Talk:2000 Mules

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

Should the word falsely be included in the first sentence of the lead? soibangla (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. Yes. Makofakeoh (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Administrator note: Indeffed for sockpuppetry, including attempting to !votestack this RfC. Strictly speaking, however, the !vote remains valid, to the extent the closer will assign it any weight. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace it with a more definite statement that doesn't come across as dictating an opinion. The phrase "falsely says that" just sounds weak and opinionated. Better alternatives might be "promotes the falsehood that" or "presents false allegations that". Don't use an adverb. Preferably use a noun. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I would be okay with changing the word to "disproven" or "debunked", if "falsely" is so offensive for some reason. We have to indicate that this movie is bogus right off the bat. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - The proposed alternatives from User:Anachronist seem a little verbose. Keep it concise. "falsely says" is fine. "falsely claims" might be better. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed I think “falsely claims” or even “falsely alleges” are better phrasing since both are direct quotes from reputable sources themselves, which should satisfy zealous/idealistic editors here- and this seems to be turning on the word “says” and not so much on the word “falsely”; a much-needed tweak blown-up into what has become a misunderstanding of sorts conflated by an edit war over semantics. 97.118.78.3 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:CLAIM. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  MOS:CLAIM would support the use of the word "claim"? That policy says using "claim", "can call their statement's credibility into question". That's explicitly what we're trying to do here. NickCT (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I was just remembering that synonyms for "said" are frowned upon, but now that you mention it, it might be appropriate usage here considering these claims are false. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Valjean: Could we have your opinion on this one? Nythar (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It needs to say that this is wrong, false, or something like that. This is simply false claims, and if you don't spell it out then readers may think otherwise from reading the plot synopsis following the first sentence. --StellarNerd (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No, Remove it. Movie reviews, much like book reviews, are not
  attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

  — Guarapiranga ☎ 00:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Absolutely. The lead should clearly say falsely, with a cited attribution but without the need for further prose. Falsely should then be expanded with prose in the body article where the overwhelming array of sources state as such. Like all lunatic
  WP:FRINGE topics the POV of believers can be expanded as well. The existence of FRINGE believers, no matter how vocal, does not mean the lead should not contain a succinct reality. The POV of fringe believers should be adequately expressed; that does not mean equal weight, space, or treatment. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, or something similar. I am open to alternatives. This is a fringe topic, so it needs to be treated that way. The mainstream POV has more weight, so it should get the prominence it deserves right up front. Unfortunately, the current wording does mean we will never have peace here, IOW a huge timesink. We will have to keep this article locked forever. Therefore, better wording would be welcome, but, in the meantime, keep the current wording.

Muboshgu suggested "disproven" or "debunked". Anachronist's suggestions are valid but verbose, and many RS do not make the semantic distinction made by Anachronist, so that's not a big issue for me. Yet, their point that "impressions matter" is important, so a less strident word that gets the same point across would be welcome.

Would someone please make a list of the descriptors used? Try a sentence, with refs, that says: "The film has been described as false,[1] propaganda,[2], debunked,[3]...etc...." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider "...makes unsubstantiated allegations..." as an alternative. "not supported or proven by evidence"[3] soibangla (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with our IPv6 friend above. makes unsubstantiated allegations implies that they could be accurate, they just haven't been substantiated. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Consensus of RS is necessary because of

  WP:WEIGHT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes - There are literally no
  fringe claims as if they were reputable. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• No - Just my two cents, replace it with "alleges." WolfShadow (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]