Talk:alternative fact

translations
I understand there are a lot of wikipedians watching over this article... but please, if you want to help, learn to cite the way Wiktionary cites. In particular, the &lt;ref&gt;s for translations are probably causing this term to not appear in re-user databases. - Amgine/t&middot;e 05:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Should it be glossed "derogatory" and/or "euphemism"?
Equinox ◑ 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: January–March 2017
As this is a hot word, it's not an RFV matter. However, I feel some scepticism that this isn't merely an SOP construction that is being used in this exact form to mock Kellyanne Conway. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not used to mock Kellyanne Conway (she merely coined the term, hence the relevance of her name), since it is used to describe the Trump administration by sources all over the world, like the UK (The Guardian, The Independent ), Canada (Toronto Star , Globe and Mail ), US (CNN , Forbes , Washington Post ), Australia (Sydney Morning Herald ), New Zealand (Herald ), Hong Kong (The Standard )
 * And it is not a SOP since "alternative fact" does not result in a "fact" that is an alternative, it results in a non-fact. People whose mother tongue isn't English won't easily see this difference, as alternate ways to formulate facts exist that result in facts instead of falsehoods, unlike this usage of "fact" resulting in falsehoods.
 * (For example, there are alternate theories of gravity, which result in the same facts on the ground as the conventional theories, but which differ in areas which are not experienced in everyday life, so results in true statements in experiential circumstances, from different processes)
 * It is also truly a very hot word, widely exploding all over the world, with its unique meaning.
 * -- 65.94.168.229 04:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The SOP meaning is not covered in the entry. The SOP meaning is the legalese meaning of competing facts of a case, presented at a court of law, where both sides bases are demonstrably true, but interpretations may be incorrect. The usage here it is for statements demonstrably untrue. -- 65.94.168.229 05:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The legal term provided by user:2602:306:b802:31c0:7836:d6e5:3a15:83fd has been moved to Etymology 2 -- 65.94.168.229 04:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the above. If it dies out it can be deleted then, but not while people would be looking it up the most. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep  "Alternative facts" is not a neologism.  The phrase is being widely regarded as a absurd, laughable neologism coined by Kellyanne Conway.  While the use to which Kellyanne put this phrase may be unprecedented, the phrase itself has a longstanding and legitimate in the legal profession.  Kellyanne Conway is a lawyer, so it is at least plausible that she pulled this phrase from her legal experience to defend Sean Spicer during her contentious interview with Chuck Todd.  In any case, I think it is really helpful for people to realize that, despite the outrageous, shocking use to which Kellyanne Conway put this phrase, the phrase itself does have a prior history, and does have a respectable use in the legal profession.  Following is the second etymology for this entry, explaining the phrase in the legal profession:  "Etymology 2  The term is widely used in the legal profession. For example, in 1991 an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court contained this: "If the presumed fact is not itself necessary for the verdict, but only one of a variety of facts sufficient to prove a necessary element, the reviewing court should identify not only the evidence considered for the fact subject to the presumption, but also the evidence for alternative facts sufficient to prove the element."[13] A textbook used in legal education states: "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...."[14] This phrase is an example of legalese ("Wording that resembles how a lawyer writes, especially such that is confusing to the layperson.") This phrase is also an example of a term of art."
 * —This unsigned comment was added by &#x20;at 21:40, 25 January 2017.


 * Keep The term has application as it can be applied as a basis for the resulting conclusion of a twisted logic argument.
 * —This unsigned comment was added by &#x20;at 22:56, 29 January 2017.


 * Keep: "This is only used to mock Kellyanne Conway" a) isn't an argument for deletion (if it was used enough, it still passes CFI), and b) is itself an alternative fact ("alternative facts" is also used to mock Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer) Pur ple back pack 89  04:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There are two uses, both of them legitimate (even if one is hot). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep seen that the term's usage is proving to be more than ephemeral. Morgengave (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could somebody please put in some citations? Please see use-mention distinction and WT:ATTEST. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2017
Could we have some citations that support the definition and otherwise meet WT:ATTEST? Or, alternatively, could we have a better definition that did fit citations. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Wikipedian-developed articles are awful to look at. - Amgine/t&middot;e 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It is now cited. However, I find uses that predate 2017, so I am dubious about the etymology. Kiwima (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was in use as a legal term long before 2017. The older sense may be difficult to distinguish from the newer one. DTLHS (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The older legal sense you speak of is the sense illustrated by the quotes on the citations page, which is clearly distinct from the more modern usage. Kiwima (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Cited IMO. Thanks. Now for RFC. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Legal definition
Could you post your argument for removing the (supposed or actual) legal definition of the phrase? It is unhelpful for us to hold a discussion solely in edit summaries. I'm agnostic, as I don't know much about legal terminology. — Eru·tuon 23:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, of course. While I understand Wiktionary is descriptive (along with most English dictionaries), "alternative facts" is not included in any of the many legal dictionaries I could find (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), some of which are extremely detailed. I have been able to find a handful of uses in which "alternative facts" is used in the sense of "alternative pleading" (such as in the first citation: 1991, US Supreme Court, Yates v. Evatt) but that does not make it a term in itself, as it is still just "alternative" (with the meaning of 'being used in alternative pleading') put in front of "facts" (WT:SOP). If you think this usage of "alternative" could be confusing if someone stumbled across it, it would make more sense to amend that word's page to include the legal sense than include every compound like "alternative claims" and "in the alternative" (which are both more common formations than this one). The second citation (2014, Bill Nelson, ‎Amelia Phillips, ‎Christopher Steuart, Guide to Computer Forensics and Investigations, Boston: Cengage Learning 2016, page 515) refers to a different meaning, competing facts, which I believe is irregular/anomalous (although the source itself seems legitimate). Because the source is "mentioning" the 'term' rather than using it to convey meaning, it cannot on its own be used as a citation anyway because of WT:ATTEST. On top of that, the definition itself ("Any of two or more sets of competing potential facts that explain a given case, circumstance etc. ") is written vaguely enough to refer to either sense even though there is an important distinction between them ("alternative facts" used in alternative pleading are different, possibly contradictory possibilities put forward by one party when the exact facts of a case are not known while competing facts would be different accounts of an event put forward by different parties). Sorry for the confusion, thanks for understanding, ReconditeRodent (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. This would be purely SOP, just like "alternative theory" or "alternative explanation". bd2412 T 01:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC discussion: March 2017–February 2021
This has gone through RfD and RfV (not all definitions). I have partially cleaned it up, but I fear that I have lost objectivity. Accordingly, could someone take a look at what I've done and correct it and figure out what to do with the "Usage notes", formerly one of the two etymologies, the "Etymology" that I commented out, and the footnotes to the calques/translations in the translation table. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Closed as stale. - -sche (discuss) 23:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)