Talk:2000 Mules/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

• Remove ASAP:

"A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief."

For starters, this is an admittedly an unscientific survey, not a poll.

Also, this...

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1524830243235708930 "There is never ever ever enough evidence for WaPo's super-sleuth Phillip Bump. LOL." So, this barely reputable source from a clearly partisan-conservative publication announces its agenda: to troll a reputable reporter with a politically-motivated sham of a survey designed to promote a fringe conspiracy theory, which incidentally, is a violation of WP:PROFRINGE and on those grounds as well should be removed immediately. Is this really a question here? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:54A9:2B5:87F6:1CC5 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:282:8100:D3E0:54A9:2B5:87F6:1CC5 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Done with this edit summary: Rasmussen poll is only useful for those who are likely to see the film, which heavily skews towards existing Big Lie conspiracists. Not useful information here, and presented as a poll of the general, non-skewed demographics, public. requested edit on talk. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And now undone. There's a discussion about this in the section above, please participate there rather than taking unilateral action. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    Speaking of "unilateral", just the sarcasm in your words alone betrays your insincerity and agenda. You have now "unilaterally" reverted several reputable editors Strike One! over an esoteric, politically-biased source that has made it clear in its own tweets that they are trying to (A) promote debunked fringe conspiracy theories Strike TWO! while also (B) trolling the washington post, and is itself not notable enough to mention here, failing to be corroborated by the rest of the non-politically biased press, STRIKE 3! Yer outta here!! If anything, your page ownership behavior makes a fantastic case alone for removing it, and you've been called out already (and warned) by an admin given your disruptive 'patronizing' tone, so how about leaving this controversial content removed until you can at least make a case for it here, and build a proper consensus? 2601:282:8100:D3E0:ADE0:1BFD:6B2B:5DF3 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

    • Hey, Izzy Borden, I didn't see the previous discussion, but I still would have removed it. This is not a survey of "likely US voters" it is an exit interview of self-selected viewers who chose to see the movie on their own. Had Rasmussen taken x,000 demographically dispersed people and shown them the movie there might be something to gain from this "survey". As presented it has no value. I would have removed this source for that reason despite any ongoing conversation. It's your job to show how this paragraph is useful. It stays out until then. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is completely incorrect. It was a phone survey of likely voters, and more than 80% of those surveyed had not seen the movie - see https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022. Izzy Borden (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Paraphrasing question #6: "how important do you think it is for people to know what's in a movie you haven't seen?" soibangla (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to the fact that the rationale used to remove this by SchmuckyTheCat turns out to be based on an assumption that is totally wrong? Izzy Borden (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Weak primary supported by a lone weak secondary. That alone is sufficient grounds in any other scenario that does not involve partisan zealotry and conspiracy theories, backed by a dubious poll from a firm that has a dog in the fight. This is not Facebook. soibangla (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And the goal posts swiftly move. Neither the primary nor the secondary are 'weak', you just don't like the editorial bias of the secondary, and prefer the editorial bias of the film's critics. Izzy Borden (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not moved any goalposts. You continue to ignore RSP that has determnined WashExam is a weak, partisan source, whereas other sources in the article are not. That's why this is Wikipedia, not Facebook. If you want to argue that WashExam is a strong source, WP:RSN is the place for that. Going back many years, observers have noted that Rasmussen has constructed loaded questions to elicit a desired outcome, and this is another such case. Plus they are actively promoting/defending the film. soibangla (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat who removed this material said he did so because "This is not a survey of "likely US voters" it is an exit interview of self-selected viewers who chose to see the movie on their own." This turns out to be 100% wrong - it was indeed a survey of 1000 randomly selected likely voters, 85% of whom did not see the movie. When I point this out, the excuse for removing it becomes "Weak primary supported by a lone weak secondary." The goalpost moving could not be more obvious. Izzy Borden (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Schmucky was not the last editor to have removed this. And his reasons are not relevant here. Even if you are right, and you’re not, then removing an inappropriate contribution for the wrong reasons is OK because there are many ‘right’ reasons to exclude this. As the other editor said it is simply “a terrible source”- you know, the prevailing consensus here that you are “unilaterally” ignoring in violation of Wikipedia policy. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:E15C:849F:8108:84A9 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not any other editor, I was not defending any other editor. I said "It is a weak primary supported by a weak secondary" three days ago. And a third editor later removed your edit because it's a "terrible source," which is correct. I remember some years ago an editor insisted WashExam was just as reliable as NYT; that editor was later banned from editing politics articles for, IIRC, incompetence. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

If you were consistent in your opposition to supposedly "weak" sources, you'd be removing material sourced to e.g The Daily Beast, another "weak" source (RSP yellow), used more than once in the article, for more contentious claims then simply reporting poll results. That you are not doing so points to a different motivation than source quality. Izzy Borden (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Curious, are you a sock of User:X-Editor. Your edits are strikingly similar, on similar esoteric pages no less (and timing of edits) as is the agenda of both accounts to push unreliable sources in support of D’Souza propaganda films. 2601:280:CB02:4351:31E4:372F:9B60:94A1 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The two Daily Beast citations support less contentious matters, in fact, largely documented by tweets made by the people in question. WashExam reported on a dubious survey about a film Rasmussen actively promotes/defends. Rasmussen is not a "pure play" pollster, they are also political advocates. soibangla (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

No they don't. One of them is used to support a claim that ' D'Souza continued to be frustrated that his film was not receiving much attention outside of an "election-denier movement""- a contentious claim about a living person (I doubt D'Sousa describes his audience as part of "election-denier movement""). It may be that there is in fact a tweet that supports that - just like there' is a Rasmussen poll that support what the Examiner reported in, a much more mundane claim about poll results. As I said, your actions point to something other than a concern for source quality. Izzy Borden (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:DAILYBEAST, I have removed that section you referenced as it indeed a contentious claim about a living person. We should not use The Daily Beast as a source for that: There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Endwise (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. What's your opinion of the remaining Daily Beast reference, that supports "[Fox News and Newsmax] were "wrecking" themselves by not mentioning the film.", sourced to a Daily Beast article titled ""Dinesh D'Souza Claims Tucker Carlson and Newsmax Won't Promote His Batshit Movie" ? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"the agency’s official Twitter account posted"[1]

Neither Twitter nor Daily Beast are sources that can be used in the article for contentious claims. You don't see a problem with using The Daily Beast to claim something is a "Batshit Movie"? Izzy Borden (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I made it clear I am not proposing to use twitter as a source in the article ("For Talk purposes...") and TDB cites the tweet showing Rasmussen's own words. Back to our original topic, you are the primary {sole?) proponent of including the WashExam/Rasmussen thing, against substantial opposition, so as I see it you have two options at this point: a) open an RfC, or b) drop it. soibangla (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. It will help with this already bloated article. Hoping you feel the same way about the biased Rasmussen citation, as that one is as bad as the former 2601:280:CB02:4351:99FA:478A:E374:6280 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it justified to remove the entire section about everyone, particularly when "some editors advise..." and D'Souza's frustration has not been established as "controversial statements of fact"? For Talk purposes, I can provide multiple tweets in which he repeatedly expresses that. Should we go that way? soibangla (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I think so. The content definitely belongs we just need to source it better, with the dailybeast acting a secondary source (i.e.It’s actually not that bad a source but we should be careful to use it for such contentious issues). To be honest we’re just doing all this to satisfy the tantrum of a certain disruptive editor, but compromise is sometimes the name of the game here so if it will help table this unnecessary disruptive debate over the flimsy political-agenda Rasmussen phone survey then so be it. My 2 cents. 2601:280:CB02:4351:4943:A76E:C07A:4376 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you say the same if say, the only source we could find for something was Fox News, and it was sourcing a paragraph's worth of controversy on some Democratic politician's BLP? Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This comment chain is so long now, so I'll try and be brief. In general I don't like the reliance on Daily Beast for this. For controversial political stuff, if they're the only one reporting on it the reality might just be that it's not worth mentioning, rather than sifting through and trying to cross reference it with tweets etc., or trying to only pick out the parts that are "uncontroversial" enough that we can agree it's fine. Using them here or there to supplement other material or to round out a story or to provide followups or whatever I can see the point, but I don't think we should rely solely on that for huge sections of content. Just as we wouldn't rely solely on Fox News for whole paragraphs of content about, idk, some controversy AOC was involved in on her biography when no one else has reported on it. Re 2601..., I put a longer reply about Rasmussen below. Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The reputable sources you don’t like aren’t “critics”, they are journalists. They are not engaging in “editorial bias”, they are reporting the facts. Thank you for admitting, in your own way though, that the sources that you want to use are in fact “biased” and engaging in “editorializing”. In fact, as we speak, Rasmussen is bragging about their bias on their Twitter daily. As far as their bias toward 2000 mules and the shameless shilling for it, they don’t even deny it perhaps hoping to avoid a lawsuit. Unfortunately you’re the only editor here in support of that esoteric contribution. You simply do not have a consensus for this here. Learn to quit while you’re behind. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:E15C:849F:8108:84A9 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Rasmussen Reports of course has a bias, but that doesn't necessarily make their polls inaccurate. FiveThirtyEight does pollster ratings based on the historical accuracy and methodology of the pollster, see here. 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. Just as there wouldn't be a reason to believe that for Civiqs, who are probably biased in the other direction but also acceptable (see Daily Kos; for comparison, 538 gives Civiqs a B-). I don't think there's a good reason, or at least I haven't seen a good reason, to believe polls that come from Rasmussen are unreliable just in virtue of their origin. The relevant questions here are I think about WP:DUE and the like (I think their bias does factor into whether framing public opinion on the movie in this way is appropriate). So for me then the central question is "did secondary sources care about the poll?" Endwise (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. So far there is one secondary source that reported on this - (The Washington Examiner) , and it is being objected to as a "weak source". Izzy Borden (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Examiner is a partisan and marginally reliable source, so I would have to agree with whoever said that to you. Endwise (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's revisit if other secondary sources emerge. Izzy Borden (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thumbs up...but I wouldn't hold your breath.lol Just checked again with an extensive citation search, and the press isn't touching it for the same reason that Foxnews and Newsmaxx won't touch it-- the big lie is a big no-no, like Holocaust denial, and Rasmussen is clearly alone in promoting the aforementioned mean-spirited, anti-democratic fringe conspiracy theory at its own expense. Just a friendly FYI. Glad to see you've made peace with this. Cheers! 2601:282:8100:D3E0:191D:6645:84:4C23 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a matter of accuracy of the firm's routine polls, per se. This situation involves a special-purpose poll that contains a loaded question presuming respondents had a "conviction" there was election fraud without having seen the film. Another question asks respondents who had not seen the film if they believe people should know about topics the film addresses. It has an odor of a push poll. Then the firm gets actively involved in at least defending, if not actually promoting, the film on their twitter feed. Regardless of any assertions of their past polling excellence, this one just plain stinks. So it's not the least bit surprising that only one single marginal source reports on it. soibangla (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And that is why this won’t be picked up by the press. No one is buying it, the least of all, Rasmussen. Maybe another flimsy biased partisan outlet will run this in the best case scenario. But nobody reputable or honest will touch this. So I wouldn’t worry about it. 2601:280:CB02:596C:9457:4611:F8CD:2629 (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

To address accusations of sockpuppeting, I have zero association with Izzy Borden whatsoever and I would never and have never sockpuppeted. I'm fine with removing the more unreliable source in the reception section. X-Editor (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC) --

@Izzy Borden: Thanks for linking the poll. Notice Rasmussen prefaces their results with "(Asked of 146 who saw 2000 Mules)". Those 146 are self-selected by any polling standard! 146 would seem to be so unusually small to be unuseful, but I'm not a pollster. Both selection and size reïnforce leaving this material out as biased and irrelevant. Again, thanks for linking material that deflates your own claims. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I am having difficulty believing you followed my link, read it and came to the conclusion they surveyed only 146 people who saw the movie. This is the link - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022.

The very first line is "National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters". Q1 is "Have you heard about the new documentary film about possible election fraud in 2020 called "2000 Mules"?" Q2 is 2: Have you seen the new film "2000 Mules"? Based on the answer to Q2, they asked either Q3 & Q4 of the 146 who saw it, or Q5 of the 854 who did not. This is standard polling methodology. A sample size of 1000 is more than enough to be representative for the margin error they claim. It is quite obvious you are not a pollster, or you wouldn't have made that silly remark. I think you should stay out of debates where you don't have the needed reading skills , let alone the background in statistics. See https://www.janda.org/c10/Lectures/topic05/GallupFAQ.htm Izzy Borden (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the words you are arguing for inclusion. It is very specifically the 146. You're playing games. Bye. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

You are the one playing games, by repeatedly repeating a falsehood - that only 146 were surveyed , and that they "self selected". Again 1000 people were polled (the standard size for nationwide opinion polls, per the link I showed you); of these the 146 who saw the movie were asked addiotnal questions. That's how ALL such polls work. You don't understand that basics of polling, that's fine - just stay put of debates that require such understanding. Izzy Borden (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

— Izzy Borden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Evidence Gaps in '2000 Mules' - FactCheck

• Evidence Gaps in '2000 Mules' - FactCheck.org

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Quoting NPR Hatchet Job

An objective analysis of the NPR article is that it is a hatchet job. Therefore, using it as a source is simply a bad idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrerj (talk • contribs) 03:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR is a perennially reliable source that we will continue to use unless another perennially reliable source debunks it. I wouldn't hold my breath for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR has lost its reputable status in recent years in the eyes of a significant portion of the American population. Tyrerj has a valid point to be discussed.DeknMike (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No, NPR has not lost its reputable status, just because any portion of the American population doesn't like it. Calling something a "hatchet job" without anything to back it up is not a "valid point to be discussed". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NPR has lost its reputable status in recent years in the eyes of a significant portion of the American population because a significant portion of the American population has decided to check out of reality in favor of a fantasy world. soibangla (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

And your data showing this comes from where? Banderson1962 (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It comes from NPR.lol Our job isn’t to prove D’Souza wrong, or these sources right. The sources listed, for instance, actually have a good reputation unlike, say, D’Souza himself who is a convicted felon with a history of lying (ie. His own wife for instance at the sentencing for his crime sent a letter to the judge saying that he is a man of low-character who lies all the time). The burden of proof isn’t for us to prove this guy wrong but the burden is on you guys to prove your case is right with actual evidence. Geotracking evidence by itself isn’t enough. Neither is one unverified anonymous source. This isn’t a single reputable source out there supporting the claims made, not even Foxnews will touch it. So, your question is answered. There’s our “backup”. 2601:280:CB02:22BD:B571:A6FE:FDE0:562A (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't replying to you, but ok Banderson1962 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tyrerj made a baseless, unsubstantiated, false claim about a supposed but nonexistent "objective analysis", so no, it's not a "valid point". And this page is not for discussion of people's supposed "valid points", but rather for improving the article page based on reliable sources and other elements of Wikipedia policy. Offer up such sources and they can be discussed. Jibal (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What "objective analysis" is that? Jibal (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen

Our article says:

A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief.

This comes from the Washington Examiner source,[2] which quotes "strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election" directly from Rasmussen.[3].

Rasmussen later says "68% of Democrats...say the movie strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election."

Does it seem plausible that 68% of surveyed Democrats had a conviction prior to seeing the movie there was systematic and widespread fraud, and that watching the movie strengthened that conviction? And how many Democrats were surveyed? Did they happen to include Mike Flynn and Tulsi Gabbard?

I tried but failed to find the precise questions Rasmussen asked in the survey. It's not in the methodology section they link to.

Daily Beast reported weeks ago:[4]

Conservative polling firm Rasmussen tweeted in support of D’Souza on Monday and blasted both Fox News and Newsmax for "taking a dive" on the film. "Cable TV news is wrecking itself. Remember this," the agency’s official Twitter account posted.

Now, Scott Rasmussen is no longer with the company he founded, but I nonetheless find it interesting that he was at least scheduled to appear with D'Souza at a rally two days ago.[5]

We also need to consider self-selection bias and confirmation bias in this survey: those who choose to watch the film are more likely to be election-deniers seeking confirmation of their belief.

Italics are mine in all cases. soibangla (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Between the strict guidelines laid down by WP:UNDUE when it comes to fringe matters, and WP:PROFRINGE about this exact kind of problem (ie. con artists wishing to use Wikipedia and the media itself to promote fringe theories in a coordinated matter, to normalize the fringe material) we can certainly exclude it. I couldn’t find a reputable source to corroborate that idiotic self-serving pseudo-survey. Please remove it. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:997F:89FF:B45E:48DB (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The reputation of Rasmussen Reports is sufficiently questionable that we should avoid it. If we do include this, we should use the primary source, not the often dubious Washington Examiner. --

You are misreading the poll. It's not that "68% of democrats" had his conviction, but of the people who watched the movie and are likely voters, and identify as Democrats, 68% had this conviction. You may find it surprising, but Rasmussen is a well known polling firm, and its poll was quoted in the press, so we go by that, not by what you find plausible Izzy Borden (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And just to help you out, as you are struggling with following links, here are the quetsions - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022 Izzy Borden (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the survey found that of those identifying as Dems and likely voters and watched the film, 68% said they had a conviction there was fraud going in, and the conviction was stronger coming out. I was aware that they identified as Dems and likelys and watched it because I posted your edit right up top, so my ellipsis was just trying to cut to the chase. Do you have a better source, because per WP:RSP "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." Thanks for finding the questions. Here's the key Rasmussen question: "Did the film strengthen or weaken your conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election?" Loaded much? It presumes everyone had convictions there was fraud going in that were strengthened or weakened coming out. Why didn't they just ask "Did the film do anything to persuade you there was fraud, or not?" Rasmussen is a well known polling firm, for sure; maybe take scroll through their twitter feed. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All sources have their biases. You are free to think that the question is loaded, and I may even agree, but articles are written based on what sources say, not what editors think. If other sources have criticized the poll question, you can add that. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a weak primary supported by a weak secondary. soibangla (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that either of these are "weak". Izzy Borden (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

like you said it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. This is not corroborated with any other reputable source. And when it comes to debunked conspiracy theories or matters of fringe you’re supposed to tread carefully. For instance just because you can find a source that will suddenly say the earth is flat doesn’t mean that we need to not include it in an article. There are exceptions to the role when you’re running right into it. This is why there are essays about WP pro fringe in WP undue. 96.69.187.37 (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Rasmussen is a well known and reputable polling organization, it is reputable. The Washington Examiner may be biased (which source isn't?), but it, too, is reputable. You may be mistaking this poll for something proving a conspiracy theory. It is not. It merely reports what people are saying about the movie - there is nothing fringe about that. To use you analogy it would be similar to reporting on a poll that find that 1/3 of millenials think the Earth is flat (https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/?sh=6ebf8f147ec6) - that does not mean YouGov or Forbes are unreputable or fringe or support the 'Flat Earth' nonsense. Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

per WP:RSP "Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." In such a controversial matter as this, that alone justifies exclusion, especially when not corroborated by other secondaries, reliable or otherwise, not to even mention the loaded poll question. soibangla (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial in reporting on a polling firm's polling results. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless weeks earlier that same firm took a swipe at conservative outlets for not covering the film, then constructed a poll question that presumed everyone going to see the film had already decided there was election fraud, which was covered by only one source that is RSP yellow because ""Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source..." soibangla (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources commented on that incident in relation to this poll, feel free to add that. Otherwise, we have a reputable firm (incidentally, their polling is rated higher by Five Thirty Eight than Pew's, and the same as CNN's), quoted in a secondary source. And as I worte, all sources have their basis. If we started to remove everything that's from biased source (or "RSP yellow") , there would not be much left. Izzy Borden (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And BTW, that "loaded question" presumes exactly what you presume, above - "those who choose to watch the film are more likely to be election-deniers seeking confirmation of their belief." Izzy Borden (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is not on anyone else for If reliable sources commented on that incident in relation to this poll, feel free to add that. If we started to remove everything that's from biased source (or "RSP yellow") , there would not be much left. except that's why we have RSP to make these determinations, and there's plenty of reliable sources remaining to allow the encyclopedia to continue. I suggest you and I pause and allow other editors active in the article an opportunity to opine. soibangla (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

When you said “what source isn’t biased?” you revealed your agenda here, not to mention your history of edit warring on political topics. So forgive me if I can’t AGF here. But the flimsy citation here is actively being used to promote a dangerous fringe theory, and it including it here violates the redline of WP:PROFRINGE established just for these special circumstances. So, no, we shouldn’t allow perceived loophole here to normalize a fringe theory, and doing so is WP:GAMING on your part. 2601:280:CB02:3EDF:8D35:41B7:CBEB:6967 (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

. Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion. Izzy Borden (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There’s nothing here that says that I “have to login in” order to have a conversation. You’re not helping your case here by being obtuse. Your silence here says more than anything you could offer in the way of a rebuttal. Good luck with that 23.24.151.25 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to have a conversation with an IP-hopping editor hoping to conceal their identity. Izzy Borden (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not “concealing my identity” however I’m not gonna deal with an editor who hopes to use whatever you think my identity is as part of your agenda in the service of your WP:GAMING violation. You can’t respond to the merits of my rebuttal, so noted, regardless of your fallacious excuses. Also, noted. Have a good one. 2601:280:CB02:513D:4CFF:5BFD:DEEE:4FA0 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Such charges are a violation of policy. Please cease such ad hominem attacks. Jibal (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Please log in to your real account if you want to continue this discussion."

Don't make such demands ... it's a violation of policy. Jibal (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022 (2)

Reference [4] “fact check” is actually an opinion article and in no way represents legitimate fact checking. The claims made by the 2000 Mules movie are substantiated as demonstrated by prosecutions and convictions being brought as a result of the evidence 2000 Mules provided. To claim that the movie is false outright is grossly irresponsible and a completely politically motivated stance. 2600:1012:B1C7:2373:801F:7C1C:7497:F85D (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no substantiation, no prosecutions or convictions as a result of this movie. It is false. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please support any claims you make with reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

Add to this sentence in the reception area, with my following changes:

Bill Barr, Trump’s attorney general during the 2020 election, announced on December 1, 2020 that the Justice Department and FBI had investigated allegations of election fraud but found nothing significant. In June 2022 testimony to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Barr laughed at the mention of 2000 Mules, and when asked to assess it, dismissed its assertions there had been widespread election fraud, calling the movie "indefensible."

I had also added another good source for good measure, that includes the quotes needed. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It has already been added to the article at 11:37 by User:Soibangla. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really. I was adding to it, and suggesting changes 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd I responded to you above. But you didn’t notice that I’m asking to make tweaks to that contribution by @soibangla by adding a good secondary source and expanded on it some. Otherwise it just sounds like Barr laughed at the movie in passing mention. No, he was also asked to assess the movie and he did: analyzing the purported geotracking evidence and the conclusions drawn from it by D’Souza as “indefensible”. I just want the sources to be accurately reflected. 205.168.105.204 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Since I’m looking to expand on, and backup up with sources, your original contribution, could you give it a gander? The edit I’m suggesting is above. Thanks 205.168.105.204 (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done, I didn't understand your proposal to "add" this because it was already there, but now that I comprehend this is a modification it is better. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@StellarNerd Totally fine. Misunderstandings happen. It’s all good in the hood. Thank you 205.168.105.204 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Remove from reception: “A June 3, 2022 survey by Rasmussen Reports found that among likely US voters who saw the documentary, 77% reported that their belief that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election was strengthened, compared to 19% who said the film weakened this belief.

References

Beside the obvious, this is a form of WP:SYNTHESIS and really has nothing to do with the reception of the propaganda film by audiences or critics. It's an unscientific survey that gives a false impression that the debunked propaganda piece has legitimacy. Clear violation of WP:NPOV as well. 98.50.110.70 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC) 98.50.110.70 (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the only thing wrong is the usually dubious source. The original version used a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It really isn't relevant. It would be like adding a survey about a plurality of people believing in UFOs to bolster a documentary about Roswell. The etiquette for the Reception section in essay after essay is that it is about critics, aggregators, and box office. The piece of weaponized disinformation here is being used by the propagandists as part of their scam to push the big lie as it is repackaged in the film. We could just as easily live without it, if for no other reason that it's making this already big article verbose and more bloated. 98.50.110.70 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Two separate editors (including @Valjean:) have removed the addition of the paragraph. SWinxy (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Administrator note recovered from archive as unresolved. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I reworded the sentence to put 'conservative' first. If you have verifiable and independent sources that call TTV a propaganda group, you might want to take it to TTV's talk page first. SWinxy (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2022 Add "propaganda film" to lead

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Makofakeoh -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Add "propaganda film" to the opening in the lead. Enough time has passed that it is clear in the RSes and secondary RSes per WP:V that the press in their own voice are calling "2000 Mules" a propaganda film. Propaganda films are not unheard of... the opening sentence in "Triumph of the Will (German: Triumph des Willens) is a 1935 Nazi propaganda film directed, produced...etc. etc." In this case, "2000 Mules" is pushing the big lie that the 2020 election is stolen. Facts are not partisan. Elections are matters of math, and vote counts, so being on the side of the truth and the math here is NOT a liberal position here-- despite what the insurrections and their enablers would like you to believe. It is irrefutable empirical fact that Biden got more votes than Trump and NO evidence that the election was stolen, nor any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Just debunked conspiracy theories, and this propaganda film, pushing WP:PROFRINGE, in hopes of stealing the last election, and maybe the next one. Also, D'Souza is many things, but what is most notable for his is activism and being a provocateur. Saying that he's simply a commentator smacks of spin, and that's not how the RS is looking at him these days as he tries to undermine democracy with lies and scams. I added MORE sources and proper language in the voice of the RSes here, again "propaganda film" being the notable change: "2000 Mules is a 2022 American political propaganda film by political provocateur Dinesh D'Souza that falsely[4] claims unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. D'Souza has a history of creating and spreading conspiracy theories." 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadishThere already is a consensus for the word "false", a consensus in the press, and there is a precedence for this already established. What you said is simply not true: There is no RFC or formal discussion forbidding it. When this many RSes and secondary RSes are calling a movie this dishonest and dangerous "a propaganda film", we can certain attribute it and mention as much in the article. Please don't engage in WP:NPOV. I'm reflecting and advocating for the sources here and there is NO debate in the reputable press about whether this is documentary film or propaganda film. I will resubmit later, so please let another editor take a crack at this, as your idealism is getting in the way. 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC) I think you may be confused as to my motives. I'm patrolling edit requests, and this is clearly going to be contentious, therefore some actual discussion demonstrating clear consensus should exist before opening an edit request. This talk page is well enough watched where it should not be difficult to show there is consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish This, as articles like it, are yes contentious. But that is par for the course. That doesn't mean the tail should wag the dog and play to the trolls, or the drama, and the lowest-common denominator when it comes to WP:V. Please refresh yourself on WP:FRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE. WP:BURDEN and WP:V have certainly been met here, and certain matters of empirical fact (i.e. like the vote count, or the outcome of a democratic election) should be presented as such if the RS is not in doubt. The etiquette for this would be to include the edit FIRST and THEN open AFTER THE FACT an RFC to test it if you are worried about the contentious nature of it. If a consensus forms against it, then that's a different story. But this is nothing controversial calling a laughable propaganda film "a propaganda film" when the RS is doing it with secondary RSes also clearly backing up that assertion. This article will ALWAYS be contentious since a convicted felon/Trump-enabler (i.e.D'Souza) is pushing WP:PROFRINGE as far as wikipedia in concerned. So do we water this down for months or years because of that fear? Of course not. So, your reasoning is WP:CENSORSHIP. FCS, the movie is asserting without evidence that vote mules rigged our election.lol... If that's not a propaganda film, I don't know what is. And the RS certainly see it that way, especially as of late, not to mention the fact that Trump appointees in the 6.Jan hearings are even calling this film as much. Your reasoning also allows for a backdoor on WP:UNDUE to creep in just enough for readers who know nothing about this movie to wonder what exactly is going on. That is a disservice to them when the film itself is a form of gaslighting meant to undermine a democracy. The reader shouldn't be left to wonder: Is it a documentary film? Is it a propaganda film? We speak in the voice of the RS here, and the press isn't confused. The RSes aren't confused. So, neither should we be confused. Again, I will present the change later and I ask for other editors to weigh-in if you can't see past your idealism at the expense of WP:V and, ultimately, our readers. Thank you! 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC) You're wasting a lot of time attacking SFR's motives. Anyone patrolling edit requests would have declined yours. Focus your efforts on building consensus. A new section might be advisable, so other interested editors don't need to slog through the above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers There is no attack here. This is just another case of heated virulent politics seizing wikipedia at the expense of the readers, which we should be above given the empirical nature of this debate. P.S. And consensus doesn't have to be built for uncontroversial edits that clearly satisfy WP:V, unless the aforementioned editor is laying claim to this page. Just because facts are now partisan matters doesn't mean Wikipedia has to violate its own missions and lower its standard. This is a propaganda film, period. The RS and secondary RS says as much, period. There isn't a debate among them, period. But fine, we can also waste our time on yet another WP:FRINGE matter and debate this endlessly at the readers' expense. Won't change the inevitable outcome here since this movie is a pile of propagandist crap, but it does enable the anti-democratic politics of this which wants to gaslight the reader. 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC) This gave me a chuckle because just today I got the editor of the week award for my handling of edit requests, especially in contentious areas. Turns out I was a maga plant this whole time. Who would have thunk it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish I never accused you of being "a maga plant". P.S.Editor of the week award? Glad you have your priorities straight. Thought we were here to build an encyclopedia. But what do I know? "Chuckle", indeed. Enjoy your participation trophy. 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Yeah, I was surprised I got it for edit requests and not for the two good articles I wrote about early 20th century African American activists. I guess maybe all manner of tasks help the encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish Meh, depends on the tune, or if you were an angel. 2601:282:8100:120:F9F9:72A9:2BCD:32F6 (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

The term falsely needs to be removed. Falsely can not be used as there is no evidence that can 100 percent refutiate evidence to support the facts that this occurred. Using the word Falsely is one sided and unsubstantiated outside of opinion. 2603:6010:A640:9A:14C:6D22:E506:9FB7 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment about this, see earlier thread Rfc: "falsely" in lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done There is no consensus for removing this. See discussion above. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove the word falsely

REMOVE THE ‘opinion’ of the word falsely. We know stop trying to truth ministry Americans 67.240.194.218 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, which have been cited. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar: The problem is that the adverb "falsely" comes across as dictating an opinion to the reader, even if it's correct and well-supported. I support a better phrasing, such as "makes disproven allegations that..." which is a factual statement without dictating an opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not dictating an opinion if it true. Flat-earthers are falsely claiming the world is round when it is a matter of scientific fact that the world is round. Ergo- it is simply a false statement that 2000 or more vote mules were illegally engaging in ballot harvesting. You are making two fallacious mistakes here: An appeal to authority and a false equivalence fallacy. The burden of proof was on D'Souza to prove what he was saying is true. Not for us to "disprove" him. And the consensus is simply against you on this. Stop enabling the trolls on this, please!2601:282:8100:D3E0:79E8:6400:BEED:89E5 (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I disagree. It is categorically false though, and as the IP above correctly mentioned, the Earth is not flat -- but flat earthers would have you falsely believe it is. More to the point: the reliable sources provided support the "false" description (PolitiFact: "Biden was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally, but the trailer falsely frames his quote as an admission to election fraud."; WashPost recommends to "treat [director's] claims with skepticism"; AP Fact Focus: "But that's based on faulty assumptions"). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The point is that my alternative suggestion of using the phrasing "makes disproven allegations" is identical in meaning to the use of "falseley" without coming across as opinionated. Words matter, and that word just doesn't come across as neutral. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That's semantics, especially if, as you claim, they share identical meaning. If the allegations have been disproven, the obvious word to label those allegations with is precisely 'false' – as reliable sources already do. Re neutrality, Wikipedia follows where RS take us. Also, I note that this is currently being discussed at top of this talk page. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is semantics, and semantics matter. Two words or phrases can mean the same thing, yet one can be more sensationalist and emotional. Such is the case when one resorts to an adverb rather than a descriptive phrase. Not a single one of the sources use "falsely" to describe a verb, they use the adjective "false" or "disproven" to describe a noun. The adverb basically says D'Souza is a liar, the adjective says that his statements are just wrong. The distinction is subtle, but there's a reason reliable sources choose the words that they do. We should do the same. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

And that bit of analysis and editorializing isn’t your call to make, which itself is a WP:OR violation. We simply report the sources and if the sources say D’Souza is being dishonest, lying, and deliberately making “false statements” then we report what they say, no matter how harsh it might sound. The level of dishonestly here is on par with flat-earth conspiracy theories as there is no doubt, scientifically speaking, that there were more votes for Biden than Trump. This is about a vote count. Math. Which isn’t a partisan debate. And essentially the sources are accurately calling out D’Souza for expecting us to believe 2 + 2 = 5. It is not our job to care about the feelings, or standing, of a minority opinion here. To suggest otherwise is a WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE violation. Not to mention that the movie has been exposed for using falsified evidence and debunked video evidence, for which the filmmakers are dishonesty ignoring even when empirical hearings on the matter say as much. You are engaging in WP:GAMING when you are being obtuse about ‘semantics’ given that WP:UNDUE clearly expects us NOT to give undue weight to the beliefs of a delusional anti-social minority as you’re doing.2601:280:CB02:385D:BDAF:26AB:B43F:E38D (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You haven't been paying attention. Read what I said above. None of the sources use the word "falsely". None. They state the fact in other ways. It is a misrepresentation for us to do otherwise. Do you even know what WP:OR says? You're saying it's a WP:OR violation to state what the sources say, rather than state something else? Incredible. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read the sources and the word "false", "misleading", "deceptive" comes up several times. You are being WP:POINTY. Not only are ALL the reputable sources calling out D'Souza for presenting no evidence for his claims, they have exposed him for using fabricated evidence in some cases, misrepresenting videos of law abiding voters simply dropping off votes for their family, and then (without explanation) simply concluding at the end with some formula he invented that voter fraud happened- saying that an unverified anonymous sourced told him to do it. This is that the reporters are reporting. Not in editorials or movie reviews. In their actual reporting. Yes, WP:OR, because the reader doesn't care about YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH in this. If reporters are coming down hard on D'Souza for ridiculous conspiracy theory as awful as a flat-earth or Holocaust denial, then let them report it that way. Since when does wikipedia have to be a collection of quotes? In the end, it has to be an wikipedia article. Not a plagiarized one. "Falsely" is actually quite generous when we could just come out and say "dishonest" and "slanderous" among other things. Consider WP:DUCK 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, semantics do matter. The word "falsely" is not used by sources. None. They use adjectives, not adverbs. That is not original research, that's an observation of what the sources actually say. The hand-waving analysis you have done to justify the adverb isn't your call to make; that is original research, and the readers do care, else we wouldn't keep getting these stupid demands to remove the word. My position is that we should replace it with something like "the film makes disproven/false/misleading/deceptive allegations that..." using an adjective like the sources do. To characterize that suggestion as "original research", to say what sources actually say, boggles the mind. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"The word "falsely" is not used by sources. None."

This is false ... direct quotes with that word are given above, and at least seven are given below.

"That is not original research, that's an observation of what the sources actually say."

It's a false claim as to what they don't say. Even if a direct quote hadn't already been given, one would be hard pressed to prove this negative.

(Hmm ... did someone say "tendentious"?)

"My position is ..."

The consensus seems not to support it.Jibal (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"You haven't been paying attention."

Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Jibal (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many claims made by the film described in this article, many of which are indeed described by RS as false. For example, all of these:

that True The Vote solved a murder of a young little girl in Atlanta (NPR)

the film's assumptions about the precision of cellphone tracking data and the reasons that someone might drop off multiple ballots (AP)

In Philadelphia alone, True the Vote identified 1,155 “mules” who illegally collected and dropped off ballots for money. (AP)

But it is not true that every single claim made by the film is described as false by RS. For example, regarding the claim Alleged ballot harvesters were captured on surveillance video wearing gloves because they didn’t want to leave their fingerprints on the ballots, the AP says This is pure speculation, and goes on to justify why. It does not call this particular claim false, unlike other claims fact checked in the same article, because there is a difference between unproven/speculative claims and demonstrably false claims.

So if the wording in the lead says that the film falsely says that Democrat-aligned "mules" were paid by unnamed nonprofit organizations to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election, then we ought to have RS which say that this particular claim is false. I see many RS that say this claim is unproven, based on deeply flawed and in some cases apparently fabricated evidence, and that many other claims made in the movie (such as the ones I listed above) are false. But I have not located a source saying the specific claim described in the part of the lead quoted here is false. False and unproven mean different things and we should be precise about what the sources say. Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And again, that is WP:OR since that is your thinking on the matter, your feelings on the sources. The sources themselves are reporting by not only on D’Souza’s false claims but his dishonesty on the matter. The glove example, for instance, is absurd for you to use because in the context of the articles you are only selectively pointing out the word “speculate” while leaving out the rest of the context where the reporters are using that as an example to indict D’Souza for being dishonest, citing how people are likely using gloves because of the pandemic, etc. and D’Souza exploiting the optics of that, sometimes the skin color of a voter in other instances, to trick and incense his audience. The context matters here, as does the consensus of reputable sources, none of which are locked in the debate on this ridiculous movie which is as offensive and dishonest as fringe scams claiming Holocaust denial or a flat earth.2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11:80C:31D6:F876 ([[User talk:2601:282:8100:D3E0:8C11

And again, I must remind you that checking what the sources actually say isn't original research. The word "falsely" is not used by any reliable sources found so far. If you can find any source that says otherwise, in the context of that sentence, then present it. Otherwise stop accusing others of engaging in original research, when you are the only one doing it.

Furthermore, I also suggest sticking to discussion about improving the article rather than repeatedly critiquing the film. We all agree with your critiques, which are becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS because this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for discussion about the article topic, it's a place to discuss changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right that I don't need to lecture you on this... when this should be a no-brainer. Using the holocaust denier page as an example, this is in the lead, "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements" D'Souza is btw a holocaust denier, who also promotes a "false claim" that the Nazis were the core of the democrat party today. The Big Lie that the election was stolen by evil democrats falls into the same category of weaponized propaganda that the Holocaust denial falls into- anti-social disinformation trying to use "false" claims to target and harass vulnerable groups of people. Thankfully, it would seem the prevailing consensus of reputable editors here is that we need to keep "false" in for the same reasons I espoused above. Hopefully, if you decide to push this then you will open a voting process (at the very least) out of respect for that consensus so that consensus here will continue be respected. It should make you happy to know that I'm done here. Cheers! ~Philip. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:C07E:6BB6:FB8E:28D8 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The point that is being missed is that I am not objecting to using an adjective such as "false" to describe a noun. I am objecting to the adverb "falsely" to describe a verb. Both have the same meaning, but the latter is likely regarded as an inflammatory label on someone's actions rather than a factual label on the outcome of those actions (the claims in the film). And the adverb is not used by any reliable sources found so far. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not missing the point ... that's a classic ad hominem. If a work makes a false claim of X, then it falsely claims X. Twisting and turning to pointlessly (and indeed none of your reasons are valid) avoid using the adjective is bad writing. Jibal (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop with such personal criticisms. Jibal (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not consistently rely on reliable sources and denies video taped testimony even from congressional hearings when trying to clarify the details of a specific fact. ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Instability_in_Benghazi

Additionally, Wikipedia contributors reference sources that provide interpretation of statements (opinions) made by people, journalists, reporters instead of siting the actual quotes of the person making the statement. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_United_States_Capitol_attack

In that post, one contributor said in the "Talk" section when challenged: "We have no intention of quoting Donald Trump.", even though they are referencing opinions or interpretations of the specific statement that Donald Trump made.

There is no doubt that Wikipedia leans one way when dealing with political issues, and unfortunately itself cannot be relied upon as a source itself. 2601:982:8202:B2D0:F867:E5D2:53AB:BAC5 (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it's proven fact. Jibal (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

After much vacillation over many days, including removing "falsely" from the lead once[6] and restoring it at least once, and reading the extensive argumentation (the IP editor makes compelling points), I have finally come down hard in favor of excluding "falsely" from the lead. The term is not explicitly and broadly supported by our sources and I believe the remainder of the lead and body are fully adequate to demonstrate that the film is outright trash. We should just let the article unfold and speak for itself. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Between the prevailing consensus of editors here, the proper use of the word false in other similar matters (like conspiracy theory articles about "holocaust deniaL), and the fact that the sources in question clearly are calling out D'Souza's dishonesty, it would seem the tide (for now) is against you. Until there is a proper vote on this, please respect that. Protip: That word false in the lead is being used by Facebook as justification for keeping this disinformation from flooding and spamming Facebook, just in case you wonder what the stakes are here. If we water this down any further, and bury it as you suggest, then wikipedia will be used to disseminate harmful slanderous propaganda in a way that violates our mission. Food for thought, don't let "idealism be a road to hell." Cheers 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This isn't about the word "false". It's about the word "falsely", as has been stated repeatedly. Thus far, I don't see a consensus in favor of "falsely", and there has been zero rebuttal to the verifiable fact that not a single reliable source actually uses that word. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources using "falsely":

• "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."AZ Mirror
• "The Republican head of Georgia’s election board said Tuesday that a recently released film alleging ballots were illegally collected and dropped off during the 2020 presidential election falsely suggests there were tens of thousands of illegitimate votes in the state."[7]
• "The film falsely implies that rampant voter fraud compromised the 2020 presidential election, costing Trump a second term."[8]
• "<title>Dinesh D'Souza film '2000 Mules' Falsely Implies Data Solved A Murder : NPR</title>"NPR StrayBolt (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I added some myself. Here, below. Good catch. 2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, an NPR piece uses the word itself directly in the headline, saying "2000 Mules Falsely Implying..."

• Then there is this recent article "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."
• AND then there is this article that says, "The film falsely claims unnamed nonprofits linked to the Democratic Party paid people, whom it calls “mules,” to illegally collect and deposit absentee ballots in drop boxes in five swing states where Biden won–Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin."
• And then THIS ARTICLE, that says "The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots."

And since our job isn't to plagiarize articles but create an encyclopedia style living article of our own that accurately reflects the sources in a verifiable way, then given the clearly consensus of not just these reputable source BUT all the ones so far that clearly take issue with the demonstrable dishonest effort to push "false" information, I think you are making the perfect the enemy of the good here. By consensus of editors, it seems like enough veteran editors have been reasonably fighting to keep this. So short of some kind of thoughtful formal vote, I'm confused by your fears here. The only ones really taking issue with the word "false" are those who want to spread their disinformation, the cult backing this film- upset that such language is impairing them in their disinformation efforts. Given how patently false and anti-social this slanderous conspiracy theory here is, about the BIG LIE, it doesn't make sense at all to appease that crowd because it would represent WP:UNDUE. Personally, I think you are just too WP:POINTY to get that- and burying the word "false" in the lead, or watering it down in the way you should, is a disservice to the reader and our mission here. Hopefully if you fight for this, it is only after a very lengthy and thoughtful/thorough voting process to determine what the consensus here is. But, for what? A nobrainer over a fringe theory as absurd as a flat earth or whether or not Elvis died? Have fun with that. Cheers2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Why are NONE of those sources cited for the word "falseley"? The sources cited at that position do not use that word. That was my point, which you keep missing. All I'm saying is that the adverb sounds like dictating an opinion, where an adjective simply states a fact. A noun would be even better, like "falsehood" or "lie". ~Anachronist (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This claim about semantics is quite bogus. When someone says that something "sounds like" something to them, they are stating not just a personal opinion but a personal perception that carries no weight at all. Jibal (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of sources identifying specific allegations as false, but as I said, they don't broadly characterize the film as false. This is why I oppose that umbrella term in the lead, but rather we should present the overwhelming number of falsehoods in the body. One of the tactics of propaganda is to include some truthiness to prevent critics from making a blanket characterization of falsehood, and this poses a dilemma for journalists, and for us, exactly as propandandists intend. It's somewhat clever, and I don't see a viable way to get around it. soibangla (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

LOL! WP:PROFRINGE was established as a thin red line for exactly what you are trying to pull here. More on that in a second. As for your false claim about the sources, they absolutely categorize the movie "as false". The following sentence alone, one of many from many sources indicting the movie, (quote)"The film alleges that by using geolocation data purchased by the filmmakers they were able to track “ballot mules” to drop boxes where they falsely allege the “mules” were paid to stuff the boxes with completed ballots." -which is the central charge of the movie! lol And, D'Souza's gambit proved not to be all "that clever" at all as not even hard right pundits at Foxnews or Newsmaxx are touching this. He overplayed his hand and, no, didn't box us in as you claim. Whether it is a flat-earth, Obama's birthplace, or Holocaust denial, somethings are no-brainers. Again, for perspective, a similar example of anti-social slanderous conspiracy theory, this sentence in the lead, "Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements". You are conveniently leaving out that this movie is simply repacking the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, debunked in other articles- i.e.this movie is not presenting anything new. And when it comes to articles representing WP:FRINGE this article, like holocaust denial falls into a special class called WP:PROFRINGE, which was set up as a firewall for what you are suggesting. Where "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Proponents of fringe theories have used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Policies discourage this: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, like the repackaged BIG LIE about 2020 in 'this vote mule geotracking' variant theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. Attempts by inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories are prohibited. Efforts of fringe-theory inventors to promote their theories, such as the offering of self-published material as references, are unacceptable, which is exactly what TrueTheVote is doing here. Wikipedia is not an advertising venue. For this reason, notability guidelines for fringe topics are stricter than general notability guidelines: the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable. And in this case, they are not, because of what D'Souza's film "falsely alleges".2601:282:8100:D3E0:F8B4:39E9:B84D:70FF (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Numerous sources do in fact broadly characterize the film as false. The contrary claim is completely bogus, much as the claim that the word "falsely" is never used, despite numerous examples given here. Jibal (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind we're talking about the lead. It summarizes the body, and "falsely", even though some RS say that, is a summary of many sources, not all of which have to use the word. The combined findings and descriptions of RS is that the film's claims are best described as untrue or "false", so the word we use is proper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Using the word "falsely claims" and not "allegedly" or simply "claims" shows an uninformed bias by the editor. Unless they are willing to watch tge documentary or see first hand what technology is used for geotracking ping data (which is accurate)...then they have no credible reason to use "falsely" in thier description of this documentary. Thier controlled editing is causing damages that the producers can hold Wikipedia liable for. Herbie52 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I've given this editor not only an AgF warning but a block for legal threats. I made it clear it will be simple to get unblocked by denying any intent to take legal action or encourage others to do so. This sort of statement is of course WP:CHILLING. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove "falsely"

Whether you agree or disagree, the word "falsely" implies incorrect or nefarious content. The true non biased definition would read "claims" or similar. 173.246.214.44 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Reliable sources are quite clear in declaring the film's assertions to be false. This entire project is built on reliable sources, not on false balance. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment about this, see earlier thread Rfc: "falsely" in lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

political commentator Dinesh D'Souza that falsely[4] claims unnamed nonprofit organizations paid Democrat-aligned "mules" to illegally collect and deposit ballots into drop boxes in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election.

Must remove word "falsely" from intial description. This is making a definative statement using an OPINION article as a source. Just stating that D'Souza "claims" is enough, it is not on us to tell people if it is false unless you can accurately prove it. Which cannot be done. 107.127.0.63 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See MOS:WEASEL. We call a spade a spade here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

IP falsely requests

The last three edit requests here were about "falsely" but not one response directed the requesters to the (apparently still ongoing) RFC. It would be better if editors restricted themselves to redirecting new editors to the RFC until it's closed (soon hopefully?), and then to referring editors to its conclusions. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of these are trolls that want to use this as a forum to vent, so redirecting them is just feeing into the trolling. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We could always just semi-protect the talk page if the anonymous IP disruption is deemed to be too much of a time-waster. Article talk pages do occasionally get semi-protected to prevent trolling, but usually it's more extreme than this. We'd resort to protection if, for example, D'Sousa tweeted to his followers to express themselves on this page. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

The body section of the article is long and confusing. I will separate them into two sections: 1. content, 2. fact checking. Lightest (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Lightest (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There's already a section on content and a section on reception, but I agree the "content and methodology" section could be organized better. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"Pull the ripcord"

Can someone add a section for the related planned data and video "reveal"? Maybe the section can include the book mentioned above.

• Another year, another high-profile voter-fraud summit goes bust
• WATCH: The Moment When The ‘2,000 Mules’ Folks Admit Their Supposed Evidence Is Nonsense
• TRUE THE VOTE PULLS THE ‘RIPCORD’ AND LAUNCHES SITE TO DISSEMINATE INTEL ON FRAUD

StrayBolt (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recall

I am told the book is being recalled by the publisher.[9] Not confirmed in RS yet. Andre🚐 23:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "delayed" might be a more appropriate word. Have they sold copies yet? Are people asked to return copies? These webpages said the release date was "August, 2022"[10], "August 30th 2022"[11] and now is "November, 2022"[12], "November 29, 2022"[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 17:46, August 29, 2022 (UTC)

"Delays" and a recall are not the same. Nancy Levine said "recalled" twice in that tweet, and the image says "full recall". We can await an explanation. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, "due to a publishing error," they are being recalled, and the new publication date, per D'Souza's comment on Truth Social, not confirmed in RS, is October. Andre🚐 00:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I was wondering from a consumer standpoint, have books been already sold and in the hands of readers? From a publisher standpoint, they may have already been printed and shipped to booksellers so recall seems appropriate to them. I had included 2 links related to the publisher, Regnery: Current "Published" date of "November, 2022" and the Archived date of "August, 2022". Seems like we could say changed date by Regnery. StrayBolt (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Regnery tweeted "Due to a publishing error, the publication date of 2000 Mules has been postponed to October 25, 2022. We look forward to publishing “2000 Mules” by @DineshDSouza this fall."[14] There are many replies by others to the tweet.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Your references are replies from the democratic party, this whole post is biased, the post should just explain what the movie is, not what other say about it. I vote for both sides depending on the person, not the party, and it's quite clear to see that this is a very bias view on the movie. Quoting NPR without explaining who the broadcaster is or showing or referencing any type of counter proof, makes it seem like just because NPR said it, it's true. Both sides could have been dropping in those boxes! The defensive posture of this site make's the democratic party look even worst. This shows that people are doing things during the vote that is clearly illegal, it don't matter what side they do it for, it should be stopped. This wiki should hold itself to a higher standard than picking sides and putting references that actually provide proof instead of one side vs another. 73.127.217.50 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Oct. 9 changes

@AnubisIbizu: can we follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle on your recent major changes? Among other issues, you removed content from the lead citing redundancy, but the point of the lead is to summarize the body of the article, and some redundancy is expected. Please self-revert, bring your proposed changes here, and attempt to establish consensus for them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. I did not realize that there were discussions like this. I was going to self revert, but I have been sanctioned, so I guess the issue has already been resolved? AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anubislbizu. You haven't been sanctioned at all! I'll explain more at your user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I self reverted it, but sanction still in effect \o/ AnubisIbizu (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

For now I reverted it back to the consensus version of the lede, which has survived several RFCs in the last few months. There's a lot of room for improvement, but I think there's been enough consensus in the past that everyone should be wary of making large-scale changes unilaterally and I don't agree with softening the opening sentence. BTW apologies but I'll be off-wiki tonight through Tuesday night. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

2000 Mules

In your information regarding the movie, you say the movie makes claims regarding the 2020 election. Specifically you say they claim that ballot trafficking took place. They do not. They publish one person (anonymously) who assumes payments were made to Mules. This information was turned over to authorities to investigate, which they didn’t do. In fact, the writers state that all the information True the Vote obtained was turned over to authorities, none of it yet investigated to my knowledge.

You also say that the movie states many other “claims” that are unverified, and that the cell phone data is unreliable. All of this is ridiculous, and only would need authorities to investigate to prove out. You only need to watch the movie yourself to see that it’s information is true and warrants a true investigation. You don’t have to buy into the information, but to call it out as a conspiracy theory and say all the information has been debunked is disingenuous on the part of your editors. 69.131.202.141 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

If you want to have the article changed in any way, you need to provide reliable sources to back up your assertions. This article can state only what reliable sources have reported, not your personal interpretations. If you have a problem with the sources cited, then state what your problems are and why you think they are not reliable. You haven't done any of this. All you have done is lodge a complaint that isn't actionable. Either make constructive suggestions, or don't waste the time of those who are actually trying to improve this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Election Tampering Confirned

Earlier this year, Michael “Ozzie” Myers of PA and former Congressman plead guilty to employing multiple forms of election tapering during the 2020 election. How are Mr. DeSousa's claims false? NicOnTheRight (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@NicOnTheRight@Soibangla He’s missing the point. You is right. DaSousa is claiming the truth. Cellphone tracking data can’t lie and is used by the FBI to catch cereal killers! 2601:282:8100:5AA0:7D79:EDCC:2D60:4D50 (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Cereal killers, like Count Chocula? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

He was not involved with what the film describes soibangla (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Why would thousands of cellphones be around a single drop box? Also I personally spoke to all my friends over the phone in my research and guess what? No one was voting for Biden. If you use OAN or Newsmax and real sources like that instead of the lame stream media you’d have proof here of what we say. Please correct this article. It also had the most bad grammar I have ever readed! 50.208.24.165 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Because drop boxes are in high traffic areas where lots of people walk and everyone has a cell phone. Thousands of people walking past a drop box is no big deal. Thanks for the morning laugh with It also had the most bad grammar I have ever readed! – Muboshgu (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"use OAN or Newsmax" These are propaganda outlets, not news sources. Newsmax has already issued an apology and publicly retracted any voter fraud conspiracy allegations. Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

whoever wrote this article is a cereal liar! Patriot Elon Musk fights to protect the 1st Amendment and you mock it. No proof that 2000 Mules is false! Show us the proof!! I can give proof right now!!!!! Karl Lake and Walker both lost! Isn’t that proof enough??? I talked to all my friends here in Colorado??? Guess what? None of em was voting for Warnock or Hobbs! Did you notice Trump wasn’t even on the midterm ballots because liberals fraudulently removed his name from all the ballots??? You don’t think that’s odd?! None of my friends voted for Biden either, and we all wrote in Trump’s name but somehow Biden is still President!!! That’s not how democracy works. If you actually went to school and readed your history books and the Bible you’d learn maybe to be more smart about this and not write dumb articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.254.137 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Cereal liar" Which brand? Cheerios or Froot Loops? I only chose to reply to this ridiculous comment to note that Jimbo is not selling and that democracy does work because Biden got more votes than Trump, Hobbs got more votes than Lake, Warnock got more votes than Walker, etc. "None of my friends voted for Biden" isn't proof that Biden lost, just proof that you need a more diverse group of friends. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not talking about that kind of cereal. Duh! You know? Like cereal killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or (Redacted)! A more smart person would know that. And just so you knows, people can’t vote after the Election Day is over! Duh! But they kept counting anyways? DUH!! They used to stop counting votes the same day but now they keeping counting more votes they find AFTER Election Day and include those votes a week later!?!?? Think I’m dumb?! 63.225.254.137 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

A "more smart person" would know that you mean "serial" as in "serial killer" or "serial liar". Also they never finished counting votes on election day, it has always taken days or weeks to count them all. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to respond to your argument in defense of this truthful documentary so this article could be uncensored which is relevant here but I got censored for it. Oh well. 50.211.226.97 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Clone dinosaurs? You do realize that Jurassic Park is a fictional movie, right? We can barely clone existing animals, much less animals that have been dead for millions of years. As for producing results on Election Day, there is no legal requirement to do that. It's just the news networks using incomplete results to make reasonable predictions, which have no force of law. Usually, candidates are aware of the same incomplete results and can determine if they should give a concession speech or wait and see. Even then, officially, election results aren't set until Congress meets to certify them. That's what happened on January 6 when that mob stormed the Capitol. And there are still many states that use paper ballots, which means they take longer to count vs those that use machines. So to expect actual ballots to be fully counted on day 1 is ridiculous.

Movies don't prove anything. If it's not evidence that's admissible in courts, then nothing is proven. And in this country, you're still innocent until proven guilty. Chronolegion (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newsmax.com/amp/platinum/vote-counting-elections/2022/11/17/id/1096828/ P.S.USA Today isn’t good enough 50.211.226.97 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Newsmax? Really? The Daily Stormer was busy? InfoWars subscription lapsed? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Seriously. If you, IP, think that USA Today isn't reliable but Newsmax is, then there is no point in continuing to discuss this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)