Talk:2000 Mules/Archive 1

Premise
Shouldn't the premise be an actual premise? What is written under "premise" is an individual's conclusion. That's not a premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:F0F1:D31C:BA2D:34B3 (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved comment into a section. StrayBolt (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis section is needed
I think we should have a Synopsis section which just describe the film. So it can have, "Someone said this about that" or "Short clips of this are shown". Maybe think of it as audio description or closed captioning. Wikilinks can be used. Might want to also look at the next section on MOS:Film. StrayBolt (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022
Change "It falsely[2][3][4] claims Democrat-aligned individuals," to "It claims Democrat-aligned individuals,"

The reader should be able to determine for themselves whether or not the film is true or false. Wikipedia pages are for presenting just the facts about what something is. Haven't seen the film. But, I don't like coming to Wikipedia and finding that I'm being told what to think about it. I'm a smart person. I'll determine that for myself. Thank you. 2600:1017:B418:BA7B:C833:25CC:8817:A9E3 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand how Wikipedia works. See my last comment in the section above about "Wiki opinion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)
The sites states it "falsely" accuses democrats. To make it more accurate please remove the word falsely as factual data was provided. Though Wiki might not agree and it's funding comes from mostly democratic influence doesn't excuse Wikipedia to continue to enforce political agenda. 172.58.27.140 (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You fail to understand how Wikipedia works. See my last comment in the section above about "Wiki opinion". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor quality and clear bias.
It's fine to critique a published work's claims as weakly supported, but to label them false requires overwhelming evidence of falsity.

Hit piece articles like this damage Wikipedia and diminish It's reputation. 49.148.119.148 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ministry of Truth, Arbiter of False Accusations
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'
[Https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/15/fact-check-false-claim-former-rep-trey-gowdy-endorsed-2000-mules/9731368002/ 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)

Hiding Facts
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)


 * Two issues that stood out with that edit were the source was listed as an "Opinion" and the use of "precise", which is an imprecise term. StrayBolt (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case we should strip most of the article's references, which are generally assumptions and innuendo. It's an attempt to spike the movie, not report on the actual content without editorials DeknMike (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

misinterpretation of SCOTUS doc
, this case in this 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)


 * You keep pushing the narrative that cell tracking data is inaccurate. The science says otherwise.  Even the older iPhone 6 has a tested accuracy of 7–13 m; more modern versions are almost always within 6m. The references that tout their inaccuracy are almost always pointing to rural geolocation, which does not apply in this case. DeknMike (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not pushing anything, and I remind you of what I posted on your Talk page earlier today. Six meters equals ~20 feet. Is 20 feet at or near a drop box? Did you read the AP analysis? I see no evidence references that tout their inaccuracy are almost always pointing to rural geolocation. soibangla (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, the study you cite is GPS accuracy, not celltowers. heh. soibangla (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't recall TtV going into any details in the film about exactly from where they got the data nor the actual accuracy and precision of the data (which may vary per phone). Was that due to non-disclosure agreements? Please correct me if I don't remember the sourcing. There are so many details missing about the data pipeline, especially for such a large data set, to make a claim about 400K ballots. There are ways people can reduce the quality of information shared. There is probably some ML tech to mitigate obfuscation to make the data "look better" but might not be valid. StrayBolt (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You were talking GPS, not cell, so I showed that even GPS is accurate enough, especially when the boxes tended to be off by themselves. DeknMike (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At no time during the course of this article have I mentioned GPS. And "even" GPS has always been more accurate than cell. TTV did not use GPS. Maybe you should sit down now. soibangla (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

there's this
which gives me a massive headache, maybe others would like to take a crack at it. The purported whistleblower is interesting.

soibangla (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent resource! It's good enough that I have temporarily placed it in the External links section. If it gets used in the article, we can remove it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki opinion
Hi first let me say I love that this page is out there for us. That said, if you are an encyclopedia shouldn't info about things be neutral and not filled with opinion? Does wiki do extensive research? Isn't that what snopes is for? When reading about 2000 Mules I was putt off by all the negative language against the film. If this is a platform "helping to create a world where everyone can freely share and access all available knowledge" why put so much opinion? 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To add to the last post...encyclopedias have this in its definition "focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary" To me, this means just talk about what the film 2000 Mules is about, not give opinion. 2600:1014:B12E:2F91:F0A8:53BA:E2AC:7FE2 (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not like any other encyclopedia. It has an unlimited size as it's not paper, and its scope is almost unlimited. Our mandate is described by Jimmy Wales:
 * "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." — Jimmy Wales
 * Other thoughts:
 * "A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge, written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?" — Richard Cooke
 * "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." — Baseball Bugs
 * So our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" that is mentioned in reliable sources. That literally means ALL information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We document the existence of it all.
 * This article does that. Its content is based on RS, not on the opinions of editors. It describes the film and responses to it. It describes the film's weaknesses and false ideas. It basically shows why it's not a true documentary, but is in reality a fake documentary, a propaganda film, filled with errors. What's scary is that it has met with so much success. That's not only sad, it's dangerous. It pushes Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election. Trump lost because more citizens voted against him in a fair and safe election without evidence of any major electoral fraud. Period. That is undisputable, and if you want to argue against that, don't do it here. Go to Conservapedia. You can write there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article appears to be heavily biased in favor of your personal opinion on the matter. It is your opinion that it is "sad and dangerous". It is your opinion that Trump lost in a fair election. It is your opinion that the film is "scary due to its success". I agree that any argument about its political nature should be had on Conservapedia. That includes you and your opinion. Don't pretend like you don't have one if you plan to be vocal about it.
 * Wikipedia is intended to be an unbiased medium that expresses only facts. Wikipedia does not, and should not have a slant on any political matter. It should tell us what abortion is, the sides of each argument, the main lobbyists; not decide if it is moral or should be legal. It should tell us what gun control is, what nations restrict guns, where gun control is limited, the effects of gun control, gun crime statistics; not berate someone for owning a firearm.
 * Likewise it should tell us what 2000 Mules is, who the director of the movie is, give a complete synopsis of the film's contents, tell the film's runtime, note important events that occurred during screening, and give a list of release locations; to example a few things I'd like to see on any movie related Wikipedia page. It should refrain from: giving a personal review of the material, giving an opinion of a director or their past work, pointing out specific factual inaccuracies within a movie. A perfectly reasonable "many claim multiple factual inaccuracies of the film[1][2][3][4]" is sufficient. If I want a review of the movie I can go to IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes. If I want a review of the factual contents of the movie I can go to multiple fact checking websites. -- SoaringMoon (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is intended to be an unbiased medium that expresses only facts." No, we do far more than document "only facts". End of story. Read my comments above. We document what RS say, including opinions, analyses, and reception. This film has been received quite differently, with praise from Trump (who doesn't care whether it's true or not), and rejection by some of the most prominent right-wing voices. We document that. As for my opinions, they are formed by what RS tell me, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think or have any opinions on the matter. We should, and do, include much of what you mention, but we are supposed to go much further than IMDB and any other encyclopedia. We are different. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag
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)
 * ✅. My reasoning is in the edit summary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 20 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)

Fact Checking Dinesh D'Souza's '2,000 Mules'
This should be useful. The ref is ready-to-use:
 * Fact Checking Dinesh D'Souza's '2,000 Mules'. The film's ballot harvesting theory is full of holes.

The Dispatch produces "serious, factually grounded journalism for a conservative audience". The Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) certified The Dispatch's fact-checking division in May 2020.

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)


 * I find it interesting that Valjean spends so much time attacking and debunking the film rather than describing it. Please adopt NPOV!DeknMike (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , reliable sources debunk 2000 Mules, not Valjean. Stick to discussing content, not editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I added content from reliable sources, and got personally attacked, yet you did not respond. Why? DeknMike (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only newly showing up here and haven't seen any personal attacks. Show me where and I'll denounce them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Conservative outlets that support D'Souza's version of reality
The Reception section currently constitutes the following things:
 * Trump promoting the Big Steal™ as he has been since 4 November 2020
 * "Mainstream media" showing how D'Souza's "exposé" is actually a falsehood-ridden mess, not that anyone believing in the Big Steal™ would actually read them
 * Conservative-leaning outlets showing how D'Souza's "exposé" is actually a falsehood-ridden mess, not that anyone believing in the Big Steal™ would actually listen to them
 * D'Souza trying to claim that a pre-existing voter misconduct investigation was in fact linked to his "exposé" of the Big Steal™
 * D'Souza, Rasmussen, and Trump complaining about how Fox News and Newsmax, in a stopped-clock moment, have chosen not to say that much (or anything at all, really) about D'Souza's "exposé" despite the two outlets otherwise promoting the Big Steal™.

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)
 * Your idea is not without merit, but it's conditioned on due weight considerations. If conservative outlets and unreliable sources are mentioned in RS, then we can quote the RS to document their views on the film. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Alternative views are missing because 'some' users revert any mention of an alternative Point of View. As Salem Media published "Almost a platoon of left wing fact checkers have descended on the movie in an unsuccessful attempt to squash its credibility. The film has taken something that many people suspected from the November 2020 elections." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeknMike (talk • contribs) 10:37, May 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * Salem is an executive producer of the film and several of its employees appear in it. WP:MANDY. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Salem's quote there is clearly biased and unusable. Other media that credits 2000 Mules can and should be considered for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also an incomplete quote, and the rest just goes deeper into totally false claims. It's a PR puff piece and not a secondary RS. Apparently, Bloomberg hosts such things, but it only hosts it and does not add any context or comment, so it's essentially a primary source from the producer and not usable for "unduly self-serving" commentary and opinions, and, per WP:ABOUTSELF can only be used for basic and uncontroversial facts (like the earnings). That's all we're using it for, so I think we're good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also disappointed to see it hosted by Bloomberg. But not surprised. We could always replace it with the primary source, since it is a primary source. As a primary source, it's good for a statement of how much they say they've made. But nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2022
It doesn’t falsely accuse democrats, we don’t know what happened. It probably did happen but that should be updated to at least reflect there are TONS of people who believe that to be true. Don’t be biased. 174.61.0.75 (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We know exactly what happened. Biden won fair and square. Trump lost. Get over it. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 06:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TONS of people also believe that the earth is flat, that vaccinations don't work, that COVID-19 is a hoax, that global temperatures aren't rising, that Trump won, that the Holocaust never happened, that the moon landing was faked, and other demonstrably false things. The quantity of people who believe those things doesn't change the actual facts. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Who gave you the right to bully people who simply don't agree with you? It's one thing to say, "Reliable sources don't support the film's claims, " and quite another to say, "Biden won fair and square. Trump lost. Get over it." That last statement was more than a reply. It was bullying, plain and simple. 2604:CB00:11F:F500:F:DDC1:DA5F:7B6A (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only bullying being done is by those who are making assumptions about the motivations of other editors. Nobody is expressing a personal opinion here except you. That last statement you quoted was simply factual. It was impatient and rude in its tone because of the endless line of people who come here to complain without any apparent interest in constructive feedback. There is no new prose being proposed in this edit request. There is no proposal backed up by Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this edit request. There is no proposal backed up by reliable sources in this edit request. It's just a complaint, not an edit request. Propose exactly what text should be changed and the reasoning for it, backed up by reliable sources. Basically referring to "TONS of people" isn't an argument that works. We don't care about their opinions, we care about what reliable sources say. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2022 (2)
This says falsely but the sources do not show how the movie falsely claims anything but only indicate that they disagree with the provided evidence in the movie. It does not point to any facts disproving anything and therefore should not say falsely but unproven claims. Boojies (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022
It's true and has messed up America 2603:9001:3C04:E425:A55C:8FFA:5546:3767 (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#128156; melecie   talk  - 03:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  03:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Can I make an edit request here?
Still figuring out the best way to make edit requests on this contentious article.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 May 2022
Opinions should be removed. Such as "falsely alleges."

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

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

Thank you. 2601:5CA:C280:8B20:E95A:F7CA:7C5E:FBDC (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "False" is not opinion. It is fact that it is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Truly, 'falsely says' reads like something from a high-school essay. Even the wiki article on flat-earthers doesn't say 'false claims' in the lede, it merely says 'claims'. The film is clearly nonsense, but please keep the tone encyclopaedic. There is no need to begin the article with a consumer warning. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:F1E8:894D:DDF8:1AA5 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which article are you referring to? Modern flat Earth beliefs starts off with Modern flat Earth beliefs are promoted by organizations and individuals which make claims that the Earth is flat while denying the Earth's sphericity, contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus. Flat Earth beliefs are pseudoscience; the theories and assertions are not based on scientific knowledge. Flat Earth advocates are classified by experts in philosophy and physics as science deniers. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Flat Earth starts with The flat Earth model is an archaic and scientifically disproven conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), and China until the 17th century. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * well, you just proved the OP's point. The bit you quoted doesn't use a subjective adverb like "falsely" to characterize the claims of flat-earthers; instead it explains how their claims are false. I agree with the point that "falsely", while absolutely correct in its usage, still gives the impression of dictating a viewpoint to the reader. We could do something similar, such as "2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that, contrary to established facts,[3][4][5] makes disproven claims that...." My own wording there may not be an improvement, but you get the idea. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a serious reply, I consider your proposal a good faith step in the right direction. Deletion/whitewashing is not an option, but slight tweaks and moving that wording to a later sentence may work. Please work toward such wording. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Change the lead to indicate what specifically is wrong about the movie? Is there enough room? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See new section below: #Proposed new lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (3)
The film presented a single unverified anonymous witness who falsely claims people were picking up payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What wording does this replace? What is the correction here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Second sentence in the third paragraph in the lead. Tried to clean up the language, and zero in on the debunking as presented in the sources. Not only is this one lame anonymous source BUT the filmmakers won't even allow fact checkers to verify it. And to make matters worse, if you read the Philip Bump piece, the baloney source is making a tired old debunked claim that imaginary mules were paid for stuffing ballot boxes with imaginary ballots.2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. Also, considering that D'Souza is a convicted felon who not so ironically willfully admitted wrong doing and plead guilty to illegal trying to influence an election through fraud, I don't see the harm with including "convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza" since the crime he committed directly relates to the film's subject matter,i.e.election fraud! Jus saying....2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is ironic that a man who has a conviction for election finance fraud makes such a film. I'm not sure where that could be mentioned in a logical manner. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (2)
2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely  alleges, without evidence, that Democrat-aligned individuals, or "mules," were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:94C6:F955:662A:606F (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 05:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, it's obvious that the requester was proposing new text for the lead. The "Change X to Y" is implied as "Change the current lead to this". It changes "falsely says" to "falsely alleges, without evidence". If it's obvious what the suggestion is, please don't dismiss an edit request because it doesn't conform to a strict format. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2022 (4)
I respectfully request that the statements of "no evidence of fraud" be removed entirely, because in the section of the documentary between 28:00 minutes and 48:00 minutes there is actual, state government video surveillance of the ballot drop boxes and irrefutably real persons placing multiple ballots in the drop boxes. On several occasions, there can be seen with the naked eye, ballots were falling to the ground, as the person bent to pick them up, and their other hand holding ballots in the ballot drop box opening.

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

Lastly, for reasons of time and space, the time stamp showed the delivery of these ballots were of a deceptive manner, being placed in the boxes at various early morning hours, like midnight to 4 am in the morning, as well as, the same person being seen by state government video surveillance going to another ballot box nearby, on several occasions. 96.43.38.172 (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes, ergo for minor changes or changes which have been discussed and there is a consensus for such changes. Otherwise, you should read the article which explains why the evidence presented by True the Vote in the film is largely bogus. There is a reason why so many prominent conservative and right-wing sources and personalities refuse to promote the film and outright criticize it. They are named in the film and bolded below.
 * The film's allegations have been widely criticized, with the Associated Press (AP) noting that the film relies on "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data" provided by True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring organization that National Public Radio (NPR) found "made multiple misleading or false claims about its work". Former president Donald Trump praised the film, while Fox News, Newsmax, and Tucker Carlson would not promote it. Republican author and political advisor Amanda Carpenter characterized it as "a hilarious mockumentary" that "doesn't survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims". Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro of The Daily Wire also criticized the film. The conservative The Dispatch found that "The film's ballot harvesting theory is full of holes" and mentioned that "D'Souza has a history of promoting false and misleading claims." 
 * AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. The film presented a single anonymous witness who said she saw people picking up what she "assumed" to be payments for ballot collection in Arizona; no evidence of payments was presented in any of the other four states. The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes. D'Souza asserted as many as 400,000 ballots may have been involved, "more than enough to tip the balance in the 2020 presidential election," though True the Vote did not allege any of the ballots were illegal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


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


 * Wearing blue gloves and an N95 mask on June 3, 2020 (assuming that date is correct), while using a dropbox implies concern over COVID, most likely. AP News indicates this as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * COVID might have been on the mind of many during December 2020. December was the deadliest, most infectious month since the start of the pandemic StrayBolt (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022
Remove the word falsely ..the movie is very accurate.. 98.238.185.15 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above discussions. Cannolis (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (3)
2000 Mules is a 2022 American political film by Dinesh D'Souza that falsely[4][5][6] says that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election.
 * This cites opinion editorials and lacks the substance to imply that information is false in the first sentence of this piece. Furthermore, there are pending criminal investigations corroborating the information provided in the document. WIKIPEDIA gets another ***F**** Onyx30593 (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * as per the many many requests and consensus just above this. PRAXIDICAE💕  17:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Onyx, please provide the documentation for your claim that "there are pending criminal investigations corroborating the information provided in the document." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022 (2)
In the lead, please tweak this: (original)"According to Philip Bump, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes" This sentence is problematic and doesn't reflect the reality (or facts) of the source it reflects.

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

To be clear, this is the source in question It is not an editorial, nor is it an opinion piece. It was a hard hitting interview with the filmmaker D'Souza himself. And Bump is a reputable journalist who didn't come to his conclusion lightly. So let's respect the source here rather than water it down. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:2559:6622:2220:3327 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * changed the sentence to In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mules to preserve brevity -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  09:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original version as this new version has real problems. The original is very accurate. Here's the exact quote from Bump's 5/11 article: "At no point is there evidence presented of people getting ballots from a nonprofit group and dropping them in drop boxes." We paraphrase this as "According to Philip Bump, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." That is verifiable and attributed content.
 * The new version runs into problems: "In an interview with Philip Bump, D'Souza conceded that the film presents no evidence that fraudulent ballots were illegally collected by mules." Where in that 5/17 article does it actually say this? In reality, it is Bump's summary, and I doubt D'Souza would agree, especially since this version puts the words in D'Souza's mouth ("D'Souza conceded").
 * Here are Bump's own words, on which this is based: "I will admit this conversation will read more easily if you have seen the film. But it can be summarized fairly succinctly: D’Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted." If you look at what we have in the body of the article, I had written: "Philip Bump has summarized a discussion with D'Souza as "D'Souza admits his movie does not show evidence to prove his claims about ballots being collected and submitted." Bump has put words in D'Souza's mouth, and we compound the problem. That's not good. We should just attribute an exact quote to Bump, so I have restored the original version. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2022
My suggested edit to the final sentence in the lead paragraph(for the last time!):

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

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

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

On a serious note...

The same editor apparently keeps reverting a key sentence back to a poorly written piece that is a violation of WP:OR since he is trying to editorialize the sources, suggesting that it is the opinion of the sources in the question that D'Souza has NO evidence for his outrageous claims. However, this is not how Wikipedia works. We simply report what the sources tell us. Rather, he is trying to game this, a WP:GAMING violation, and being WP:POINTY by trying to rely on semantics. It is clear that the consensus of ALL reputable sources regarding D'Souza's crockumentary is that he doesn't give a single shred of evidence to support this claims. If this is the finding of investigative journalists, then can we knock of the word games? The previous sentence summarized it fine and we don't need to water it down, especially when the conspiracy theory espoused here is as ridiculous as a flat earth! And I use that example since wikipedia has made it clear that when it comes to notions that are patently untrue we don't give undue weight WP:UNDUE to fringe viewpoints out there. Someone please reign in this trolling. Thank you!2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural decline. This discussion is already ongoing above, and I have replied there given the new sources you added. Not all of them directly support the statement, and I am disturbed that the sentence almost seems plagiarized from the Washington Post. It would need to be rephrased a bit. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But we never attribute in this. We just state the source. And this isn't an editorial. Plus the editor who advocating it has a history of being disruptive on matters of WP:FRINGE. Not to mention, the film doesn't present evidence for it's claims. You are bending to popular will at the expense of wikipedia standards of verifiability. Procedural decline, my ***. Ridiculous.2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2022
Remove the word falsely in the first sentence. That is inaccurate as the evidence is supported by additional evidence, whether you agree or don’t. Remove anything cited by news sources that have previously denied any evidence of voter fraud, as their statements are a conflict of interest. This includes AP (Associated Press). CaeMeaCoo (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not use sources because you don't agree with them? That's not how any of this works. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove "falsely"
Consider revising the initial use of “falsely” until sufficient sources can be attained. Opinion pieces of journalism do not give constitution to claims of falsehood, and there is an unprofessional, leaking bias here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk • contribs) — UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence. The universal consensus of everybody who has looked at D'Souza's film and "evidence" is that it is patently nonsensical. We are simply reporting what those whose job is to question purported journalism have discovered when they examined this film; they found it wanting. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's so batshit crazy that even Tucker Carlson and Newsmax would not promote his film, and they typically push totally false propaganda, especially about Trump's Big Lie of a stolen election. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your input here is absolutely distant from being professional or objective. The Wikipedia Article, as a whole, about the film is unbelievably pretentious and gives Wikipedia an extremely strained level of credibility. 207.50.149.190 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The fake "documentary" propaganda film is analyzed and debunked by reliable sources, and editors are not allowed to deviate from what they say. Content is based on them, not on personal opinions. This is not Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions of whether is has been 'debunked' don't matter in this case. It follows the documentary style of filmmaking, gathering facts and organizing to present its case.  The jury is still out on the results, despite the opinions of politically-motivated pundits. DeknMike (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have anti-Trump rhetoric in your Wikipedia user page. I'd hardly consider you an objective source on what is reliable in politics. EytanMelech (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fortunately I am not a source here, but what about reliable sources? Why won't you accept them? Instead you want to censor content to reflect your personal opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked other sources, but none of the three sources cited in the lead describe the film's claims as "false", but instead say that they are based on faulty reasoning/lack of evidence/etc. So the current lead does not accurately represent the cited sources. A more accurate wording that is still concise and reflects that the claims are poorly supported (as described in RS) would be "...political film by Dinesh D'Souza that promotes a conspiracy theory that Democrat-aligned individuals, or..." Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Universal consensus is fine, but it doesn’t belong in an encyclopedia. The listed sources are absolutely not grounds upon which to claim that it’s false. To say biased would certainly be true. To say that the listed sources argue it to be based on a false premise and a weak attempt at gathering evidence, founded on confirmation bias, would be true. There is nothing concrete that demonstrates it to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such, it’s unprofessional to define it as factually incorrect. By all means, bring up every single talking point against it and mention general consensus. But the wording, as it stands, is just bad practice.

That sentence’s coherence is not contingent upon the word “falsely.” “Alleges” gets the point across accurately. Until there is official documentation on its proper evaluation using concrete counter-evidence, claiming that “The film falsely alleges,” is an opinion. It shouldn’t matter whether you agree or disagree. It’s important to maintain an objective outlook if this site is to uphold any reasonable standard of credibility. UnfathomableGreyMatter (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this. The film is new evidence in a complex and politically-charged discussion. Even this discussion has at points descended to name-calling ("MAGA crowd") and pointing to opinion articles as sources.  Just state that it is a film that presents an idea, and discuss opposition in the body.DeknMike (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The article should talk about the movie before discussing criticism of it. You're bias is showing. I'm not surprised that someone asked you to remove the word falsely as the third word of your article. You are proving to not be a credible information resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9800:F13C:2C39:F2BC:10B2:2AF7 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have a point about more description in the lead. We'll look at that issue. What specifically do you feel is missing there? Otherwise, we have only lost credibility among the MAGA crowd who get their "information" from a closed loop and those who don't understand our purpose or policies. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "we have only lost credibility among the MAGA crowd"??? For more than a decade, Wikipedia has been source of neutral and balanced information. Reading the article and comments like this one from Mods is clear indication of both, the fact that Wikipedia has lost the sense of direction & purpose and the reason WHY Wikipedia lost it. Please, dont allow personal opinions, politics and biases to ruin what is still possibly the greatest source of information on earth! 2001:2040:C00F:3E:0:0:0:BD55 (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia remains profoundly committed to a neutral point of view. However, this does not oblige us to any species of fatuous false balance in a case like this where the evidence is overwhelming and no reliable sources support the absurd content of the film. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be claiming to have determined a pretentious statement such as "falsely" - that is not objectified information. 207.50.149.190 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I should preface this with the fact that I believe the 2020 election should be respected, and that Biden won. However, I agree that the word "falsely" should be removed from that sentence. When creating an encyclopedia, scholars do not consolidate truth claims (in this case that the three sources argued that the claims were false). They can say that the Washington Post, ..., ..., argued that.... . Wikipedia is not the ministry of truth. Now it is possible that you isolate one of the claims of 2000 mules, and call it into question, but you do so by mentioning the source and not embedding it as truth. For example, these sources have pointed out that it is likely that many of the ballots were likely geniune.  Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To claim "Wikipedia remains profoundly committed to a neutral point of view" while then taking a decidedly biased point of view in the introduction is asinine. This statement directly conflicts with the claim of neutrality. "It claims" is sufficient. The phrase assumes a neutral stance, leaving the burden of proof on the documentary (and the citations in the article). A section on "controversy" like all other articles on Wikipedia which address controversial topics would be appropriate and sufficient. If it is absolutely necessary, "It controversially claims," wcould be an option, but even this is an inherent bias in the text. The fact you're digging your heels in on this and taking this position draw into question the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's job to play activist, which is exactly what you're doing whether you can see through your blue-colored glasses or not. Desire Mercy (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * and here is a suggested edit: "It makes contested claims[2][3][4] that Democrat-aligned individuals, or "mules," were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election."

Even better though, would be to have shorter sentences with one claim in each, to specify which claims are contested, and those claims that are not contested should be in a separate sentence.Aussiewikilady (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a reasoned response that shows understanding of our policies. As such, this is worthy of discussion, unlike other, deleted, complaints that wanted us to violate policies and perform POV, opinion-based, whitewashing. Let's see what others think. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Utterly shameful what has happened to Wikipedia. What happened to NPOV? Like every other social site, it has been overrun by propagandists. Hcl777 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. Editors must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less." Hcl777 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are quoting my essay which condemns what you are trying to do. You don't like the fact that RS tell us the film's allegations are false, so you want us to remove that. That would violate NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


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


 * I am not interested in conclusory judgments about what is "false". This is nothing but opinion. I am especially not interested in conclusory statements from the right (and the creator is certainly so) stating the method was accurate, or conclusory statements from the left (and politifact is certainly so) stating it was not. Unfortunatly, Wikipedia totally fails in the area of disputed political issues.  Instead of facts we may agree upon about the methods used, conclusory opinions by political activist organizations and "media" are presented.  Wiki needs to get a handle on this problem both on this page and generally if it is to taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Icrmowun (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should discuss what was done which it does based on everything the film and TTV have said, and reliable sources have torn it apart and conservative media won't touch it. Maybe TTV should release everything for public scrutiny, but they haven't. After asking Georgia investigators to look into their claims, they have refused to show their data and now are under subpoena for it. I mean, in the film they created a bogus dramatization image of 28 drop boxes allegedly visited by a mule; why didn't they just present a real image? They say they have the data, they say they have the analysts and vast computing capacity, yet they can't generate a real image but instead create a fake one? They could produce a real one that would look just as cool as a fake one for a movie, but they didn't. soibangla (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This seems very simple to me. I do not know if the information in the film is accurate or not. However, whether the conclusions are true or false depend on the accuracy of the information. It is simply not proper for Wikipedia to offer the opinion that it is false. It must be argued with facts that the informaton in the film is questionable.Tyrerj (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not offer the opinion that it is false. Wikipedia echoes the reliable sources, all of which say that the information is false and the conclusions are erroneous. To say that it is "questionable" and not erroneous would violate the sources and WP:NPOV. Neutrality, in this sense, does not mean presenting both sides equally, because the sources say that one of the sides is wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources. But as I noted in an earlier comment, and as in an edit reverted by Valjean, I am unable to identify which of the cited sources describes the central claim of the film (ie. the first sentence of the lead) as false. Could either of you point out where the cited sources say this? Fiwec81618 (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Falsely alleges" is an oxymoron. The meaning of "allegation" is an assertion that has not been proven true or false. BTW I am not in sympathy with the movie. That doesn't matter. 24.13.83.67 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Larry Siegel
 * So is "false accusation" an improper construction of speech? An accusation/allegation can be true, false, or unproven, and when RS know which it is, we write what they say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

All of your so-called “reliable sources” happen to be deeply committed to the Democrat party. It is a foregone conclusion that their intent is purely to debunk. Their capacity to objectively consider the film’s content is a complete zero. Aragorn 19:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkshrews (talk • contribs)
 * True and false. True in the sense that left-wing and centrist sources are more interested in the provable facts, whereas right-wing sources are busy pushing Trump's Big lie, but was cheated of his win because of massive fraud which even his own people admitted did not happen. This film pushes that lie. Also true that the same sources successfully debunk the film's claims.
 * False in the sense that there are right-wing reliable and unreliable sources and prominent right- and far-right people who also find fault with the film. They are named in this article. Dinesh is abandoned by his normal allies.
 * It's worrying that you have doubts about reliable sources. You've been here long enough that you should know how to vet sources for reliability, so your complaint only makes some sense if you still haven't acquired those skills. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Your opening is intentionally inflammatory and your refusal to modify it shows your bias. Your sources are obvious red herrings. 75.72.28.172 (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Our sources are reliable sources with a reputation for sound reporting. You have not offered any reliable sources that contradict our content. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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

'''CURRENT VERSION

PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION


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

As was pinged and not having seen this article before, my comments on the lede: 1) it us far too long as it is pushing detailed criticism in the lead. That critism should be summarized in the lede and fleshed on the body. (This is mostly the second para). 2) the first para is trying to load too much as to present an immediate hostile tome towards the work. We can't whitewash that it is considered to present conspiracy theories, but that can be said without appearing hostile with a bit if refactoring. Eg. 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. --M asem (t) 13:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Every reliable source has confirmed that the movie is falsely pushing misinformation about election fraud and if that’s “hostile” then blame the truth and the culprits. Our job isn’t to water down and respect the feelings of insurrectionists and fascists trying to undermine journalistic integrity and democracy itself. The most notable thing about this film is that it is a scam. The reader has a right to know immediately.2601:280:CB02:1E8A:C52F:C3AF:71E0:BD18 (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Masem, thanks for the good suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, May 24, 2022‎ (UTC)


 * I think the proposed new version is an improvement. But still have concerns as I have somewhat expressed earlier about mixing up "false" vs "unproven" vs "misleading", etc., and to what precisely these words are applied. These words mean different things, and we should be careful to reflect what the RS say. For instance, this sentence (from the proposed new version) accurately reflects what the AP says: AP reported that the film's assertion that True the Vote identified 1,155 paid mules in Philadelphia alone was false. But in my reading the AP source does not outright say that that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states is false — instead it says that this claim/theory/speculation is unproven, and that the film's claim to have proof of this and its claims about pieces of "evidence" it presents are false. So I think the second sentence of the new version is still a bit sloppy in this regard. The second and third paragraphs do a better job of making clear what exactly the RS have evaluated. Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are misleading here. The movie itself doesn’t simply present its data in an objective way (some of which by now has been exposed as fabricated) and then simply speculate and leave it at that. No, D’Souza takes a leap and concludes that there was election fraud and vote mules, and that is “false”. It would be one thing if they left it for the audience to decide, and acknowledged that the speculation is unproven like some UFO documentaries do which often times offer speculation. D’Souza is drawing conclusions from an anecdotal observations of falsified evidence and opinions. Again, which are proven to be false. Following many recounts and audits, it’s a matter of forensic scientific fact that there was (A) no voter wide spread voter fraud and (B) Biden fairly won the election. To suggest that vague GPS data and videos of a handful of people innocently dropping off ballots is somehow disproves that, and is proof of voter fraud, is simply patently false, which D’Souza is claiming. So we can parrot what the sources say, which is that D’Souza made a movie with false claims and false allegations.2601:280:CB02:5896:648E:B173:C51B:8C0D (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that many claims presented in the film are false, and that the film's claim to have "proven" anything is false, as RS state. However, the second sentence in the proposal says that the specific claim that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states has been proven false. I'm unable to find where in the cited RS they describe this specific claim as false (rather than unproven, or supported by "evidence" shown to be false, which the RS do say), hence my concern with accurately reflecting RS. Perhaps I have overlooked something in the sources. Can you provide a quote from an RS saying that the claim that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states is false?
 * An alternative wording that would address my concern is: The film falsely claims to present proof that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in multiple states. This is supported by the RS because they do indeed say that the claimed proofs are false. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, nope. That would be WP:SYNTHESIS since the universal consensus among ALL reputable journalists is that they are also calling out for D’Souza’s dishonesty as a matter of fact, not opinion. You are engaging in WP:GAMING here and thankfully the consensus here is clearly against you. To give you, and others much needed perspective, this is very similar to Holocaust denialism, also a mean spirited conspiracy theory backed similarly by fascists. And the real subtext of that is to say the feelings of victims of Nazi violence simply don’t matter since they don’t think the victims count as human beings. The same goes here as D’Douza and Trump’s MAGA cult are clearly saying that democratic votes don’t matter or the voters they slander. Again, the sources clearly zero in on this in their ‘reporting’ and not just their analysis. But nice try, shill. Troll harder. 2601:280:CB02:385D:98B:EDA3:FDE7:AA00 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2022 (2)
In the final sentence in the lead, I propose the following change/tweak: "The film presents "no evidence" and "did not prove" that at least 2000 vote “mules” were paid to illegally collect and deliver ballots to drop boxes in swing states during the 2020 presidential election."

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

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

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

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

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


 * Again, procedural decline. While the statement is satisfactory (as was the other suggestion that I initially accepted and then got reverted when I made the change), the nested quotations you use are puzzling. In any case, this is being discussed above. The person who reverted my initial acceptance of your proposal has responded and offered a suggestion. And pointed out that the Denver Post fact check was originally published in AP. Please don't start multiple discussions about the same sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Correcting and retracting my previous complaint. Just remove the mention of Bump please, and that should be sufficient. The prevailing consensus seems to agree with this here. Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022
Please correct the final contested sentence in the lead to read: "The film presents no evidence that ballots were illegally collected to be deposited in drop boxes." '''WITH THE THREE SOURCES PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED '''

This seems to accurately reflect ALL the reputable sources whilst making it clear there is NO EVIDENCE of wrongdoing, considering that D'Souza isn't just alleging voter fraud but actively calling for "2000 arrests." All the sources make it clear that there is no evidence of crimes, because it is simply false.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, added with 3 sources; see the 5/28 discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022 (2)
For this sentence in the lead paragraph

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

Adding the word, unverified, as the consensus of sources have zeroed in on that important indictment of the closest thing D’Souza offers as a connection to the rest of his outrageous claims. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2022 (3)
Please fix the misleading attribution here- with this sentence in the lead:

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

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

P.S. Also, The sources that say True The Vote is a conservative organization is from 2013 in 2015. The press has clearly reported on this that this organization is actually partisan in nature. To call them a vote monitoring organization is simply not true since they have not proven to have any credibility as far as the press is concerned in this regard. At the very best they are a self described vote-monitoring organization so we should not mislead our readers. 63.86.0.76 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC) 63.86.0.76 (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ for replacing "according to AP" with "AP reported". for the characterization of True the Vote. Calling it "partisan" just muddies the description, because both conservative and progressive organizations are partisan. We could say "partisan conservative" or "republican-aligned" as alternatives. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

New York Times with a good recent article on the movie
Headline: The New York Times ‘2000 Mules’ Repackages Trump’s Election Lies Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022
My suggested edit to the final sentence in the lead paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * @Anachronist, I agree that the Poynter and NPR sources you added for the last sentence of the lead certainly do point out numerous serious flaws in claims presented in the film, but I'm unable to locate the material in those sources supporting the sentence "The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." Could you provide some quotes from those sources specifically supporting this sentence? Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, knock it off with the trolling. Here is yet another source! https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-2000-mules-leaves-out-from-ballot-harvesting-claims/FFMNUU56RVBRNOLZKWHUREQPEU/ And here is yet another source! https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/ And yet another source https://thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r You are clearly operating on an agenda. You should be coming to the talk page FIRST before simply reverting the work of other editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8100:D3E0:9905:817E:2083:9A40 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anon, that isn't trolling. Claims we make absolutely must be backed up by sources, and we cannot engage in WP:Synthesis by assembling facts to make a conclusion not stated in the source.
 * You may have missed some lines, but you are correct that some sources did not explicitly say that. Given those sources and the additional ones supplied below, I find the following:
 * "At no point is there evidence presented of people getting ballots from a nonprofit group and dropping them in drop boxes." (Washintgon Post)
 * This is basically the sentence you reverted, and this source alone would be sufficient to include that sentence.
 * "the film does not show any person on camera going to multiple dropboxes" (NPR)
 * "While it’s possible that some of the alleged perpetrators shown in the movie actually committed a crime, video surveillance of drop boxes alone doesn’t prove anything." (Atlanta Journal Constitution)
 * "...based on false assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots, according to experts." (Denver Post)
 * "D'Souza relies on surveillance footage supposedly showing “mules” dropping off ballots at drop boxes. But the footage doesn't show this." (The Dispatch)
 * The sentence you reverted was about nonprofits dropping off ballots. The first source I list above does say that, but the others don't. On balance, however, with all those sources cited, the sentence is appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist Thanks very much for engaging with the concerns I mentioned above and for providing quotes from the sources. The first-listed Washington Post article is an analysis piece, and as I discussed with Valjean above it should be attributed to the author (Philip Bump) if it is the only source for its specific wording. But as you have pointed out, we have numerous sources saying the two main things the film discusses (video of dropboxes and cellphone tracking data), do not prove anything. How about the following wording, which I think more broadly sums up what all the sources say?
 * The film does not prove that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes. (with relevant citations added)
 * By the way, the Denver Post is publishing the fact check originally done by the AP (and already cited in the Wikipedia article), so it may be easier to cite the AP source here. Fiwec81618 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer The film presents no evidence that ballots were collected to be deposited in drop boxes. with three of the sources I listed above (Washington Post, NPR, and AP). ~Anachronist (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As do I, will get to work on suggesting this edit. Use your version, or the one I suggest. I don't care.2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, inserting the clarifier "illegally" per the 5/28 edit request below, and citing AP, WP, and NPR, which I think are the strongest sources for that statement. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist I think the wording "no proof" instead of "no evidence" fits better because "evidence" might reasonably be understood to refer to things brought forward to support a proposition, which may not necessarily be enough to prove that proposition. To draw the conclusion of "no evidence" from the non WaPo analysis sources (NPR/AP) seems to involve a bit of inference, since they don't state "no evidence" outright, and this inference does not seem unambiguous to me. For example from the AP piece,
 * The group’s claims of a paid ballot harvesting scheme are supported in the film only by one unidentified whistleblower said to be from San Luis, Arizona, who said she saw people picking up what she “assumed” to be payments for ballot collection. The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020.
 * The unidentified whistleblower is certainly weak evidence or of dubious credibility or relevance. But I'm not sure it is objectively "no evidence". Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you quote actually uses the words "no evidence" (of payments). The Washington Post says the same thing "at no point is evidence presented...." which is identical in meaning to the paraphrasing "no evidence". The NPR piece talks about a lack of evidence (not even showing on film anyone going to multiple drop boxes), which is a lack of evidence that would prove the allegations. The sources primarily discuss evidence, not proof. Saying "no proof" is a weaker statement that misrepresents the sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the source says no evidence of such payments in other states, which suggests they are not applying this evaluation to the woman in Arizona anecdote discussed in the preceding sentence. And I agree that NPR says the film does not show any person on camera going to multiple dropboxes, but it follows this with So the film primarily relies on their claims about geotracking data. They then show that there are a lot of false claims about what the data can do and how they got it (eg. solving a murder case, placing people at violent protests, computing facility use), but it doesn't appear to me that they describe the geotracking data claims as "no evidence". Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Untrue on all counts. The Bump Wapo articles are clearly claiming that D’Souza provides no evidence for all his claims. As do the other sources. You are playing a word game here and semantics game, which is itself a WP:GAMING violation, since you’re trying to game this in your own way. Remember, this is against the backdrop of whether or not the 2020 election was “rigged”. You know, THE BIG LIE? And the outcome of the 2020 election where Biden won is a matter of settled forensic science, math, as in the verified counting of legal votes counted is a matter of fact, and not partisan opinion. Same goes with the settled matter of a flat Earth or denial over the Holocaust, and on settled matters of empirical fact we don’t engage in any form of WP:UNDUE because statements to the contrary are simply “false” and have “no evidence”. Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers present their own version of evidence which is not really evidence at all. The evidence of geotracking presented in 2000mules is simply evidence of geotracking itself, a lot of it taken out of context as reporters have exposed. The unverified whistleblower is an anonymous source for which no evidence is provided so we don’t even know if it’s even true, as the AP reported. So, at this point, you are not only being willfully WP:POINTY but maybe a WP:NOTHERE as well, since you clearly know better given your experience and have a history of edit warring over WP:FRINGE matters. Keep it up and we can have a WP:ANI if you want to have the discussion there. Again, like Holocaust denialism this disinformation ‘trolls’ real life victims of anti-social fascist movements, and your disruptive behavior is clearly backed by an agenda to drip, drip, drip away at the article to slowly water it down. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have missed the point that sentences sourced to Bump's WaPo articles alone should be attributed to Bump, because those articles are analysis pieces. In WP:RSEDITORIAL, Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I had no concerns with the sentence when it was attributed to Bump. Removing the attribution relies on sourcing from the AP and NPR, which is why I discussed those sources.
 * I'm happy to have a discussion but I don't see much of an attempt to discuss the content of my previous reply. Fiwec81618 (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Bump's WaPo Analysis article
@Praxidicae, what features of the article led you to the conclusion "That doesn't make it solely an opinion piece" in your second reversion of my removal of a sentence sourced solely to Bump's Washington Post Analysis article due to the statement WP:RSEDITORIAL that "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact"? As I stated in my edit summary, that article describes itself as "Analysis by Philip Bump". So WP:RSEDITORIAL applies and we ought to either remove the sentence or find a reliable secondary source to support it. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For starters it's more than just an opinion piece, second, Bump is absolutely a reliable source and expert and respected in his field, he's the National WaPo correspondent and nationally recognized journalist in the field of political analysis, specifically: The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 3] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]. PRAXIDICAE💕  20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what exactly "more than just an opinion piece" means. Opinion pieces can certainly contain sentences that state things as fact, hence the necessity of the caveat in WP:RSEDITORIAL I quoted above. I agree with The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint..., but this is not a technical or scientific subject (and often statements that fall under this are attributed). Certainly Bump is well known, but what exactly is his expertise/authority here? Reviewing political movies/ fact-checking?
 * I think the material is worth including with attribution to Bump, but then it seems awkward in the lead (it's already in the body if I recall correctly). Of course ideally if there is a reliable secondary source saying the same thing then this is all moot. Fiwec81618 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a rough hierarchy of value we, and media bias sites, use when judging reliable sources, and we use all those sources: straight facts, fact-checking, analysis, other opinion, etc. Analysis articles are highly valued here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Analysis articles are highly valued here No, that's not true as a blanket statement. It clearly goes against WP:RSEDITORIAL says about analysis and opinion pieces. Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "goes against" what? They are perfectly good RS which we can use and should usually attribute. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the sentence in question sourced to this work (last sentence of the lead) is not currently attributed to Philip Bump. And this goes against Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, in WP:RSEDITORIAL. That sentence should at least be attributed to Bump, eg: "According to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, the film presents no evidence that ballots were collected from a nonprofit to be deposited in drop boxes." Fiwec81618 (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, but that means we are presenting fact as if it's just his opinion. Sigh... Usually, when an opinion is a fact, we just state it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. Though Bump's work is tagged as "analysis," he is a news reporter, and quite an accomplished data journalist. The "analysis" cited in WP:RSEDITORIAL is limited to opinion pieces, not news articles. Moreover, at this point Bump is never identified, he's "just some guy" who comes out of nowhere. We should not need to attribute to him, he's not an opinion writer. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This has already been remedied. It is moot now. But thank you for joining the consensus should some continue to challenge it. Cheers! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see it has been remedied. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, what else do you suggest? lol It no longer IS attributed to him. The sources simply states what was reported. What else do you think should be included? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right
The small-city voter fraud case that doesn't prove Donald Trump right
 * "...The Hill has shared a story about a “coordinated Arizona ballot collection scheme” featuring a mug shot of a glum-looking older woman.
 * "It's not hard to figure out why this particular story is sparking interest in the moment. We're less than a month since the premiere of Dinesh D'Souza's film "2000 Mules" in which he alleges a massive ballot collection scheme in multiple states — including Arizona — that tipped the scales of the 2020 presidential contest. (The film entirely fails to provide credible evidence of this allegation as D'Souza suggested in a conversation with The Post.)
 * "...but it’s also a case that is already included in D'Souza's film."

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022
Remove from reception:''”Paul Rudy of KUSI-TV said, leading into an interview with D'Souza, that the film "is revealing the truth about what really happened in the 2020 election."[38] Conservative reviewer Christian Toto said that the film "may be the most important documentary of the year, if not the decade. That's not hyperbole." and that the film "demands a fair hearing on the Left [and] Right".”''

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022
Remove from reception, “ the conservative Rasmussen Reports polling company echoed D'Souza's criticisms, claiming that the two outlets were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.”

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


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

I agree, it should be removed. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. I agree that it's redundant and adds nothing of value to the rest of the paragraph. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022 (2)
In the reception section, or wherever a seasoned editor deems appropriate, add this recent posting:
 * The Salt Lake Tribune reported that, "the film has been thoroughly debunked", after Senator Mike Lee embraced the reportedly "false" and "baseless" claims from the movie.

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

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

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


 * Disagree. D'Souza's claim may be contentious but The Daily Beast's (that he said it) is not. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What other source has reported that D'souza claimed that? Did you see the discussion above, regarding the Washington Examiner's reporting on a Rasmussen Poll? Is it contentious that the Washington Examiner reported on the poll results? Or tht Rasmussen published that poll?Izzy Borden (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He tweeted it. It would be better to find a different source but it's not contentious. Compared to the Examiner example: The Daily Beast is a non-reliable, opinionated source whose articles are also frequently in the wrong tone/genre for sourcing. The Examiner often deliberately misleads and is not above completely fabricating articles. The claim here is easily checked, and therefore presumably not contentious -- he tweeted it. No source has disputed it, nor has any editor. You can follow the Examiner's sourcing to Rasmussen, but that doesn't improve matters, as they're not reliable either and haven't provided any evidence. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He tweeted it, but Twitter can't be used as (a) it is not a reliable source and (b) it is primary, so possibly undue for inclusion. So we need a secondary source - for which you suggest The Daily Beast - but the Daily Beast is (even according to you) "a non-reliable, opinionated source", so it can't be used, at least if we go by the standard used to exclude the Rasmussen piece. I'm trying to see how these are different: Rasmussen published a poll, I don't think that's in dispute or contentious that they published it (and the equivalent is - D'Souza tweeted something.) You say Rasmussen itself is unreliable (I disagree - see above where User:Endwise writes "Rasmussen Reports is given a "B" grade by 538, and they appear to sit at a position a bit better than the average. Similar rated pollsters include CNN/Opinion Research Corp. (B), Gallup (B+), and NBC News/WSJ (B+), which I'm sure we'd all be fine with under normal circumstances. Rasmussen for sure has a bias as to the types of questions they ask and the framing of their public reports and the like, but I'm not sure there's a good reason to believe their polls are inaccurate just because they're Rasmussen.", but let's leave this aside for now and say, for the sake of arguemnt that it is unreliable, like Twitter). So we need a secondary source - for which we have The Washington Examiner - if it can't be used because it is a marginal source, why can we use the marginal source the Daily Beast in a similar situation? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, it’s the classic slippery slope fallacy, and leaky bucket fallacy all rolled up into one (for good measure). Anything less than OAN or Trump’s word isn’t enough for these irrational proponents of conspiracy fringe. WP:PROFRINGE is a sobering essay on this cunning crazy-making, which is little more than gaslighting-in-media-drag. Good points. 174.215.21.144 (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Along somewhat similar lines, the other Beast section was removed because its RSP entry says Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. There are holes there that a Mack truck could drive through. Some editors, as opposed to a consensus? Controversial statements of fact? So an editor can deem a fact "controversial" and remove it? Something is "controversial" because it disputed, or deemed inflammatory, by some other source; it has created a controversy. I see no evidence that content is disputed or inflammatory or created any controversy, so it shouldn't be construed as anything other than straight-up reporting of fact. And I can produce numerous tweets to demonstrate that it is. The distinction you draw between WashExam and TDB is appropriate. soibangla (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment. It’s not like D’Souza didn’t say this, nor is it in dispute. So, there is no reason to exclude it on those grounds. However, on other content you may want to include with that source: Are there secondary sources on that to baton down this hatch, mate? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:50F4:CFF2:F30:F543 (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agreed. They are just reporting on D’Souza and not making a controversial claim unlike Rasmussen which was engaging in editorializing and promotion. The other editor is engaging in WP:GAMING so I’d take all that with a grain of salt. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:D8A3:E180:F05E:6246 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. TDB is NOT "non-reliable". That's just someone's opinion. It is generally a reliable and good source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's classified "Yellow" at RSP, just like the Washington Examiner Izzy Borden (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yellow means "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context." It is the specific description that's then more important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So what are the specifics that make TBD usable here, but WashEx not usable? Izzy Borden (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Some editors" tells us that there's a tiny place for reconsideration in some few situations, which is like saying it's good 80% of the time and maybe not optimal 20% of the time. That's a rough summary. You're welcome 😊-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not clear enough. The "Some editors..." comment relates to using TDB for contentious claims about living people (which applies here- it is a comment about both D'Souza and Carlson). But the general view of the source is "There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." -the same as the Washington Examiner Izzy Borden (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason sources are listed at WP:RSP is that someone questioned their reliability at WP:RSN. A "no consensus" verdict means no change of the previous status, IOW keep using it as always, but sometimes some cautions or caveats are mentioned, such as the ones that already applied about BLP and "on a case by case" basis. Unlike the Examiner, TDB does not publish fake news, defend Trump's lies, or push fringe theories. That's why we are cautious about the Examiner, but can generally feel free to use TDB on a case by case basis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Izzy Borden the Examiner isn't a "marginal" source. IMO it should be deprecated. They literally fabricate entire stories. I noticed this one only a few weeks ago: the first two paragraphs are entirely made up; the rain tax was law for years and no one was forced to give any sermons. If you follow through it's theoretically based on a WaPo report that said nothing of the sort and they know that. Obviously any such law would have been taken down by the courts years before Hogan repealed it and there would be some evidence, somewhere. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/heres-the-corrupt-part-of-what-ron-desantis-is-doing-with-disney I emailed Carney and Seth Mandel, who I knew for years in NJ, and neither responded. It's just who WashEx is now. I don't even read their stuff very often and I've seen others in the last year. In contrast, The Daily Beast is just a professional organization of accountable reporters which is willing to mix opinions for which there isn't enough proof to go on wiki into their straight political reporting, so you have to be very careful and usually avoid. Also their gossip stuff is gossip stuff, so there are separate concerns there. This is not a contentious claim. No one has contested it. Twitter isn't independently a reliable source for entirely separate reasons -- him having publicly said it where anyone can see is still enough to prevent anyone from honestly contesting The Daily Beast's claim, which is why no one has. I really doubt any editors here will be swayed by this argument, and their patience will run out. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your personal opinion, but the Wikipedia community thinks otherwise - it is rated "Yellow", just like TDB. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the opinion of a far more experienced editor than you who does not defend fringe theories and poor sources. I have just explained for you what the Yellow "no consensus" means. If you were to try to get the Examiner's Yellow status changed, I suspect it would be changed to Red or be totally deprecated. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen has an OK record as a horserace pollster, where there's at least some accountability. But as an issue pollster, where there's no accountability and question wording is easily abused, they're not reliable at all. As other editors said above, they haven't even released crosstabs and wording, which is a basic requirement for pollster accountability. If they did their horserace polling this way 538 wouldn't even be willing to list it. Anyway that question was settled by other editors so I'm not going to discuss it further here. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeating debunked falsehoods in not a good look. The wording of the questions is here - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022 (I've provided that earlier) and that page has a link to the crosstabs - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/crosstabs_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022. If you're going to comment here, take the time to educate yourself first. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The propaganda film by Dinesh here is nothing but “debunked false hoods”.lol Yeah you clearly believe in it and, in your own way, are trying to promote it despite the clear redline from WP:PROFRINGE forbidding us. That is the definition of “not a good look”. The Rasmussen poll is simply a form of soapboxing and gaslighting that is (not so) cleverly disguised as an esoteric stat, and it simply doesn’t belong here (see WP:NOTABLE. I can promise you that’s why the rest of the reputable press is completely ignoring it (read: for the fake news that it is). 216.200.84.231 (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)