Talk:2000 Mules/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC: "falsely" in lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm involved in this discussion and this is not a formal closing statement. This discussion has been open for more than nine months now, and much has changed in the body of sources about this article topic. If someone wants to change away from the status quo, it would be more productive to start a new discussion than to continue this one. I'm likely to undo this closure if it's requested by any editor in good standing, though I'll probably then refer it to WP:Closure requests. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

   Administrator note: Indeffed for sockpuppetry, including attempting to !votestack this RfC. Strictly speaking, however, the !vote remains valid, to the extent the closer will assign it any weight. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:36, 2 July 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)

• Keep it. All the alternatives presented are either weaselly, confusing, verbose, or all three. The primary concern seems to be avoiding "offending" or "dictating an opinion," which is not our concern as an Encyclopedia if we are properly reflecting sources. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  @GordonGlottal: Like it or not, that is indeed a valid concern. Words matter. If equally effective words that come across as more neutral are available, they should be used, even if doing so requires a couple of extra words. Otherwise we get tons of stupid edit requests from those who are offended. It is a misuse of Wikipedia's narrative voice to parrot opinionated or sensationalist speech just because a few reliable sources choose to do so. Nouns come across more neutral than adverbs, which come across as opinionated. We are serving a broad readership here, and we should do so without watering down, but also without deliberately being offensive. Alternative wording exists that is just as forceful and factual but sounds better than "falsely". ~Anachronist (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  The term "Falsely" defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is: not genuine. It doesn't matter if the term "Falsely" is offending or dictating an opinion. The term can be used to describe 2000 Mules strictly as a film medium. The term "Falsely" doesn't however describe the content of 2000 Mules or the indisputable proof that caught the mules in the act of rigging the election. 207.43.76.145 (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  the indisputable proof that caught the mules in the act of rigging the election tells me you haven't actually read the article. The movie is farcically moronic. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The cites that claim the documentary is false have not proven that the documentary is false; they have only served to diminish the reliability its claims. Nothing has proven that the documentary's claims are false. Thus, the article does not falsely claim the election was rigged; rather, it purports to prove as much. This is the objective version that must be used in accordance with WP: NPOV.

The editors that have suggested falsely have injected biased viewpoints into this article. If any of the sources cited were actually read and not relied on by headline, then they would understand that the film has not objectively been proven false, only rebutted in part by several credible sources.

The proper edits is that the film "purports" to prove its claims. AnubisIbizu (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually it has been proven false. Hope this helps! Internetronic (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth with various IP sox of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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."[1] "The film falsely implies that rampant voter fraud compromised the 2020 presidential election, costing Trump a second term."[2] "<title>Dinesh D'Souza film '2000 Mules' Falsely Implies Data Solved A Murder : NPR</title>"NPR "In other words, D’Souza is elevating shaky, misrepresented, incomplete claims to bolster his rhetoric — as I said, an apt summary of the movie overall."WAPO (though the word "falsely" isn't included, the context can be easily paraphrased without WP:synthesis to infer an indictment of dishonesty, which "falsely" by itself conveys neutral enough language that it would not be a NPOV violation in the form of WP:WEASEL words. Again, "falsely" is used consistent across the board by the sources, so we must respect the sources and report their overwhelming consensus on the topic for what is simply a WP:FRINGE matter for which wikipedia insofar as strict policy as no tolerance. For those coming in late, this is no different than outrageous slanderous anti-social fringe ideology like conspiracy theories about the holocaust. The sources on this no-brainer of a matter are not wavering, as well. Their take is that this anti-social slanderous fringe "about the big lie" is repackaged as a movie, and they are they comfortable leaving it 'simply to the readers to decide'- i.e.by allowing a false balance to suggest there are two sides to this debate. So burying certainly language in the lead would not only misrepresent their reporting but would do a disservice to the reader. Let's not try to right all the wrongs in the world WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but, rather, honor the consensus of the press. Good luck! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Listing some sources that use the word is not a rebuttal to my argument. Semantics matter. Impressions matter. If we can use better, stronger, more direct language than sloppy labeling, then we should do so. WP:LABEL requires us to consider this. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Rebuttal#2 But it is the sources that matter here not your interpretation of them, or whether or not it hurts our feelings because those dang reporters are just being too dang harsh. Your strong personal feelings on the matter borders on WP:OR. Again, it doesn't matter whether you think they are being too harsh or not, because the exception to the rule here is matters of conspiracy fringe WP:FRINGE. This isn't a debate about a critical consensus involving a movie for instance. That said, I did in fact directly rebut your claim. You are being obtuse WP:POINTY. To say “falsely claims” rather than “falsely says” is far from sloppy, and that is the direct language used by the sources to counter the central claim of 2000 mules. In fact, you are making an argument for why we should use that original language since you are proposing arguably “sloppy” language that is very verbose and convoluted. Yes...“Impressions” DO matter and we should not inject a false balance here when the universal consensus in the press is that this movie is patently and deliberately misleading. If this were not a matter of fringe conspiracy WP:FRINGE theories then you certainly have a point but Wikipedia has a very strict policy and no tolerance for this. And because the propagandists involved wish to weaponize not only the press but also Wikipedia in the service of said propaganda, this is why Wikipedia has created a clear redline regarding pro-fringe conspiracy theories WP:PROFRINGE to inoculate itself against this cunning form of gaslighting. Unfortunately on this matter we only agree to disagree so we will see what others think about this- hopefully in the service of journalistic integrity and not misguided idealism. 2601:280:CB02:4E49:CC34:1299:CDB1:3D64 (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) I have no "strong feelings" on the matter, and be mindful of WP:NPA. Your mischaracterizations of my arguments, as well as ascribing non-existent motivations and feelings to me, constitute passive-aggressive personal attacks. Cease commenting on contributors immediately, please. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Rebuttal#3 I promise you that it was nothing personal as my issue was more with your idealistic methodology (which in my own personal opinion is a common problem with Wikipedia and articles like this) and not with you as an editor; so I'm sorry if you took it that way. I give people enough credit not to be thin skinned, not saying you are. I am blunt, as you have learned, and if I truly had a problem with you I would’ve come right out and said it. We are not robots here so when dealing with controversial articles like this, and the inevitable s*** storm that will follow, ‘this’ is a classic example of when we need to ‘assume the assumption of good faith’ Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith, which as you know is not to be confused with Wikipedia's standard vanilla etiquette regarding good faith. TL;DR version- If it really needs to be said- Thank you for the spirited debate and for your contributions here and elsewhere, no hard feelings. Yes, we’re done here. 98.50.110.204 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC) "Your mischaracterizations of my arguments, as well as ascribing non-existent motivations and feelings to me, constitute passive-aggressive personal attacks." ... "Cease commenting on contributors immediately, please." Looks a lot like projection. Jibal (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC) WP:LABEL is a bad example here. It recommends the exact opposite remedy given the circumstances: The weblink abovetakes you to an essay that points out exceptions to the rule so we don’t “grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.” Furthermore, WP:LABEL actually advocates for labels like “racist” or “pseudoscience” or, for the purposes of this article, a term like falsely when faced with fringe conspiracy theory. In those extreme cases, according to WP:LABEL, those labels do not always violate the policy espoused by WP:NPOV Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Especially when pseudoscientific or empirically-false views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guidelines spelled out by Wikipedia:Fringe theories, certain labels are more than appropriate when supported by reliable sources and should be used to distinguish fringe theories from the mainstream. The essay concludes that in those rare cases it is proper to embrace what might seem like weasel words or reductive labels. To demonstrate this point, as luck would have it, 2000 Mules is so problematic apparently that in just the last few hours alone a fresh mainstream article reported that, when it comes to 2000 Mules “…the data can’t actually prove what he and D’Souza suggest it does, for example, or that the purported data they show in the movie is obviously (and admittedly) fake.“ BlakeWashington (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC) "Listing some sources that use the word is not a rebuttal to my argument." You flat out stated (falsely) elsewhere that the word is never used by RS. Your "argument", such as it is, consists of completely baseless claims about the connotations of various words and phrases. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that supports your argument against the use of the word "falsely". Jibal (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC) References

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh. (Unreplied-to comment hatted rather than removed because it is referenced by Muboshgu below.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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"[3] 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)

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back-and-forth with various IP sox of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep It’s not “just very likely false”, it has “been thoroughly debunked” according to one recent source. And D’Souza’s willful-dishonesty with his 2000 Mules hoax has been well documented and reported. You make it sound like there is a possibility here and that misrepresents the sources. Holocaust denial is called “false” in the lead and this similarly sociopathic fringe theory is also “false”. So it stays 2601:280:CB02:5881:4C3E:231F:3B84:897A (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC) D'Souza's dishonesty is tangential to the discussion, which is about Wikipedia's description of the central claim of the movie, so let's keep the focus on what RS say about that specific claim. Holocaust denial claims are described as "false" because we have a huge consensus of RS which say so; just to give an example, a chapter in a scholarly book: Holocaust Denial and Other False Assertions of Fact. In contrast, I have looked at most of the cited sources for the lead sentence and in this discussion and while there is a consensus of sources to describe the specific claim in the first sentence of the lead of this film's article in Wikivoice as "unproven", there is not such a consensus for "false". Thanks for the quote from the Salt Lake Tribune saying been thoroughly debunked; it is one of the first good sources I've seen that would support the use of "false" or "falsely". Alone it doesn't represent a consensus of sources, but if there are others, I would have little objection (though "false" is better as Anachronist has explained for encyclopedic voice). Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC) You are engaging in rules lawyering, also known as WP:GAMING and your rebuttal is simply false and fallacious. We can call hoaxes a hoax and sociopathic fringe theories “false” when the press is saying so. We don’t have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Our job isn’t to find exact wording, but the overall sentiment and consensus as it were. And the press is universally condemning and calling out the 2000 Mules hoax. There isn’t two sides to this and there’s no chance that the allegations in the movie can or will be true. Nuff said 2601:280:CB02:1106:500B:F368:EA0C:B2A9 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC) The above reply has many accusatory labels but minimal attempts to engage in a discussion of what the sources actually say regarding the specific claim in the lead sentence (rather than just a general "universally condemning" or "calling out" of the movie). It doesn't matter if you or I have personally come to the conclusion that it is a hoax or false. WP:V is not a technicality; it is a core part of Wikipedia's content policy. Can you point to a body of RS saying about the specific claim in the lead sentence that there’s no chance that [it] can or will be true? Fiwec81618 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC) To say that it "doesn't matter what we personally think" is a red-herring because the editors (me included) are advocating for what the sources think, and by you obtusely ignoring what the sources think would violate the sources and WP:NPOV. There are exceptions to WP:V, like WP:PROFRINGE or WP:UNDUE where it is completely appropriate to use strong language when faced with wild claims. The burden of proof is actually on you and those that support this movie, it is not on us to disprove it and extend good faith to a bad faith actor character like D’Souza. You’re trying to find some loophole here despite the fact that the press is clearly calling this propaganda film “false”, a hoax, dishonest, etc. For others coming in late on this, so others are not pressured by the bulverism on display here, "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness". Certain stubborn editors in the minority here simply don't like the fact that RS tells us the film's allegations "are false", so they wants us to remove that. That would violate NPOV. Wikipedia does not offer the opinion that 2000 Mules is false. Wikipedia echoes the reliable sources, all of which say that the information and claims it presents "are false" and the conclusions are erroneous and "thoroughly debunked". Neutrality, in this sense, does not mean presenting both sides equally, because the sources say that one of the sides is wrong and presenting "false claims". You are reminding me of that scene in the movie “Dumb and Dumber” when Jim Carrey says,”but you mean there’s still a chance?!?!?” Sorry but I don’t see you really changing any minds here with your bulverism so unfortunately we only agree to disagree. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:816D:EB4:A8B7:2042 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC) I assume I'm talking to the same person? This RfC is about the lead sentence. Despite the obfuscation, your assertion that There are exceptions to WP:V... and continued refusal/inability to respond to the question Can you point to a body of RS saying about the specific claim in the lead sentence that there’s no chance that [it] can or will be true? with reference to any particular examples of sources speaks for itself. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC) For the record, I never said I wanted to include this sentence that "FACT: there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that 2000 mules can or will ever be true (read: though it is absolutely true-for the simple documented reason(s) that everything from (A) the lack of evidence, to (B) the fabricated evidence in the propaganda film, to (C) the sole phony unverified witness, to (D) the pathological liar D'Souza himself, and (E) to the vetted fact that Trump lost fair & square, do I really need to go into (F), (G), (H), (I) and the rest of the alphabet?!?!?). Yes, this is about the lead and whether or not it is appropriate to include "falsely claims" in it. The standard for that is WP:V check!, (read: the sources certainly back the claim and the use that language and stronger language) and the guidelines outlined by WP:UNDUE check! and WP:FRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE when dealing with political propaganda and anti-social fringe conspiracy theories check! Going off my checklist here, and so far so good. Last on my checklist: This is just going on in circles, you are not really changing minds, you are not really offering anything new in the way of compelling reasoning or facts, and bulverism won't prevail in this matter this time around with Trump's tantrum checkmate! So, we are done here, 'mate'. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:3971:E208:F70F:7A90 (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC) I'm repeating myself because you continue to fail to provide support for your claim that WP:V is satisfied: You want to keep the current lead, which says that the film's claim that unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in... is false. For whatever reason, despite repeated requests, you have not produced sources with quotes showing that indeed a consensus of RS do call this claim false. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC) You are being misleading, and untruthful- intentional or otherwise. The sources certainly use the strong language in the lead, calling the claims made by D’Souza’s propaganda film “false” and universally the reputable sources are not ambivalent in their reporting on this propaganda film. It isn’t a question for them if the film’s accusations are “unproven” or even “disproven” since there was nothing of substance to prove or disprove in the first place- according to the press, just Trump’s “false” claims about the big lie repackaged as a propaganda film. We get it, it’s not enough ‘for you.’ Thankfully that isn’t the case for the majority of the editors here. If you truly think there is some egregious violation of policy here then report this article in the form of a WP:ANI, or be done with it and allow the rfc to continue here without your incessant tantrum and disruptive whining 2601:282:8100:D3E0:2185:6639:B36B:2F27 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC) If it's so obvious, why not provide some specific quotes from sources? Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC) @Fiwec81618I have...several times. So have the other editors. And when we do, you move the goal posts, or offer fallacious reasoning about why it isn't enough. Maybe consider conservapedia, it is "obvious" you like this propaganda film and believe in the big lie about the 2020 election. If this is SO important to you, then how about YOU provide some 'real' evidence that this propaganda movie is NOT making "false claims" since WP:BURDEN is on you, not the other way around. TTFN 2601:282:8100:D3E0:7863:FB67:DE76:7064 (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC) No, you have not (unless you count disembodied quotes not attributed to a source). SchmuckyTheCat has, and I already dug through the comments under another section to find a quote from the Salt Lake Tribune from (another?) IP user, and have expressed that these alone would not represent a consensus of RS. I've also already discussed at the beginning of this thread sources put forth by (yet another?) IP user in a reply to Anachronist. I would gladly look at other sources if they are pointed out. WP:BURDEN says The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, so since you support the presentation of "falsely" as currently in the lead the onus is on you. If you consider my evaluation of some sources put forth by others fallacious, why not give some reasons instead of just flinging accusations? Finally, consider WP:ASPERSIONS and don't make unsupported claims about me. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC) @Fiwec81618 Out of the starting gate, thus movie deals with the debunked conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen and because it was debunked it is considered WP:FRINGE so according to the strict polices against pushing fringe theories here on Wikipedia then the WP:BURDEN is actually ON YOU about why we owe “2000 mules” (which is a lame repacking of the 2020 big lie) this neutrality you keep demanding. Why must we be so strict, you keep asking? Because the conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen is COMPLETELY debunked. Same goes with the idea that the Earth is flat. Or that Obama was born in Kenya. Or that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Again- They are considered WP:FRINGE. So just because a new person or movie comes along claiming those debunked theories are true does NOT mean we suddenly have to start over and come from a place ‘of neutrality’ when the press certainly is not. The RS isn’t on the fence on this. Bill Barr and Ann Coulter even came out against the movie recently. The burden isn’t on them, or us, to prove that some wild claim isn’t true, but on the person making the wild claim that it is true. Again, WP:FRINGE clearly says we don’t need to present both sides of whether (or not) the Earth is flat, for instance, or any patently debunked theory, just because a new (con)person comes along with a nifty new spin or on it and kicks up some dust in the press. We can reject it out of the opening gate as well, like the press is doing. Wikipedia is about the art of paraphrasing, so don’t need exact quotes on everything. There is nothing saying we can’t use the word “false” as long as it is appropriate. And guess what? The gist of the press is that D’Souza is pushing tired old “false” claims here. So, it’s okay on that front, thankfully because the press is doing a great job calling out D’Souza on this. But even in cases where the press isn’t as united, that is okay because WP:FRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE was designed as a firewall of sorts to address sneaky POV pushing trolls like you, who are looking for loopholes in how we source things, trying to sneak in fringe-junk like this. The debate is exhausted here, especially for all the reasons I just have now given, so this is a WP:STICK on your end that you need to drop. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC) Am I talking to the same person here? Unlike what you (or others) claim, this is not centrally about neutrality, but rather an issue about WP:V (and to a lesser extent, WP:WEIGHT). We aren't talking about whether it is accurate to say there is a "debunked conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen". We are talking about the specific wording of the first sentence in the lead. Does there exist a consensus of RS supporting the statement in the Wikipedia article for 2000 mules that the film falsely claims unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in...? Prove it. No amount of name-calling or name-dropping WP:FRINGE makes it acceptable to bypass WP:V: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that the weight of views presented in reliable sources (as documented by 2601...) should lead us to describe the central claim of the film as incorrect, but I am sympathetic to what Anachronist said above. In general, articles should be written in an encyclopedic tone that describes existing information about a topic, and there are a lot of ways to say that something is false that comes off as persuasive or judgemental. In this case, "falsely claimed" isn't that bad, and though it does read as a bit persuasive/judgemental, I haven't really seen any proposed wordings in this discussion that are any better. So unless someone comes up with something better, falsely claims is okay. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think just removing falsely while keeping the AP article info in the second paragraph does a great job. Instead of starting off in the very first sentence that the movie is false, you give an overview what the movie is and then you lead into the evidence that shows it is false. That seems to be much more logical and unbiased, which in my opinion give it stronger weight to the argument that the movie is false. MiamiHeat87 (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Would really like to see a list of sources, right here in the RfC. As an outsider coming in to comment, I don't want to have to look all over this page, and the article, to find sources pointing this way and that. The sources should be listed right here in the RfC. They aren't. Per WP:BURDEN, I therefore provisionally oppose use of "falsely". That said, I am open to being convinced otherwise. Really. Just need the sources. I hereby give anyone who creates such a list to ping me, two days after the list is created, and I will reassess. The two days is to allow others to add to the list. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

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

  WP:AGF much? What I have done in other RfC is to start a list of sources and invite others to add to it. What tends to happen is that I come back a few weeks later, and the list has been expanded to far more than I had been aware of, sometimes even leading to changes of votes, including people who had previously been committed one way or another but were swayed by the sourcing. See here for an example of where this can end up.[4], in particular the terrific list of sources partway down in the discussion, categorized and so on. It is beautifully organized, categorized by type of source, and so on. A list does not need to go that far to be usable. But it does need to exist, and it does need to be clear that other users are welcome to add to it. Sources scattered in comments simply don't do it, especially for an outsider, which is typically the type of person an RfC is intended to reach. Searching is not easy as they are scattered in a lot of places. As it is evident that this will not be forthcoming here, I'm updating my vote. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - I've read no good reason to change it. "Falsely" is the word commonly used by the news sources above. StoryKai (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Two of the sources' summaries use the word "faulty", and I've suggested that the word "faultily" be used instead. Noble Metalloid (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason has been given to remove it, and it is used by numerous RS, contrary to some editors who have falsely claimed otherwise. -- Jibal (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

  No I do not; Salt Lake Tribune is an RS, but I am not sure about AZ Mirror, Colorado Newsline, and Atlanta Civic Circle for reasons I have mentioned in my comment above (established quite recently in the late 2010s, some questions about parent organization States Newsroom of the first two eg at Open Secrets).

  It's unfortunate you don't wish to discuss sourcing despite my efforts to bring up specific sources for discussion. You say of AP and Politifact that the wording in those sources do clearly support "falsely claim", but I honestly haven't found such text. Why stonewall a simple request for quotes if what you say is true?

  Consensus of RS is necessary because of WP:WEIGHT. We have a consensus of RS that say the films central claim is unproven, but we do not have a consensus of RS that say the film's central claim is false (though RS do say many of its subclaims eg about quality of evidence are false). So we should follow the weight as reflected in the sources and say the film "falsely claims to prove" rather than "falsely claims", for example.

  Also, WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  We're talking about the lead. It summarizes the body, and "falsely" summarizes the gist of many sources, even if they don't all use the exact word. The combined findings and descriptions of nearly all RS is that the film's claims are best described as untrue or "false", so the word we use is proper. I also find Jibal's comment above at 07:59, 16 June] compelling. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I've seen the claim that "falsely" as currently used reflects RS repeated numerous times here. I don't think this claim is true (beyond a single source from Salt Lake Tribune), and I've stated my reasons why.

  Once again the above comment makes this claim while giving no examples of quotes from sources to support it. Jibal's comment linked above is yet another instance of this. Fiwec81618 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  "It's unfortunate you don't wish to discuss ... Why stonewall ..."

  I'm not the topic of discussion here. Stop attacking me and leave me alone. Jibal (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• No. Sources cited at the end of the sentence say things like "doesn’t prove" and "hard or impossible to prove". So the word "claims" is enough. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Replace with faultily, like the source says. Falsely and faultily mean different things. AP did not provide conclusive evidence that he was wrong, only that his analysis was shoddy. FYI I think Trump fairly lost in 2020. I also think the issue of mailed ballots and no chain of custody (as is done in my state, California) is ripe for fraud, and that a bipartisan push to fix that vulnerability should exist, but doesn't. I looked through the AP source and Politifact, and of the five uses of the word "false" or "falsely", none support the statement. It's a stretch of a claim and should be replaced by "faultily" or a synonym. As it stands, the claim is a smear by Wikipedia editors, not an impartial reflection of the sources. Noble Metalloid (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Replace as per Anachronist. Wikipedia's voice should be such that we're not presenting our opinion but rather presenting the opinion of our reliable credible sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, or replace with something similar. Happy to see alternative language hashed out in talk page discussion or a new RfC. Straight removal would lead to an NPOV issue, as debunking the claims of the film is a major enough feature of reliable source coverage that it's due for a mention in the opener. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, Keep it. Wikipedia's role is to report the consensus of reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:FRINGE, which states in a nutshell, "...in an article about the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be made clear." Furthermore, it says, "Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." The inline citation listing the sources satisfies this part, "... reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." I would say WP:UNDUE also applies in terms of "prominence of placement" where we would be remiss to open with the minority viewpoint in isolation that would indicate more notability or wider acceptance than in actuality. For example, with intelligent design, it is established in the first sentence that it is pseudoscientific. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  No. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The cites that claim the documentary is false have not proven that the documentary is false; they have only served to diminish the reliability its claims. Nothing has proven that the documentary's claims are false. Thus, the article does not falsely claim the election was rigged; rather, it purports to prove as much. This is the objective version that must be used in accordance with WP: NPOV. AnubisIbizu (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - There are literally no reliable sources which support the claims made in this film. No amount of saying "But this psychotic nutbar YouTube video I found says otherwise!" is going to change this fact, and our Neutral Point of View does not constrain us to treat fringe claims as if they were reputable. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• No - Just my two cents, replace it with "alleges." WolfShadow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who Made the Movie

Much of the complaints about the movie is saying what True the Vote said or didn't say. D'Sousa used the data provided by them, but made his own interpretations in his movie. You can disagree with his conclusions, but this is not the place to rail against TTV (take that to Facebook or Twitter). This article should describe what D'Souza said in the movie, and reception to it, not whether we like his source material (TTV). DeknMike (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Much of the "reception" to this film is to debunk it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Article dismisses eye witness testimony in violation of neutral POV

POV pushing. That’s not how evidence works. That’s also not how reliable sources work. That’s also also not how we know the moon landings were real. Nothing to see here Dronebogus (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The filmmaker interviewed a reliable witness that he saw first-hand, hard proof about lies about Trump’s erection, sorry, I meant, “election”(typo), in 2022! Isn’t that enough to leave this article alone?! I don’t see any evidence disproving the eye witness! EDIT:Please don’t engage in WP:CENSOR This is a fair question! I98.50.104.93 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) People can claim they witnessed things, but that doesn't make it so. We follow reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I agree, that’s why the moon-landing was proved to be fake. The witnesses were biased. But this is different. First of all, most drop boxes have no footage because some states that were supposed to install video surveillance of all the drop boxes didn’t do that. But there are some cases where we have the same guy at more than one drop box. The problem is the footage is so grainy it’s not obvious it’s the same guy. But we do know it’s the same guy. Why? Because it’s the same cellphone ID. And so even though the image is fuzzy, we come back here to the simple point that electronic or digital or DNA evidence is better than “eyewitness evidence”. As for the credible anonymous source who said she was involved with a ballot trafficking operation in Arizona. The pattern noted in the movie fits the pattern seen in the proven ballot trafficking in Bladen County. As summarized on pages 20–21 of the first day of the SBE hearing on that proven ballot trafficking, workers would first gather ballots, including those only partially marked or in unsealed envelopes, and deliver them to the appropriate office. The workers would later take the ballots and mail them in batches of ten or less at post offices near the homes of the voters whose ballots they took. The program delivered ballots that way to avoid raising a red flag with election officials. Now if that’s not proof, I dunno what is? Please put this argument to rest now, and fix this article once and for all. 63.157.229.250 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources treat the moon landing as real and the allegations in 2000 Mules as phony. So that's what we do. Even if it's wrong. Verifiability, not truth. (The Arizona audit determined that there was no election fraud btw.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC) where did you hear all this? please provide links I can review for possible inclusion. anything from 8chan would be fine. soibangla (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.: "forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased." Human biases tend to color human memories. Dimadick (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)