Talk:Alternative facts

See also section

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

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

Value of transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript excerpt of the interview

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

Kellyanne Conway: No it doesn’t.

Chuck Todd: … on day one.

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

Chuck Todd: Wait a minute. Alternative facts?

Kellyanne Conway: … that there’s …

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Alternative facts on Wikipedia talk pages

See for example talk:Christ myth theory#Much ado about nothing. --RosaLuxemburgOnFreedom (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)