![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Shouldn't the premise be an actual premise? What is written under "premise" is an individual's conclusion. That's not a premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:F0F1:D31C:BA2D:34B3 ( talk) 01:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should have a Synopsis section which just describe the film. So it can have, "Someone said this about that" or "Short clips of this are shown". Maybe think of it as audio description or closed captioning. Wikilinks can be used. Might want to also look at the next section on MOS:Film#Controversies. StrayBolt ( talk) 16:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "It falsely[2][3][4] claims Democrat-aligned individuals," to "It claims Democrat-aligned individuals,"
The reader should be able to determine for themselves whether or not the film is true or false. Wikipedia pages are for presenting just the facts about what something is. Haven't seen the film. But, I don't like coming to Wikipedia and finding that I'm being told what to think about it. I'm a smart person. I'll determine that for myself. Thank you. 2600:1017:B418:BA7B:C833:25CC:8817:A9E3 ( talk) 03:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sites states it "falsely" accuses democrats. To make it more accurate please remove the word falsely as factual data was provided. Though Wiki might not agree and it's funding comes from mostly democratic influence doesn't excuse Wikipedia to continue to enforce political agenda. 172.58.27.140 ( talk) 03:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's fine to critique a published work's claims as weakly supported, but to label them false requires overwhelming evidence of falsity.
Hit piece articles like this damage Wikipedia and diminish It's reputation. 49.148.119.148 ( talk) 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Even the article on Mein Kampf doesn't open with "falsely accuses". Normally, an article at least presents the content of a work BEFORE its criticisms. 2600:8800:7110:2A00:81D2:C127:51A8:D6C8 ( talk) 05:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Fact check: False claim that former Rep. Trey Gowdy endorsed '2000 Mules' The claim: Trey Gowdy watched '2000 Mules' at Mar-a-Lago and is convinced of ‘rampant cheating’ in the 2020 election. Gowdy: "Both assertions are completely false. Wasn’t at Mar a Lago. Haven’t seen the movie.” Gowdy told USA TODAY via email. “Didn’t even know there was a movie. So it’s 100% false.” -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
User Soibangla reverted a factual paragraph about the tools used by True the Vote, citing NYTimes. There was nothing political in the paragraph and was intentionally neutral. It only explained the technology. What was Soibangla's purpose? DeknMike ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
DeknMike, this [1] case in this [2] edit says geotracking "achieves near perfect surveillance" because people always have their phone with them, "as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user," but says only that "the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision," but nothing about how accurate it actually is now. Other reliable sources we have discuss the current accuracy, which is inadequate for pinpointing someone's location. Therein lies the inherent danger of interpreting primary sources, while asserting other editors are obfuscating facts. soibangla ( talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
references that tout their inaccuracy are almost always pointing to rural geolocation. soibangla ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
which gives me a massive headache, maybe others would like to take a crack at it. The purported whistleblower is interesting.
"Discussing the gaps in '2000 Mules' with Dinesh D'Souza". The Washington Post.
soibangla ( talk) 10:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi first let me say I love that this page is out there for us. That said, if you are an encyclopedia shouldn't info about things be neutral and not filled with opinion? Does wiki do extensive research? Isn't that what snopes is for? When reading about 2000 Mules I was putt off by all the negative language against the film. If this is a platform "helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge" why put so much opinion? 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 ( talk) 01:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
To add to the last post...encyclopedias have this in its definition "focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary" To me, this means just talk about what the film 2000 Mules is about, not give opinion. 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Rather than place the NPOV tag now, I propose an alternative approach: editors first present at least three specific instances in which NPOV is violated. I have tried but failed to find reliable sources that are supportive of the film, and I don't even see dubious conservative sources rushing to defend it, while evidently Fox News and Newsmax have deliberately chosen to ignore it. As a matter of fact, scrolling through D'Souza's twitter feed, I don't see evidence any notable source is praising the film apart from D'Souza himself, and I figure his twitter feed would be the best place to find positive reviews. I recommend the NPOV tag be removed until justification is provided on Talk. soibangla ( talk) 23:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It's a MOVIE, expressing an opinion. Let's get the facts straight and then highlight the various points of view. DeknMike ( talk) 17:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This should be useful. The ref is ready-to-use:
The Dispatch produces "serious, factually grounded journalism for a conservative audience". [2] The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) certified The Dispatch's fact-checking division in May 2020. [3] [4]
I find it keenly apt and ironic how so many conservative, and even many prominent right and far-right, personalities and sources are dissing the film. Dinesh finally went too far, even for them, and facts, especially about Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election, don't usually matter much to them. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The Reception section currently constitutes the following things:
What's missing is examples of outlets that genuinely believe that a Big Steal™ happened and that D'Souza has somehow exposed this Big Steal™; the question is, should we actually try and find such examples? I personally think we should, though I doubt my suggestion of including the Philadelphia Church of God, an fundamentalist outfit whose teachings amount to those of the Armstrongist-era Worldwide Church of God with a side of "Trump as end-time Jeroboam II™", will be acquiesced to... - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's true and has messed up America 2603:9001:3C04:E425:A55C:8FFA:5546:3767 ( talk) 02:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film presented a single unverified [1]anonymous witness who falsely claims [2] 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely [3] [4] [5] alleges, without evidence, [6] 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [7] 96.43.38.172 ( talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Bump_4/29/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Swenson_5/3/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dreisbach_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Coppins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Himmelman_5/21/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word falsely ..the movie is very accurate.. 98.238.185.15 ( talk) 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mulesto preserve brevity -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
Universal consensus is fine, but it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. The listed sources are absolutely not grounds upon which to claim that it’s false. To say biased would certainly be true. To say that the listed sources argue it to be based on a false premise and a weak attempt at gathering evidence, founded on confirmation bias, would be true. There is nothing concrete that demonstrates it to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it’s unprofessional to define it as factually incorrect. By all means, bring up every single talking point against it and mention general consensus. But the wording, as it stands, is just bad practice.
That sentence’s coherence is not contingent upon the word “falsely.” “Alleges” gets the point across accurately. Until there is official documentation on its proper evaluation using concrete counter-evidence, claiming that “The film falsely alleges,” is an opinion. It shouldn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. It’s important to maintain an objective outlook if this site is to uphold any reasonable standard of credibility. UnfathomableGreyMatter ( talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The article should talk about the movie before discussing criticism of it. You're bias is showing. I'm not surprised that someone asked you to remove the word falsely as the third word of your article. You are proving to not be a credible information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9800:F13C:2C39:F2BC:10B2:2AF7 ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article should discuss what was donewhich 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)
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)
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
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)
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 [1] [2] [3] 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. [3] National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". [4] 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. [3] The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. [5]
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. [3] National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". [4] 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 [6]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." [7] 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." [8]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. [3] The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. [5]
"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
The conservative [6] The Dispatch. I think
The Dispatchis sufficient. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:15, 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)
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 statesis 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)
that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple stateshas 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 statesis false?
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)
References
PolitiFact_5/4/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_4/29/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Swenson_5/3/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dreisbach_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Coppins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Himmelman_5/21/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2]
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
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Headline: The New York Times ‘2000 Mules’ Repackages Trump’s Election Lies Lies [1]
(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
“[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. [1]
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
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2] [3]
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". [4] [5] [6]
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
The film does not prove that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes.(with relevant citations added)
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)
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.
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)
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.
@ 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)
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)
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?
Analysis articles are highly valued hereNo, 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)
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)
The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right [1]
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove from reception:”Paul Rudy of KUSI-TV said, leading into an interview with D'Souza, that the film "is revealing the truth about what really happened in the 2020 election."[38] Conservative reviewer Christian Toto said that the film "may be the most important documentary of the year, if not the decade. That's not hyperbole." and that the film "demands a fair hearing on the Left [and] Right".”
The sources are not reliable (they are far-right fringe sources, similar to OAN) and are classic examples of WP:PROFRINGE. Please remove immediately. Not true reviews. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 ( talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 ( talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Done --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove from reception, “ the conservative Rasmussen Reports polling company echoed D'Souza's criticisms, claiming that the two outlets were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.”
We just now removed another source from the dailybeast and the article already is so bloated that ‘that’ line is simply redundant coming off of the other one right before it. The Rasmussen part comes off as WP:soapboxing— as it is not quite editorializing nor is it a proper criticism by an actual reviewer; just random trolling by a biased political-advocate engaging in WP:PROFRINGE. It isn’t a dealbreaker to keep it if we must but the article does read much better without it. 2601:280:CB02:4351:4943:A76E:C07A:4376 ( talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it should be removed. Izzy Borden ( talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the reception section, or wherever a seasoned editor deems appropriate, add this recent posting:
I was careful to include direct quotation, while avoiding the opining by Mike Lee himself since it's not relevant to the article as a whole and risks conflating an WP:UNDUE viewpoint. The article itself was also carefully written to do the same, so to respect its voice (and this very reputable source, and that of the journalist) I am taking care to narrowly word what I am offering here since Lee isn't pretending to be an expert on the matter nor on the film itself, so it will give a false balance and confuse the reader to include his opinion when the facts clearly are in conflict with it. Not to mention, this article is already so bloated and verbose in the first place, that less is more and the reader is free to click on the link of the article if they want to read the rest.
Seems like an important source to add since it is recent and direct in its language and reporting about the propaganda film. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:191D:6645:84:4C23 ( talk) 22:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
We still have the article using The Daily Beast to support a contentious claim about multiple living people ("D'Souza criticized Fox News and Newsmax for not promoting the film, claiming that Fox News' Tucker Carlson instructed Engelbrecht not to mention it during his interview with her "). This should be removed, per the previous discussions related to The Daily Beast. Izzy Borden ( talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. There are holes there that a Mack truck could drive through. Some editors, as opposed to a consensus? Controversial statements of fact? So an editor can deem a fact "controversial" and remove it? Something is "controversial" because it disputed, or deemed inflammatory, by some other source; it has created a controversy. I see no evidence that content is disputed or inflammatory or created any controversy, so it shouldn't be construed as anything other than straight-up reporting of fact. And I can produce numerous tweets to demonstrate that it is. The distinction you draw between WashExam and TDB is appropriate. soibangla ( talk) 22:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Rasmussen has an OK record as a horserace pollster, where there's at least some accountability. But as an issue pollster, where there's no accountability and question wording is easily abused, they're not reliable at all. As other editors said above, they haven't even released crosstabs and wording, which is a basic requirement for pollster accountability. If they did their horserace polling this way 538 wouldn't even be willing to list it. Anyway that question was settled by other editors so I'm not going to discuss it further here. GordonGlottal ( talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Shouldn't the premise be an actual premise? What is written under "premise" is an individual's conclusion. That's not a premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:F0F1:D31C:BA2D:34B3 ( talk) 01:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should have a Synopsis section which just describe the film. So it can have, "Someone said this about that" or "Short clips of this are shown". Maybe think of it as audio description or closed captioning. Wikilinks can be used. Might want to also look at the next section on MOS:Film#Controversies. StrayBolt ( talk) 16:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "It falsely[2][3][4] claims Democrat-aligned individuals," to "It claims Democrat-aligned individuals,"
The reader should be able to determine for themselves whether or not the film is true or false. Wikipedia pages are for presenting just the facts about what something is. Haven't seen the film. But, I don't like coming to Wikipedia and finding that I'm being told what to think about it. I'm a smart person. I'll determine that for myself. Thank you. 2600:1017:B418:BA7B:C833:25CC:8817:A9E3 ( talk) 03:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The sites states it "falsely" accuses democrats. To make it more accurate please remove the word falsely as factual data was provided. Though Wiki might not agree and it's funding comes from mostly democratic influence doesn't excuse Wikipedia to continue to enforce political agenda. 172.58.27.140 ( talk) 03:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's fine to critique a published work's claims as weakly supported, but to label them false requires overwhelming evidence of falsity.
Hit piece articles like this damage Wikipedia and diminish It's reputation. 49.148.119.148 ( talk) 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Even the article on Mein Kampf doesn't open with "falsely accuses". Normally, an article at least presents the content of a work BEFORE its criticisms. 2600:8800:7110:2A00:81D2:C127:51A8:D6C8 ( talk) 05:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Fact check: False claim that former Rep. Trey Gowdy endorsed '2000 Mules' The claim: Trey Gowdy watched '2000 Mules' at Mar-a-Lago and is convinced of ‘rampant cheating’ in the 2020 election. Gowdy: "Both assertions are completely false. Wasn’t at Mar a Lago. Haven’t seen the movie.” Gowdy told USA TODAY via email. “Didn’t even know there was a movie. So it’s 100% false.” -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 04:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
User Soibangla reverted a factual paragraph about the tools used by True the Vote, citing NYTimes. There was nothing political in the paragraph and was intentionally neutral. It only explained the technology. What was Soibangla's purpose? DeknMike ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
DeknMike, this [1] case in this [2] edit says geotracking "achieves near perfect surveillance" because people always have their phone with them, "as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user," but says only that "the accuracy of CSLI is rapidly approaching GPS-level precision," but nothing about how accurate it actually is now. Other reliable sources we have discuss the current accuracy, which is inadequate for pinpointing someone's location. Therein lies the inherent danger of interpreting primary sources, while asserting other editors are obfuscating facts. soibangla ( talk) 16:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
references that tout their inaccuracy are almost always pointing to rural geolocation. soibangla ( talk) 17:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
which gives me a massive headache, maybe others would like to take a crack at it. The purported whistleblower is interesting.
"Discussing the gaps in '2000 Mules' with Dinesh D'Souza". The Washington Post.
soibangla ( talk) 10:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi first let me say I love that this page is out there for us. That said, if you are an encyclopedia shouldn't info about things be neutral and not filled with opinion? Does wiki do extensive research? Isn't that what snopes is for? When reading about 2000 Mules I was putt off by all the negative language against the film. If this is a platform "helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge" why put so much opinion? 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 ( talk) 01:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
To add to the last post...encyclopedias have this in its definition "focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary" To me, this means just talk about what the film 2000 Mules is about, not give opinion. 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Rather than place the NPOV tag now, I propose an alternative approach: editors first present at least three specific instances in which NPOV is violated. I have tried but failed to find reliable sources that are supportive of the film, and I don't even see dubious conservative sources rushing to defend it, while evidently Fox News and Newsmax have deliberately chosen to ignore it. As a matter of fact, scrolling through D'Souza's twitter feed, I don't see evidence any notable source is praising the film apart from D'Souza himself, and I figure his twitter feed would be the best place to find positive reviews. I recommend the NPOV tag be removed until justification is provided on Talk. soibangla ( talk) 23:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
It's a MOVIE, expressing an opinion. Let's get the facts straight and then highlight the various points of view. DeknMike ( talk) 17:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This should be useful. The ref is ready-to-use:
The Dispatch produces "serious, factually grounded journalism for a conservative audience". [2] The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) certified The Dispatch's fact-checking division in May 2020. [3] [4]
I find it keenly apt and ironic how so many conservative, and even many prominent right and far-right, personalities and sources are dissing the film. Dinesh finally went too far, even for them, and facts, especially about Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election, don't usually matter much to them. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
References
The Reception section currently constitutes the following things:
What's missing is examples of outlets that genuinely believe that a Big Steal™ happened and that D'Souza has somehow exposed this Big Steal™; the question is, should we actually try and find such examples? I personally think we should, though I doubt my suggestion of including the Philadelphia Church of God, an fundamentalist outfit whose teachings amount to those of the Armstrongist-era Worldwide Church of God with a side of "Trump as end-time Jeroboam II™", will be acquiesced to... - Dvaderv2 ( talk) 11:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It's true and has messed up America 2603:9001:3C04:E425:A55C:8FFA:5546:3767 ( talk) 02:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The film presented a single unverified [1]anonymous witness who falsely claims [2] 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely [3] [4] [5] alleges, without evidence, [6] 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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. [7] 96.43.38.172 ( talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Bump_4/29/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Swenson_5/3/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dreisbach_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Coppins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Himmelman_5/21/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the word falsely ..the movie is very accurate.. 98.238.185.15 ( talk) 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mulesto preserve brevity -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
Universal consensus is fine, but it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. The listed sources are absolutely not grounds upon which to claim that it’s false. To say biased would certainly be true. To say that the listed sources argue it to be based on a false premise and a weak attempt at gathering evidence, founded on confirmation bias, would be true. There is nothing concrete that demonstrates it to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it’s unprofessional to define it as factually incorrect. By all means, bring up every single talking point against it and mention general consensus. But the wording, as it stands, is just bad practice.
That sentence’s coherence is not contingent upon the word “falsely.” “Alleges” gets the point across accurately. Until there is official documentation on its proper evaluation using concrete counter-evidence, claiming that “The film falsely alleges,” is an opinion. It shouldn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. It’s important to maintain an objective outlook if this site is to uphold any reasonable standard of credibility. UnfathomableGreyMatter ( talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The article should talk about the movie before discussing criticism of it. You're bias is showing. I'm not surprised that someone asked you to remove the word falsely as the third word of your article. You are proving to not be a credible information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9800:F13C:2C39:F2BC:10B2:2AF7 ( talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
The article should discuss what was donewhich 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)
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)
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
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)
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 [1] [2] [3] 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. [3] National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". [4] 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. [3] The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. [5]
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. [3] National Public Radio (NPR) found that True the Vote "made multiple misleading or false claims about its [own] work". [4] 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 [6]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." [7] 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." [8]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. [3] The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. [5]
"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
The conservative [6] The Dispatch. I think
The Dispatchis sufficient. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:15, 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)
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 statesis 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)
that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple stateshas 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 statesis false?
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)
References
PolitiFact_5/4/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_4/29/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Swenson_5/3/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Dreisbach_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/11/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Coppins
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Himmelman_5/21/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bump_5/17/2022
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2]
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
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Headline: The New York Times ‘2000 Mules’ Repackages Trump’s Election Lies Lies [1]
(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
“[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. [1]
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
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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." [1] [2] [3]
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". [4] [5] [6]
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
The film does not prove that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes.(with relevant citations added)
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)
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.
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)
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.
@ 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)
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)
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?
Analysis articles are highly valued hereNo, 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)
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)
The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right [1]
Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 16:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove from reception:”Paul Rudy of KUSI-TV said, leading into an interview with D'Souza, that the film "is revealing the truth about what really happened in the 2020 election."[38] Conservative reviewer Christian Toto said that the film "may be the most important documentary of the year, if not the decade. That's not hyperbole." and that the film "demands a fair hearing on the Left [and] Right".”
The sources are not reliable (they are far-right fringe sources, similar to OAN) and are classic examples of WP:PROFRINGE. Please remove immediately. Not true reviews. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 ( talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:A9B8:2486:8278:2CD0 ( talk) 04:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Done --
Valjean (
talk) (
PING me)
15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove from reception, “ the conservative Rasmussen Reports polling company echoed D'Souza's criticisms, claiming that the two outlets were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.”
We just now removed another source from the dailybeast and the article already is so bloated that ‘that’ line is simply redundant coming off of the other one right before it. The Rasmussen part comes off as WP:soapboxing— as it is not quite editorializing nor is it a proper criticism by an actual reviewer; just random trolling by a biased political-advocate engaging in WP:PROFRINGE. It isn’t a dealbreaker to keep it if we must but the article does read much better without it. 2601:280:CB02:4351:4943:A76E:C07A:4376 ( talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, it should be removed. Izzy Borden ( talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2000 Mules has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the reception section, or wherever a seasoned editor deems appropriate, add this recent posting:
I was careful to include direct quotation, while avoiding the opining by Mike Lee himself since it's not relevant to the article as a whole and risks conflating an WP:UNDUE viewpoint. The article itself was also carefully written to do the same, so to respect its voice (and this very reputable source, and that of the journalist) I am taking care to narrowly word what I am offering here since Lee isn't pretending to be an expert on the matter nor on the film itself, so it will give a false balance and confuse the reader to include his opinion when the facts clearly are in conflict with it. Not to mention, this article is already so bloated and verbose in the first place, that less is more and the reader is free to click on the link of the article if they want to read the rest.
Seems like an important source to add since it is recent and direct in its language and reporting about the propaganda film. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:191D:6645:84:4C23 ( talk) 22:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
We still have the article using The Daily Beast to support a contentious claim about multiple living people ("D'Souza criticized Fox News and Newsmax for not promoting the film, claiming that Fox News' Tucker Carlson instructed Engelbrecht not to mention it during his interview with her "). This should be removed, per the previous discussions related to The Daily Beast. Izzy Borden ( talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. There are holes there that a Mack truck could drive through. Some editors, as opposed to a consensus? Controversial statements of fact? So an editor can deem a fact "controversial" and remove it? Something is "controversial" because it disputed, or deemed inflammatory, by some other source; it has created a controversy. I see no evidence that content is disputed or inflammatory or created any controversy, so it shouldn't be construed as anything other than straight-up reporting of fact. And I can produce numerous tweets to demonstrate that it is. The distinction you draw between WashExam and TDB is appropriate. soibangla ( talk) 22:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Rasmussen has an OK record as a horserace pollster, where there's at least some accountability. But as an issue pollster, where there's no accountability and question wording is easily abused, they're not reliable at all. As other editors said above, they haven't even released crosstabs and wording, which is a basic requirement for pollster accountability. If they did their horserace polling this way 538 wouldn't even be willing to list it. Anyway that question was settled by other editors so I'm not going to discuss it further here. GordonGlottal ( talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)