Talk:2000 Mules

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)

Opinions of whether is has been 'debunked' don't matter in this case. It follows the documentary style of filmmaking, gathering facts and organizing to present its case. The jury is still out on the results, despite the opinions of politically-motivated pundits. DeknMike (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You have anti-Trump rhetoric in your Wikipedia user page. I'd hardly consider you an objective source on what is reliable in politics. EytanMelech (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately I am not a source here, but what about reliable sources? Why won't you accept them? Instead you want to censor content to reflect your personal opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't checked other sources, but none of the three sources cited in the lead describe the film's claims as "false", but instead say that they are based on faulty reasoning/lack of evidence/etc. So the current lead does not accurately represent the cited sources. A more accurate wording that is still concise and reflects that the claims are poorly supported (as described in RS) would be "...political film by Dinesh D'Souza that promotes a conspiracy theory that Democrat-aligned individuals, or..." Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:06, 19 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)

Fully agree with this. The film is new evidence in a complex and politically-charged discussion. Even this discussion has at points descended to name-calling ("MAGA crowd") and pointing to opinion articles as sources. Just state that it is a film that presents an idea, and discuss opposition in the body.DeknMike (talk) 13:12, 16 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)

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)

To claim "Wikipedia remains profoundly committed to a neutral point of view" while then taking a decidedly biased point of view in the introduction is asinine. This statement directly conflicts with the claim of neutrality. "It claims" is sufficient. The phrase assumes a neutral stance, leaving the burden of proof on the documentary (and the citations in the article). A section on "controversy" like all other articles on Wikipedia which address controversial topics would be appropriate and sufficient. If it is absolutely necessary, "It controversially claims," wcould be an option, but even this is an inherent bias in the text. The fact you're digging your heels in on this and taking this position draw into question the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's job to play activist, which is exactly what you're doing whether you can see through your blue-colored glasses or not. Desire Mercy (talk) 13:31, 16 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)

Thanks for a reasoned response that shows understanding of our policies. As such, this is worthy of discussion, unlike other, deleted, complaints that wanted us to violate policies and perform POV, opinion-based, whitewashing. Let's see what others think. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This definitely isn't neutral. A better sentence would be "Thus film claims X, but several sources show Y instead." at the VERY LEAST. I definitely don't agree with the film but the administration's bias is apparent here. MiamiHeat87 (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Utterly shameful what has happened to Wikipedia. What happened to NPOV? Like every other social site, it has been overrun by propagandists. Hcl777 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less." Hcl777 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You are quoting my essay which condemns what you are trying to do. You don't like the fact that RS tell us the film's allegations are false, so you want us to remove that. That would violate NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support removing "falsely". This is yet another wiki-page being used to push a political agenda. It reminds me of the lab-leak pages. A few editors spend a great amount of time citing (often misciting) wiki-policies and reverting edits. The article should discuss what was done, the methodologies used, how it was done, and specific technical information regarding these methods. These details would allow readers to judge the methodology for themselves. I'm interested in how often cell phones ping, how exact the ping locations are, the number to times these phones pinged near the drop boxes, the number of videos reviewed, the relevant state laws, and how often these cell phones pinged in these locations before and after and after the drop boxes were installed. Readers can then better judge for themselves how accurate (or inaccurate) this method was.

I am not interested in conclusory judgments about what is "false". This is nothing but opinion. I am especially not interested in conclusory statements from the right (and the creator is certainly so) stating the method was accurate, or conclusory statements from the left (and politifact is certainly so) stating it was not. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia totally fails in the area of disputed political issues. Instead of facts we may agree upon about the methods used, conclusory opinions by political activist organizations and "media" are presented. Wiki needs to get a handle on this problem both on this page and generally if it is to taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Icrmowun (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The article should discuss what was done which it does based on everything the film and TTV have said, and reliable sources have torn it apart and conservative media won't touch it. Maybe TTV should release everything for public scrutiny, but they haven't. After asking Georgia investigators to look into their claims, they have refused to show their data and now are under subpoena for it. I mean, in the film they created a bogus dramatization image of 28 drop boxes allegedly visited by a mule; why didn't they just present a real image? They say they have the data, they say they have the analysts and vast computing capacity, yet they can't generate a real image but instead create a fake one? They could produce a real one that would look just as cool as a fake one for a movie, but they didn't. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems very simple to me. I do not know if the information in the film is accurate or not. However, whether the conclusions are true or false depend on the accuracy of the information. It is simply not proper for Wikipedia to offer the opinion that it is false. It must be argued with facts that the informaton in the film is questionable.Tyrerj (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not offer the opinion that it is false. Wikipedia echoes the reliable sources, all of which say that the information is false and the conclusions are erroneous. To say that it is "questionable" and not erroneous would violate the sources and WP:NPOV. Neutrality, in this sense, does not mean presenting both sides equally, because the sources say that one of the sides is wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources. But as I noted in an earlier comment, and as in an edit reverted by Valjean, I am unable to identify which of the cited sources describes the central claim of the film (ie. the first sentence of the lead) as false. Could either of you point out where the cited sources say this? Fiwec81618 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Falsely alleges" is an oxymoron. The meaning of "allegation" is an assertion that has not been proven true or false. BTW I am not in sympathy with the movie. That doesn't matter. 24.13.83.67 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Larry Siegel

So is "false accusation" an improper construction of speech? An accusation/allegation can be true, false, or unproven, and when RS know which it is, we write what they say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

All of your so-called “reliable sources” happen to be deeply committed to the Democrat party. It is a foregone conclusion that their intent is purely to debunk. Their capacity to objectively consider the film’s content is a complete zero. Aragorn 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)

True and false. True in the sense that left-wing and centrist sources are more interested in the provable facts, whereas right-wing sources are busy pushing Trump's Big lie#Trump's false claim of a stolen election, but was cheated of his win because of massive fraud which even his own people admitted did not happen. This film pushes that lie. Also true that the same sources successfully debunk the film's claims.

False in the sense that there are right-wing reliable and unreliable sources and prominent right- and far-right people who also find fault with the film. They are named in this article. Dinesh is abandoned by his normal allies.

It's worrying that you have doubts about reliable sources. You've been here long enough that you should know how to vet sources for reliability, so your complaint only makes some sense if you still haven't acquired those skills. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your opening is intentionally inflammatory and your refusal to modify it shows your bias. Your sources are obvious red herrings. 75.72.28.172 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Our sources are reliable sources with a reputation for sound reporting. You have not offered any reliable sources that contradict our content. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Bump's WaPo Analysis article

@Praxidicae, what features of the article led you to the conclusion "That doesn't make it solely an opinion piece" in your second reversion of my removal of a sentence sourced solely to Bump's Washington Post Analysis article due to the statement WP:RSEDITORIAL that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact"? As I stated in my edit summary, that article describes itself as "Analysis by Philip Bump". So WP:RSEDITORIAL applies and we ought to either remove the sentence or find a reliable secondary source to support it. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

For starters it's more than just an opinion piece, second, Bump is absolutely a reliable source and expert and respected in his field, he's the National WaPo correspondent and nationally recognized journalist in the field of political analysis, specifically: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 3] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear what exactly "more than just an opinion piece" means. Opinion pieces can certainly contain sentences that state things as fact, hence the necessity of the caveat in WP:RSEDITORIAL I quoted above. I agree with The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint..., but this is not a technical or scientific subject (and often statements that fall under this are attributed). Certainly Bump is well known, but what exactly is his expertise/authority here? Reviewing political movies/ fact-checking?

I think the material is worth including with attribution to Bump, but then it seems awkward in the lead (it's already in the body if I recall correctly). Of course ideally if there is a reliable secondary source saying the same thing then this is all moot. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a rough hierarchy of value we, and media bias sites, use when judging reliable sources, and we use all those sources: straight facts, fact-checking, analysis, other opinion, etc. Analysis articles are highly valued here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Analysis articles are highly valued here No, that's not true as a blanket statement. It clearly goes against WP:RSEDITORIAL says about analysis and opinion pieces. Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

"goes against" what? They are perfectly good RS which we can use and should usually attribute. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that the sentence in question sourced to this work (last sentence of the lead) is not currently attributed to Philip Bump. And this goes against Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, in WP:RSEDITORIAL. That sentence should at least be attributed to Bump, eg: "According to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, but that means we are presenting fact as if it's just his opinion. Sigh... Usually, when an opinion is a fact, we just state it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Though Bump's work is tagged as "analysis," he is a news reporter, and quite an accomplished data journalist. The "analysis" cited in WP:RSEDITORIAL is limited to opinion pieces, not news articles. Moreover, at this point Bump is never identified, he's "just some guy" who comes out of nowhere. We should not need to attribute to him, he's not an opinion writer. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This has already been remedied. It is moot now. But thank you for joining the consensus should some continue to challenge it. Cheers! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it has been remedied. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, what else do you suggest? lol It no longer IS attributed to him. The sources simply states what was reported. What else do you think should be included? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

Opinions should be removed. Such as "falsely alleges."

Based on what hard facts, can this be disproven? Albeit, I'm not asking you to say it's true, or proven. But it is the opinion, of the author that it falsely alleges.

Unless Wikipedia wants to be revered in a similar fashion to leftist main stream media, I'd recommend not being a censoring entity or you'll lose credibility.

Thank you. 2601:5CA:C280:8B20:E95A:F7CA:7C5E:FBDC (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: "False" is not opinion. It is fact that it is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Truly, 'falsely says' reads like something from a high-school essay. Even the wiki article on flat-earthers doesn't say 'false claims' in the lede, it merely says 'claims'. The film is clearly nonsense, but please keep the tone encyclopaedic. There is no need to begin the article with a consumer warning. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:F1E8:894D:DDF8:1AA5 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? Modern flat Earth beliefs starts off with Modern flat Earth beliefs are promoted by organizations and individuals which make claims that the Earth is flat while denying the Earth's sphericity, contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus. Flat Earth beliefs are pseudoscience; the theories and assertions are not based on scientific knowledge. Flat Earth advocates are classified by experts in philosophy and physics as science deniers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Flat Earth starts with The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), and China until the 17th century. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: well, you just proved the OP's point. The bit you quoted doesn't use a subjective adverb like "falsely" to characterize the claims of flat-earthers; instead it explains how their claims are false. I agree with the point that "falsely", while absolutely correct in its usage, still gives the impression of dictating a viewpoint to the reader. We could do something similar, such as "2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that, contrary to established facts,[3][4][5] makes disproven claims that...." My own wording there may not be an improvement, but you get the idea. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

As a serious reply, I consider your proposal a good faith step in the right direction. Deletion/whitewashing is not an option, but slight tweaks and moving that wording to a later sentence may work. Please work toward such wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Change the lead to indicate what specifically is wrong about the movie? Is there enough room? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

See new section below: #Proposed new lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

It doesn’t falsely accuse democrats, we don’t know what happened. It probably did happen but that should be updated to at least reflect there are TONS of people who believe that to be true. Don’t be biased. 174.61.0.75 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We know exactly what happened. Biden won fair and square. Trump lost. Get over it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

TONS of people also believe that the earth is flat, that vaccinations don't work, that COVID-19 is a hoax, that global temperatures aren't rising, that Trump won, that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon landing was faked, and other demonstrably false things. The quantity of people who believe those things doesn't change the actual facts. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand. Who gave you the right to bully people who simply don't agree with you? It's one thing to say, "Reliable sources don't support the film's claims, " and quite another to say, "Biden won fair and square. Trump lost. Get over it." That last statement was more than a reply. It was bullying, plain and simple. 2604:CB00:11F:F500:F:DDC1:DA5F:7B6A (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The only bullying being done is by those who are making assumptions about the motivations of other editors. Nobody is expressing a personal opinion here except you. That last statement you quoted was simply factual. It was impatient and rude in its tone because of the endless line of people who come here to complain without any apparent interest in constructive feedback. There is no new prose being proposed in this edit request. There is no proposal backed up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this edit request. There is no proposal backed up by reliable sources in this edit request. It's just a complaint, not an edit request. Propose exactly what text should be changed and the reasoning for it, backed up by reliable sources. Basically referring to "TONS of people" isn't an argument that works. We don't care about their opinions, we care about what reliable sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2022 (2)

This says falsely but the sources do not show how the movie falsely claims anything but only indicate that they disagree with the provided evidence in the movie. It does not point to any facts disproving anything and therefore should not say falsely but unproven claims. Boojies (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

Let's discuss this in the DISCUSSION section and I'll make the tweaks here.

CURRENT VERSION

2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that 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.

According to the Associated Press, the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization. National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. The film presented a single anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" to be payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes.

PROPOSAL

2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza related to ballot collection during the 2020 United States presidential election. The film presents claims, since proven false, that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states.

The film's allegations have been widely criticized, with the Associated Press (AP) noting that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization. National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". Former president Donald Trump praised the film, while Fox News, Newsmax, and Tucker Carlson would not promote it. Republican author and political advisor Amanda Carpenter characterized it as "a hilarious mockumentary" that "doesn't survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims". Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire also criticized the film. The conservative The Dispatch found that "The film's ballot harvesting theory is full of holes" and mentioned that "D'Souza has a history of promoting false and misleading claims." Philip Bump has summarized a discussion with D'Souza as "D'Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted."

AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. The film presented a single anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" to be payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes.

"falsely says" is replaced with "makes unproven allegations". The allegations are made in the first sentence (paragraph). The criticisms about unproven allegations, and especially the negative reception from allies, follow. Since most complainers believe in film, the fact that the film is criticized by many of their favorite sources and heroes may help to dampen their ardor. Placing that content in the lead is important.

This is definitely not a final version. Please suggest improvements below in a civil DISCUSSION. If we can get a few improvements in wording, then we will have moved closer to a solution toward meeting the unending objections to "falsely says". Those objections are bogus, but they won't stop, so let's find a way to say the same thing, but in a better way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Criticism is easy, but constructive criticism involves more. The latter is what we need, so please suggest precise wordings that improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT ANSWER HERE. DO IT IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION.

Please don't make edits above the DISCUSSION section. Make suggestions below and I'll install the suggestions if they seem reasonable. Chaos will ensue if everyone starts editing this part of the thread, which is under my name and responsibility. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

DISCUSSION

• On first read, it looks pretty good to me, aside from The conservative The Dispatch. I think The Dispatch is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not essential. It's there for the benefit of conservatives, so they see it is their own people who diss the movie.  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    • found "made multiple misleading or false claims about its work"
    • That line violates weasel words, and doesn’t belong here! Who cares what they scammers think about NPR. Please remove this! It’s a classic example of WP:UNDUE weight not to mention the documentary isn’t even about NPR. We don’t need to include the rebuttals. The article isn’t an Internet forum! Can we stick to the facts please?!?!! Grow a spine.2601:280:CB02:52A2:F033:60BC:9DE:6CEE (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • You misunderstand, but it is a bit awkward, so I have tweaked it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Uh, nope. On a thoughtful read: Because the sources clearly have proven again and again that (A) there was not widespread election fraud in 2020 and the sources in this article have proven that (B) the claims made by D'Souza and his film are debunked, supported by lies and falsified evidence, and lack evidence. By suggesting that the claims are "unproven" gives the impression that there could be truth to it, when the truth is the claims of the movie have clearly been "disproven". Otherwise, the burden of proof fallacy is in play: example- Try to prove that Santa Claus does NOT exist. Nope. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that Santa does exist. Until then, we can safely assume he doesn't exist. Likewise, especially in Bump's article(s), D'Souza in his own words retreats from any empiricism and confesses that he has no evidence. Again, this was just "unproven" but when tasked to produce evidence he was forced into the position that the claims remain disproven- i.e. like a voter who went to a drop box multiple times was investigated and found to deliver his votes for his family (ergo, he wasn't a mule) and how the maps used in the movie AS EVIDENCE turn out to be maps of Russia that even the filmmaker's conceded after being busted that they are simply personal interpretations of what the evidence could look like it real evidence existed. Let's not allow politics, fallacy and the conjecture replace what is a solid consensus in the press that the movie is deliberately pushing false claims about disproven allegations2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • So you are proposing we say "disproven", rather than "unproven". That makes sense. That D'Souza "confesses that he has no evidence" would be REALLY good to include! Would you please provide a quote (and source)? Thanks for good suggestions.  Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Philip Bump in his article says it directly in this article ["https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/] (quote)"D’Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted."(end quote) so you can't get any clearer than that AND Bump is about as reputable as you can get. Make no mistake, this crockumentary is a scam promoting insurrection with straight up lies and deliberate misinformation. Did you see Bump's article where they discovered the evidence in the film was fabricated? The maps allegedly tracking the mules, presented as data and evidence, were actually maps of Moscow Russia, etc. In any case, hope this helps!2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • • Quote now added to article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • It definitely does help. I'll try to fit that in. We fully agree about the nature of the film. D'Souza, like Trump, has no regard for truth. That's a concept that is inconvenient to the preservation of his worldview and business model. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
• Um, no. We don't have to water this down just to appeal/appease election fraud trolls. It doesn't work that way? The verified sources clearly say the claims in this movie are false, misleading, fabricated, etc. etc. This isn't any different that a Bigfoot conspiracy video or one of those Roswell alien autopsy videos for which evidence typically gets debunked. See the Stan Romanek page for instance. And the theory floated by this movie is just as irrational, absurd and fantastical. Just because an irrational mob or pseudo cult of political junkies really likes it doesn't mean we have start bending the will and mission of wikipedia to start accommodating the occult, emotional reasoning, and ideology. Wiki is and always will be about forensic journalistic integrity. At least that is what it is supposed to be about. And we don't sacrifice our integrity to the flat earther crowds and fascists so to speak.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree about "false, misleading, fabricated, etc." The real change here is to place it later (next paragraph) in the context of what RS say. Providing the context makes it work better. We also need to develop a lead that won't have to mean the article must be fully protected forever. User:Masem might have some good input here as we're dealing with similar issues in an NPOV/N discussion about another article. Criticism is easy, but constructive criticism involves more. The latter is what we need, so please suggest precise wordings that improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    • That's the rub, though. Since this documentary is a particular dangerous piece of misinformation, the sooner we warn the audience the better. To be direct, this film is a scam promoted by fascistic insurrectionists using fraud in a cult-like manner to troll the American community into undermining a democratic election, and perhaps democracy itself. It's a form of gaslighting, abuse discussed as journalism. So, the sooner we make the audience/reader aware of how false and disproven it is, the better.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I agree, but my preference for "outright bullshit propaganda film full of lies" in the first sentence won't fly. The change is to move "falsely" to the next sentence/paragraph, and flesh it out in the various ways used by RS. Rather than depend on stand-alone labels, we present the debunking in the context of who says it. It's amazing that so many conservative, right- and far-right sources are not promoting the film. Even they know it's nonsense. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, I know we are on the same page. But consider for a second that even moving "falsely" to the END of the article won't appease or satisfy the Pro-fascist MAGA cult that is trolling this page. They will accept nothing less than a watered down article at the least or some false-equivalence fallacious nonsense that it is true in some sense, etc. Again, considering the dangerous place that American democracy is in right now, and the fact that this documentary is a weaponized piece of gaslighting/brainwashing, I think it is completely justified opening the article with "falsified" and "disproven" to inoculate the reader. Thank gawd ALL the major news sources call this movie fake and false, and with Fox staying silent, we have 100% consensus on our side. This is that odd example where the exception PROVES the rule. And for perspective, this is no different than an article about a flat-earth, or Bigfoot, or a still living Elvis, or a faked moon landing, since this conspiracy theory is as ridiculous and disproven as those silly ones I just listed. In other words, there is no debate on whether or not to "label" those examples of absurdity with a zero-tolerance stamp of "this is false". The only difference here is a powerful right wing cult happens to like this conspiracy nonsense- all the more reason to hold the highest of standards and use the strongest of language.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As was pinged and not having seen this article before, my comments on the lede: 1) it us far too long as it is pushing detailed criticism in the lead. That critism should be summarized in the lede and fleshed on the body. (This is mostly the second para). 2) the first para is trying to load too much as to present an immediate hostile tome towards the work. We can't whitewash that it is considered to present conspiracy theories, but that can be said without appearing hostile with a bit if refactoring. Eg. 2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza related to ballot collection during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The film presents claims, since proven false, that Democrat-aligned individuals, or "mules," were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states. That to me is far more neutrally and impartially in wikivoice but still hits as early as possible that its presenting this false mule idea. --Masem (t) 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Um, no. Every reliable source has confirmed that the movie is falsely pushing misinformation about election fraud and if that’s “hostile” then blame the truth and the culprits. Our job isn’t to water down and respect the feelings of insurrectionists and fascists trying to undermine journalistic integrity and democracy itself. The most notable thing about this film is that it is a scam. The reader has a right to know immediately.2601:280:CB02:1E8A:C52F:C3AF:71E0:BD18 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Masem, thanks for the good suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, May 24, 2022‎ (UTC)

• I think the proposed new version is an improvement. But still have concerns as I have somewhat expressed earlier about mixing up "false" vs "unproven" vs "misleading", etc., and to what precisely these words are applied. These words mean different things, and we should be careful to reflect what the RS say. For instance, this sentence (from the proposed new version) accurately reflects what the AP says: AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. But in my reading the AP source does not outright say that that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states is false — instead it says that this claim/theory/speculation is unproven, and that the film's claim to have proof of this and its claims about pieces of "evidence" it presents are false. So I think the second sentence of the new version is still a bit sloppy in this regard. The second and third paragraphs do a better job of making clear what exactly the RS have evaluated. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Nope. You are misleading here. The movie itself doesn’t simply present its data in an objective way (some of which by now has been exposed as fabricated) and then simply speculate and leave it at that. No, D’Souza takes a leap and concludes that there was election fraud and vote mules, and that is “false”. It would be one thing if they left it for the audience to decide, and acknowledged that the speculation is unproven like some UFO documentaries do which often times offer speculation. D’Souza is drawing conclusions from an anecdotal observations of falsified evidence and opinions. Again, which are proven to be false. Following many recounts and audits, it’s a matter of forensic scientific fact that there was (A) no voter wide spread voter fraud and (B) Biden fairly won the election. To suggest that vague GPS data and videos of a handful of people innocently dropping off ballots is somehow disproves that, and is proof of voter fraud, is simply patently false, which D’Souza is claiming. So we can parrot what the sources say, which is that D’Souza made a movie with false claims and false allegations.2601:280:CB02:5896:648E:B173:C51B:8C0D (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you that many claims presented in the film are false, and that the film's claim to have "proven" anything is false, as RS state. However, the second sentence in the proposal says that the specific claim that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states has been proven false. I'm unable to find where in the cited RS they describe this specific claim as false (rather than unproven, or supported by "evidence" shown to be false, which the RS do say), hence my concern with accurately reflecting RS. Perhaps I have overlooked something in the sources. Can you provide a quote from an RS saying that the claim that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states is false?

  An alternative wording that would address my concern is: The film falsely claims to present proof that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states. This is supported by the RS because they do indeed say that the claimed proofs are false. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

  Um, nope. That would be WP:SYNTHESIS since the universal consensus among ALL reputable journalists is that they are also calling out for D’Souza’s dishonesty as a matter of fact, not opinion. You are engaging in WP:GAMING here and thankfully the consensus here is clearly against you. To give you, and others much needed perspective, this is very similar to Holocaust denialism, also a mean spirited conspiracy theory backed similarly by fascists. And the real subtext of that is to say the feelings of victims of Nazi violence simply don’t matter since they don’t think the victims count as human beings. The same goes here as D’Douza and Trump’s MAGA cult are clearly saying that democratic votes don’t matter or the voters they slander. Again, the sources clearly zero in on this in their ‘reporting’ and not just their analysis. But nice try, shill. Troll harder. 2601:280:CB02:385D:98B:EDA3:FDE7:AA00 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022

It's true and has messed up America 2603:9001:3C04:E425:A55C:8FFA:5546:3767 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Can I make an edit request here?

Still figuring out the best way to make edit requests on this contentious article.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (2)

2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely alleges, without evidence, 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. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Um, it's obvious that the requester was proposing new text for the lead. The "Change X to Y" is implied as "Change the current lead to this". It changes "falsely says" to "falsely alleges, without evidence". If it's obvious what the suggestion is, please don't dismiss an edit request because it doesn't conform to a strict format. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (3)

The film presented a single unverified anonymous witness who falsely claims people were picking up payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

What wording does this replace? What is the correction here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Second sentence in the third paragraph in the lead. Tried to clean up the language, and zero in on the debunking as presented in the sources. Not only is this one lame anonymous source BUT the filmmakers won't even allow fact checkers to verify it. And to make matters worse, if you read the Philip Bump piece, the baloney source is making a tired old debunked claim that imaginary mules were paid for stuffing ballot boxes with imaginary ballots.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Also, considering that D'Souza is a convicted felon who not so ironically willfully admitted wrong doing and plead guilty to illegal trying to influence an election through fraud, I don't see the harm with including "convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza" since the crime he committed directly relates to the film's subject matter,i.e.election fraud! Jus saying....2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It really is ironic that a man who has a conviction for election finance fraud makes such a film. I'm not sure where that could be mentioned in a logical manner. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (4)

I respectfully request that the statements of "no evidence of fraud" be removed entirely, because in the section of the documentary between 28:00 minutes and 48:00 minutes there is actual, state government video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes and irrefutably real persons placing multiple ballots in the drop boxes. On several occasions, there can be seen with the naked eye, ballots were falling to the ground, as the person bent to pick them up, and their other hand holding ballots in the ballot drop box opening.

Also, rubber gloves, blue in color, were being used by many of the same people, called "mules", where most everyone else did not use rubber or latex gloves to deliver the ballots.

Lastly, for reasons of time and space, the time stamp showed the delivery of these ballots were of a deceptive manner, being placed in the boxes at various early morning hours, like midnight to 4 am in the morning, as well as, the same person being seen by state government video surveillance going to another ballot box nearby, on several occasions. 96.43.38.172 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes, ergo for minor changes or changes which have been discussed and there is a consensus for such changes. Otherwise, you should read the article which explains why the evidence presented by True the Vote in the film is largely bogus. There is a reason why so many prominent conservative and right-wing sources and personalities refuse to promote the film and outright criticize it. They are named in the film and bolded below.

The film's allegations have been widely criticized, with the Associated Press (AP) noting that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization that National Public Radio (NPR) found "made multiple misleading or false claims about its work". Former president Donald Trump praised the film, while Fox News, Newsmax, and Tucker Carlson would not promote it. Republican author and political advisor Amanda Carpenter characterized it as "a hilarious mockumentary" that "doesn't survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims". Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire also criticized the film. The conservative The Dispatch found that "The film's ballot harvesting theory is full of holes" and mentioned that "D'Souza has a history of promoting false and misleading claims."

AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. The film presented a single anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" to be payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. D'Souza asserted as many as 400,000 ballots may have been involved, "more than enough to tip the balance in the 2020 presidential election," though True the Vote did not allege any of the ballots were illegal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Many things were claimed in the film, but little "evidence" was shown. There were many faulty assumptions as pointed out above. The Georgia Secretary of State investigated the multi ballot case in the film and said it legal because it was family members. The mosaic of videos were hard to see any detail and when they had more than 5x6(?), pretty much all of them were copies (were probably just doing it for effect). There are many examples showing people doing legitimate voting while looking "suspicious". And here is a photo of someone taking a photo of themselves dropping perhaps multiple ballots and they are wearing blue gloves. The photo may have been taken June 3, 2020. What does that "prove" other than perhaps it was legal and more normal than the film portrayed and not nefarious? StrayBolt (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Wearing blue gloves and an N95 mask on June 3, 2020 (assuming that date is correct), while using a dropbox implies concern over COVID, most likely. AP News indicates this as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

COVID might have been on the mind of many during December 2020. December was the deadliest, most infectious month since the start of the pandemic StrayBolt (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

Remove the word falsely ..the movie is very accurate.. 98.238.185.15 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See above discussions. Cannolis (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (2)

In the lead, please tweak this: (original)"According to Philip Bump, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes" This sentence is problematic and doesn't reflect the reality (or facts) of the source it reflects.

Instead, please make this change:(proposed change) "In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mules to be deposited in drop boxes as part of a scheme to defraud the 2020 election".

To be clear, this is the source in question It is not an editorial, nor is it an opinion piece. It was a hard hitting interview with the filmmaker D'Souza himself. And Bump is a reputable journalist who didn't come to his conclusion lightly. So let's respect the source here rather than water it down. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:2559:6622:2220:3327 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: changed the sentence to In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mules to preserve brevity -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the original version as this new version has real problems. The original is very accurate. Here's the exact quote from Bump's 5/11 article: "At no point is there evidence presented of people getting ballots from a nonprofit group and dropping them in drop boxes." We paraphrase this as "According to Philip Bump, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." That is verifiable and attributed content.

The new version runs into problems: "In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mules." Where in that 5/17 article does it actually say this? In reality, it is Bump's summary, and I doubt D'Souza would agree, especially since this version puts the words in D'Souza's mouth ("D'Souza conceded").

Here are Bump's own words, on which this is based: "I will admit this conversation will read more easily if you have seen the film. But it can be summarized fairly succinctly: D’Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted." If you look at what we have in the body of the article, I had written: "Philip Bump has summarized a discussion with D'Souza as "D'Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted." Bump has put words in D'Souza's mouth, and we compound the problem. That's not good. We should just attribute an exact quote to Bump, so I have restored the original version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

It doesn't matter what D'Souza thinks because that is not how it works? For starters, D'Souza is dishonest. Philip Bump makes it clear that he isn't simply expressing his opinion. He interviewed D'Souza, and three times during the interview he was able to corner D'Souza into conceding that he has NO evidence for his claims. So, if you are going to be a NPOV troll about this then simply remove the part that says, "According to Bump" since NO wikipedia article has to justify it sources this way and you are simply doing this to appease D'Souza and his troll brigade. Again, we report what is said Bump is reputable and he is NOT simply offering his interpretation. It is no different to what happens to someone under cross examination. You can get people to confess to crimes without them having to come right out and admit it. Please remove, According to Bump then since this is not the etiquette of how we state sources.2601:282:8100:D3E0:BD8F:A163:E098:EC44 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (3)

2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely[4][5][6] 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.

• This cites opinion editorials and lacks the substance to imply that information is false in the first sentence of this piece. Furthermore, there are pending criminal investigations corroborating the information provided in the document. WIKIPEDIA gets another ***F**** Onyx30593 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done as per the many many requests and consensus just above this. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Onyx, please provide the documentation for your claim that "there are pending criminal investigations corroborating the information provided in the document." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

My suggested edit to the final sentence in the lead paragraph:

"The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes."

Alternate suggestion (if attribution REALLY is important to people here): In an extensive interview and debate with reporter Philip Bump, "D’Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims".

At the very least, PLEASE remove the part that says, According to Philip Bump. He was not presenting an opinion and we don't present sources this way. Also, EVERY source out there has exposed this fact: that this documentary offers no evidence for its claims. We can add more sources if you like to double down on this, but stop appeasing insurrectionist trolls who want to water down this article!

UPDATE: I've also added more sources that bolster the claim here. My problem with the sentence as it stands is that it is a sneaky WP:OR violation. We are not supposed to editorialize or interpret what the source is saying. Even if it feels bold or harsh, consider that the film is as flimsy as the flat-earth theory. We don't need to jump in as editors and judge reporter Philip Bump or remind the reader that this is just his opinion. No. We let the sources do the talking, like we do with every other source! To be clear, Philip Bump interviewed D'Souza who wanted to debate him and no less than 3 times D'Souza admitted that he did not have evidence for his claims after being pressed on it. Instead, he attacks the very notion of evidence itself, saying that "your own eyes" and anecdotal observation is enough. We don't have to cater to D'Souza and advocate on behalf of his fallacious methodology. Wikipedia simply relies on verifiable sources. If a reputable report likes Philip Bump says he interviewed D'Souza and D'Souza admits he has "no evidence in his own words" then we simply report that.63.225.254.137 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

2601:282:8100:D3E0:BD8F:A163:E098:EC44 (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done for the first suggestion,  Not done for the alternative because of failed attribution. The references you cite don't even contain that quotation; in fact all of the references say that D'Souza declined to answer any questions for the cited article. Two of them don't even mention Bump. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist, I agree that the Poynter and NPR sources you added for the last sentence of the lead certainly do point out numerous serious flaws in claims presented in the film, but I'm unable to locate the material in those sources supporting the sentence "The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." Could you provide some quotes from those sources specifically supporting this sentence? Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, knock it off with the trolling. Here is yet another source! https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-2000-mules-leaves-out-from-ballot-harvesting-claims/FFMNUU56RVBRNOLZKWHUREQPEU/ And here is yet another source! https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/ And yet another source https://thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r You are clearly operating on an agenda. You should be coming to the talk page FIRST before simply reverting the work of other editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Anon, that isn't trolling. Claims we make absolutely must be backed up by sources, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis by assembling facts to make a conclusion not stated in the source.

@Fiwec81618: You may have missed some lines, but you are correct that some sources did not explicitly say that. Given those sources and the additional ones supplied below, I find the following:

• "At no point is there evidence presented of people getting ballots from a nonprofit group and dropping them in drop boxes." (Washintgon Post)
  • This is basically the sentence you reverted, and this source alone would be sufficient to include that sentence.
• "the film does not show any person on camera going to multiple dropboxes" (NPR)
• "While it’s possible that some of the alleged perpetrators shown in the movie actually committed a crime, video surveillance of drop boxes alone doesn’t prove anything." (Atlanta Journal Constitution)
• "...based on false assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots, according to experts." (Denver Post)
• "D'Souza relies on surveillance footage supposedly showing “mules” dropping off ballots at drop boxes. But the footage doesn't show this." (The Dispatch)

The sentence you reverted was about nonprofits dropping off ballots. The first source I list above does say that, but the others don't. On balance, however, with all those sources cited, the sentence is appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist Thanks very much for engaging with the concerns I mentioned above and for providing quotes from the sources. The first-listed Washington Post article is an analysis piece, and as I discussed with Valjean above it should be attributed to the author (Philip Bump) if it is the only source for its specific wording. But as you have pointed out, we have numerous sources saying the two main things the film discusses (video of dropboxes and cellphone tracking data), do not prove anything. How about the following wording, which I think more broadly sums up what all the sources say?

The film does not prove that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes. (with relevant citations added)

By the way, the Denver Post is publishing the fact check originally done by the AP (and already cited in the Wikipedia article), so it may be easier to cite the AP source here. Fiwec81618 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fiwec81618: I prefer The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes. with three of the sources I listed above (Washington Post, NPR, and AP). ~Anachronist (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As do I, will get to work on suggesting this edit. Use your version, or the one I suggest. I don't care.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, inserting the clarifier "illegally" per the 5/28 edit request below, and citing AP, WP, and NPR, which I think are the strongest sources for that statement. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist I think the wording "no proof" instead of "no evidence" fits better because "evidence" might reasonably be understood to refer to things brought forward to support a proposition, which may not necessarily be enough to prove that proposition. To draw the conclusion of "no evidence" from the non WaPo analysis sources (NPR/AP) seems to involve a bit of inference, since they don't state "no evidence" outright, and this inference does not seem unambiguous to me. For example from the AP piece,

The group’s claims of a paid ballot harvesting scheme are supported in the film only by one unidentified whistleblower said to be from San Luis, Arizona, who said she saw people picking up what she “assumed” to be payments for ballot collection. The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.

The unidentified whistleblower is certainly weak evidence or of dubious credibility or relevance. But I'm not sure it is objectively "no evidence". Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The source you quote actually uses the words "no evidence" (of payments). The Washington Post says the same thing "at no point is evidence presented...." which is identical in meaning to the paraphrasing "no evidence". The NPR piece talks about a lack of evidence (not even showing on film anyone going to multiple drop boxes), which is a lack of evidence that would prove the allegations. The sources primarily discuss evidence, not proof. Saying "no proof" is a weaker statement that misrepresents the sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the source says no evidence of such payments in other states, which suggests they are not applying this evaluation to the woman in Arizona anecdote discussed in the preceding sentence. And I agree that NPR says the film does not show any person on camera going to multiple dropboxes, but it follows this with So the film primarily relies on their claims about geotracking data. They then show that there are a lot of false claims about what the data can do and how they got it (eg. solving a murder case, placing people at violent protests, computing facility use), but it doesn't appear to me that they describe the geotracking data claims as "no evidence". Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Untrue on all counts. The Bump Wapo articles are clearly claiming that D’Souza provides no evidence for all his claims. As do the other sources. You are playing a word game here and semantics game, which is itself a WP:GAMING violation, since you’re trying to game this in your own way. Remember, this is against the backdrop of whether or not the 2020 election was “rigged”. You know, THE BIG LIE? And the outcome of the 2020 election where Biden won is a matter of settled forensic science, math, as in the verified counting of legal votes counted is a matter of fact, and not partisan opinion. Same goes with the settled matter of a flat Earth or denial over the Holocaust, and on settled matters of empirical fact we don’t engage in any form of WP:UNDUE because statements to the contrary are simply “false” and have “no evidence”. Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers present their own version of evidence which is not really evidence at all. The evidence of geotracking presented in 2000mules is simply evidence of geotracking itself, a lot of it taken out of context as reporters have exposed. The unverified whistleblower is an anonymous source for which no evidence is provided so we don’t even know if it’s even true, as the AP reported. So, at this point, you are not only being willfully WP:POINTY but maybe a WP:NOTHERE as well, since you clearly know better given your experience and have a history of edit warring over WP:FRINGE matters. Keep it up and we can have a WP:ANI if you want to have the discussion there. Again, like Holocaust denialism this disinformation ‘trolls’ real life victims of anti-social fascist movements, and your disruptive behavior is clearly backed by an agenda to drip, drip, drip away at the article to slowly water it down. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You may have missed the point that sentences sourced to Bump's WaPo articles alone should be attributed to Bump, because those articles are analysis pieces. In WP:RSEDITORIAL, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I had no concerns with the sentence when it was attributed to Bump. Removing the attribution relies on sourcing from the AP and NPR, which is why I discussed those sources.

I'm happy to have a discussion but I don't see much of an attempt to discuss the content of my previous reply. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

My suggested edit to the final sentence in the lead paragraph(for the last time!):

"The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes."

References

I added yet THREE more sources. Do we need more?

Do I need to add more and more and MORE sources until this becomes a bad parody of what is wrong with the trolling on these pages????? What's next? A debate over a flat earth or if the Earth is only 10000 years old simply because a mob of conservative trolls believe it so and think they have evidence for it? lol

On a serious note...

The same editor apparently keeps reverting a key sentence back to a poorly written piece that is a violation of WP:OR since he is trying to editorialize the sources, suggesting that it is the opinion of the sources in the question that D'Souza has NO evidence for his outrageous claims. However, this is not how Wikipedia works. We simply report what the sources tell us. Rather, he is trying to game this, a WP:GAMING violation, and being WP:POINTY by trying to rely on semantics. It is clear that the consensus of ALL reputable sources regarding D'Souza's crockumentary is that he doesn't give a single shred of evidence to support this claims. If this is the finding of investigative journalists, then can we knock of the word games? The previous sentence summarized it fine and we don't need to water it down, especially when the conspiracy theory espoused here is as ridiculous as a flat earth! And I use that example since wikipedia has made it clear that when it comes to notions that are patently untrue we don't give undue weight WP:UNDUE to fringe viewpoints out there. Someone please reign in this trolling. Thank you!2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Procedural decline. This discussion is already ongoing above, and I have replied there given the new sources you added. Not all of them directly support the statement, and I am disturbed that the sentence almost seems plagiarized from the Washington Post. It would need to be rephrased a bit. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

But we never attribute in this. We just state the source. And this isn't an editorial. Plus the editor who advocating it has a history of being disruptive on matters of WP:FRINGE. Not to mention, the film doesn't present evidence for it's claims. You are bending to popular will at the expense of wikipedia standards of verifiability. Procedural decline, my ***. Ridiculous.2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 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)

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)

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2022 (2)

In the final sentence in the lead, I propose the following change/tweak: "The film presents "no evidence" and "did not prove" that at least 2000 vote “mules” were paid to illegally collect and deliver ballots to drop boxes in swing states during the 2020 presidential election."

Again, the original sentence can not stand as it is a form of editorializing. A WP:OR violation, since we are personally analyzing the findings of an reputable investigative who comes right out and says that his interview discovered that filmmaker himself admits that he has no evidence to back up his claims. Instead, zealous editors, some of which of being WP:POINTY simply feel bad it would seem for fans of this movie by allowing something so harsh yet that isn't our prerogative to extend some fallacious false equivalence or WP:UNDUE on a matter that is already decided, with a conspiracy disproven. There is NO doubt the 2020 election was won fair and square so this movie, not unlike a flat Earth conspiracy theory, is a form of WP:FRINGE.

Again, the sentence falsely suggests that it is simply the opinion of one reporter that the movie has no evidence when all the sources universally agree that the movie is incompetent, dishonest and completely deficient in the empirical sense (read: has no REAL evidence).

Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good here, k?

I included a Denver Post source and the original Washington Post source and carefully and tenderly worded it with enough paraphrasing to avoid plagarism but quotes where necessary to make a nice, tweaked balanced sentence that should satisfy all reasonable people.

We don't need to water this down simply a right wing cult can't handle the truth about their anti-democratic insurrectionist propaganda.2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Again, procedural decline. While the statement is satisfactory (as was the other suggestion that I initially accepted and then got reverted when I made the change), the nested quotations you use are puzzling. In any case, this is being discussed above. The person who reverted my initial acceptance of your proposal has responded and offered a suggestion. And pointed out that the Denver Post fact check was originally published in AP. Please don't start multiple discussions about the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Correcting and retracting my previous complaint. Just remove the mention of Bump please, and that should be sufficient. The prevailing consensus seems to agree with this here. Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022

Remove the word falsely in the first sentence. That is inaccurate as the evidence is supported by additional evidence, whether you agree or don’t. Remove anything cited by news sources that have previously denied any evidence of voter fraud, as their statements are a conflict of interest. This includes AP (Associated Press). CaeMeaCoo (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Not use sources because you don't agree with them? That's not how any of this works. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Please correct the final contested sentence in the lead to read: "The film presents no evidence that ballots were illegally collected to be deposited in drop boxes." WITH THE THREE SOURCES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED

This seems to accurately reflect ALL the reputable sources whilst making it clear there is NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, considering that D'Souza isn't just alleging voter fraud but actively calling for "2000 arrests." All the sources make it clear that there is no evidence of crimes, because it is simply false.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, added with 3 sources; see the 5/28 discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022 (2)

For this sentence in the lead paragraph

“The film presented a single unverified anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" to be payoffs for illegal ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states.”

Adding the word, unverified, as the consensus of sources have zeroed in on that important indictment of the closest thing D’Souza offers as a connection to the rest of his outrageous claims. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Orange Mike | Talk 15:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022 (3)

Please fix the misleading attribution here- with this sentence in the lead:

“The Associated Press reported that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a partisan Texas-based non-profit organization.“

It plays right into the hands of anti-intellectual trolls that reputable news sources are offering alternative facts or their opinion, to say it’s according to them, when they are reporting it. I’m fine with attribution but then let’s not editorialize, let’s just state it as it is! And the AP source here was not an opinion piece or an analysis. It was a news report. Given that the movie is challenging the empirical fact that the 2020 election was stolen when as a matter of math and a vote count Biden was proven to have won, which was independently verified long before this propaganda piece, then there is no need to make it sound like reporters are offering opinions “according to them” since math and empiricism are not partisan matters. They are matters of truth or false, and the sources are just fine by themselves. So let’s stop watering this down to appease those who don’t believe in facts and empiricism. That saying, “You can have your own set of opinions but not your own set of facts.” Thank you.

P.S. Also, The sources that say True The Vote is a conservative organization is from 2013 in 2015. The press has clearly reported on this that this organization is actually partisan in nature. To call them a vote monitoring organization is simply not true since they have not proven to have any credibility as far as the press is concerned in this regard. At the very best they are a self described vote-monitoring organization so we should not mislead our readers. 63.86.0.76 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 63.86.0.76 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done for replacing "according to AP" with "AP reported".  Not done for the characterization of True the Vote. Calling it "partisan" just muddies the description, because both conservative and progressive organizations are partisan. We could say "partisan conservative" or "republican-aligned" as alternatives. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022 (4)

Another sentence in the lead that need some love/tweaking: The Associated Press reported that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a partisan-conservative, Texas-based non-profit organization that claims to monitor voter integrity.

I included the "self-proclaimed" bit because there isn't a single source out there that suggests that they are a legitimate or effective vote monitoring agency. It would seem they don't do any real vote monitoring at all and (in addition to be sued for their failed efforts) they have failed at every one of their hearings with their scant offerings of proof for their claims. Even FoxNews and Newsmaxx won't touch them anymore. I get that we need to call them something, as far as the press is concerned, but I'd like to respect the full context of these sources that report on their dubious nature and lack of legitimacy. Bottom line: TrueTheVote is actually a propaganda group using the voter integrity scam as cover to push disinformation, but in the spirit of using neutral language in this I suggest the above as remedy so that wikipedia doesn't give legitimacy to them as part of said scam. Open to suggestions if you don't like the wording, but what I put is more than true and backed by the sources.2601:282:8100:D3E0:59AF:6539:43EF:9C5A (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:59AF:6539:43EF:9C5A (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Fox News has finally chimed in on the movie 2000 Mules

“[2000 Mules] has been looked at and fact-checked by multiple outlets, including Reuters, who have [reported] there isn’t any proof that there was widespread voter fraud,” Smith retorts.

Would be lovely if we can use this source (and maybe even the quote too) somewhere, since it is from Fox News of all places. 2601:280:CB02:22BD:B571:A6FE:FDE0:562A (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

It's just a journalist countering a stupid statement from a politician who believes the Big Lie. And it's an interview in a heated exchange, not a reasoned analysis of anything. This does not appear to be a quality source, and Fox News is unreliable for political reporting anyway, regardless of which way the reporting might lean for a moment. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New York Times with a good recent article on the movie

Headline: The New York Times ‘2000 Mules’ Repackages Trump’s Election Lies Lies

(excerpts)"A new documentary from Trump allies makes the latest case the election was stolen, but the group behind the claim has been assailed even by some on the hard right."

(excerpts) "What’s more, the film claims, but never shows in its footage, that individual “mules” stuffed drop box after drop box."

(excerpts) "Those claims are purportedly backed up by tracking cellphone data, but the film’s methods of analysis have been pilloried in numerous fact-checks. (True the Vote declined to offer tangible proof...)"

(SMOKING GUN of an excerpt)"The group has not presented any evidence that the ballots themselves — as opposed to their delivery — were improper. “I want to make very clear that we’re not suggesting that the ballots that were cast were illegal ballots. What we’re saying is that the process was abused,” Ms. Engelbrecht said in Wisconsin. In an interview, she backtracked, but when asked to provide evidence of improper votes, she only pointed to previous accusations unrelated to the 2020 general election."

Plenty of good stuff here to help with the article. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:5059:115F:4E0C:4E2B (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

  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)

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)

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.

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)

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)