Talk:Europa: The Last Battle

Source and rhetoric bias

Using the ADL as a reference to this film's description or content is akin to using the Renegade Tribune as a source for the page of 'Schindler's List'. Obvious biases at play.

For the sake of accuracy, refrain from biased terms such as 'propaganda' and 'disinformation', since they hardly can be said to neutrally describe the actual content of the subject film.

Using words like "disinformation" and "propaganda" simply proves this point. Either allow it on both sides, or refrain from both. 85.76.108.76 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok nazi 161.65.228.251 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Only Nazis invoke NPOV? Tell that to Wikipedia's CEO.

I am NOT a Nazi, but this article is so insanely biased it's laughable. 98.20.155.152 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Im not a nazi, but this article is 100% not neutral at all, it makes claims about the documentary with absolutely no evidence what so ever and never even attempts to discredit anything it claims with facts.

All it does is steal from a biased source that exists primarily to run political defence for a particular ethnic group.

There is absolutely no value in the existence of this article at all. Noticerwhonotices (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this not biased? 148.69.23.76 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This article reads like a hit-piece moreso than an objective article of the film. In no way do I support extremist causes but every voice should be heard, if anything this article in its current state will lead to more people viewing this film with morbid curiosity. 108.175.113.180 (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this article would benefit from a neutral tone that just lays out the dumb facts as they are and trusts me to be smart enough to see that the movie is a bunch of baloney. As it is, it's like a big red X popped up on my screen when I tried to search for it. Perfectly plays into the narrative that there's some sinister organization hiding The Truth from me 174.160.168.155 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

746 minutes?

Is the stated length really correct? If so that would make this film over 12 hours in length, surpassing even Paint Drying (which, no doubt, has far more artistic value than this film).

I get that a lot of far-rightists are NEET-types who have _way_ too much free time on their hands (and thus would be more willing to make, and/or watch, overly-long propaganda pieces). But even so, 746 minutes seems awfully excessive. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:CEB1 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

IMDb says 12 hours, 26 minutes. A few other non-RSs mention that it's "12 hours" and a "ten-part web series", so as dubious as it sounds, the length appears to be accurate. Schazjmd (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No Neutral

This article should be marked as no neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.142.196 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not a thing. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Noticerwhonotices (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Neutral point of view" is. "No neutral" isn't. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Noticerwhonotices has been blocked per WP:NONAZIS. Isi96 (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The article only quotes Biased Sources

The article relies on quotes from Biased sources to "Prove" its point. 222.108.156.194 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is biased against bullshit conspiracy theories and fraudulent pseudohistory. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

🫵😭 148.69.23.76 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, yup. That's how English Wikipedia work. RamanaEmiliz (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)