the attendance of Obama's 2009 inauguration. By Conway labeling Spicer's falsehoods as "alternative facts" she was promoting the reality TV / WWE / supermarket tabloid fiction that argument by authority is not fallacious. This Wikipedia article needs to stand above partisanship and come down hard on the side of reason.Rcarlberg (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Quite aside from quibbling about the size of the inauguration audience and how it compares to previous inaugurations (which ought to be a trivial side issue except that Trump is making such a big deal out of it) - some of the things Spicer said WERE just unequivocally false. Like the totally-off-the-mark ridership numbers for the Metro, which he admitted the next day were wrong. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that was false as a matter of fact. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Neither what you are implying or what the article says currently adheres to wikipedias and "stands above partisanship". Sorry I am very new to wikipedia and don't know how to format this right. Brettwardo (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Brettawrdo
@Rcarlberg - That was a gutbuster. "The article needs to stand above partisanship" (give liberal points of view further representation)? Look at the article. A Republican said something that the left-wing media talked about for days, and the hivemind of left-wing editors think that it will still be relevant in 10 years, creating an entire article from a two word response. The article is part of the series of "Misinformation," explicitly stating that the Republican (Conway) was lying during the interview. Look at the image. Various left-wing talking points related to the president are displayed under the banner of "Misinformation and Disinformation": ("She won the popular vote!" "Illegal aliens aren't voting!" "Facebook is to blame for Clinton's loss!") and other fleeting "stories" serve as the background. And yet...this article is too partisan (in favor of the Republicans). Let's be honest, Rcarlberg. Is this a comic book version of a Wikipedia contribution?NoActivistJournalism (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.224.11 (talk) 21:03, February 2, 2017 (UTC)
@216.205.224.11, It appears you want to be called User:NoActivistJournalism but no such account exists yet. For your own protection, please use the standard user account procedures to contribute. If you try to evade the authentication procedures, you simply bake your IP address into the record, which means your anonymity is compromised.
What is at stake is the control of a narrative, and you will lose if you cannot join the system which is set up for your benefit. It's quite easy to set up an account.
In the words of Lewis Carroll, "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Thanks Ancheta Wis. I thought of a better, less hostile user name. Also, as a sign of good faith and in the interest of a fresh start, I have stricken my edits below that pointed out the appearance of a double standard application of WP:NOTAFORUM policy. The Patriot Way (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
What is the difference between this page and Alternative_facts_(law)?
Honestly unsure. It seems like that some editors on here have an axe to grind though. Wouldn't this be better on a master page of Trump controversies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.254.200 (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is about the political usage resulting from Conway coining this term and its subsequent usage by others.
That article is about the usage of the legal phrase in courts of law.
So its considerably different -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an enormous difference. Alternative facts (law) is about competing versions of the facts in legal contexts which are being submitted to the processes of law for adjudication. This page is about Goebbelian lies presented as Orwellian or Machiavellian smokescreens in political contexts to obscure real facts and sow chaos and confusion. Perhaps the page should be renamed Alternative facts (political). --Epipelagic (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not how this works. This article was kept in a deletion discussion. I removed the tag. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The only way it would be deleted would be if there is something intrinsically wrong with the subject, or even the with title. Have you even tried to improve this article's neutrality?--Quisqualis (talk) 07:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It has already survived a deletion request. Renominating it now is excessive renomination speed. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is a hit piece meant to insult someone that the authors dislike. Reading through the comments on the discussion page you see the anti-Trump sentiment bubbling up from the people seeking to protect it from deletion. Not to mention that a Wikipedia page already exists for "Alternative Facts" that has nothing to do with Kellyanne Conway. This truly is disgusting that this is allowed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doniboy71 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
false statement v deceptive statement
Regarding the sentence in the lead about the inauguration, the statement was not false but misinterpreted. This is proven in the Correction by Spicer section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Deceptive implies intent to deceive or hide truth. False simple implies the statement was wrong. EvergreenFir(talk) 22:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The intent of Spicer was different to the media though. Spicers intent was to brag about Trump, whereas the media wanted to compare it past inaugurations. False does simply mean that it was wrong, but I am saying that this was not the case, however that the media and Spicer were talking about two different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Do the article's sources say "Spicers intent was to brag about Trump" and "the media and Spicer were talking about two different things"? - MrX 11:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The first one is implied, as it is literally his job, and I don't think a source would say that about anyone. However the second one is supported by sources such as these.[1][2]
No, the first one is not implied. Spicer is the administration's press secretary, who is supposed to deliver factual information about the president's activities, policies, and decisions to the press, not brag about Trump. The two sources that you provided do not say "the media and Spicer were talking about two different things", or the equivalent. What they do say is that Spicer told some falsehoods and then claimed that "the media and Spicer were talking about two different things", which of course is absurd and has been refuted by other fact-checking sources.- MrX 12:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
How can a fact-checking source refute that unless Spicer has confirmed his intent? Is it absurd that you think they are falsehoods when he clarified that they are not. I don't deny that the press sec should deliver factual information but they can still present it with a positive spin. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
What matters is what reliable sources say about this sort of issue. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not denying what the reliable sources say, but I am saying that the claims of the newer reliable sources unless their is reason to doubt their reliability should be allowed to abrogate what the previous reliable sources say. Instead what we have is a narrative and chronological telling where we call a statement false as the reliable sources called it false at the time, but despite mention the clarification that the reliable sources later reported on we still can the fact as false despite it not being false just misleading (whether that misleading was intentionally deceptive or not is a different matter). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This page should be on Kelly Conway's personal wiki page. Particularly because she was using a term that is from the legal profession... and there is a wiki page for it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts_(law)
It has very little relevance with in the context that the page was written and is clearly bias.
Without being merged with the existing page, it has people believe that this is the main way to use the term alternative facts, which is in accurate... alternative facts have been used widely in the law profession while adjudicating cases in which "alternative facts" are being presented.
(on a side note, it's unfortunate that wikipedia is allowed to be used for political partisanship... I'm no Trump fan but using Wikipedia to distribute "alternative facts" about "alternative facts" is only going to hurt damage it's reputation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.59.167 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The usage by Conway, versus the uses by those who are not Conway make this not a Conway only topic. It has been used beyond just Conway, so merging it there is wrong. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree, this topic goes beyond Conway. Spicer or POTUS makes a statement, Conway and others backpedal with alternative facts (lies or made up stories.) This is repeating over and over with each erroneous statement. Lies are becoming a common method of damage control, which then are deemed to be mistakes. Buster40004 Talk 05:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
given this topic goes beyond Conway and the term has existed long before this recent spike in the term's popularity, why is the entirety of the article about Conway and her interview faux pas? the reason, obviously, is that the article in it's entirety is a pile of bias and opinion being masqueraded as fact. At best the content of this article should be a subsection of Conway's own article, or in the trivia section of Alternative_facts_(law), which would make more sense as the main page for this url.216.123.255.220 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@216.123.255.220, it takes a tort to marshal up Alternative_facts_(law) to be arrayed in a court. That would take money, time, and expertise. I agree that this goes beyond Conway.[1] See #Damage control, below --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
you and Buster40004 both sound more like pundits than editors in this talk section, drumming up some conspiracy theory about the Trump administration that has nothing to do with this article. If there is a source for this claim, and it is directly related to the article, then feel free to present it. Otherwise, suggest you consider submitting your op eds to huffington post, not wikipedia. 216.123.255.220 (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
We still do not have the secondary sources that are required to write an article, that is not primary sources where commentators have used the term, but actual sources explaining how the term is used. TFD (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This narrative was constructed by Thrush and Haberman after interviewing dozens of sources.[2]
They characterize Trump as "a man of flexible ideology, but fixed habits."[2]
Trump's top staff numbers no more than a half-dozen aides[2] (possibly Conway, Hicks, Kushner, Bannon, Priebus, and Miller, based on a photo illustrating the top of the article).
Priebus has demanded that Trump have early access to the details of the executive orders he is signing.[2] with no executive order to be signed by Trump without prior signoff of the communications department and the staff secretary.[2]
Conway now has another role, no longer just Communications[2] but with walk-in access (no appointment needed) to the Oval Office.
After Trump retires for the evening, he explores the White House.[2] The aides are so new, they didn't even know how to turn on the lights, so they met in unlit rooms.[2] Visitors don't know how to exit, so they test doorknobs.[2]
It's not only Andrew Jackson's portrait behind Trump's Oval Office desk, but also Thomas Jefferson's portrait.[2]
But we are now seeing a Tweeted reaction to Thrush and Haberman's narrative (6 Feb 2017). [3]
I do not see the relevance to the topic of this article. While this all may fit snugly together for you, you need a secondary source that does this, per "synthesis". TFD (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
For one group, story (narrative) trumps fact;[1][3][4][5] for a second group, coherence in narrative is paramount;[2] incoherence of fact is failure of the thesis, something to be repaired. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's alright as long as people can recognize it is an article falling under WikiProject Journalism jurisdiction. Too many people seem to take this like an encyclopedia entry like Obamas wiki page. This is just wiki journalism. Brettwardo (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@User:Brettwardo, your contribution appears to be a new idea to the editors of the encyclopedia's WikiProject Journalism, as evidenced by the current wp: WikiProject Journalism entries, which apparently do not list anything under this aegis for anything like fake news, or alternative facts, for that matter. Maybe I wasn't looking at the right categories. Since that circle is new to me, in particular, might I ask that you take the time to write an appropriate message for that wikiproject, to alert those editors to this opportunity? I would be surprised if wp: WikiProject Politics did not also cover these topics, as well. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I am probably even newer to wikipedia than you are. I only just made my account when I couldn't edit a semi protected article a week ago. I only know this is wiki wp: WikiProject Journalism because it is in that category on the talk page. It say's it is high importance too. The wikijournalism scene I followed for a few days some time ago but it does seem fairly dead. Brettwardo (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality template removal
I have reviewed the article and the "background" section containing the neutrality template appears unbiased and well-supported by reliable sources. I am removing it unless someone has a well-supported objection. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
unsigned comment added by 213.198.231.42 (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The article lacks neutrality because it is based on primary sources without secondary sources to explain how the term is used and to determine the weight of the various opinions provided. There are in addition other problems within the article. For example, it says that sales of 1984 increased, but that is implicit synthesis - we need to explain how that is related and source it. Also, it cites The Guardian making a claim when in fact it is the author of the article in The Guardian that made the claim. The general problem though is one that will always occur when there are inadequate secondary sources to write a neutral article. TFD (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the 1984 thing was widely reported, not just in the Guardian, and always in the context of Conway's remarks, so I don't think there's any synthesis there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The text reads, "The phrase was extensively described as Orwellian; by January 26, 2017, sales of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four had increased by 9,500%, becoming the number one best seller on Amazon.com." That implies a causal connection between Conway, but it is not made explicit nor is it stated who made the connection. Hence it is improper editorial synthesis. What is 1984 anyway, a book set in the Reagan years? Don't assume that all readers have the same information and follow the same reasoning patterns that you do. And don't assume they will click on the links to the sources to find out what the meaning relevance is of anything written in the article.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the reference should not be there, just that it should be presented in a neutral manner. Say what the connection is and who made it.
I don't think any further context is needed, but if it will make you happy, we can remove the semicolon so that it doesn't seem like we are creating a connection ourselves. If readers have never heard of 1984, they can click on the convenient link. If they won't do that, then they are missing an opportunity to learn.- MrX 18:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
But there are multiple narrators[2] in the Trump White House.[3] By comparison, in administrations where there was a single narrator, it was simpler (less incoherence of fact) to construct a monomyth. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
At present, 2+2=5 and Animal Farm are present in the "See also". A reference to Orwell is present in the article, and backed up by good sources, however, the connection to these specific motifs is never justified. I think a single link to Orwellian or Doublespeak would be more appropriate. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Jacob Rees Mogg/Sean Spicer/Kelly Anne Conway/Stephen Miller/Michael Gove
Can someone add in a section on Jacob Rees Mogg and the use of alternative facts in the UK during the Brexit campaign in 2016.
Then compare and contrast with Sean Spicer/Kelly Anne Conway/Stephen Miller in the USA.
Perhaps also add in a section on Michael Gove too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Instead of “lying,” I should have said, “telling the contrary of the truth.” Human beings can tell fairy tales, imagine new worlds, make mistakes—and we can lie. Language accounts for all those possibilities. Lying is a specifically human ability. A dog, following a track, is following a scent. Neither the dog nor the scent “lies,” so to speak. But I can lie to you and tell you to go in that direction, which is not the direction you have asked about, and yet you believe me and you go in the wrong direction. The reason this is possible is that we depend on signs.[1]
I'm not very good at this subject. Maybe someone more aware can do better. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I took the liberty of formatting your contribution. Ordinarily, I wouldn't, but we are used to reading the citations in a certain way. Thank you for this contribution. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 23:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Historical perspective
Can someone add in some historical perspective on how previous presidential aids used alternative facts.
It can't be that Sean Spice, Conway and Stephen Miller are the only users of alternative facts historically?
Is there any comparison with the Nixon years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There are destructive falsehoods wich where used to justify the progroms and mass killings. Nazis propagated the Arian race myth en had anti-jew stories to justify the elimination of jews. It wasnt cynical propaganda; The German people believed in it. There where committees wich determined how Arian individuals where and much jewish blood contimination there was. Hitler was handicapped because he refused to accept any facts wich contravened his views. He dismissed or executed officers who contradicted him. That why alternative facts and realitys can be so dangerous.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hillary Clinton was once asked, "Did you wipe your email server?" and she replied, "Like with a cloth or something?"[10] Based on different interpretations of the word "wipe", the answer could have been yes or no. Riley Cohen (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Conflating Attendance with Viewership to call Spicer's claim False
It is my understanding that Spicer said on Jan 21 "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe." When he says "around the globe" it definitely means to me he is not talking about attendance. What he means is viewership via various media sources. When people conflate viewership with attendance, this is spin to discredit him at the worst or a dimwitted reading of the facts with no bad intent at the best. My problem is with calling Spicer's comments false in the lead. [11] This USA Today article says "Spicer may be correct. While Nielsen TV ratings were higher in past years, some data suggests online viewership was up compared with 2009. But there is no comprehensive measurement available that would prove or disprove this claim." So, my point is Spicer's claim was possibly correct therefore not false as we definitively claim. Are we promulgating "fake news"? Glennconti (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's not get too far into obvious misreadings here. Shall we take the full quote:
We know that from the platform where the President was sworn in, to 4th Street, it holds about 250,000 people. From 4th Street to the media tent is about another 220,000. And from the media tent to the Washington Monument, another 250,000 people. All of this space was full when the President took the Oath of Office. We know that 420,000 people used the D.C. Metro public transit yesterday, which actually compares to 317,000 that used it for President Obama's last inaugural. This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period -- both in person and around the globe. Even the New York Times printed a photograph showing a misrepresentation of the crowd in the original Tweet in their paper, which showed the full extent of the support, depth in crowd, and intensity that existed.
What matters here is that he is saying "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration ... both in person and around the globe" while giving all sorts of numbers about how many people were (allegedly) physically present on the mall, and saying nothing at all to justify the assertion about viewership. He is asserting that on both measures it was the largest audience ever. So, no-one is conflating anything by saying that the assertion re numbers physically present is demonstrably false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"Both" to me means when you add two things together. When for example both (in person and around the globe) not (both in person) and (both around the globe). You are imputing meaning he did not say. Glennconti (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Again -- he said nothing at all at any other point in his speech to justify the "viewership" notion. He *did* give numbers for on-the ground, totalling to 720,000. That number is obviously unfounded and false. The number he gave for Metro ridership was also false. There's nothing at all wrong with our saying they were false. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
When he says the words "around the globe" any fair minded person will not read local attendance but will read total global viewership.Glennconti (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You're not responding to my points, for reasons I take as obvious. I'll respond to yours: I accept that he made an assertion about (global) viewership -- though apparently without foundation for that either. But he gave numbers for on-the-ground that were obviously false. No matter what sort of exegetical magic tricks you try to apply to one part of his statement, there are obvious falsehoods here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Spicer was fact checked. USA Today says he may be correct as far as total viewership. One part of his statement (local audience) when taken out of context of the other part of his statement (non-local or global audience) which combined was total viewership. The complete sentence is not demonstrably false. To your point, Spicer provided an estimate of the local audience, the true exact number of local attendance is unknowable. There is no way by providing a "fact" about local attendance, he could have not been false. He provided a rough estimate that was later corrected for a more accurate one. His estimate was not as accurate as other later ones - this is not a falsehood. But, it is clear that his meaning was total viewership. Glennconti (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah -- so the assertions about local attendance really were just alternate facts. I think we're done here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Estimates which were later revised. By your argument, for example, anyone that states the numeric population of the USA is speaking a falsehood. The "truth" of this number is unknown and unknowable. To call anyone a liar when they estimate a population is disingenuous. They can never be truthful by your definition of truth and falsehood. Glennconti (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
By your "logic", Spicer wouldn't have been lying if he had said the local attendance was 20 million... Anyway, TFD's point below is of course sufficient to dispose of this nonsense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Estimates are a matter of degree of accuracy. Spicer's estimate of ridership was 420,000 people. Due to the fact that it was a round number - obviously an estimate. Subsequent numbers used were 570,557 a more accurate estimate but still an estimate (what about people jumping the turnstiles?). Spicer's estimate was only 26% lower than the revised estimate. Hardly 20 Million. His estimate was accurate to a degree. Glennconti (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Please also this above section which is similar. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors are not allowed to interpret primary sources. What Spicer meant is whatever mainstream media says he meant. TFD (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream media (USA Today) says Spicer may have been correct (truthful). We are asserting Spicer spoke a definite falsehood which is contrary to sources. Glennconti (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is my point exactly. However this would mean that the statement was not false but deceptive (intentional or otherwise can't be proven without the reliable sources confirming) and should be changed to reflect this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"Deceptive" implies conscious intent. How about "unsubstantiated claim"?Glennconti (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The claim is substantiated though, but Spicer was talking in a way that was different to what the mainstream media presumed he meant. If consensus is for that term however then I will accept it.Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Global viewership is not being calculated so Spicer's claim that this was the largest crowd [ever] to view an inauguration is a claim that cannot be substantiated. Glennconti (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
While the USA Today article says, "On that point, Spicer may be correct," they are referring to Spicer's comment that "if you add up the network streaming numbers, Facebook, YouTube, all of the various live streaming that we have information on so far, I don’t think there’s any question it was the largest watched inauguration, ever.” However, the article concludes that Trump and Spicer "provided false information to feed a false narrative about crowd size." So it is wrong to say the paper said Spicer may have been correct. Obviously a false statement may be correct about some things. For example, Spicer's closing sentence, "I will see you on Monday" turned out to be true. TFD (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The source says Spicer may be correct on total viewership. That is a fact according to the source. The source's conclusions did not negate that statement. The source passed judgement on Spicer's estimate on local attendance, which while approximately accurate, was not exact and therefore they deemed it to be false. They stated many facts in the source. I am using one. They pointed it out so I think we should too regardless of their ultimate conclusion. Glennconti (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Some WP:NOR and WP:DUE issues going on. One source saying part of the statement may be true compared to the dozen saying b is not does not mean we go with that one source. EvergreenFir(talk) 16:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It is not just the mere sources but this article itself. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
"Mere sources" are what we use, and the article faithfully reflects the views of the vast majority of sources. I'm sorry, but we can's use editor's personal analysis of a very minor viewpoint to create a WP:FALSEBALANCE by presenting it as equally valid to the mainstream view that "alternative facts" are merely falsehoods.- MrX 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Conservative news media and the POTUS alleges widespread media bias towards a liberal viewpoint. So much so that the mainstream media cheerled for Hilary Clinton, colluded with her team in the Presidential debates and erroneously predicted her victory to the point where many are now talking about the demise of journalism. In this environment, the mainstream media view is being called into question. I believe calling the POTUS a liar, while currently in fashion by the mainstream media, is not a decorum that is consistent with the majority popular view. When we call the current administration liars and then not present a well sourced countervailing view we are doing a disservice to a large number of our readers who would give the POTUS and his administration the benefit of the doubt. I take Spicer at his word - he said global viewership was larger for the Trump inauguration. USA Today says he may be right. We should go with that in addition to the liberal viewpoint that the POTUS and his administration are liars. I just do not think respect for the POTUS is a "very minor viewpoint" regardless of your assertion. Glennconti (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No need of logic or argument from authority to see I have a reliable source contradicting the main point of this flawed article. Fact remains USA Today says Spicer may have been truthful. We are stating definitively that his statement was false. The arguments against including the statement from the USA Today I have answered. I think it is disingenuous on our part to attack living people as liars when we have information to the contrary. #fakenews Glennconti (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This apparently impossible object, located in Gotschuchen, Austria, projects into a Penrose triangle by forced perspective @Glennconti, One of Spicer's problems is that there are multiple narrators when he needs a forced perspective. He is trying to construct a history without waiting for a decent period of time to provide perspective. We are witnessing his attempted construction of a monomyth. It's narrative, a story. Humankind prefers storytelling because a story has a plot. It's a false equivalence to equate a story with truth. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
That he may have been right about total viewership is irrelevant to the fact he was wrong about physical attendance. As I mentioned, his statement that he would be back on Monday, which was true, does not make his statement about crowd size less untrue. And of course he had no way of knowing whether or not overall viewing was higher. More people have access to live streaming than they did 8 years ago, but we don't know how many of them watched the inauguration.
Also, the level of media bias was high. But policy says we cannot second guess it and conservative media is even more biased and more importantly far more inaccurate. Policy dictates that we rely on the "facts" in mainstream media and give the same emphasis to viewpoints that they do. On the positive side, long term we will be able to replace them with articles by historians and political scientists.
Yes, Spicer may have not been uttering a falsehood about total viewership we agree. We disagree about the physical attendance issue though. I have to reiterate the point that Spicer, when he spoke about subway ridership, he provided an estimate (round numbers). Then he was "refuted" - later - with an exact number (to the person). It is not fair to say a person's estimate is a falsehood when compared to an exact number. This is because you are not comparing apples to apples. The estimate will always be a falsehood. Please understand this point. I gave the example of the USA Population. If Spicer said the Population of the USA is 300 Million, how can you then call him a liar and say no it is 324,453,276? Is he a liar? In my book you can estimate as long as the number is accurate to a degree without being a liar. Are you indeed a liar, technically yes, I guess, but it is not a fair comparison - an estimate to an exact number. Further did Spicer say local attendance was greater for Trump than for Obama? Emphatically NO, Spicer said that he was talking about both numbers (when combined), physical attendance and non-local attendance (tv and internet streaming etc) being greater. Spicer when he was initially speaking may have indeed thought local attendance was greater for Trump than for Obama, I don't know, but I certainly do not believe he knew Obama's physical attendance numbers were greater but consciously tried to deceive every one with his bad intent. He clarified he meant both numbers (physical attendance and non-local viewership) a full day before Conway was interviewed. As far as mainstream media - they are at war with Trump. And I challenge you to provide me with the names of any right wing media sources that I can use here that would not be immediately shot down here because they are not a reliable source(s). Glennconti (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Trump's administration claimed the in person figures were 1.5 million people (which funnily enough, still wouldn't give him the largest in-person inauguration crowd). In reality, most estimates place it under 500,000. There were a couple other in-person numbers that Spicer got wrong, however even the online claim is dubious. It's hard to get an exact figure with how online streaming works, but all signs point to Obama's 2013 inauguration having a higher level of online viewership than Trump's inauguration (without even getting into TV ratings), despite that not even being the Trump administration's initial claims. 70.49.130.192 (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
We owe the Good Faith contribution #Useful Data to P. Pajouhesh. It could be used to lift the discourse of this article. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
the Kellyanne Conway article currently has this to say about the AT source:
"The conservative daily magazine American Thinker claimed that "alternative facts" was commonly used in law and was known to most lawyers.[1] However, the Guardian pointed out that a search for the term in several legal databases showed no hits for the phrase.[2]" DK-ZERO (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
"some of the most powerful tools in the logician's argumentation toolkit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.221.113 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales?
I question User:BullRangifer's recent addition of a rather anodyne quote from Jimbo to the "Reaction" section.[12] We should always be careful not to bloat up the importance of Wikipedia and its founder in articles, and it doesn't seem to me Jimbo's comment can hold up its head in the company of, for instance, the previous paragraph, which describes how fifteen professors of law have filed a disciplinary complaint against Conway with the D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Conduct, on the ground that "it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." Now that's interesting. But Jimbo declaring (when asked about the phrase, mind you!) that "There are just facts, not alternative facts"..? I don't think that does much for the article. Thoughts? Bishonen | talk 16:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC).
I'll bow to a consensus about that. I'm an inclusionist and want to build the encyclopedia, not a deletionist who makes it smaller. Wikipedia and Wales are the most notable users and defenders of the concept of "reliable sources" in the world. Everything we do here is based on that concept, so editors become experts on that subject. Truth is important to us, and Wales defends it. Top journalists share these same concerns. Lawyers understand this, but in practice often seek to circumvent it. In this case, they are embarrassed by Conway's horrible example and understand that she's setting a very poor example as a lawyer who should know better. I wish them well. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bishonen. Jimbo does not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Wales' commentary adds nothing noteworthy to the encyclopedic coverage of the subject.- MrX 23:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the commentary. I will remove my addition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted [13], from "Criticism", the large paragraph about Robert Stoker, but it was restored. I have multiple problems with that material, including the fact that it is from an op-ed by a non-notable person, and it is sourced only on the op-ed itself, a primary source; there is no indiction that any secondary source took any note of it. After all, there were probably dozens if not hundreds of op-eds written about this subject; why single out this one for inclusion? I don't see why it is in the article at all. But if it is included, it should be reduced to a sentence or two like all the other criticism items. It should not spell out in detail everything he said, when none of the other far-more-noteworthy criticisms are given such treatment. --MelanieN (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Red herring section - BLP violation?
I object to the addition of this material, although I didn't remove it because I am already in one disagreement with the editor who added it and I don't want to get into personal edit warring. This paragraph is a highly negative POV evaluation, from a non-notable linguist, cited only to her own writing a translation of an interview she gave (i.e. a primary source). She describes a supposed strategy on Trump's part to use "alternative facts" to distract people while he takes various negative actions. Per WP:BLP we need strong sourcing to support negative material about living people. IMO this is nowhere near a strong enough source to make this material acceptable, here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this analysis is negative, but it is clearly UNDUE. Opinions are a dime a dozen. SPECIFICOtalk 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You're not sure that "It is astonishing to see how media let themselves be baited and lured by Trump's red herrings" is negative??? In any case, it sounds like you agree it should be removed, even if for different reasons (UNDUE rather than BLP). I do agree it is UNDUE - and BTW so is the paragraph I referred to in the section above this one. --MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I removed both the Stoker & Wehling quotes/bits. I agree that it is excessive with a touch of WP:QUOTEFARM to it. Neutralitytalk 02:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't see that it's negative. If it were true, it would be a tactic and a successful tactic, and it's not like beating little children or cheating pensioners out of their savings. For a public figure who's extensively discussed and intensively examined from every point of view, I think there's a fairly high bar on BLP violations. Also BLP and WEIGHT are often related. An opinion, if very widespread, would not be UNDUE and if very widespread in RS would generally not violate BLP either. SPECIFICOtalk 02:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Photo Upload
My classmates and I agree that adding a photo of Kellyanne Conway would enhance the article. Here is the one that we plan to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kellyanne_Conway.jpg#filelinks . If anyone has a better idea for a photo please respond to let us know. Iamalc (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
— JFG talk 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
