Talk:The Red Pill

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

Western Sydney University cancels screening[edit]

I will not edit the article due to a conflict of interest. Western Sydney University cancelled the planned December 3 screening as of this afternoon.

Robert Brockway (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


If the article is going to be this biased and pushing it's own SJW view of the world, delete the damn article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4201:9810:9995:FFCD:6FA9:AD15 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response[edit]

Who keeps deleting the '"however, she says that feminists also “get a pass for equally demeaning and hateful language toward males.”' and why? Sirtheoir (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do, as you can see from the article's history. Why is Young's opinion about feminism in general relevant to this article about non-feminist movement? Her position is explained on her own article, wehre it belongs, and this isn't the place to expand on that except as it directly relates to this film. Grayfell (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It relates to the film because the reviewer thinks that violence by MRAs can be compared to what she thinks are equivalent actions by proponents of feminism. I am no fan of the MRM, but that statement is required for a neutral summary of the review. feminist 05:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree, obviously, although that phrasing is definitely an improvement. There are several paragraphs in Young's review about the film's failures to address the 'nasty side', but only one short one about feminists getting a pass. The example links Young cites are two articles which have no connection to the film at all, and are chosen for incendiary effect more than relevance. This quote Young inserting her opinion about something only tangentially related. It's not actually about the film, so it's inclusion is effectively editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Feminist that it is necessary for neutral summary, but I don't really understand why the new phasing is better. She is criticizing the film for failing to devote attention to this issue on both sides. How about '"however, she says the film also gives feminists "a pass for equally demeaning and hateful language toward males.”'. Sirtheoir (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That second sentence is a lopsided, bizarrely worded mess. My first glance at Young's review summary on this page made me assume it was an entirely positive review, whereas after reading it, that's clearly not reflected in the actual piece. The second sentence should at least begin with an "however," and not use that ridiculous second quote that really has nothing to do with the actual review. Theintrepid (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

The encyclopedic significance of the Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema is not clear from its own website, nor from a small local weekly newspaper which mentions the Red Pill only in passing. If these are the best sources for this point, it should not be included. At the very least, it doesn't merit its own section. There are hundred, if not thousands, of film festivals like this (List of film festivals in North and Central America, lists some of the larger ones). These two obscure festivals do not warrant inclusion any more than every single review or mention in local papers. Per WP:WTAF, festivals lacking reliable, secondary sources of substance which connect the movie to the film festival should be avoided. Grayfell (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF is about red-linking. So, just remove the link. The fact that this movie won those awards is significant enough for inclusion in the article, IMO. If you remove every fact and event, that are themselves not encyclopedic, from every article, you'd be stripping an enormous amount of content. For contrast, look at I Was a Teenage Feminist. There are non-encyclopedic film festivals featured prominently, even though the film was merely screened there without winning awards. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the festival isn't notable enough for an article, it's difficult to see why it should be included here based on such weak sources. I have no problem removing (or even "stripping" if you must) content that doesn't belong in the first place. The local news blurb was a step in the right direction, but it's insufficient. Yes, the movie did win some awards at one festival, but without explaining what that festival is, or providing any neutral path for readers to judge for themselves, this is WP:IINFO and WP:PUFF. It sounds flattering, especially when used to insert "award winning" into the lead, but it doesn't provide any real insight into the film or its history. This isn't an Oscar or Telluride where the accolade is widely known and documented. It's one of hundreds of similar indistinct festivals held all over the world. Am I wrong about that? Is it a big deal? If so, sources should be easy. I'm not talking about other films, I'm talking about this one. I Was a Teenage Feminist has its own problems that should be discussed at its own talk page, but choosing a feminist movie to contrast against an anti-feminist movie smacks of false equivalence. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
False equivalence? They are both indie documentaries made by feminists. Where's the false equivalence? Also, the fact that you describe a men's rights movie as anti-feminist speaks a lot about your mindset. The article did explain which festival gave the awards. It is very many versions ago that the lead just said "award-winning" and I am not arguing for that. Calling this local news article a blurb again shows your bias. None of what you are saying changes the fact that the film did win 3 awards at Idyllwild. Neither WP:PUFF nor WP:IINFO apply to the inclusion of the awards in the body of the article. Small films win small awards at small festivals. That's just the nature of it. A Billion Lives is another example of that. --SVTCobra (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just me that views MRM as anti-feminist, it's a mainstream view of the movement explained in men's rights movement with many sources. Here's one of several relevant quotes: "The men's rights movement generally incorporates points of view that reject feminist and profeminist ideas."
Merely naming the award provides no useful information about what the award signifies. By itself, the name is almost meaningless. Again, A Billion Lives has its own problems, and the heavy use of external links is just one of several signs that it's a bad example to base other articles on. The existence of inappropriate material elsewhere doesn't excuse more such material being added here. Grayfell (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that most feminists consider the men's rights movement to be anti-feminist, and there are way more feminists than MRAs; so, yes, you are not alone at all. And, yes, MRAs tend to reject feminism in its present incarnation. That doesn't, however, exclude the distinct possibility that most people reject modern feminism. But by that token, why don't we just redefine feminism as anti-men's rights? There's far more evidence of feminists actively trying to shut down any event that has to do with the MRM, including The Red Pill. I will refrain from providing more examples because whatever I present will undoubtedly be met with "well, that page has problems, too." --SVTCobra (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the festival's PDF program, a couple of things jump out. First is the inclusion of a prominent ad for two films in the festival produced by Golden Era Productions, which are both part of Scientology's conspiracy-theory ridden opposition to psychiatry. One of the two films won "The Stewart Award: Most Humanitarian Film", also, which is ironic. The other problem is that the festival's director, Stephen Savage, included his own project prominently in the festival. Gold Base is near Idyllwild, and Savage appears to have been open about his conflict of interest, so it is what it is. The problem is that this kind of context is not, and based on sources, cannot, be included for the article's readers. All that's being said is that "The film won a three awards(!)". It's promoting the film without providing any backdrop to what those awards actually mean. That's not neutral at all. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, guilt by geography and association? Idyllwild is 30 miles from Gold Base, so if that's a problem, we should consider anything in Riverside County to be suspect. So what if Scientology submitted two films for consideration and paid for an advertisement in the program? Maybe they've paid for advertising in the Oscars program for a Tom Cruise or John Travolta film. I am no fan of Scientology, but maybe they actually made a decent documentary about the pill-pushing state of modern psychiatry. A lot of people are opposed to the drugs-before-counseling state of mental healthcare. Even Feminism gets a few things right, once in a while, so why not Scientology?
As far as Stephen Savage is concerned (correct me if I am wrong, it's a big program), all he did was screen a pilot for a new TV series. I do not see anything about it being submitted for consideration for an award. Also, to tie the two together, I don't see any evidence of Savage being a Scientologist. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to provide some context for the awards that The Red Pill won, fine. You can call IIFC "minor" or "insignificant" or "upstart" or whatever, but please don't include your own Scientology conspiracy theory. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unreasonable standard to apply to every indie festival otherwise as SVTCobra says very few indie films or video games would mention awards, which is not the case. Idyllwild is mentioned in a local publication (Idyllwild Town Crier) and I added a direct source for the LA film festival award, a local news segment and corrected the award claim (it was an audience award.) The significance readers will apply to these awards will be proportional to their familiarity with them so that's not a concern. Since there is only one objection and several editors have added or edited the text I have restored the section. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these awards are, basically, meaningless to the long-term encyclopedic significance of the film. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, so including obscure awards based on very thin sources promotes the documentary without providing any useful information. Gold Bases works have a very poor reputation among critics, as multiple previous documentaries they've made have misrepresented facts and statements from those interviewed. Does that taint the whole festival? Of course not, but we have so little to actually work with here. What other info do we have about this festival? Why is a rinky-dink local festival, supported by a borderline-PR source from a weekly local paper, being used to promote this film? That's all this is, it's promotion. Is this the only doc article with an advertising problem? Hell no, but so what? That's a problem we should be fixing, not an excuse to pump more garbage into the town well. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing requirements depend on context. Standards for this article differ from the The War of 1812 differ from Pokemon. You are applying stricter standards here than are accepted in similar articles. We have many uncontested claims in many articles sourced to primary sources without objection. These claims are not contested as far as I'm aware and better-sourced. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, context matters. This isn't the War of 1812, this is a commercial project with a political bent, and promoting it is a WP:NOTADVERTISING issue, among other problems. How are these festivals encyclopedically significant? LIFF's website hasn't been updated since the festival ended, and they cannot even be bothered to issue a proper press release. It's not even WP:RS, much less significant enough to use as a WP:SPS. It's a an excuse to hold a screening in a certain area. We don't list every screening of a film. I've seen listings like that occasionally in the past, and this looks a bit better, but isn't functionally different that kind of thing. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this is a commercial project with a political bent ... Hmm ... what documentary (or even fiction) movie isn't? What book isn't? Everything has the political 'bent' of the presenter. You, somehow, think the mere mention of an albeit small festival amounts to advertising for the film. This is quite ludicrous. We might as well remove the section on cancellations based on it could be an attempt to advertise against the film. Grayfell, you act like the Idyllwild festival was created as an imaginary thing for the mere purpose of promoting The Red Pill. Are you suspecting Stephen Savage of such things? I mean, you already accused him of using IIFC to promote his own projects unduly. meaningless to the long-term encyclopedic significance Thirty years ago, you could have said the same thing about the Sundance Film Festival. But look at it now! And, omg! the founder Sterling Van Wagenen wouldn't even be encyclopedic if he hadn't started Sundance. And he was a member of a religious minority that gets ridiculed to this day! And wouldn't you know it! Sundance is in Park City, just about 30 miles from the center of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City. The parallels are unending! The people that want to remove facts from Wikipedia always astound me. --SVTCobra (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, knock it off with the misrepresentations. Don't put words in my mouth or make broad assumptions about my motives. Documentaries are (often) commercial products. We treat products differently than historical events, etc. If you're not interested in granting a modicum of good faith when reading what I have written, there isn't much purpose in this discussion, is there? Do I really need to spell out how this recent Sundance wannabe is different now, in this aricle, than Sundance was thirty years ago? Idyllwild isn't Sundance and if you think it's going to be, you need sources supporting that WP:CRYSTAL ball claim. Just because Sundance used to be tiny, not every tiny festival is now important enough to mention. Festivals are incredibly common. I've been involved in several films that have been in them, and even won awards, and have no delusions that anyone cares anymore. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that local arts groups or theaters do all the time. That's why the only souce you can find is the tiny local paper. If you're so sure it's important, write a decent stub article for it and I'll shut up about this. Grayfell (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell. I am having a hard time seeing what you are trying to accomplish with the red links. You are the one that is saying that those festivals are too obscure to merit their own articles, yet you insist on linking. Every policy you link (WP:REDYES and WP:WTAF) states that creating red links should only be done if the item is going to meet notability requirements and the article creation is foreseeable. You clearly disagree on both points, so why insist on linking? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that it's weird. If we're not going to remove them, we need to explain, clearly, what the awards actually signify. That's a basic requirement of NPOV. Simply mentioning having won awards at a festival without allowing the readers to neutrally understand what those awards indicate is my main problem with the entire section. Lambden said above that "The significance readers will apply to these awards will be proportional to their familiarity with them..." but that is not acceptable. We shouldn't be second-guessing readers' familiarity with obscure festivals. This article isn't intended for indie-documentary experts only, and it would be perfectly reasonable for a general reader to assume the award is more (or less) significant than it actually is. Major festivals, such as Sundance, often lead to distribution deals or sustained press coverage for successful screening (or sometimes unsuccessful screenings) but I don't see anything like that here, at all, and we're just sort of leaving that up in the air. It's not neutral to omit context like that, and it's sloppy encyclopedia work to rely on readers to fill in their own gaps on information we introduced to them.
Often when I see an award I haven't heard of before in a Wikipedia article, I check to see if it has its own article. That article, if it exists, explains if the award is prestigious or not, and the information gap is closed. Set aside my thinly-sourced assumptions about how podunk this festival is. However poorly I may have explained why I think it's too small to mention, this article doesn't explain anything about it at all, and it also doesn't provide resources for readers to find out for themselves other than a WP:ROUTINE local news article and the festival's own site. By creating a redlink we are explaining that such context isn't available on Wikipedia, but we are assuming that it could be. If we are going to mention these festival at all, we have to assume that such context could be made available. This article is not the proper place to explain the history of these festivals even if we had sources, so a redlink seems appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But why don't we red link other things in the article? Such as Cassie Jaye herself, Cinema Village and Alan Scherstuhl, etc. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, Cassie Jaye is a WP:SELFREDIRECT. Why, exactly, would we link Cinema Village? It's a theater, and nothing in this article is implying that it's anything other than that, so I'm not sure what context would need to be provided. The movie was screened at a theater... does that actually imply anything about the film the way that winning an award does? If you want to link to Cinema Village, I have no problem with that, but I don't see why its comparable to the festivals. Scherstuhl is a reviewer for the Houston Press, which is explained in the article. I've added an additional link to more clearly establish that. This is an WP:OVERLINK, but it's arranged in a way that's potentially confusing, so the redundancy seems like a valid exception. Grayfell (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema: "A decent stub" means one which meets notability guidelines and had sources beyond primary coverage. Grayfell (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware. I have a limited amount of time I can dedicate to it, ok? You could have added a non-primary source just as quickly as you slapped notability tags and deletion requests on them. You are the one who insisted on red linking, yet you are actively working against those articles once they have been created. Do you see the dichotomy? I never said they deserved their own articles, so I am essentially doing this work to satisfy you! --SVTCobra (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)≤[reply]
Grayfell makes a reasonable argument for excluding the LA festival. Their website appears to be out-of-date with no mention of award winners. Unless there are objections I will partially revert my edit and remove it. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, obviously no objections from me.
Sources recently added by others are better than nothing, but I'm still not satisfied the IIFC is noteworthy. Publishing the article without any independent sources is expecting others to spend their limited time finishing what you started. I don't want to make that sound worse than it is, because I do that too, and it's part of the process. I have definitely been frustrated by this, and tagging the article wasn't a good move, so I'm sorry for that. In this case, I still think a draft-article would've been much better. That would give more time, and allow others to collaborate on their own schedule.
It sounds like we agree that it's not unambiguously noteworthy. So if we cannot explain what the festival is, or why it's being mentioned, and this article obviously isn't the right place to explain the history/significance of the festival anyway, we should rethink how we are presenting this info. I still think it should just be axed, but a compromise I could accept would be to rephrase it so that it's not in its own "awards" section. If the film wins more awards in the future, maybe this could be revisited, but as it stands it's implying that this is a major aspect of the film's history, which is false. Right? Including this in a 'reception' section seems far more appropriate. Are these festivals really as significant as reviews in major papers and websites? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think any of us accept that, so why does it get its own section? Again, just removing it completely is still my vote, but this would work, too. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is notewrothy and unfortunate that any real life battles about this film are being seen here too. We are here to write an encyclopedia not engage in the politics of censorship. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the festival is noteworthy? If so, find something other than an announcement in a small local paper. This is trivia. It's a small festival in a tiny town, held during the slow season to help the local economy. Holding a festival is a fine idea, and good for them, but so what? It has launched no careers, led to no significant distribution deals, debuted no noteworthy films that I can see, and prompted no substantial independent commentary outside of its region. Whether it belongs here or not, fighting tooth-and-nail to include obscure content isn't "fighting censorship", and calling it that poisons the well of an already contentious subject. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I get that that is your personal opinion but we do not edit wikipedia based on personal opinions. You write as if we have to prove the festival was notable enough to have its own article, which nobody is claiming, and even so your standards are even higher than that; to have an article on a festival it does not ened to launch careers or be held in alrge town or city (even Glastonbury fails on that score) and while to have an article substamtial comment would be required nobody is asking for an article, nor have you proven that the content is obscure. This confirms to em you have an inherent bias against the film, this is not the place for that bias, plenty of anti red pill forums for that. The festival is however notable enough for the purpose for which it is being sued, to reference a reasonably well-known film. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're saying. I didn't say it was my personal opinion. The practice of which awards to include in articles is determined by sources, with strong preference for independent sources. If not sources about having won the award, than sources explaining why those awards are worth mentioning in general, which is done through WP:WTAF etc. This festival's inclusion fails here on multiple levels. The only source for having won the award is a brief mention in a one-page article about the award ceremony from the town's only paper. This paper doesn't even unambiguously meet WP:RS, as nobody has demonstrated any sources establishing a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, but we can set that aside and give it the standard small-paper benefit of the doubt.
There's no sign here or anywhere else that this award has been of any lasting significance to any film at all. In that case, why mention it? What does it tell the reader of the article? What information is imparted? The movie won an award... but we cannot really say anything substantial about that award, because we don't actually know ourselves. Okay, why bother? Regardless of the size of the town, the size of the festival is still very small. The only sources we have, at all, about the festival are local and routine. Two of them at the festival's article are specifically about how small the festival is. One in regard to inspiring another, even smaller festival, and the other in context of competing with a significantly larger one held at the exact same time. To me, that's proof enough that it's obscure. Sniping at my supposed bias says more about your approach than mine. Even if I were the biggest fan of the movie in the universe, this would seem like damning with faint praise, and it barely even meets WP:V, much less WP:DUE. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid personal attacks, they wont help your argument. Your bias is self-evident, mine isn't, and indeed I put my opinions to one side before editing wikipedia. Everyone else ehre eneds to do the same. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What personal attack are you referring to? You are accusing me of bias in editing. That would affect the article, and that accusation disrupts this discussion. If you think your bias isn't also obvious, and it is, you're not looking at this from an objective, outside perspective. Having a bias doesn't actually make one right or wrong. Everyone has biases. It is something to be aware of, not something to ignore. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are truly honest, Grayfell, does the fact of winning an Academy Award impart to the reader of Wikipdia? Despite the history and countless subpages, is there any real significance? Did they really select the best films and actors? Well, maybe. It would be easy to say those awards are 'bought and paid for' with the enormous budgets that Oscar campaigns receive. I will err on the side of including facts and let the reader judge if it is significant or tainted. And by tainted, some of your notability requirements might be perceived as such. Just saying. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comparison proves my point. The Academy Awards have many books written specifically about them and have been the subject of academic research for years. They have a long-standing, well-documented impact on the movie industry specifically, and arts and pop-culture in general. Having won an Oscar strongly implies that a film is noteworthy in itself, per WP:NFO #3. College courses have been offered on the Academy Awards. Most readers understand roughly what the Academy Awards signify. If they don't, Wikipedia has many articles which can provide that context based on countless reliable, published books, scholarly articles, news reports, etc. There is Portal:Academy Award, and Category:Academy Awards, and the organization which gives the award, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, is independently notable for many reasons and can easily be assessed on its own merits. Is the Oscar tainted by money? Yes! But that, also, is discussed by many reliable sources and can easily be contextualized and explained.
None of that applies here. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Film Award[edit]

Grayfell, I see you completely deleted the mention of Cassie Jaye's winning of the Digifest award for "Women in Film," because you don't like the Brietbart source.
I thought you were actually arguing for secondary sources in the comments up above? Following your editing protocols on gender-related articles is very confusing.
Here is actual footage of Cassie and her mother receiving the award at the Digifest (footage From Cassie jaye's YouTube channel, but which is also mirrored in the Brietbart article)....I don't know how much more proof you want. I'll leave it for other editors to check you. 118.208.48.191 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content must be supported by reliable sources. Breitbart is neither reliable for statements of fact, nor is it entirely independent of this film for opinion. Secondary sources are important for promotional material, such as events, and since neither Jaye's youtube channel nor Breitbart is independent or neutral, this should be supported by substantially better sources. What is the "Digital Hollywood Digifest"? Searching for that phrase with quotes I get very few relevant results, and it doesn't appear that Wikipedia has any relevant articles. Why should we expect the reader to understand what this means based on an unreliable source? This is the problem I have with these festivals, we are plopping flattering but incredibly obscure information in reader's laps and expecting them to do all the work of figuring out what it actually means. That's not neutral. At best it's lazy, and at worst it's a tactic used by spammers. Digital Hollywood's website includes no information I could find about this specific award, who grants it, how films are selected, etc. It might be there, but it's (ironically) a dated and poorly organized website. If there are such sources I would sincerely like to see them. If this award is significant, it should be supportable by something better than this. If not, it's no different from the LIFF festival discussed above, or any of the hundreds of other festivals held every year. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Wikipedia has no requirement to never use non-biased sources, as there is very little consensus on what sources are biased or not. The correct course of action would be to state "According to the right-wing news site Breitbart" before the point in question, and leave it up to the reader to decide whether that is sufficient WP:BIASED. If you still feel that the citation is insufficient, adding the website of the festival would verify and the "dated"-ness of their site is a terrible reason to discredit a source. You could also flag the statement for further evidence. Removing it entirely is ridiculous.82.1.96.21 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Breitbart unreliable. Being biased is not the main problem. Those are two different things which are not necessarily related. Trying to make this about bias is a misdirection. If you have a reliable, independent source about the Digital Hollywood Digifest, please bring it forth for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to revive an old thread here but, by that standard, practically all mainstream news sources are unreliable, since so many of them presented the UVA rape claims, for example, as established fact when they were, in reality, entirely fabricated (and quite absurd, if you actually go and read them). They certainly did not present all sides on that one. Point is, you can't just claim that news sources are unreliable simply because their open biases don't match your own clandestine ones. You're being very immature and unreasonable here. 96.20.21.162 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[User:Grayfell]'s behaviour is very troubling. He/she should be banned from editing, as there is a clear conflict of interest here. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Reception[edit]

Please discuss why you feel those reviews from amazon reviews are not usable. If the amazon reviews are not worthy then the other reviews must not be considered worthy either. I will add more amazon reviews in the future. Please do not remove material without first discussing, as per the guidelines.

If amazon reviews are not allowed then reviews from other opinionated articles should also be refused, so if these edits get removed without discussion then I will be forced to remove the entire critical response section. Amazon reviews is a valid source as it falls within the guidelines of 'Vendor and e-commerce sources'. Reviews by other critics that are being used as sources are just as opinionated and bias as some of the reviews posted by amazon reviews, but this is allowed by the 'Biased or opinionated sources' guidelines. If you dare to challenge amazon reviews as a reliable source then I will be forced to challenge the notion that these smaller, lesser known backwater sites are valid sources based on a plethora of wikipedia guidelines. I would like this article to remain as neutral as possible by allowing a variety of opinions. It is the only way to keep the article neutral and unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.14.217 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2017‎

Wikipedia doesn't consider user-generated content (WP:UGC) to be reliable. Even a reliable review should be briefly summarized, not copied at length.
There are many problems with your approach. You made a change and it was reverted. It's up to you to get consensus for that change, per WP:BRD. Removing reliably sourced content to prove a point is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon reviews can not be considered user generated content, as the only content that user can add are personal ratings and personal comments.
What you are considering as reliably sourced content(the other reviews from backwater sites) is in fact not in the slightest reliably sourced. I do not believe they meet the exception granted within (WP:UGC). So if you feel reviews from amazon reviews are not permitted then all reviews must not be allowed.100.34.14.217 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Anyone can create an account and submit a review to Amazon. In other words, it's a forum post. Calling a site "backwater" is not a valid argument. If you think these other reviews are somehow unreliable, you will need to explain why, but reviews from establish newspapers are significant to an encyclopedic understanding of the film. Edit warring is not acceptable. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am accusing you of warring editing. You put back a speculative comment about a living person. you removed reviews from a reliable source, all without discussion.100.34.14.217 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon revies can not be consider user generated as the majority of the content can not be edited by just anyone. Persons can only add/remove their own rating and comments. this falls within accepted reliable material.100.34.14.217 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Most anyone can post a review on Amazon. Create an account and post. Unless the review is way out of line, they stay. Little editorial review. Amazon user reviews do not meet RS. You are also cherry picking a few reviews out of hundreds. So, no. It does not belong on the article. Jim1138 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have now removed the content. No single editor gets to the final say in what is and what is not included. These are not reliable sources, and this discussion explains why. 100.34.14.217, if have questions, ask them. If you are here to make statements about what's acceptable and what isn't, you will first need to understand Wikipedia's guidelines. So what if other people cannot edit them? Who cares? That's not the important part. The important part is that the Amazon reviews are submitted by random people without any independent editorial oversight, without any indication that these people are experts, without any explanation of why these reviews are WP:DUE, and without any indication of lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User generated content is content able to be edited by all. you can not edit the page, you can not edit another persons review, you can only add/remove personal comments(reviews) and personal ratings(ratings). Amazon reviews does not fall within user generated content as per the guidelines.100.34.14.217 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ON the topic of amazon reviews, I am in the process of adding more reviews, attempting to provide a neutral point of view regarding amazon review, but the reverts(war editing) is getting in the way of polishing the material added.100.34.14.217 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bad idea, as we're trying to explain that these are not usable. Even if these are no UGC, which they are, then Amazon reviews are still self-published. Store-reviews are not reliable, usable sources according to long-standing consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, and everywhere else on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NO, reviews are submitted to amazon reviews.amazon reserves the right to remove content(editoral). However the other reviews are self-published works from backwater sites.100.34.14.217 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny. The Village Voice? Are you calling a Pulitzer-prize winning paper a backwater site? I guess if New York is a backwater, sure. Slow down and read WP:RS. You're completely backwards here. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to comment further until administrators resolve the issue of your war editing and harassment. Please refrain from edits until our conflict can be resolved. thank you.100.34.14.217 (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As explained by others a few times now, User reviews on Amazon are not reliable sources. See specifically User-generated content. Please see also WP:BRD as you are the one who has been edit warring, not the others. --McSly (talk) 02:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur that user reviews do not belong on Wikipedia per WP:UGC. Commentary about the film must be published in reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could add IMDB rating for the documentary, it seems a bit one sided right now with only Rotten Tomatoes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:E581:A:0:0:0:0:76 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As is mentioned directly above, user reviews do not belong. IMDB doesn't provide reliable, independent commentary, it only offers user reviews. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LIFF, again[edit]

Cassie Jaye and The Red Pill has won yet another award: Louisiana International Film Festival Best Documentary.

However I'm quite certain that Grayfell will not allow it to be mentioned, as was the case for her winning the Women In Film award at Digifest. How's that working out for you Grayfell? Seems a lot of people at grassroots level are discussing TRP and the awards it is receiving precisely because of the efforts to censor it. 118.208.63.15 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "yet another award'. This is already discussed above. First Twitter, now Instagram... as has already been discussed, if these are the best sources you can find, this isn't a noteworthy award. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

This is an article about the documentary The Red Pill and therefore any awards it has won is pertinent to the content of the article. Listing out the awards a film has won or been nominated for even is not something different or unique here, so I do not understand why @Grayfell: keeps removing the information ([1] and [2]). The awards it has won are properly referenced with WP:RS links to the officially published list of winners for each ceremony and they should remain on this page. Censorship has no place on WP as per WP:UNCENSORED, just because it has not won the Academy Awards does not mean the accolades it has been successful at winning should be excluded from WP. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 22:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, censorship... WP:IINFO and WP:PLUG are policy, too, and invoking the specter of censorship misrepresents both the reason this has been removed and Wikipedia's polices regarding censorship.
Did you read the multiple, lengthy discussions above this one about this exact issue? You haven't answered any of my concerns if you have. The one directly above this is specifically about how this exact issue has already been discussed to death multiple times. If the article provides absolutely no way for the reader to assess the significant of these awards, they do not provide any encyclopedic insight into the film.
To reiterate, yet again, these awards do not provide significant useful information to the reader. The only usable source for the DigiFest one is a single-sentence passing mention the day after it was given which provides no explanation at all for what the award is or what it signifies. This is in a very lengthy newspaper article which has no problem explaining a great deal about the film, its reception, controversy, etc. The award is mentioned literally as trivia to soften a paragraph transition.
The LIFF award, again discussed directly above, has no reliable sources at all. That they eventually did manage to put-out a press release is... better than Instagram and Twitter, but still does nothing at all to explain why this is encyclopedically significant. LIFF isn't a generally reliable source, but they are a primary source about their festival's activities. As a primary source, this is not encyclopedically significant just because it's verifiable. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly WP:PLUG is irrelevant as I'm not here as a soapbox or trying to promote anything and I find it uncivil that you jump to that conclusion simply because I have a different opinion to you about what should be in an article and what should not! WP:IINFO is also irrelevant as this is a article about The Red Pill documentary and therefore the awards it has won are very pertinent to the content of the article.
Secondly I did read the comments above which mostly they talked about non-RS sources people were trying to use, which I agree with you were unacceptable. Other than that it was just your opinion that somehow these award ceremony don't count - which is wrong. As stated above they are relevant to the article.
These awards do provide significant and useful information to the reader as it provides the full picture that the documentary has not just been made, but has also been nominated and been successful for awards above and beyond other equivalent films. To hide that from the article gives the reader the false impression that it has not been successful and won awards. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 23:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your motives are only relevant to me to the extent they reflect on the end result. Attempting to add content solely to say this film has been "successful and won awards" while completely glossing-over how obscure those awards are is promotional, regardless of your intentions. If these awards are "very pertinent", this should be explained somehow and sourced, not just added as a supposedly obvious fact. This is why substantial secondary sources are needed.
You say they are important, I say they are not. The way this would be resolved would be with secondary sources. If not specifically about the Red Pill having won these awards, then contextualizing what these awards are. This is the only reason the Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema is mentioned, because it (barely) has an article itself. This article provides readers a way to assess the award for themselves. The alternative is for them to rely on us to decide how 'successful' the film is using our own arbitrary metrics. This would be fundamentally non-neutral.
As I mentioned above, festivals and awards like this are extremely common, numbering hundred or even thousands a year, just in North America. Some are, indeed, significant, but most are absolutely not. It's not up to decide which these are, it's up to independent sources. Without some criteria for inclusion, they are just as likely to overstate the success of the film as they are to understate it. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well same here, your motives show (by end result) that you want to remove the fact that this film has won awards and you're doing it by dismissing the awards as somehow not real. If we both sit here are make blanket assumptions like this about each other then that's how edit wars are started and we don't want that.
A quick search shows that there are 12 WP articles (13 including this one) which already mention the Digital Hollywood Conference (see here). Therefore I suggest instead of removing the data you don't like, there should actually be a new stub article created, to grow WP and explain what it is and help contextualise what it is. This would then help your viewpoint as readers of this article (and the other articles) would be able to click to it and judge for themselves the importance of any award, job or statement etc. It would also reflect my viewpoint that a page dedicated to a film should have the awards that it has won listed otherwise the page does not provide a fully rounded article for the reader.
Significance is in the eye of the reader, personally I think the Academy Awards are a load of rubbish and put much more significance on smaller conferences and festivals for new and independent films. I only found The Red Pill because it popped up in my new feed that Cassie had won the Women in Film award which is why I looked around for references to support that fact and add it on here. Simply put the awards a film gets should be included on the article. ThinkingTwice contribs | talk 07:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the Oscars either. Our shared dislike doesn't decrease the large number of books and academic papers written about them (and by them), classes taught, or news articles about them, nor does it diminish the major impact they have had on the film industry over the many decades of their existence (even if that impact has been incredibly inconsistent). As unpleasant as they are, they matter according to countless reliable sources. Since Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, mainly summarizes secondary sources, we mention when movies have won Oscars. It's not about how great we think the award is, it's because it's demonstrably significant to the movie according to reliable sources. If a movie is nominated for an Oscar, there will never be a lack of sources about it, and it is very easy for readers to figure out what that means.
Has anything like that, from any source at all, applied to The Red Pill? If so, let's see it.
If I thought that DigiFest or the LIFF was 1/1,000 as significant as the Academy awards, I would leave them in the article. I don't think that case has been made, though. I do not think Wikipedia needs yet another stub article about an obscure festival. We have too many of those already. Is that snobbish? *shrug*. I'm not just saying that as some petty deletionist, I'm saying that we have a real, damaging spam problem, and articles like this would add to it. Take a look at List of film festivals in North and Central America and you'll see some good articles, and some articles that barely say anything, and plenty of articles that were written by interns or festival volunteers and read like a bad press release. This drains editor time, damages Wikipedia's reputation among people not already converted, and in the end, doesn't really provide actual encyclopedic information. You don't have to agree with me, but now you know why I'm not interested in writing it just so it can be added to this article. If you want to do that, I recommend a sandbox or draft, so others can contribute before its published.
I looked for sources on the DigiFest thing last time this came up, and, if I remember correctly, found multiple unrelated festivals with very similar names. This is part of why I say above that it's hard to figure out what it actually is, and its website isn't much help. At some point I intend to go through those articles which mention the Digital Film Conference, or link to its website, and remove those which don't improve the article. The existence of bad content doesn't excuse more bad content. As I said, there is already a serious spam problem, using this as a precedent would be allowing spam to damage articles even more. That's not acceptable. Every source must be evaluated by context. This isn't a new thing. Grayfell (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Red Pill" should be a redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manosphere[edit]

Because this film is secondary to the movement that it reports on, the phrase "The Red Pill" should redirect to the article about the Red Pill movement.

Given that the Red Pill movement is against feminism, it does not make sense for a movie produced by a feminist to be pulled up when the phrase "The Red Pill" is typed in, as it is not likely to represent or reflect upon Red Pill culture in an unbiased way. Furthermore, it is more likely that this article is being used to promote the movie when people are actually searching for information on the movement itself.

While the article on the movie is well put together, it is best listed in a disambiguation given its mixture of political biases and ability to accurately represent the Red Pill movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C558:5DE7:99BF:7A46:6434:8805 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, such as blanking the page and claiming "Wikipedia is controlled by the left" is not acceptable. Are you interested in improving the article, or just in fucking around to try and prove a point?
The phrase 'red pill' is not exclusive to the manosphere, nor the men's rights movement, nor 4chan, etc...
Red pill already redirects to Red pill and blue pill, while The Red Pill is the name of this article. There are already disambiguation templates and wikilinks and nav-boxes in each of these articles making this pretty clear. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funding[edit]

In the section on "Funding," it's stated that "Jaye has said that the suggestion the film was funded by MRAs (men's rights activists) is 'a common lie that keeps spreading,'[3] despite the fact one of the largest pledges to the film was by anti-feminist and men's rights supporter Mike Cernovich." Yet the link for Cernovich doesn't point to any information identifying him as an MRA. MRA and anti-feminist aren't synonyms, while his writings on "men's empowerment" have to do with personal self-help, not political activism.

Unless the claim that Cernovich is an MRA can be substantiated, this text should be removed.Strippy6 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main reason this is fine the way it is is that the source says that he is a men's rights movement supporter:
"The Kickstarter for The Red Pill received a large helping hand in reaching its initial target from Mike Cernovich, anti-feminist author of Gorilla Mindset: How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms and men’s rights movement supporter. Cernovich’s Twitter activity is gleefully controversial: He repeatedly uses the word “faggot,” often disparagingly tweets about SJWs (social justice warriors), and spent the better part of the past few weeks tweeting about the liberal-minded actor Seth Rogen, his wife and their sex life (or lack thereof) under the hashtag #CuckRogen."[3]
The phrasing is direct and supported by the surrounding context. The source also says in the next paragraph that he doesn't identify as a men's rights activist, but being a "supporter" as opposed to being an activist seems like an overly fussy distinction to be making in this specific article.
As for his article saying "men's empowerment", this is slightly euphemistic, and regardless of what happens here, that should be changed at his article. The NYT source for that phrase says "...promoted a message of men's empowerment that often..." This is a single mention in a much longer article used with a large amount of surrounding context. Men's empowerment isn't a known, clearly defined term, so the single passing use of a vague phrase probably shouldn't be used as a defining trait. This kind of thing often leads to problems like this one, but this talk page isn't the place to deal with another article's problems, obviously. Grayfell (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing isn't supported at all by the surrounding context. Not a single action is attributed to him in that paragraph that has anything to do with supporting men's rights or the men's rights movement.Strippy6 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the standard Wikipedia uses. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, we don't attempt to verify precisely how those sources support their claims, because that would be requiring editors to do original research for every source. If you have some specific reason to believe that the source isn't reliable for this, you will need to explain that based on other, reliable sources or some other policy. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:UNDUE. I've removed it, please provide more (better) sources for this so we can weigh it's inclusion. Arkon (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the whole section is mostly UNDUE and cobbeled together, I'd be fine in the whole thing being removed. Other pieces should go at the very least. Arkon (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The funding is, for whatever reason, repeatedly mentioned and discussed by reliable sources. As phrased the Cernovich line was abusing the source to imply a non-neutral conclusion. The underlying point that Cernovich is extremely anti-feminist and aligned with MRAs (he is not, himself, a reliable source) is proportional to the rest of the section. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this piece I removed has been repeatedly mentioned and discussed by reliable sources (in the verbiage you reverted), please add those. I removed any mention of Cernovich I believe, please remove anything I missed until you can provide better sourcing. Arkon (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? It's a single sentence supported by a reliable source which spends multiple paragraphs on this... So what's the problem? Why, exactly, does that make it undue? Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a mention of a person from one source, and framed in that way, in an article about a Movie. We need more to demonstrate any relevance and to satisfy and Label concerns per BLP. Arkon (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arkon: There is a reliable source which says he is anti-feminist and is a supporter of men's rights. What, exactly, is the BLP violation, here? BLP is serious, so to avoid WP:CRYBLP, you need to be explicit on this. BLP is not a license to suppress speech you don't like. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One Daily Dot source for any inclusion (much less labeling of a LP), is not encyclopedic, or within policy. Keep your mind reading fails to yourself. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, why are we doing that kind of labeling in a "Funding" section anyway? Still thinking the whole section could go.... Arkon (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Milo stuff too, honestly could have missed it in previous ref's, but he wasn't in the ones that were cited. Arkon (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are labeling it that because the section is about funding. If you have a better idea for what to call it, fine, but many reliable sources discuss this aspect of it. Yiannopoulos wasn't mentioned, but Breitbart was, and his articles were linked in both of those refs. You still haven't actually answered my question: How is this a BLP violation? No vague hand-waving about undue. Undue isn't BLP. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, that's not supported by the ref's either. A Ctrl-F "Brietbart" is not sufficient for inclusion. You haven't made an argument for inclusion in regards to the original complaint. I've referenced UNDUE (one source, weak at that), BLP (one source, weak at that, used to label a LP). Arkon (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, I mean as I said earlier, this is about labeling a person, not about some section title. Arkon (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarequotes round Balanced[edit]

First, it's not in Wikipedia's voice, it's in Cassie Jaye's voice. Unless you're challenging the fact that she said anything like that. And if so, it should be removed in it's entirety on BLP grounds. Unless you can give me a situation where you can demonstrate that Cassie Jaye doesn't think her documentary is balanced we are either injecting someone else's opinion on top of her paraphrased position. Or we're violating BLP by misrepresenting her. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian source in that section also use quotes around the word 'balanced' in the headline, and doesn't use the word outside of quotes. Speculating, this isn't necessarily The Guardian trying cast doubt on the film's balance, this might be because "balanced" imparts a subjective meaning and therefor needs to be attributed. It would be a poor choice of words for a journalist to say that the film is or is not balanced in this context, and likewise, it would be poor form for us to say that. We're not saying it, of course, but we're implying it by passing the word along as simple fact. One easy fix would be to expand the quote to "a balanced approach", directly attributed to Jaye. This would, I believe, alleviate the scarequote concerns. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is necessary because the entire sentence is attributed to Cassie Jaye through the first three words. And in turn we're not implying anything since we are already attributing the POV to Cassie Jaye. --Kyohyi (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, obviously, but I do think the scarequote concerns are valid. As I said, it doesn't say this, but it does imply it, otherwise why would we even bother to repeat this comment at all? By including this half-quote, why are stating that this fact is encyclopedically significant to understanding the development of the film. That's fine, but this isn't the whole story presented by the sources being used. The Guardian source specifically says the film was "...criticised as unbalanced..." in its sub-headline. Jaye saying it's "balanced" is contextualized by the rest of the article suggesting that it might not be balanced. If we're going to include this quote, we shouldn't ignore the rest of the source.
I've taken a stab at rewriting and rearranged the paragraph in an attempt to address these issues. This now provides the entire quote, with more specific attribution. Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I side wholeheartedly with Grayfell here. Quotes around a single word is very weaselly. It is like doing air-quotes or finger-quotes when speaking. --SVTCobra (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm the one who originally added those quotes, for reasons I've tried to explain. Clearly this was a mistake, but hopefully it's now cleared up. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audience Scores[edit]

I saw an edit where someone had added an audience score which was reverted under the justification that "we don't include audience score." Since I could have sworn I'd seen audience scores mentioned quite a few times, I decided to check the critical reception section of a few movies and that statement is downright wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(2019_film)#Critical_response

  • Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, while those at PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 84% (with an average 4 out of 5 stars) and a 60% "definite recommend."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Endgame#Critical_response

  • Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a rare "A+" grade, the third Marvel film to earn the score after The Avengers and Black Panther, while those at PostTrak gave it 5 out of 5 stars and a "definite recommend" of 85%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_v_Ferrari#Critical_response

  • Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film a rare grade of "A+", while those at PostTrak gave it an overall positive score of 87% (with an average 4.5 out of 5 stars), with 68% saying they would definitely recommend it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Day_in_the_Neighborhood#Critical_response

  • Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale, while those PostTrak gave it an average four out of five stars, with 66% saying they would definitely recommend it.

Furthermore, I've found no policy stating audience scores are not permitted, thus I'll be reverting the removal for now. Akesgeroth (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits but there is a policy re reliable sources and audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes, for example, are specifically excluded because they are not reliable. See WP:UGC Robynthehode (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with removing the audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes in this context. The scores aren't a source being provided for reliable overall reception but for a citation on the score as presented in the Rotten Tomatoes site. There are multiple precedents for this being done and no rules against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correction Coming (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM#Audience response specifically discourages it. User ratings are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew. See vote brigading for how such scores have been manipulated by specific groups in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Erik has said Project Film warns not to use Audience scores. More generally WP:USERGENERATED disallows user voted web polls, because they are not reliable sources WP:RS. The Audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, and others are nothing more than user voted web polls.
Professional polls of actual cinema audiences conducted by survey companies such as CinemaScore or PostTrak are allowed. -- 109.76.132.254 (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Red_Pill&oldid=1208274078"