Jump to content

Talk:2000 Mules

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV dispute[edit]

I am challenge the neutrality of this page. All sections of the Article are riddled with biased characterizations of the documentary's findings and conclusions. Although arguably unreliable, the news sources that dispute the documentary's findings have not proven it to be true but have only attacked its reliability. Thus, the article should be combed to hedge all biased wording, otherwise the NPOV tag shoud stay on the page. AnubisIbizu (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I also oppose the documentary's purported findings, but urge the editors of this page to sound more encyclopaedic. As yet, the page reads like an unreliable biased news article and not ob objective encyclopedia. AnubisIbizu (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Among the biased characterizations are
(1) that the central finding of the film is "false";
(2) that the film "presents no evidence that ballots were illegally collected to be deposited in drop boxes";
(3) that the film "opens with a misleadingly edited clip";
(4) A large excerpt with no citation support stating "AP explained that in various swing counties across the five states, True the Vote used phone pings to cellphone towers to identify people who had passed near ballot drop boxes and various unnamed nonprofit organizations multiple times per day, concluding that such people were paid mules for ballot collection and deposits. Experts said such mobile phone tracking was not accurate enough to distinguish alleged mules from many other people who might walk or drive by a ballot box or nonprofit during the course of a day, such as delivery drivers, postal workers and cab drivers. True the Vote asserted it had conducted "pattern of life" filtering of such people before election season; the AP noted limitations of that approach."
(5) that the film provided "no way to match them with the geolocation data".
I can add more later, these are only a few examples I found after a mere five minutes of reading. AnubisIbizu (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of these things is presented neutrally and with citation. Yes, even (4), which is cited in the sentence before and just needs a citation at the end. This has all been discussed before. "Neutrality" does not prevent bunk from being debunked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, sir, I think that you are improperly injecting bias into your decision here. I can see that other users have contested the same, yet you have overridden that as well. I can see that you are an administrator, so I will concede to your authority on here, but this post is undoubtedly biased, and you have not addressed each of my concerns sufficiently as required by under WP: NPOV policy, which you have violated. AnubisIbizu (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, you are a biased administrator. AnubisIbizu (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is biased. Don't pretend that you are not. I am not acting as an administrator here, but as an editor. This article is sourced and written neutrally in debunking a movie based on false pretenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. The film makes a reasonable argument that has not been proven empirically false. To say that is it false is argumentative, not factual. The same is true of saying that the film is true. The film might be true or false, but we do not know for a fact which is the case. Therefore, as an encyclopedia, we must be more objective. Acknowledging your bias does not make it acceptable. Do better. AnubisIbizu (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that some premises on which the film is based are demonstrably false (a fact, not an opinion), one might say that it's a violation of WP:SYN to conclude that the film's conclusions are false. However, I wouldn'tsay that is synthesis, that's just a WP:BLUESKY feature of logical deduction. Even so, it should be enough for the article to state that the film's conclusions are derived from premises proven false. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that I would agree ^ An objective consensus. Yet the current Article does not frame the discussion as you have reasonable suggested. AnubisIbizu (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they’re not.
You are obviously saying that because you are unable to view this theme objectively.
The article is clearly filled with biased language and arguments. 76.149.30.215 (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas this is a current event, and the article is slanted SO far, even in the lede, there should perhaps be an NPOV tag. Pacificus (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a current event and the article is not slanted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing what it does not include and needs to explain is a point of view does not belong in this article.DeknMike (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who Made the Movie[edit]

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

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

Article dismisses eye witness testimony in violation of neutral POV[edit]

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

The filmmaker interviewed a reliable witness that he saw first-hand, hard proof about lies about Trump’s erection, sorry, I meant, “election”(typo), in 2022! Isn’t that enough to leave this article alone?! I don’t see any evidence disproving the eye witness! EDIT:Please don’t engage in WP:CENSOR This is a fair question! I98.50.104.93 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

lead: "Salem Media Group partially settled a lawsuit ..."[edit]

body: "The Andrews suit remained ongoing"

https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=2000_Mules&diff=prev&oldid=1230858463 soibangla (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Mules&oldid=1230994561"