Talk:Lady Ballers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lady Ballers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 December 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Tone and substance of article

The first sentence of the article is biased: "...directed and co-written by Jeremy Boreing, co-CEO of conservative media company The Daily Wire..." How many articles involving Hollywood films point out the politics of the director/writer? It appears that elements of the "progressive" and LGBT communities object to the film, and hence the nomination for deletion and tone/substance of article. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 09:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly in either direction, I'd just like to point out that as someone somewhere on the left side of the spectrum, I wasn't aware of what The Daily Wire was by its name, and I personally would appreciate that distinction being there.

Not as though I want it there so that I can instinctively know that it's produced by 'the other' side and that I should hate it; rather, multiple people that I've spoken to regarding this film have made mention of The Daily Wire's involvement and having the context that it's a conservative media company would help me understand the significance of that / why it would be important to some of those people.

I also think the bit there is being added to provide some context on who Jeremy Boreing may be... For example if you were to say it were developed by Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla.

With that example there, it may seem weird, then, to say that The Daily Wire was referred to as 'conservative media company', but I notice when searching for The Daily Wire that it's actually part of their site description / search result listing: "The Daily Wire is a website that covers news, politics, culture, and media from a conservative perspective." Heimerslinger (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they're primarily known for.

In this Michael Moore movie they say his politics:

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 American documentary film directed, written by, and starring left-wing filmmaker, director, political commentator and activist Michael Moore." Joshcoin (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to take the opposite stance here. I don't see how the full context of this movie and its goals can be understood without the following quote from one of the employees of the Daily Wire, who is still employed and appears in this film:

"For the good of society...transgenderism must be eradicated from public life"

- Michael Knowles, CPAC

This is clearly a movie designed to promote eradicationist perspectives by dehumanizing trans people and promoting criminal suspicions of them on the basis of sex, similar to Jewish Bolshevism.

This article should be much more harsh in describing this. At the very minimum, it needs to give contexts by accurately describing the views of its creators. Mr10123 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources describe Jeremy Boreing as conservative, then so do we. Wikipedia follows published sources. To not do so would be to fail to give due weight to that aspect of the production. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - Budget - $7 Million

It looks like the article is Semi-Protected. I only very recently created an account, so i'm not able to make this edit directly. However after watching the film, I was curious about what the budget was, and after some searching, found an article referencing that it was $7 million. https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/daily-wire-jeremy-boreing-lady-ballers-theaters/ I'm sure this isn't a significant source, but wanted to place something here at least as I had arrived at this article looking for this info and it wasn't here yet. Heimerslinger (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a WP:RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jeremy Boering saying the film cost $7 million not reliable? The referenced article by Christian Toto says the budget is $7 million and clearly links to the source video interview where Jeremy Boering states the budget is $7 million (at 4m30). What's the problem here? -- 109.79.68.49 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think he has a point RE WP:SOURCEDEF

"Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

I would imagine the director/producer of the movie would be authoritative on a statement regarding its budget. But, when I suggested this I didn't know that video interview was linked in there.

But if not, or if that site is not an acceptable source, there are some other statements on the page that reference the same source also (#10 under Reception) that may be similarly problematic. Heimerslinger (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could source the interview, although per WP:RSPRIMARY we should look for a reputable secondary source and remove references to this source. glman (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia making careful limited use of a source for factual information should not be problem. I checked the sources. I expected other editors to also check the sources before deleting. Directly referencing the original source, a DailyWire interview with Jeremy Boering, might be better in some ways but video links are at very high risk of WP:LINKROT. Wikipedia says secondary sources are better so a text version where Christian Toto repeats a fact seemed like the best available option to make this article more informative and useful to readers. (Movie financing is never particularly clear or reliable, it wouldn't surprise me if the actual gross production budget was closer to $10 million but that Tennessee Tax credits[1] brought the final spend down.) Perhaps this information could be presented in the Production section instead of the Infobox. -- 109.79.65.204 (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter that Jeremy said the budget is 7 million. The source isn’t reliable. WP:THEREISNORUSH to add content like this. Until there is a more reliable source, let’s not. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Production related claims from the Daily Wire

Should this be included under production, admitting that the movie's premise is a false pretense? https://www.themarysue.com/ben-shapiro-admits-the-daily-wires-transphobic-movie-lady-ballers-is-nonsense/ Mätchä16 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score

This film is intentionally provocative, so it is understandably contentious. Given this, it is my respectful view that posting the Rotten Tomatoes critic score of 43% without making referencing its substantially higher audience score creates a distorted perception of the way the film was actually received. For this reason, I added a line to reflect the film's Rotten Tomatoes audience score on its opening weekend as reported by The Washington Times. This is a properly cited edit made in good faith, however I am open to other views if anyone would like to share them. HudsonValley (talk

Per WP:UGC, Rotten Tomatoes audiences scores are not permitted. glman (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then why is the first line under "reception" a reference to the RT reviewer score? For the record, right now, the audience score on the site is 88%. When it comes to reviewer vs. audience score, either both of them should be allowed or neither should be. 24.69.168.156 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained many times before but here's the analogy, the New York Times editorial is considered reliable, the letters to the editor are not. WP:FILM has consistently rejected allowing user generated scores such as IMDB votes and Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. If you want to argue for an exception you need to take it up with them. There is no excuse for including Rotten Tomatoes audience scores here. -- 109.78.192.182 (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]