Talk:2000 Mules
![]() | United States Unassessed Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Film: American Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Request to remove "falsely"
Consider revising the initial use of “falsely” until sufficient sources can be attained. Opinion pieces of journalism do not give constitution to claims of falsehood, and there is an unprofessional, leaking bias here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk • contribs) — UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence. The universal consensus of everybody who has looked at D'Souza's film and "evidence" is that it is patently nonsensical. We are simply reporting what those whose job is to question purported journalism have discovered when they examined this film; they found it wanting. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's so batshit crazy that even Tucker Carlson and Newsmax would not promote his film, and they typically push totally false propaganda, especially about Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your input here is absolutely distant from being professional or objective. The Wikipedia Article, as a whole, about the film is unbelievably pretentious and gives Wikipedia an extremely strained level of credibility. 207.50.149.190 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- The fake "documentary" propaganda film is analyzed and debunked by reliable sources, and editors are not allowed to deviate from what they say. Content is based on them, not on personal opinions. This is not Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your input here is absolutely distant from being professional or objective. The Wikipedia Article, as a whole, about the film is unbelievably pretentious and gives Wikipedia an extremely strained level of credibility. 207.50.149.190 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Universal consensus is fine, but it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. The listed sources are absolutely not grounds upon which to claim that it’s false. To say biased would certainly be true. To say that the listed sources argue it to be based on a false premise and a weak attempt at gathering evidence, founded on confirmation bias, would be true. There is nothing concrete that demonstrates it to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it’s unprofessional to define it as factually incorrect. By all means, bring up every single talking point against it and mention general consensus. But the wording, as it stands, is just bad practice.
That sentence’s coherence is not contingent upon the word “falsely.” “Alleges” gets the point across accurately. Until there is official documentation on its proper evaluation using concrete counter-evidence, claiming that “The film falsely alleges,” is an opinion. It shouldn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. It’s important to maintain an objective outlook if this site is to uphold any reasonable standard of credibility. UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The article should talk about the movie before discussing criticism of it. You're bias is showing. I'm not surprised that someone asked you to remove the word falsely as the third word of your article. You are proving to not be a credible information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9800:F13C:2C39:F2BC:10B2:2AF7 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- You may have a point about more description in the lead. We'll look at that issue. What specifically do you feel is missing there? Otherwise, we have only lost credibility among the MAGA crowd who get their "information" from a closed loop and those who don't understand our purpose or policies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- "we have only lost credibility among the MAGA crowd"??? For more than a decade, Wikipedia has been source of neutral and balanced information. Reading the article and comments like this one from Mods is clear indication of both, the fact that Wikipedia has lost the sense of direction & purpose and the reason WHY Wikipedia lost it. Please, dont allow personal opinions, politics and biases to ruin what is still possibly the greatest source of information on earth! 2001:2040:C00F:3E:0:0:0:BD55 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia remains profoundly committed to a neutral point of view. However, this does not oblige us to any species of fatuous false balance in a case like this where the evidence is overwhelming and no reliable sources support the absurd content of the film. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should not be claiming to have determined a pretentious statement such as "falsely" - that is not objectified information. 207.50.149.190 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia remains profoundly committed to a neutral point of view. However, this does not oblige us to any species of fatuous false balance in a case like this where the evidence is overwhelming and no reliable sources support the absurd content of the film. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- "we have only lost credibility among the MAGA crowd"??? For more than a decade, Wikipedia has been source of neutral and balanced information. Reading the article and comments like this one from Mods is clear indication of both, the fact that Wikipedia has lost the sense of direction & purpose and the reason WHY Wikipedia lost it. Please, dont allow personal opinions, politics and biases to ruin what is still possibly the greatest source of information on earth! 2001:2040:C00F:3E:0:0:0:BD55 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I should preface this with the fact that I believe the 2020 election should be respected, and that Biden won. However, I agree that the word "falsely" should be removed from that sentence. When creating an encyclopedia, scholars do not consolidate truth claims (in this case that the three sources argued that the claims were false). They can say that the Washington Post, ..., ..., argued that.... . Wikipedia is not the ministry of truth. Now it is possible that you isolate one of the claims of 2000 mules, and call it into question, but you do so by mentioning the source and not embedding it as truth. For example, these sources have pointed out that it is likely that many of the ballots were likely geniune. Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- and here is a suggested edit: "It makes contested claims[2][3][4] that Democrat-aligned individuals, or "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."
Even better though, would be to have shorter sentences with one claim in each, to specify which claims are contested, and those claims that are not contested should be in a separate sentence.Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Beneath the dignity of Wikipedia
My God, this whole article reads as one-sided FAKE GARBAGE. Do whatever the the hell you have to to fix it. I would suggest a balanced approach matching points with counter-points. 104.183.119.92 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the film is such garbage that, according to Dinesh, even Tucker Carlson and Newsmax wouldn't air it. They usually push fake news and Russian propaganda without blinking an eye. This film is batshit crazy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that Dinesh believes his production is garbage, but nice try. The whole article reads as highly biased, and it is beneath the dignity of Wikipedia. Can someone explain how the cellphone data is falsely analyzed? I, of course, watched the movie and found it credible. It should be investigated by the authorities and someone writing a lame Wikipedia article and citing opinion pieces does not fly. Let's have some facts or remove the nonsense. 104.183.119.92 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article reads as biased because reality is biased. There's no necessity to provide balanced coverage for WP:FRINGE topics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is not an argument. See WP:ADVOCACY. "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy." UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should, of course, actually read the cited sources regarding the cellphone data analysis. Petulant cries of "bias" are non-actionable; either make *specific* change requests or toddle off. Dricoust (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- The article reads as biased because reality is biased. There's no necessity to provide balanced coverage for WP:FRINGE topics. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that Dinesh believes his production is garbage, but nice try. The whole article reads as highly biased, and it is beneath the dignity of Wikipedia. Can someone explain how the cellphone data is falsely analyzed? I, of course, watched the movie and found it credible. It should be investigated by the authorities and someone writing a lame Wikipedia article and citing opinion pieces does not fly. Let's have some facts or remove the nonsense. 104.183.119.92 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Premise
Shouldn't the premise be an actual premise? What is written under "premise" is an individual's conclusion. That's not a premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:F0F1:D31C:BA2D:34B3 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Moved comment into a section. StrayBolt (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Synopsis section is needed
I think we should have a Synopsis section which just describe the film. So it can have, "Someone said this about that" or "Short clips of this are shown". Maybe think of it as audio description or closed captioning. Wikilinks can be used. Might want to also look at the next section on MOS:Film#Controversies. StrayBolt (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Wiki opinion
Hi first let me say I love that this page is out there for us. That said, if you are an encyclopedia shouldn't info about things be neutral and not filled with opinion? Does wiki do extensive research? Isn't that what snopes is for? When reading about 2000 Mules I was putt off by all the negative language against the film. If this is a platform "helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge" why put so much opinion? 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
To add to the last post...encyclopedias have this in its definition "focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary" To me, this means just talk about what the film 2000 Mules is about, not give opinion. 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia. It has an unlimited size as it's not paper, and its scope is almost unlimited. Our mandate is described by Jimmy Wales:
- "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales[1]
- Other thoughts:
- So our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" that is mentioned in reliable sources. That literally means ALL information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We document the existence of it all.
- This article does that. Its content is based on RS, not on the opinions of editors. It describes the film and responses to it. It describes the film's weaknesses and false ideas. It basically shows why it's not a true documentary, but is in reality a fake documentary, a propaganda film, filled with errors. What's scary is that it has met with so much success. That's not only sad, it's dangerous. It pushes Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election. Trump lost because more citizens voted against him in a fair and safe election without evidence of any major electoral fraud. Period. That is undisputable, and if you want to argue against that, don't do it here. Go to Conservapedia. You can write there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "It falsely[2][3][4] claims Democrat-aligned individuals," to "It claims Democrat-aligned individuals,"
The reader should be able to determine for themselves whether or not the film is true or false. Wikipedia pages are for presenting just the facts about what something is. Haven't seen the film. But, I don't like coming to Wikipedia and finding that I'm being told what to think about it. I'm a smart person. I'll determine that for myself. Thank you. 2600:1017:B418:BA7B:C833:25CC:8817:A9E3 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- You fail to understand how Wikipedia works. See my last comment in the section above about "Wiki opinion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sites states it "falsely" accuses democrats. To make it more accurate please remove the word falsely as factual data was provided. Though Wiki might not agree and it's funding comes from mostly democratic influence doesn't excuse Wikipedia to continue to enforce political agenda. 172.58.27.140 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- You fail to understand how Wikipedia works. See my last comment in the section above about "Wiki opinion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Valjean is dominating this page, and is not neutral
- Valjean is causing this wiki article to lose its neutral point of view. Earlier Valjean wrote: "Yes, the film is such garbage that" and "They usually push fake news and Russian propaganda without blinking an eye." and "This film is batshit crazy." Could we get a neutral wiki editor to take Valjean's place please. However, I should add that the criticism section on this film should definetly include some of the best critiques--but those critiques must be written in the form: This source has argued that the claim that...is false, because..... ... Signed...a liberal professor who has writted real encyclopedia entries. Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Poor quality and clear bias.
It's fine to critique a published work's claims as weakly supported, but to label them false requires overwhelming evidence of falsity.
Hit piece articles like this damage Wikipedia and diminish It's reputation. 49.148.119.148 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)