Talk:Absolute Proof

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 8 August 2021 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs).

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bias

Please be impartial. I know you get a lit of money from certain bias organizations, but please don't be so obvious. 1.75.243.144 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to hear all the bias organizations I get my money from, because that is some news to me. Uness232 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the "organizations" part either, but some of the editors here could ease their bias on here a little. I mean, really: "Lindell's website, LindellTV, was inoperative for about an hour – a problem Lindell says, without providing proof, was the result of a hack."? Without providing proof? What were you all expecting him to do: pull out a piece of paper and say, "I've gotten this from the hackers. It says, 'We've hacked your livestream ha ha ha.'"? Just saying. 2604:CB00:13B:DD00:A0B6:D737:9D47:C443 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the last paragraph of the "Legacy section" they say that Lindell had predicted that Trump would be reinstated as president on September 13, the day after the symposium. The day after the symposium was actually August 13, and that was his actual "reinstatement date." Please change the word "September" there to "August". 2604:CB00:13B:DD00:DD54:A0F8:D4C0:FC53 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 2604:CB00:13B:DD00:ADB9:ACFE:7B3A:A64B (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Cyber Symposium Section Necessary?

Is the Cyber Symposium section of the page relevant to the page itself? If not, I wonder if we should move this section to the page on Mike Lindell. Any reasons why we should keep this section on the page? 173.187.151.50 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should just say “false”

When discussing “Trump won”, we shouldn’t hesitate to use the word “false”, because the claim that Trump won the 2020 election is objectively false.

I commend this article for mentioning that it’s a conspiracy theory and that the fact-checkers debunked its claims.

But I think we should go one step further and actually put the word “false” at several points in the article, including the opening paragraph.

I think it should say, “……[it] promotes the FALSE conspiracy theory that Donald Trump won the……”.

Thegoldenconciseencyclopediaofmammals (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]