Talk:2000 Mules

Quoting NPR Hatchet Job

An objective analysis of the NPR article is that it is a hatchet job. Therefore, using it as a source is simply a bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrerj (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR is a perennially reliable source that we will continue to use unless another perennially reliable source debunks it. I wouldn't hold my breath for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR has lost its reputable status in recent years in the eyes of a significant portion of the American population. Tyrerj has a valid point to be discussed.DeknMike (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, NPR has not lost its reputable status, just because any portion of the American population doesn't like it. Calling something a "hatchet job" without anything to back it up is not a "valid point to be discussed". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR has lost its reputable status in recent years in the eyes of a significant portion of the American population because a significant portion of the American population has decided to check out of reality in favor of a fantasy world. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

And your data showing this comes from where? Banderson1962 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It comes from NPR.lol Our job isn’t to prove D’Souza wrong, or these sources right. The sources listed, for instance, actually have a good reputation unlike, say, D’Souza himself who is a convicted felon with a history of lying (ie. His own wife for instance at the sentencing for his crime sent a letter to the judge saying that he is a man of low-character who lies all the time). The burden of proof isn’t for us to prove this guy wrong but the burden is on you guys to prove your case is right with actual evidence. Geotracking evidence by itself isn’t enough. Neither is one unverified anonymous source. This isn’t a single reputable source out there supporting the claims made, not even Foxnews will touch it. So, your question is answered. There’s our “backup”. 2601:280:CB02:22BD:B571:A6FE:FDE0:562A (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you, but ok Banderson1962 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tyrerj made a baseless, unsubstantiated, false claim about a supposed but nonexistent "objective analysis", so no, it's not a "valid point". And this page is not for discussion of people's supposed "valid points", but rather for improving the article page based on reliable sources and other elements of Wikipedia policy. Offer up such sources and they can be discussed. Jibal (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What "objective analysis" is that? Jibal (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove the word falsely

REMOVE THE ‘opinion’ of the word falsely. We know stop trying to truth ministry Americans 67.240.194.218 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, which have been cited. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: The problem is that the adverb "falsely" comes across as dictating an opinion to the reader, even if it's correct and well-supported. I support a better phrasing, such as "makes disproven allegations that..." which is a factual statement without dictating an opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not dictating an opinion if it true. Flat-earthers are falsely claiming the world is round when it is a matter of scientific fact that the world is round. Ergo- it is simply a false statement that 2000 or more vote mules were illegally engaging in ballot harvesting. You are making two fallacious mistakes here: An appeal to authority and a false equivalence fallacy. The burden of proof was on D'Souza to prove what he was saying is true. Not for us to "disprove" him. And the consensus is simply against you on this. Stop enabling the trolls on this, please!2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I disagree. It is categorically false though, and as the IP above correctly mentioned, the Earth is not flat -- but flat earthers would have you falsely believe it is. More to the point: the reliable sources provided support the "false" description (PolitiFact: "Biden was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally, but the trailer falsely frames his quote as an admission to election fraud."; WashPost recommends to "treat [director's] claims with skepticism"; AP Fact Focus: "But that's based on faulty assumptions"). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that my alternative suggestion of using the phrasing "makes disproven allegations" is identical in meaning to the use of "falseley" without coming across as opinionated. Words matter, and that word just doesn't come across as neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's semantics, especially if, as you claim, they share identical meaning. If the allegations have been disproven, the obvious word to label those allegations with is precisely 'false' – as reliable sources already do. Re neutrality, Wikipedia follows where RS take us. Also, I note that this is currently being discussed at top of this talk page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is semantics, and semantics matter. Two words or phrases can mean the same thing, yet one can be more sensationalist and emotional. Such is the case when one resorts to an adverb rather than a descriptive phrase. Not a single one of the sources use "falsely" to describe a verb, they use the adjective "false" or "disproven" to describe a noun. The adverb basically says D'Souza is a liar, the adjective says that his statements are just wrong. The distinction is subtle, but there's a reason reliable sources choose the words that they do. We should do the same. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And that bit of analysis and editorializing isn’t your call to make, which itself is a WP:OR violation. We simply report the sources and if the sources say D’Souza is being dishonest, lying, and deliberately making “false statements” then we report what they say, no matter how harsh it might sound. The level of dishonestly here is on par with flat-earth conspiracy theories as there is no doubt, scientifically speaking, that there were more votes for Biden than Trump. This is about a vote count. Math. Which isn’t a partisan debate. And essentially the sources are accurately calling out D’Souza for expecting us to believe 2 + 2 = 5. It is not our job to care about the feelings, or standing, of a minority opinion here. To suggest otherwise is a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violation. Not to mention that the movie has been exposed for using falsified evidence and debunked video evidence, for which the filmmakers are dishonesty ignoring even when empirical hearings on the matter say as much. You are engaging in WP:GAMING when you are being obtuse about ‘semantics’ given that WP:UNDUE clearly expects us NOT to give undue weight to the beliefs of a delusional anti-social minority as you’re doing.2601:280:CB02:385D:BDAF:26AB:B43F:E38D (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. Read what I said above. None of the sources use the word "falsely". None. They state the fact in other ways. It is a misrepresentation for us to do otherwise. Do you even know what WP:OR says? You're saying it's a WP:OR violation to state what the sources say, rather than state something else? Incredible. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read the sources and the word "false", "misleading", "deceptive" comes up several times. You are being WP:POINTY. Not only are ALL the reputable sources calling out D'Souza for presenting no evidence for his claims, they have exposed him for using fabricated evidence in some cases, misrepresenting videos of law abiding voters simply dropping off votes for their family, and then (without explanation) simply concluding at the end with some formula he invented that voter fraud happened- saying that an unverified anonymous sourced told him to do it. This is that the reporters are reporting. Not in editorials or movie reviews. In their actual reporting. Yes, WP:OR, because the reader doesn't care about YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH in this. If reporters are coming down hard on D'Souza for ridiculous conspiracy theory as awful as a flat-earth or Holocaust denial, then let them report it that way. Since when does wikipedia have to be a collection of quotes? In the end, it has to be an wikipedia article. Not a plagiarized one. "Falsely" is actually quite generous when we could just come out and say "dishonest" and "slanderous" among other things. Consider WP:DUCK 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, semantics do matter. The word "falsely" is not used by sources. None. They use adjectives, not adverbs. That is not original research, that's an observation of what the sources actually say. The hand-waving analysis you have done to justify the adverb isn't your call to make; that is original research, and the readers do care, else we wouldn't keep getting these stupid demands to remove the word. My position is that we should replace it with something like "the film makes disproven/false/misleading/deceptive allegations that..." using an adjective like the sources do. To characterize that suggestion as "original research", to say what sources actually say, boggles the mind. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"The word "falsely" is not used by sources. None."

This is false ... direct quotes with that word are given above, and at least seven are given below.

"That is not original research, that's an observation of what the sources actually say."

It's a false claim as to what they don't say. Even if a direct quote hadn't already been given, one would be hard pressed to prove this negative.

(Hmm ... did someone say "tendentious"?)

"My position is ..."

The consensus seems not to support it.Jibal (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"You haven't been paying attention."

Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Jibal (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many claims made by the film described in this article, many of which are indeed described by RS as false. For example, all of these:

that True The Vote solved a murder of a young little girl in Atlanta (NPR)

the film's assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots (AP)

In Philadelphia alone, True the Vote identified 1,155 “mules” who illegally collected and dropped off ballots for money. (AP)

But it is not true that every single claim made by the film is described as false by RS. For example, regarding the claim Alleged ballot harvesters were captured on surveillance video wearing gloves because they didn’t want to leave their fingerprints on the ballots, the AP says This is pure speculation, and goes on to justify why. It does not call this particular claim false, unlike other claims fact checked in the same article, because there is a difference between unproven/speculative claims and demonstrably false claims.

So if the wording in the lead says that the film falsely says that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election, then we ought to have RS which say that this particular claim is false. I see many RS that say this claim is unproven, based on deeply flawed and in some cases apparently fabricated evidence, and that many other claims made in the movie (such as the ones I listed above) are false. But I have not located a source saying the specific claim described in the part of the lead quoted here is false. False and unproven mean different things and we should be precise about what the sources say. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And again, that is WP:OR since that is your thinking on the matter, your feelings on the sources. The sources themselves are reporting by not only on D’Souza’s false claims but his dishonesty on the matter. The glove example, for instance, is absurd for you to use because in the context of the articles you are only selectively pointing out the word “speculate” while leaving out the rest of the context where the reporters are using that as an example to indict D’Souza for being dishonest, citing how people are likely using gloves because of the pandemic, etc. and D’Souza exploiting the optics of that, sometimes the skin color of a voter in other instances, to trick and incense his audience. The context matters here, as does the consensus of reputable sources, none of which are locked in the debate on this ridiculous movie which is as offensive and dishonest as fringe scams claiming Holocaust denial or a flat earth.2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 ([[User talk:2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11

And again, I must remind you that checking what the sources actually say isn't original research. The word "falsely" is not used by any reliable sources found so far. If you can find any source that says otherwise, in the context of that sentence, then present it. Otherwise stop accusing others of engaging in original research, when you are the only one doing it.

Furthermore, I also suggest sticking to discussion about improving the article rather than repeatedly critiquing the film. We all agree with your critiques, which are becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS because this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussion about the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right that I don't need to lecture you on this... when this should be a no-brainer. Using the holocaust denier page as an example, this is in the lead, "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements" D'Souza is btw a holocaust denier, who also promotes a "false claim" that the Nazis were the core of the democrat party today. The Big Lie that the election was stolen by evil democrats falls into the same category of weaponized propaganda that the Holocaust denial falls into- anti-social disinformation trying to use "false" claims to target and harass vulnerable groups of people. Thankfully, it would seem the prevailing consensus of reputable editors here is that we need to keep "false" in for the same reasons I espoused above. Hopefully, if you decide to push this then you will open a voting process (at the very least) out of respect for that consensus so that consensus here will continue be respected. It should make you happy to know that I'm done here. Cheers! ~Philip. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The point that is being missed is that I am not objecting to using an adjective such as "false" to describe a noun. I am objecting to the adverb "falsely" to describe a verb. Both have the same meaning, but the latter is likely regarded as an inflammatory label on someone's actions rather than a factual label on the outcome of those actions (the claims in the film). And the adverb is not used by any reliable sources found so far. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not missing the point ... that's a classic ad hominem. If a work makes a false claim of X, then it falsely claims X. Twisting and turning to pointlessly (and indeed none of your reasons are valid) avoid using the adjective is bad writing. Jibal (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop with such personal criticisms. Jibal (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it's proven fact. Jibal (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

After much vacillation over many days, including removing "falsely" from the lead once[1] and restoring it at least once, and reading the extensive argumentation (the IP editor makes compelling points), I have finally come down hard in favor of excluding "falsely" from the lead. The term is not explicitly and broadly supported by our sources and I believe the remainder of the lead and body are fully adequate to demonstrate that the film is outright trash. We should just let the article unfold and speak for itself. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Between the prevailing consensus of editors here, the proper use of the word false in other similar matters (like conspiracy theory articles about "holocaust deniaL), and the fact that the sources in question clearly are calling out D'Souza's dishonesty, it would seem the tide (for now) is against you. Until there is a proper vote on this, please respect that. Protip: That word false in the lead is being used by Facebook as justification for keeping this disinformation from flooding and spamming Facebook, just in case you wonder what the stakes are here. If we water this down any further, and bury it as you suggest, then wikipedia will be used to disseminate harmful slanderous propaganda in a way that violates our mission. Food for thought, don't let "idealism be a road to hell." Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about the word "false". It's about the word "falsely", as has been stated repeatedly. Thus far, I don't see a consensus in favor of "falsely", and there has been zero rebuttal to the verifiable fact that not a single reliable source actually uses that word. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources using "falsely":

• "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."AZ Mirror
• "The Republican head of Georgia’s election board said Tuesday that a recently released film alleging ballots were illegally collected and dropped off during the 2020 presidential election falsely suggests there were tens of thousands of illegitimate votes in the state."[2]
• "The film falsely implies that rampant voter fraud compromised the 2020 presidential election, costing Trump a second term."[3]
• "<title>Dinesh D'Souza film '2000 Mules' Falsely Implies Data Solved A Murder : NPR</title>"NPR StrayBolt (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I added some myself. Here, below. Good catch. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, an NPR piece uses the word itself directly in the headline, saying "2000 Mules Falsely Implying..."

• Then there is this recent article "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."
• AND then there is this article that says, "The film falsely claims unnamed nonprofits linked to the Democratic Party paid people, whom it calls “mules,” to illegally collect and deposit absentee ballots in drop boxes in five swing states where Biden won–Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin."
• And then THIS ARTICLE, that says "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."

And since our job isn't to plagiarize articles but create an encyclopedia style living article of our own that accurately reflects the sources in a verifiable way, then given the clearly consensus of not just these reputable source BUT all the ones so far that clearly take issue with the demonstrable dishonest effort to push "false" information, I think you are making the perfect the enemy of the good here. By consensus of editors, it seems like enough veteran editors have been reasonably fighting to keep this. So short of some kind of thoughtful formal vote, I'm confused by your fears here. The only ones really taking issue with the word "false" are those who want to spread their disinformation, the cult backing this film- upset that such language is impairing them in their disinformation efforts. Given how patently false and anti-social this slanderous conspiracy theory here is, about the BIG LIE, it doesn't make sense at all to appease that crowd because it would represent WP:UNDUE. Personally, I think you are just too WP:POINTY to get that- and burying the word "false" in the lead, or watering it down in the way you should, is a disservice to the reader and our mission here. Hopefully if you fight for this, it is only after a very lengthy and thoughtful/thorough voting process to determine what the consensus here is. But, for what? A nobrainer over a fringe theory as absurd as a flat earth or whether or not Elvis died? Have fun with that. Cheers2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Why are NONE of those sources cited for the word "falseley"? The sources cited at that position do not use that word. That was my point, which you keep missing. All I'm saying is that the adverb sounds like dictating an opinion, where an adjective simply states a fact. A noun would be even better, like "falsehood" or "lie". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This claim about semantics is quite bogus. When someone says that something "sounds like" something to them, they are stating not just a personal opinion but a personal perception that carries no weight at all. Jibal (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of sources identifying specific allegations as false, but as I said, they don't broadly characterize the film as false. This is why I oppose that umbrella term in the lead, but rather we should present the overwhelming number of falsehoods in the body. One of the tactics of propaganda is to include some truthiness to prevent critics from making a blanket characterization of falsehood, and this poses a dilemma for journalists, and for us, exactly as propandandists intend. It's somewhat clever, and I don't see a viable way to get around it. soibangla (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL! WP:PROFRINGE was established as a thin red line for exactly what you are trying to pull here. More on that in a second. As for your false claim about the sources, they absolutely categorize the movie "as false". The following sentence alone, one of many from many sources indicting the movie, (quote)"The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots." -which is the central charge of the movie! lol And, D'Souza's gambit proved not to be all "that clever" at all as not even hard right pundits at Foxnews or Newsmaxx are touching this. He overplayed his hand and, no, didn't box us in as you claim. Whether it is a flat-earth, Obama's birthplace, or Holocaust denial, somethings are no-brainers. Again, for perspective, a similar example of anti-social slanderous conspiracy theory, this sentence in the lead, "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements". You are conveniently leaving out that this movie is simply repacking the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, debunked in other articles- i.e.this movie is not presenting anything new. And when it comes to articles representing WP:FRINGE this article, like holocaust denial falls into a special class called WP:PROFRINGE, which was set up as a firewall for what you are suggesting. Where "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, like the repackaged BIG LIE about 2020 in 'this vote mule geotracking' variant theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories are prohibited. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable, which is exactly what TrueTheVote is doing here. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. And in this case, they are not, because of what D'Souza's film "falsely alleges".2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Numerous sources do in fact broadly characterize the film as false. The contrary claim is completely bogus, much as the claim that the word "falsely" is never used, despite numerous examples given here. Jibal (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC: "falsely" in lead

Should the word falsely be included in the first sentence of the lead? soibangla (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep it. Yes. Makofakeoh (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Replace it with a more definite statement that doesn't come across as dictating an opinion. The phrase "falsely says that" just sounds weak and opinionated. Better alternatives might be "promotes the falsehood that" or "presents false allegations that". Don't use an adverb. Preferably use a noun. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Rebuttal Here is a sample of sources using the word "falsely", (feels like the issue is actually with the word "says" so simply replace the word "says" with "alleges" or "claims" to conform with the sources, and that should remedy this edit-war over semantics)

  • "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."AZ Mirror
  • "The film falsely claims unnamed nonprofits linked to the Democratic Party paid people, whom it calls “mules,” to illegally collect and deposit absentee ballots in drop boxes in five swing states where Biden won–Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin."Atlanta Civic Circle
  • "The Republican head of Georgia’s election board said Tuesday that a recently released film alleging ballots were illegally collected and dropped off during the 2020 presidential election falsely suggests there were tens of thousands of illegitimate votes in the state."[4]
  • "The film falsely implies that rampant voter fraud compromised the 2020 presidential election, costing Trump a second term."[5]
  • "<title>Dinesh D'Souza film '2000 Mules' Falsely Implies Data Solved A Murder : NPR</title>"NPR
  • "In other words, D’Souza is elevating shaky, misrepresented, incomplete claims to bolster his rhetoric — as I said, an apt summary of the movie overall."WAPO (though the word "falsely" isn't included, the context can be easily paraphrased without WP:synthesis to infer an indictment of dishonesty, which "falsely" by itself conveys neutral enough language that it would not be a NPOV violation in the form of WP:WEASEL words.

  Again, "falsely" is used consistent across the board by the sources, so we must respect the sources and report their overwhelming consensus on the topic for what is simply a WP:FRINGE matter for which wikipedia insofar as strict policy as no tolerance. For those coming in late, this is no different than outrageous slanderous anti-social fringe ideology like conspiracy theories about the holocaust. The sources on this no-brainer of a matter are not wavering, as well. Their take is that this anti-social slanderous fringe "about the big lie" is repackaged as a movie, and they are they comfortable leaving it 'simply to the readers to decide'- i.e.by allowing a false balance to suggest there are two sides to this debate. So burying certainly language in the lead would not only misrepresent their reporting but would do a disservice to the reader. Let's not try to right all the wrongs in the world WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but, rather, honor the consensus of the press. Good luck! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Listing some sources that use the word is not a rebuttal to my argument. Semantics matter. Impressions matter. If we can use better, stronger, more direct language than sloppy labeling, then we should do so. WP:LABEL requires us to consider this. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Rebuttal#2 But it is the sources that matter here not your interpretation of them, or whether or not it hurts our feelings because those dang reporters are just being too dang harsh.

  Your strong personal feelings on the matter borders on WP:OR. Again, it doesn't matter whether you think they are being too harsh or not, because the exception to the rule here is matters of conspiracy fringe WP:FRINGE. This isn't a debate about a critical consensus involving a movie for instance.

  That said, I did in fact directly rebut your claim. You are being obtuse WP:POINTY. To say “falsely claims” rather than “falsely says” is far from sloppy, and that is the direct language used by the sources to counter the central claim of 2000 mules. In fact, you are making an argument for why we should use that original language since you are proposing arguably “sloppy” language that is very verbose and convoluted.

  Yes...“Impressions” DO matter and we should not inject a false balance here when the universal consensus in the press is that this movie is patently and deliberately misleading. If this were not a matter of fringe conspiracy WP:FRINGE theories then you certainly have a point but Wikipedia has a very strict policy and no tolerance for this.

  And because the propagandists involved wish to weaponize not only the press but also Wikipedia in the service of said propaganda, this is why Wikipedia has created a clear redline regarding pro-fringe conspiracy theories WP:PROFRINGE to inoculate itself against this cunning form of gaslighting.

  Unfortunately on this matter we only agree to disagree so we will see what others think about this- hopefully in the service of journalistic integrity and not misguided idealism. 2601:280:CB02:4E49:CC34:1299:CDB1:3D64 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have no "strong feelings" on the matter, and be mindful of WP:NPA. Your mischaracterizations of my arguments, as well as ascribing non-existent motivations and feelings to me, constitute passive-aggressive personal attacks. Cease commenting on contributors immediately, please. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Rebuttal#3 I promise you that it was nothing personal as my issue was more with your idealistic methodology (which in my own personal opinion is a common problem with Wikipedia and articles like this) and not with you as an editor; so I'm sorry if you took it that way. I give people enough credit not to be thin skinned, not saying you are.

  I am blunt, as you have learned, and if I truly had a problem with you I would’ve come right out and said it. We are not robots here so when dealing with controversial articles like this, and the inevitable s*** storm that will follow, ‘this’ is a classic example of when we need to ‘assume the assumption of good faith’ Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which as you know is not to be confused with Wikipedia's standard vanilla etiquette regarding good faith.

  TL;DR version- If it really needs to be said- Thank you for the spirited debate and for your contributions here and elsewhere, no hard feelings. Yes, we’re done here. 98.50.110.204 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Your mischaracterizations of my arguments, as well as ascribing non-existent motivations and feelings to me, constitute passive-aggressive personal attacks."

  ...

  "Cease commenting on contributors immediately, please."

  Looks a lot like projection. Jibal (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:LABEL is a bad example here. It recommends the exact opposite remedy given the circumstances:

  The weblink abovetakes you to an essay that points out exceptions to the rule so we don’t “grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.”

  Furthermore, WP:LABEL actually advocates for labels like “racist” or “pseudoscience” or, for the purposes of this article, a term like falsely when faced with fringe conspiracy theory. In those extreme cases, according to WP:LABEL, those labels do not always violate the policy espoused by WP:NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Especially when pseudoscientific or empirically-false views "should be clearly described as such".

  Per the content guidelines spelled out by Wikipedia:Fringe theories, certain labels are more than appropriate when supported by reliable sources and should be used to distinguish fringe theories from the mainstream. The essay concludes that in those rare cases it is proper to embrace what might seem like weasel words or reductive labels.

  To demonstrate this point, as luck would have it, 2000 Mules is so problematic apparently that in just the last few hours alone a fresh mainstream article reported that, when it comes to 2000 Mules “…the data can’t actually prove what he and D’Souza suggest it does, for example, or that the purported data they show in the movie is obviously (and admittedly) fake.“

  BlakeWashington (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Listing some sources that use the word is not a rebuttal to my argument."

  You flat out stated (falsely) elsewhere that the word is never used by RS.

  Your "argument", such as it is, consists of completely baseless claims about the connotations of various words and phrases. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that supports your argument against the use of the word "falsely". Jibal (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• I would be okay with changing the word to "disproven" or "debunked", if "falsely" is so offensive for some reason. We have to indicate that this movie is bogus right off the bat. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Rebuttal But they are not just saying "disproven", the sources are going far enough to go one step further, and convey the dishonesty of the anti-democracy groups behind the propaganda film. We shouldn't water it down when, really, they are the only ones finding it offensive. For a good read on wikipedia policy, see the essays on WP:FRINGE. My 2 cents. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Does "falsely" convey dishonesty? It can, but I don't think it inherently does. It could indicate unintentional errors in judgment, much as "disproven" and "debunked" can. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  The reporters in question here have also documented the dishonesty by the filmmakers including fabricated evidence that has been exposed in the movie. I'm just parroting what they are already saying 2601:280:CB02:42FD:50BF:2AF:8C24:B68D (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - The proposed alternatives from User:Anachronist seem a little verbose. Keep it concise. "falsely says" is fine. "falsely claims" might be better. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Agreed I think “falsely claims” or even “falsely alleges” are better phrasing since both are direct quotes from reputable sources themselves, which should satisfy zealous/idealistic editors here- and this seems to be turning on the word “says” and not so much on the word “falsely”; a much-needed tweak blown-up into what has become a misunderstanding of sorts conflated by an edit war over semantics. 97.118.78.3 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:CLAIM. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu: - Are you saying MOS:CLAIM would support the use of the word "claim"? That policy says using "claim", "can call their statement's credibility into question". That's explicitly what we're trying to do here. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  I was just remembering that synonyms for "said" are frowned upon, but now that you mention it, it might be appropriate usage here considering these claims are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment @Valjean: Could we have your opinion on this one? Nythar (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. It needs to say that this is wrong, false, or something like that. This is simply false claims, and if you don't spell it out then readers may think otherwise from reading the plot synopsis following the first sentence. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• No, Remove it. Movie reviews, much like book reviews, are not WP:RS (WP:OR):

  Avoid using book reviews as reliable sources for the topics covered in the book. A book review is intended to be an independent review of the book, the author, and related writing issues, not a secondary source for the topics covered within the book.

  Representing opinions as facts is the very first listed contravention of WP:NPOV policy:

  Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely. The lead should clearly say falsely, with a cited attribution but without the need for further prose. Falsely should then be expanded with prose in the body article where the overwhelming array of sources state as such. Like all lunatic WP:FRINGE topics the POV of believers can be expanded as well. The existence of FRINGE believers, no matter how vocal, does not mean the lead should not contain a succinct reality. The POV of fringe believers should be adequately expressed; that does not mean equal weight, space, or treatment. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, or something similar. I am open to alternatives. This is a fringe topic, so it needs to be treated that way. The mainstream POV has more weight, so it should get the prominence it deserves right up front. Unfortunately, the current wording does mean we will never have peace here, IOW a huge timesink. We will have to keep this article locked forever. Therefore, better wording would be welcome, but, in the meantime, keep the current wording.

Muboshgu suggested "disproven" or "debunked". Anachronist's suggestions are valid but verbose, and many RS do not make the semantic distinction made by Anachronist, so that's not a big issue for me. Yet, their point that "impressions matter" is important, so a less strident word that gets the same point across would be welcome.

Would someone please make a list of the descriptors used? Try a sentence, with refs, that says: "The film has been described as false,[1] propaganda,[2], debunked,[3]...etc...." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Consider Suggestion: as an alternative "2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely CLAIMS that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election."

I agree it probably sounds a bit too personal or cringe to write "falsely says" but "falsely CLAIMS" is a perfect compromise without sacrificing the integrity of the sources:

Rationale:(i.e.when to embrace weasel words SEE LINK) It creates enough space around the assertion that it reads neutral. Watering it down further creates a problem because "debunked" or "disproven" implies that this was a harmless good faith venture by the makers of the film when the truth is the press is clearly reporting on the well-documented malice, willful anti-democracy agenda, and hate driving this political propaganda.

It is important to note that not only are the journalists reporting on the debunked claims but the malice behind said claims. As a matter of fact: It's gotten so bad now, that the propagandists are now outright attacking reporters "as domestic terrorists" in an effort to bully their (and our) first amendment rights. I've never seen anything like this in my life, and most reporters in the press are equally alarmed by this new low.

Some hot-button wikipedia articles, like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, unfortunately WILL always mean "there will be no peace"(to respectfully quote you) because of the divisive nature of American politics and, yes, will mean that some wikipedia articles will have to be locked like this for an indefinite future. Unfortunately, there will never be peace with the trolls short of dishonestly watering our article down to say that there is some truth behind the allegations or allowing them to weaponize wikipedia. And we shouldn't aim for the lowest-common denominator.

Alternatives like "...makes unsubstantiated allegations..." do NOT accurately or reasonably reflect the cited sources since it leaves the reader with the false impression that said allegations could be substantiated at some point. That's the difference between a theory that has been disproven, like the black hole information paradox for instance (i.e. where it was proven recently that information does escape a blackhole, and isn't completely destroyed) VERSUS a patently dishonest fringe theory that was a ridiculous documented scam in the first place- like the Minnesota Iceman, which some claimed was evidence of Bigfoot (i.e. it was Disney costume meant as a special fx for a movie that a conman placed in a block of ice).

Again, "falsely claims" seems to be the best fit that hits all the right notes whilst accurately reflecting what is being reported. Because when you say, "falsely says" it gives the article too personal a voice because WHO is saying it? But there is no doubt that the consensus in the press that the "claims" in the propaganda film are not only "false" but intentionally so as a matter of documented fact. So we must respect the reality that, and be ready to take the heat. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C46E:98E6:A4DB:AE22 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C46E:98E6:A4DB:AE22 (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Consider "...makes unsubstantiated allegations..." as an alternative. "not supported or proven by evidence"[6] soibangla (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with our IPv6 friend above. makes unsubstantiated allegations implies that they could be accurate, they just haven't been substantiated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  Um. Why did you remove two other sources from the lead that bolster the phraseology "falsely" in the lead? The reason you listed was "readability" but it wasn't impairing the form or structure of the article. Can you please restore them? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C46E:98E6:A4DB:AE22 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment There is a WP article False accusation StrayBolt (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Replace it, or change the wording that comes after "falsely". The current wording implies that the currently cited sources say the specific claim that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election is false. I don't think they say that, so I don't think the current wording is appropriate. The cited sources do say that this specific claim is unproven, and characterize many other claims put forward by the movie as false (eg. claims to have proven anything), but they do not appear to say this specific claim is false. In contrast to the current wording, an alternative such as falsely claims to prove that unnamed nonprofit organizations... would accurately reflect the cited sources.

While the currently cited sources do not support the use of "falsely" as it currently appears, the IP editor has provided several sources that would support the current use of "falsely" in a reply to Anachronist. These three sources are AZ Mirror, Atlanta Civic Circle, and Colorado Newsline (the other sources say that other claims made by the film are false, but not the specific claim described as false in the current lead). I am unsure if these three are of sufficient weight alone to support the current wording as representing a consensus of RS on their own, when the currently cited AP, Politifact do not support the current wording. It looks like they may be quality sources, as they appear to employ longtime journalists and have won some local journalism awards, but they are relatively new outlets and AZ Mirror and Colorado Newsline are both part of States Newsroom, about which there appear to be some questions about partisanship and ties to funding organizations (on the Wikipedia article and for instance at Open Secrets). Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. It says falsely because it is false. There's no need to leave room for a camel's nose for fringe topics. It's like saying "even though everything presented has been demonstrated impossibly untrue, Wikipedia should still leave the possibility open." No. Rubbish. It's a yellow surrey with the fringe running across the top, down the sides, and up the back, hell, even the wheels. That's what the sources say It's not up to Wikipedia editors to weasel in hair-splitting wedges that are not in the sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If "that's what the sources say", then it should be a simple matter to provide a quote from an RS saying that the claim that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election is false (or "impossibly untrue"). Could you back up your claims and provide one? Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

“The entirety of the claim rests on cell phone location data, which doesn’t remotely show that people were actually using the drop boxes (it doesn’t have the granularity to show that, as opposed to just walking or even driving by),” said Kenneth R Mayer, Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who spoke to Reuters via email.

"The entirety of the claim". We do not need to nitpick every Gish Galloped thirty seconds of the thing when the entire thing is trash. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

As I've said above, such quotes as the one you provided from Reuters (The entirety of the claim rests on...which doesn’t remotely show...) say that the claim is unproven, rather than that it is false. It very likely is false, but to say so in the article we need a reliable source saying this, and cannot rely on your opinion. The words unproven and false do not mean the same thing, and to take them as equivalents as your reply appears to suggest is sloppy and simply wrong. Fiwec81618 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep It’s not “just very likely false”, it has “been thoroughly debunked” according to one recent source. And D’Souza’s willful-dishonesty with his 2000 Mules hoax has been well documented and reported. You make it sound like there is a possibility here and that misrepresents the sources. Holocaust denial is called “false” in the lead and this similarly sociopathic fringe theory is also “false”. So it stays 2601:280:CB02:5881:4C3E:231F:3B84:897A (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

D'Souza's dishonesty is tangential to the discussion, which is about Wikipedia's description of the central claim of the movie, so let's keep the focus on what RS say about that specific claim. Holocaust denial claims are described as "false" because we have a huge consensus of RS which say so; just to give an example, a chapter in a scholarly book: Holocaust Denial and Other False Assertions of Fact. In contrast, I have looked at most of the cited sources for the lead sentence and in this discussion and while there is a consensus of sources to describe the specific claim in the first sentence of the lead of this film's article in Wikivoice as "unproven", there is not such a consensus for "false".

Thanks for the quote from the Salt Lake Tribune saying been thoroughly debunked; it is one of the first good sources I've seen that would support the use of "false" or "falsely". Alone it doesn't represent a consensus of sources, but if there are others, I would have little objection (though "false" is better as Anachronist has explained for encyclopedic voice). Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You are engaging in rules lawyering, also known as WP:GAMING and your rebuttal is simply false and fallacious. We can call hoaxes a hoax and sociopathic fringe theories “false” when the press is saying so. We don’t have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Our job isn’t to find exact wording, but the overall sentiment and consensus as it were. And the press is universally condemning and calling out the 2000 Mules hoax. There isn’t two sides to this and there’s no chance that the allegations in the movie can or will be true. Nuff said 2601:280:CB02:1106:500B:F368:EA0C:B2A9 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The above reply has many accusatory labels but minimal attempts to engage in a discussion of what the sources actually say regarding the specific claim in the lead sentence (rather than just a general "universally condemning" or "calling out" of the movie). It doesn't matter if you or I have personally come to the conclusion that it is a hoax or false. WP:V is not a technicality; it is a core part of Wikipedia's content policy. Can you point to a body of RS saying about the specific claim in the lead sentence that there’s no chance that [it] can or will be true? Fiwec81618 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

To say that it "doesn't matter what we personally think" is a red-herring because the editors (me included) are advocating for what the sources think, and by you obtusely ignoring what the sources think would violate the sources and WP:NPOV. There are exceptions to WP:V, like WP:PROFRINGE or WP:UNDUE where it is completely appropriate to use strong language when faced with wild claims. The burden of proof is actually on you and those that support this movie, it is not on us to disprove it and extend good faith to a bad faith actor character like D’Souza. You’re trying to find some loophole here despite the fact that the press is clearly calling this propaganda film “false”, a hoax, dishonest, etc. For others coming in late on this, so others are not pressured by the bulverism on display here, "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness". Certain stubborn editors in the minority here simply don't like the fact that RS tells us the film's allegations "are false", so they wants us to remove that. That would violate NPOV. Wikipedia does not offer the opinion that 2000 Mules is false. Wikipedia echoes the reliable sources, all of which say that the information and claims it presents "are false" and the conclusions are erroneous and "thoroughly debunked". Neutrality, in this sense, does not mean presenting both sides equally, because the sources say that one of the sides is wrong and presenting "false claims". You are reminding me of that scene in the movie “Dumb and Dumber” when Jim Carrey says,”but you mean there’s still a chance?!?!?” Sorry but I don’t see you really changing any minds here with your bulverism so unfortunately we only agree to disagree. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:816D:EB4:A8B7:2042 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume I'm talking to the same person?

This RfC is about the lead sentence.

Despite the obfuscation, your assertion that There are exceptions to WP:V... and continued refusal/inability to respond to the question

Can you point to a body of RS saying about the specific claim in the lead sentence that there’s no chance that [it] can or will be true?

with reference to any particular examples of sources speaks for itself. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I never said I wanted to include this sentence that "FACT: there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that 2000 mules can or will ever be true (read: though it is absolutely true-for the simple documented reason(s) that everything from (A) the lack of evidence, to (B) the fabricated evidence in the propaganda film, to (C) the sole phony unverified witness, to (D) the pathological liar D'Souza himself, and (E) to the vetted fact that Trump lost fair & square, do I really need to go into (F), (G), (H), (I) and the rest of the alphabet?!?!?).

Yes, this is about the lead and whether or not it is appropriate to include "falsely claims" in it.

The standard for that is WP:V check!, (read: the sources certainly back the claim and the use that language and stronger language) and the guidelines outlined by WP:UNDUE check! and WP:FRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE when dealing with political propaganda and anti-social fringe conspiracy theories check! Going off my checklist here, and so far so good. Last on my checklist: This is just going on in circles, you are not really changing minds, you are not really offering anything new in the way of compelling reasoning or facts, and bulverism won't prevail in this matter this time around with Trump's tantrum checkmate! So, we are done here, 'mate'. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:3971:E208:F70F:7A90 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself because you continue to fail to provide support for your claim that WP:V is satisfied: You want to keep the current lead, which says that the film's claim that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in... is false. For whatever reason, despite repeated requests, you have not produced sources with quotes showing that indeed a consensus of RS do call this claim false. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are being misleading, and untruthful- intentional or otherwise. The sources certainly use the strong language in the lead, calling the claims made by D’Souza’s propaganda film “false” and universally the reputable sources are not ambivalent in their reporting on this propaganda film. It isn’t a question for them if the film’s accusations are “unproven” or even “disproven” since there was nothing of substance to prove or disprove in the first place- according to the press, just Trump’s “false” claims about the big lie repackaged as a propaganda film.

We get it, it’s not enough ‘for you.’ Thankfully that isn’t the case for the majority of the editors here. If you truly think there is some egregious violation of policy here then report this article in the form of a WP:ANI, or be done with it and allow the rfc to continue here without your incessant tantrum and disruptive whining 2601:282:8100:D3E0:2185:6639:B36B:2F27 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If it's so obvious, why not provide some specific quotes from sources? Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fiwec81618I have...several times. So have the other editors. And when we do, you move the goal posts, or offer fallacious reasoning about why it isn't enough. Maybe consider conservapedia, it is "obvious" you like this propaganda film and believe in the big lie about the 2020 election. If this is SO important to you, then how about YOU provide some 'real' evidence that this propaganda movie is NOT making "false claims" since WP:BURDEN is on you, not the other way around. TTFN 2601:282:8100:D3E0:7863:FB67:DE76:7064 (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you have not (unless you count disembodied quotes not attributed to a source). SchmuckyTheCat has, and I already dug through the comments under another section to find a quote from the Salt Lake Tribune from (another?) IP user, and have expressed that these alone would not represent a consensus of RS. I've also already discussed at the beginning of this thread sources put forth by (yet another?) IP user in a reply to Anachronist. I would gladly look at other sources if they are pointed out. WP:BURDEN says The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, so since you support the presentation of "falsely" as currently in the lead the onus is on you.

If you consider my evaluation of some sources put forth by others fallacious, why not give some reasons instead of just flinging accusations?

Finally, consider WP:ASPERSIONS and don't make unsupported claims about me. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that the weight of views presented in reliable sources (as documented by 2601...) should lead us to describe the central claim of the film as incorrect, but I am sympathetic to what Anachronist said above. In general, articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone that describes existing information about a topic, and there are a lot of ways to say that something is false that comes off as persuasive or judgemental. In this case, "falsely claimed" isn't that bad, and though it does read as a bit persuasive/judgemental, I haven't really seen any proposed wordings in this discussion that are any better. So unless someone comes up with something better, falsely claims is okay. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Would really like to see a list of sources, right here in the RfC. As an outsider coming in to comment, I don't want to have to look all over this page, and the article, to find sources pointing this way and that. The sources should be listed right here in the RfC. They aren't. Per WP:BURDEN, I therefore provisionally oppose use of "falsely". That said, I am open to being convinced otherwise. Really. Just need the sources. I hereby give anyone who creates such a list to ping me, two days after the list is created, and I will reassess. The two days is to allow others to add to the list. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  No one has any obligation to do such work, but you have an obligation to vote in good faith. Numerous such sources have been posted on this page, which is easily searchable. Jibal (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - I've read no good reason to change it. "Falsely" is the word commonly used by the news sources above. StoryKai (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep No valid reason has been given to remove it, and it is used by numerous RS, contrary to some editors who have falsely claimed otherwise. -- Jibal (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jibal Do you have some examples of such usage in RS? I do see thoroughly debunked... from the Salt Lake Tribune. I also agree that the quotes provided in another comment by an IP editor from AZ Mirror, Atlanta Civic Circle, and Colorado Newsline support the usage of falsely as well, though I am unsure of the reliability of these sources for unattributed statements of fact. But I've looked quite a few times now and just do not see where the currently cited AP and Politifact pieces support such usage, or where in other RS this is done. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Again, it is used by numerous RS, as you acknowledge. I never claimed that the precise word "falsely" is used by every RS, or specifically by AP and Politifact ... but the wording in those sources do clearly support "falsely claim". And there is no need to establish a "consensus" of RS's in support of specific language, as you have called for. We do need a consensus of editors, and we clearly have one, so I consider this moot and I don't want to further legitimize such strawman and other fallacious arguments as presented above, so I will not respond further. Jibal (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right

The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right

"...The Hill has shared a story about a “coordinated Arizona ballot collection scheme” featuring a mug shot of a glum-looking older woman.

"It's not hard to figure out why this particular story is sparking interest in the moment. We're less than a month since the premiere of Dinesh D'Souza's film "2000 Mules" in which he alleges a massive ballot collection scheme in multiple states — including Arizona — that tipped the scales of the 2020 presidential contest. (The film entirely fails to provide credible evidence of this allegation as D'Souza suggested in a conversation with The Post.)

"...but it’s also a case that is already included in D'Souza's film."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Remove from reception: “A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief.

References

Beside the obvious, this is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS and really has nothing to do with the reception of the propaganda film by audiences or critics. It's an unscientific survey that gives a false impression that the debunked propaganda piece has legitimacy. Clear violation of WP:NPOV as well. 98.50.110.70 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC) 98.50.110.70 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the only thing wrong is the usually dubious source. The original version used a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't relevant. It would be like adding a survey about a plurality of people believing in UFOs to bolster a documentary about Roswell. The etiquette for the Reception section in essay after essay is that it is about critics, aggregators, and box office. The piece of weaponized disinformation here is being used by the propagandists as part of their scam to push the big lie as it is repackaged in the film. We could just as easily live without it, if for no other reason that it's making this already big article verbose and more bloated. 98.50.110.70 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen

Our article says:

A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief.

This comes from the Washington Examiner source,[7] which quotes "strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election" directly from Rasmussen.[8].

Rasmussen later says "68% of Democrats...say the movie strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election."

Does it seem plausible that 68% of surveyed Democrats had a conviction prior to seeing the movie there was systematic and widespread fraud, and that watching the movie strengthened that conviction? And how many Democrats were surveyed? Did they happen to include Mike Flynn and Tulsi Gabbard?

I tried but failed to find the precise questions Rasmussen asked in the survey. It's not in the methodology section they link to.

Daily Beast reported weeks ago:[9]

Conservative polling firm Rasmussen tweeted in support of D’Souza on Monday and blasted both Fox News and Newsmax for "taking a dive" on the film. "Cable TV news is wrecking itself. Remember this," the agency’s official Twitter account posted.

Now, Scott Rasmussen is no longer with the company he founded, but I nonetheless find it interesting that he was at least scheduled to appear with D'Souza at a rally two days ago.[10]

We also need to consider self-selection bias and confirmation bias in this survey: those who choose to watch the film are more likely to be election-deniers seeking confirmation of their belief.

Italics are mine in all cases. soibangla (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Between the strict guidelines laid down by WP:UNDUE when it comes to fringe matters, and WP:PROFRINGE about this exact kind of problem (ie. con artists wishing to use Wikipedia and the media itself to promote fringe theories in a coordinated matter, to normalize the fringe material) we can certainly exclude it. I couldn’t find a reputable source to corroborate that idiotic self-serving pseudo-survey. Please remove it. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:997F:89FF:B45E:48DB (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The reputation of Rasmussen Reports is sufficiently questionable that we should avoid it. If we do include this, we should use the primary source, not the often dubious Washington Examiner. --

You are misreading the poll. It's not that "68% of democrats" had his conviction, but of the people who watched the movie and are likely voters, and identify as Democrats, 68% had this conviction. You may find it surprising, but Rasmussen is a well known polling firm, and its poll was quoted in the press, so we go by that, not by what you find plausible Izzy Borden (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And just to help you out, as you are struggling with following links, here are the quetsions - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022 Izzy Borden (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the survey found that of those identifying as Dems and likely voters and watched the film, 68% said they had a conviction there was fraud going in, and the conviction was stronger coming out. I was aware that they identified as Dems and likelys and watched it because I posted your edit right up top, so my ellipsis was just trying to cut to the chase. Do you have a better source, because per WP:RSP "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." Thanks for finding the questions. Here's the key Rasmussen question: "Did the film strengthen or weaken your conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election?" Loaded much? It presumes everyone had convictions there was fraud going in that were strengthened or weakened coming out. Why didn't they just ask "Did the film do anything to persuade you there was fraud, or not?" Rasmussen is a well known polling firm, for sure; maybe take scroll through their twitter feed. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All sources have their biases. You are free to think that the question is loaded, and I may even agree, but articles are written based on what sources say, not what editors think. If other sources have criticized the poll question, you can add that. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a weak primary supported by a weak secondary. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that either of these are "weak". Izzy Borden (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

like you said it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. This is not corroborated with any other reputable source. And when it comes to debunked conspiracy theories or matters of fringe you’re supposed to tread carefully. For instance just because you can find a source that will suddenly say the earth is flat doesn’t mean that we need to not include it in an article. There are exceptions to the role when you’re running right into it. This is why there are essays about WP pro fringe in WP undue. 96.69.187.37 (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen is a well known and reputable polling organization, it is reputable. The Washington Examiner may be biased (which source isn't?), but it, too, is reputable. You may be mistaking this poll for something proving a conspiracy theory. It is not. It merely reports what people are saying about the movie - there is nothing fringe about that. To use you analogy it would be similar to reporting on a poll that find that 1/3 of millenials think the Earth is flat (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/?sh=6ebf8f147ec6) - that does not mean YouGov or Forbes are unreputable or fringe or support the 'Flat Earth' nonsense. Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

per WP:RSP "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." In such a controversial matter as this, that alone justifies exclusion, especially when not corroborated by other secondaries, reliable or otherwise, not to even mention the loaded poll question. soibangla (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial in reporting on a polling firm's polling results. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless weeks earlier that same firm took a swipe at conservative outlets for not covering the film, then constructed a poll question that presumed everyone going to see the film had already decided there was election fraud, which was covered by only one source that is RSP yellow because ""Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." soibangla (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources commented on that incident in relation to this poll, feel free to add that. Otherwise, we have a reputable firm (incidentally, their polling is rated higher by Five Thirty Eight than Pew's, and the same as CNN's), quoted in a secondary source. And as I worte, all sources have their basis. If we started to remove everything that's from biased source (or "RSP yellow") , there would not be much left. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And BTW, that "loaded question" presumes exactly what you presume, above - "those who choose to watch the film are more likely to be election-deniers seeking confirmation of their belief." Izzy Borden (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is not on anyone else for If reliable sources commented on that incident in relation to this poll, feel free to add that. If we started to remove everything that's from biased source (or "RSP yellow") , there would not be much left. except that's why we have RSP to make these determinations, and there's plenty of reliable sources remaining to allow the encyclopedia to continue. I suggest you and I pause and allow other editors active in the article an opportunity to opine. soibangla (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

When you said “what source isn’t biased?” you revealed your agenda here, not to mention your history of edit warring on political topics. So forgive me if I can’t AGF here. But the flimsy citation here is actively being used to promote a dangerous fringe theory, and it including it here violates the redline of WP:PROFRINGE established just for these special circumstances. So, no, we shouldn’t allow perceived loophole here to normalize a fringe theory, and doing so is WP:GAMING on your part. 2601:280:CB02:3EDF:8D35:41B7:CBEB:6967 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

. Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing here that says that I “have to login in” order to have a conversation. You’re not helping your case here by being obtuse. Your silence here says more than anything you could offer in the way of a rebuttal. Good luck with that 23.24.151.25 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to have a conversation with an IP-hopping editor hoping to conceal their identity. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not “concealing my identity” however I’m not gonna deal with an editor who hopes to use whatever you think my identity is as part of your agenda in the service of your WP:GAMING violation. You can’t respond to the merits of my rebuttal, so noted, regardless of your fallacious excuses. Also, noted. Have a good one. 2601:280:CB02:513D:4CFF:5BFD:DEEE:4FA0 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Such charges are a violation of policy. Please cease such ad hominem attacks. Jibal (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion."

Don't make such demands ... it's a violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022 (2)

Reference [4] “fact check” is actually an opinion article and in no way represents legitimate fact checking. The claims made by the 2000 Mules movie are substantiated as demonstrated by prosecutions and convictions being brought as a result of the evidence 2000 Mules provided. To claim that the movie is false outright is grossly irresponsible and a completely politically motivated stance. 2600:1012:B1C7:2373:801F:7C1C:7497:F85D (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no substantiation, no prosecutions or convictions as a result of this movie. It is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please support any claims you make with reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

• Remove ASAP:

"A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief."

For starters, this is an admittedly an unscientific survey, not a poll.

Also, this...

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1524830243235708930 "There is never ever ever enough evidence for WaPo's super-sleuth Phillip Bump. LOL." So, this barely reputable source from a clearly partisan-conservative publication announces its agenda: to troll a reputable reporter with a politically-motivated sham of a survey designed to promote a fringe conspiracy theory, which incidentally, is a violation of WP:PROFRINGE and on those grounds as well should be removed immediately. Is this really a question here? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:54A9:2B5:87F6:1CC5 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:54A9:2B5:87F6:1CC5 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Done with this edit summary: Rasmussen poll is only useful for those who are likely to see the film, which heavily skews towards existing Big Lie conspiracists. Not useful information here, and presented as a poll of the general, non-skewed demographics, public. requested edit on talk. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And now undone. There's a discussion about this in the section above, please participate there rather than taking unilateral action. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    Speaking of "unilateral", just the sarcasm in your words alone betrays your insincerity and agenda. You have now "unilaterally" reverted several reputable editors Strike One! over an esoteric, politically-biased source that has made it clear in its own tweets that they are trying to (A) promote debunked fringe conspiracy theories Strike TWO! while also (B) trolling the washington post, and is itself not notable enough to mention here, failing to be corroborated by the rest of the non-politically biased press, STRIKE 3! Yer outta here!! If anything, your page ownership behavior makes a fantastic case alone for removing it, and you've been called out already (and warned) by an admin given your disruptive 'patronizing' tone, so how about leaving this controversial content removed until you can at least make a case for it here, and build a proper consensus? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:ADE0:1BFD:6B2B:5DF3 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Hey, Izzy Borden, I didn't see the previous discussion, but I still would have removed it. This is not a survey of "likely US voters" it is an exit interview of self-selected viewers who chose to see the movie on their own. Had Rasmussen taken x,000 demographically dispersed people and shown them the movie there might be something to gain from this "survey". As presented it has no value. I would have removed this source for that reason despite any ongoing conversation. It's your job to show how this paragraph is useful. It stays out until then. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is completely incorrect. It was a phone survey of likely voters, and more than 80% of those surveyed had not seen the movie - see https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrasing question #6: "how important do you think it is for people to know what's in a movie you haven't seen?" soibangla (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to the fact that the rationale used to remove this by SchmuckyTheCat turns out to be based on an assumption that is totally wrong? Izzy Borden (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Weak primary supported by a lone weak secondary. That alone is sufficient grounds in any other scenario that does not involve partisan zealotry and conspiracy theories, backed by a dubious poll from a firm that has a dog in the fight. This is not Facebook. soibangla (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And the goal posts swiftly move. Neither the primary nor the secondary are 'weak', you just don't like the editorial bias of the secondary, and prefer the editorial bias of the film's critics. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not moved any goalposts. You continue to ignore RSP that has determnined WashExam is a weak, partisan source, whereas other sources in the article are not. That's why this is Wikipedia, not Facebook. If you want to argue that WashExam is a strong source, WP:RSN is the place for that. Going back many years, observers have noted that Rasmussen has constructed loaded questions to elicit a desired outcome, and this is another such case. Plus they are actively promoting/defending the film. soibangla (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat who removed this material said he did so because "This is not a survey of "likely US voters" it is an exit interview of self-selected viewers who chose to see the movie on their own." This turns out to be 100% wrong - it was indeed a survey of 1000 randomly selected likely voters, 85% of whom did not see the movie. When I point this out, the excuse for removing it becomes "Weak primary supported by a lone weak secondary." The goalpost moving could not be more obvious. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Schmucky was not the last editor to have removed this. And his reasons are not relevant here. Even if you are right, and you’re not, then removing an inappropriate contribution for the wrong reasons is OK because there are many ‘right’ reasons to exclude this. As the other editor said it is simply “a terrible source”- you know, the prevailing consensus here that you are “unilaterally” ignoring in violation of Wikipedia policy. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:E15C:849F:8108:84A9 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not any other editor, I was not defending any other editor. I said "It is a weak primary supported by a weak secondary" three days ago. And a third editor later removed your edit because it's a "terrible source," which is correct. I remember some years ago an editor insisted WashExam was just as reliable as NYT; that editor was later banned from editing politics articles for, IIRC, incompetence. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you were consistent in your opposition to supposedly "weak" sources, you'd be removing material sourced to e.g The Daily Beast, another "weak" source (RSP yellow), used more than once in the article, for more contentious claims then simply reporting poll results. That you are not doing so points to a different motivation than source quality. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Curious, are you a sock of User:X-Editor. Your edits are strikingly similar, on similar esoteric pages no less (and timing of edits) as is the agenda of both accounts to push unreliable sources in support of D’Souza propaganda films. 2601:280:CB02:4351:31E4:372F:9B60:94A1 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The two Daily Beast citations support less contentious matters, in fact, largely documented by tweets made by the people in question. WashExam reported on a dubious survey about a film Rasmussen actively promotes/defends. Rasmussen is not a "pure play" pollster, they are also political advocates. soibangla (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No they don't. One of them is used to support a claim that ' D'Souza continued to be frustrated that his film was not receiving much attention outside of an "election-denier movement""- a contentious claim about a living person (I doubt D'Sousa describes his audience as part of "election-denier movement""). It may be that there is in fact a tweet that supports that - just like there' is a Rasmussen poll that support what the Examiner reported in, a much more mundane claim about poll results. As I said, your actions point to something other than a concern for source quality. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:DAILYBEAST, I have removed that section you referenced as it indeed a contentious claim about a living person. We should not use The Daily Beast as a source for that: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Endwise (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. What's your opinion of the remaining Daily Beast reference, that supports "[Fox News and Newsmax] were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.", sourced to a Daily Beast article titled ""Dinesh D'Souza Claims Tucker Carlson and Newsmax Won't Promote His Batshit Movie" ? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"the agency’s official Twitter account posted"[11]

Neither Twitter nor Daily Beast are sources that can be used in the article for contentious claims. You don't see a problem with using The Daily Beast to claim something is a "Batshit Movie"? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I made it clear I am not proposing to use twitter as a source in the article ("For Talk purposes...") and TDB cites the tweet showing Rasmussen's own words. Back to our original topic, you are the primary {sole?) proponent of including the WashExam/Rasmussen thing, against substantial opposition, so as I see it you have two options at this point: a) open an RfC, or b) drop it. soibangla (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. It will help with this already bloated article. Hoping you feel the same way about the biased Rasmussen citation, as that one is as bad as the former 2601:280:CB02:4351:99FA:478A:E374:6280 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it justified to remove the entire section about everyone, particularly when "some editors advise..." and D'Souza's frustration has not been established as "controversial statements of fact"? For Talk purposes, I can provide multiple tweets in which he repeatedly expresses that. Should we go that way? soibangla (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think so. The content definitely belongs we just need to source it better, with the dailybeast acting a secondary source (i.e.It’s actually not that bad a source but we should be careful to use it for such contentious issues). To be honest we’re just doing all this to satisfy the tantrum of a certain disruptive editor, but compromise is sometimes the name of the game here so if it will help table this unnecessary disruptive debate over the flimsy political-agenda Rasmussen phone survey then so be it. My 2 cents. 2601:280:CB02:4351:4943:A76E:C07A:4376 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you say the same if say, the only source we could find for something was Fox News, and it was sourcing a paragraph's worth of controversy on some Democratic politician's BLP? Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment chain is so long now, so I'll try and be brief. In general I don't like the reliance on Daily Beast for this. For controversial political stuff, if they're the only one reporting on it the reality might just be that it's not worth mentioning, rather than sifting through and trying to cross reference it with tweets etc., or trying to only pick out the parts that are "uncontroversial" enough that we can agree it's fine. Using them here or there to supplement other material or to round out a story or to provide followups or whatever I can see the point, but I don't think we should rely solely on that for huge sections of content. Just as we wouldn't rely solely on Fox News for whole paragraphs of content about, idk, some controversy AOC was involved in on her biography when no one else has reported on it. Re 2601..., I put a longer reply about Rasmussen below. Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The reputable sources you don’t like aren’t “critics”, they are journalists. They are not engaging in “editorial bias”, they are reporting the facts. Thank you for admitting, in your own way though, that the sources that you want to use are in fact “biased” and engaging in “editorializing”. In fact, as we speak, Rasmussen is bragging about their bias on their Twitter daily. As far as their bias toward 2000 mules and the shameless shilling for it, they don’t even deny it perhaps hoping to avoid a lawsuit. Unfortunately you’re the only editor here in support of that esoteric contribution. You simply do not have a consensus for this here. Learn to quit while you’re behind. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:E15C:849F:8108:84A9 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Rasmussen Reports of course has a bias, but that doesn't necessarily make their polls inaccurate. FiveThirtyEight does pollster ratings based on the historical accuracy and methodology of the pollster, see here. Rasmussen Reports is given a "B" grade by 538, and they appear to sit at a position a bit better than the average. Similar rated pollsters include CNN/Opinion Research Corp. (B), Gallup (B+), and NBC News/WSJ (B+), which I'm sure we'd all be fine with under normal circumstances. Rasmussen for sure has a bias as to the types of questions they ask and the framing of their public reports and the like, but I'm not sure there's a good reason to believe their polls are inaccurate just because they're Rasmussen. Just as there wouldn't be a reason to believe that for Civiqs, who are probably biased in the other direction but also acceptable (see Daily Kos; for comparison, 538 gives Civiqs a B-). I don't think there's a good reason, or at least I haven't seen a good reason, to believe polls that come from Rasmussen are unreliable just in virtue of their origin. The relevant questions here are I think about WP:DUE and the like (I think their bias does factor into whether framing public opinion on the movie in this way is appropriate). So for me then the central question is "did secondary sources care about the poll?" Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. So far there is one secondary source that reported on this - (The Washington Examiner) , and it is being objected to as a "weak source". Izzy Borden (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is a partisan and marginally reliable source, so I would have to agree with whoever said that to you. Endwise (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's revisit if other secondary sources emerge. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up...but I wouldn't hold your breath.lol Just checked again with an extensive citation search, and the press isn't touching it for the same reason that Foxnews and Newsmaxx won't touch it-- the big lie is a big no-no, like Holocaust denial, and Rasmussen is clearly alone in promoting the aforementioned mean-spirited, anti-democratic fringe conspiracy theory at its own expense. Just a friendly FYI. Glad to see you've made peace with this. Cheers! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:191D:6645:84:4C23 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter of accuracy of the firm's routine polls, per se. This situation involves a special-purpose poll that contains a loaded question presuming respondents had a "conviction" there was election fraud without having seen the film. Another question asks respondents who had not seen the film if they believe people should know about topics the film addresses. It has an odor of a push poll. Then the firm gets actively involved in at least defending, if not actually promoting, the film on their twitter feed. Regardless of any assertions of their past polling excellence, this one just plain stinks. So it's not the least bit surprising that only one single marginal source reports on it. soibangla (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And that is why this won’t be picked up by the press. No one is buying it, the least of all, Rasmussen. Maybe another flimsy biased partisan outlet will run this in the best case scenario. But nobody reputable or honest will touch this. So I wouldn’t worry about it. 2601:280:CB02:596C:9457:4611:F8CD:2629 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

To address accusations of sockpuppeting, I have zero association with Izzy Borden whatsoever and I would never and have never sockpuppeted. I'm fine with removing the more unreliable source in the reception section. X-Editor (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC) --

@Izzy Borden: Thanks for linking the poll. Notice Rasmussen prefaces their results with "(Asked of 146 who saw 2000 Mules)". Those 146 are self-selected by any polling standard! 146 would seem to be so unusually small to be unuseful, but I'm not a pollster. Both selection and size reïnforce leaving this material out as biased and irrelevant. Again, thanks for linking material that deflates your own claims. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I am having difficulty believing you followed my link, read it and came to the conclusion they surveyed only 146 people who saw the movie. This is the link - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022.

The very first line is "National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters". Q1 is "Have you heard about the new documentary film about possible election fraud in 2020 called "2000 Mules"?" Q2 is 2: Have you seen the new film "2000 Mules"? Based on the answer to Q2, they asked either Q3 & Q4 of the 146 who saw it, or Q5 of the 854 who did not. This is standard polling methodology. A sample size of 1000 is more than enough to be representative for the margin error they claim. It is quite obvious you are not a pollster, or you wouldn't have made that silly remark. I think you should stay out of debates where you don't have the needed reading skills , let alone the background in statistics. See https://www.janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm Izzy Borden (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the words you are arguing for inclusion. It is very specifically the 146. You're playing games. Bye. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are the one playing games, by repeatedly repeating a falsehood - that only 146 were surveyed , and that they "self selected". Again 1000 people were polled (the standard size for nationwide opinion polls, per the link I showed you); of these the 146 who saw the movie were asked addiotnal questions. That's how ALL such polls work. You don't understand that basics of polling, that's fine - just stay put of debates that require such understanding. Izzy Borden (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

— Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

Remove from reception:”Paul Rudy of KUSI-TV said, leading into an interview with D'Souza, that the film "is revealing the truth about what really happened in the 2020 election."[38] Conservative reviewer Christian Toto said that the film "may be the most important documentary of the year, if not the decade. That's not hyperbole." and that the film "demands a fair hearing on the Left [and] Right".”

The sources are not reliable (they are far-right fringe sources, similar to OAN) and are classic examples of WP:PROFRINGE. Please remove immediately. Not true reviews. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Remove from reception, “ the conservative Rasmussen Reports polling company echoed D'Souza's criticisms, claiming that the two outlets were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.”

We just now removed another source from the dailybeast and the article already is so bloated that ‘that’ line is simply redundant coming off of the other one right before it. The Rasmussen part comes off as WP:soapboxing— as it is not quite editorializing nor is it a proper criticism by an actual reviewer; just random trolling by a biased political-advocate engaging in WP:PROFRINGE. It isn’t a dealbreaker to keep it if we must but the article does read much better without it. 2601:280:CB02:4351:4943:A76E:C07A:4376 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'll leave this to editors who are more active on the page (BTW I love how active the edit req process here is, best of wiki on display) but I think you're probably right. Coverage decisions aren't important enough to justify an entire paragraph. Political actors are always agitating about this stuff and it can be misleading to allow even their attributed claims. One line about how supporters were generally annoyed about lack of promotion by generally friendly media should be enough. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I agree that it's redundant and adds nothing of value to the rest of the paragraph. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

More Daily Beast

We still have the article using The Daily Beast to support a contentious claim about multiple living people ("D'Souza criticized Fox News and Newsmax for not promoting the film, claiming that Fox News' Tucker Carlson instructed Engelbrecht not to mention it during his interview with her "). This should be removed, per the previous discussions related to The Daily Beast. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. D'Souza's claim may be contentious but The Daily Beast's (that he said it) is not. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What other source has reported that D'souza claimed that? Did you see the discussion above, regarding the Washington Examiner's reporting on a Rasmussen Poll? Is it contentious that the Washington Examiner reported on the poll results? Or tht Rasmussen published that poll?Izzy Borden (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He tweeted it. It would be better to find a different source but it's not contentious. Compared to the Examiner example: The Daily Beast is a non-reliable, opinionated source whose articles are also frequently in the wrong tone/genre for sourcing. The Examiner often deliberately misleads and is not above completely fabricating articles. The claim here is easily checked, and therefore presumably not contentious -- he tweeted it. No source has disputed it, nor has any editor. You can follow the Examiner's sourcing to Rasmussen, but that doesn't improve matters, as they're not reliable either and haven't provided any evidence. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

He tweeted it, but Twitter can't be used as (a) it is not a reliable source and (b) it is primary, so possibly undue for inclusion. So we need a secondary source - for which you suggest The Daily Beast - but the Daily Beast is (even according to you) "a non-reliable, opinionated source", so it can't be used, at least if we go by the standard used to exclude the Rasmussen piece. I'm trying to see how these are different: Rasmussen published a poll, I don't think that's in dispute or contentious that they published it (and the equivalent is - D'Souza tweeted something.) You say Rasmussen itself is unreliable (I disagree - see above where User:Endwise writes "Rasmussen Reports is given a "B" grade by 538, and they appear to sit at a position a bit better than the average. Similar rated pollsters include CNN/Opinion Research Corp. (B), Gallup (B+), and NBC News/WSJ (B+), which I'm sure we'd all be fine with under normal circumstances. Rasmussen for sure has a bias as to the types of questions they ask and the framing of their public reports and the like, but I'm not sure there's a good reason to believe their polls are inaccurate just because they're Rasmussen.", but let's leave this aside for now and say, for the sake of arguemnt that it is unreliable, like Twitter). So we need a secondary source - for which we have The Washington Examiner - if it can't be used because it is a marginal source, why can we use the marginal source the Daily Beast in a similar situation? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it’s the classic slippery slope fallacy, and leaky bucket fallacy all rolled up into one (for good measure). Anything less than OAN or Trump’s word isn’t enough for these irrational proponents of conspiracy fringe. WP:PROFRINGE is a sobering essay on this cunning crazy-making, which is little more than gaslighting-in-media-drag. Good points. 174.215.21.144 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Along somewhat similar lines, the other Beast section was removed because its RSP entry says Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. There are holes there that a Mack truck could drive through. Some editors, as opposed to a consensus? Controversial statements of fact? So an editor can deem a fact "controversial" and remove it? Something is "controversial" because it disputed, or deemed inflammatory, by some other source; it has created a controversy. I see no evidence that content is disputed or inflammatory or created any controversy, so it shouldn't be construed as anything other than straight-up reporting of fact. And I can produce numerous tweets to demonstrate that it is. The distinction you draw between WashExam and TDB is appropriate. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment. It’s not like D’Souza didn’t say this, nor is it in dispute. So, there is no reason to exclude it on those grounds. However, on other content you may want to include with that source: Are there secondary sources on that to baton down this hatch, mate? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:50F4:CFF2:F30:F543 (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Agreed. They are just reporting on D’Souza and not making a controversial claim unlike Rasmussen which was engaging in editorializing and promotion. The other editor is engaging in WP:GAMING so I’d take all that with a grain of salt. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:D8A3:E180:F05E:6246 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. TDB is NOT "non-reliable". That's just someone's opinion. It is generally a reliable and good source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's classified "Yellow" at RSP, just like the Washington Examiner Izzy Borden (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yellow means "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." It is the specific description that's then more important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

So what are the specifics that make TBD usable here, but WashEx not usable? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Some editors" tells us that there's a tiny place for reconsideration in some few situations, which is like saying it's good 80% of the time and maybe not optimal 20% of the time. That's a rough summary. You're welcome 😊-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not clear enough. The "Some editors..." comment relates to using TDB for contentious claims about living people (which applies here- it is a comment about both D'Souza and Carlson). But the general view of the source is "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." -the same as the Washington Examiner Izzy Borden (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The only reason sources are listed at WP:RSP is that someone questioned their reliability at WP:RSN. A "no consensus" verdict means no change of the previous status, IOW keep using it as always, but sometimes some cautions or caveats are mentioned, such as the ones that already applied about BLP and "on a case by case" basis. Unlike the Examiner, TDB does not publish fake news, defend Trump's lies, or push fringe theories. That's why we are cautious about the Examiner, but can generally feel free to use TDB on a case by case basis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Izzy Borden the Examiner isn't a "marginal" source. IMO it should be deprecated. They literally fabricate entire stories. I noticed this one only a few weeks ago: the first two paragraphs are entirely made up; the rain tax was law for years and no one was forced to give any sermons. If you follow through it's theoretically based on a WaPo report that said nothing of the sort and they know that. Obviously any such law would have been taken down by the courts years before Hogan repealed it and there would be some evidence, somewhere. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/heres-the-corrupt-part-of-what-ron-desantis-is-doing-with-disney I emailed Carney and Seth Mandel, who I knew for years in NJ, and neither responded. It's just who WashEx is now. I don't even read their stuff very often and I've seen others in the last year. In contrast, The Daily Beast is just a professional organization of accountable reporters which is willing to mix opinions for which there isn't enough proof to go on wiki into their straight political reporting, so you have to be very careful and usually avoid. Also their gossip stuff is gossip stuff, so there are separate concerns there. This is not a contentious claim. No one has contested it. Twitter isn't independently a reliable source for entirely separate reasons -- him having publicly said it where anyone can see is still enough to prevent anyone from honestly contesting The Daily Beast's claim, which is why no one has. I really doubt any editors here will be swayed by this argument, and their patience will run out. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion, but the Wikipedia community thinks otherwise - it is rated "Yellow", just like TDB. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a far more experienced editor than you who does not defend fringe theories and poor sources. I have just explained for you what the Yellow "no consensus" means. If you were to try to get the Examiner's Yellow status changed, I suspect it would be changed to Red or be totally deprecated. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen has an OK record as a horserace pollster, where there's at least some accountability. But as an issue pollster, where there's no accountability and question wording is easily abused, they're not reliable at all. As other editors said above, they haven't even released crosstabs and wording, which is a basic requirement for pollster accountability. If they did their horserace polling this way 538 wouldn't even be willing to list it. Anyway that question was settled by other editors so I'm not going to discuss it further here. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Repeating debunked falsehoods in not a good look. The wording of the questions is here - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022 (I've provided that earlier) and that page has a link to the crosstabs - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/crosstabs_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022. If you're going to comment here, take the time to educate yourself first. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The propaganda film by Dinesh here is nothing but “debunked false hoods”.lol Yeah you clearly believe in it and, in your own way, are trying to promote it despite the clear redline from WP:PROFRINGE forbidding us. That is the definition of “not a good look”. The Rasmussen poll is simply a form of soapboxing and gaslighting that is (not so) cleverly disguised as an esoteric stat, and it simply doesn’t belong here (see WP:NOTABLE. I can promise you that’s why the rest of the reputable press is completely ignoring it (read: for the fake news that it is). 216.200.84.231 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022 (2)

In the reception section, or wherever a seasoned editor deems appropriate, add this recent posting:

The Salt Lake Tribune reported that, "the film has been thoroughly debunked", after Senator Mike Lee embraced the reportedly "false" and "baseless" claims from the movie.

I was careful to include direct quotation, while avoiding the opining by Mike Lee himself since it's not relevant to the article as a whole and risks conflating an WP:UNDUE viewpoint. The article itself was also carefully written to do the same, so to respect its voice (and this very reputable source, and that of the journalist) I am taking care to narrowly word what I am offering here since Lee isn't pretending to be an expert on the matter nor on the film itself, so it will give a false balance and confuse the reader to include his opinion when the facts clearly are in conflict with it. Not to mention, this article is already so bloated and verbose in the first place, that less is more and the reader is free to click on the link of the article if they want to read the rest.

Seems like an important source to add since it is recent and direct in its language and reporting about the propaganda film. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:191D:6645:84:4C23 (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Evidence Gaps in '2000 Mules' - FactCheck

• Evidence Gaps in '2000 Mules' - FactCheck.org

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Add to this sentence in the reception area, with my following changes:

Bill Barr, Trump’s attorney general during the 2020 election, announced on December 1, 2020 that the Justice Department and FBI had investigated allegations of election fraud but found nothing significant. In June 2022 testimony to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Barr laughed at the mention of 2000 Mules, and when asked to assess it, dismissed its assertions there had been widespread election fraud, calling the movie "indefensible."

I had also added another good source for good measure, that includes the quotes needed. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It has already been added to the article at 11:37 by User:Soibangla. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. I was adding to it, and suggesting changes 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd I responded to you above. But you didn’t notice that I’m asking to make tweaks to that contribution by @soibangla by adding a good secondary source and expanded on it some. Otherwise it just sounds like Barr laughed at the movie in passing mention. No, he was also asked to assess the movie and he did: analyzing the purported geotracking evidence and the conclusions drawn from it by D’Souza as “indefensible”. I just want the sources to be accurately reflected. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Since I’m looking to expand on, and backup up with sources, your original contribution, could you give it a gander? The edit I’m suggesting is above. Thanks 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I didn't understand your proposal to "add" this because it was already there, but now that I comprehend this is a modification it is better. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd Totally fine. Misunderstandings happen. It’s all good in the hood. Thank you 205.168.105.204 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References