4 February 2021

• 17:43 17:43, 4 February 2021 diff hist +448‎ Talk:Men Going Their Own Way ‎ →‎On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology
• 17:38 17:38, 4 February 2021 diff hist +480‎ Talk:Men Going Their Own Way ‎ →‎On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology
• 17:30 17:30, 4 February 2021 diff hist +278‎ Talk:Men Going Their Own Way ‎ →‎Citations
• 17:15 17:15, 4 February 2021 diff hist +1,667‎ Talk:Men Going Their Own Way ‎ →‎On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology: new section
• 13:40 13:40, 4 February 2021 diff hist −725‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Funding: Alan Scherstuhl's review was removed on the grounds that Alan Scherstuhl's review belongs in reviews rather than funding. He is not a reliable source on where a political film he opposed got its funding. His opinion on where funding might have come from if he were to guess during an unrelated review in The Village Voice hardly counts as a qualified or reliable source for where funding actually came from. Tag: Reverted
• 13:36 13:36, 4 February 2021 diff hist 0‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: Considering the feminist and meninist war posting and editing has caused extensive restructuring of the page, a restructuring of the page. Tag: Reverted
• 13:21 13:21, 4 February 2021 diff hist −120‎ Talk:The Red Pill ‎ →‎Audience Scores
• 13:13 13:13, 4 February 2021 diff hist −251‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: Rotten Tomatoes critics score removed as unreliable on the grounds that multiple independent studies have been done showing inconsistency in Rotten Tomatoes scores when reviewing politically heated topics. This is most clearly seen when there is a massive discrepancy between audience and critic scores. In addition the attempt to allow only the unreliable score should have the editors responsible banned from editing as they are violating good faith expectations. Tag: Reverted
• 13:09 13:09, 4 February 2021 diff hist −545‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: The Hollywood review is not a reliable source. Tag: Reverted
• 13:08 13:08, 4 February 2021 diff hist −923‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: The Los Angeles Times is not a reliable source. It is a far left wing publication intended to push a clear agenda. Tag: Reverted
• 13:07 13:07, 4 February 2021 diff hist −251‎ The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: Rotten Tomatoes critics score removed as unreliable on the grounds that multiple independent studies have been done showing inconsistency in Rotten Tomatoes scores when reviewing politically heated topics. This is most clearly seen when there is a massive discrepancy between audience and critic scores. In addition the attempt to allow only the unreliable score should have the editors responsible banned from editing as they are violating good faith expectations. Tag: Reverted
• 13:04 13:04, 4 February 2021 diff hist +433‎ Talk:The Red Pill ‎ →‎Audience Scores

3 February 2021

• 20:35 20:35, 3 February 2021 diff hist +1‎ m The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: Closing backslash for the <ref> ... </ref> was missing. Tag: Reverted
• 20:32 20:32, 3 February 2021 diff hist +599‎ m The Red Pill ‎ →‎Critical response: In addition to the critical score from Rotten Tomatoes, I also added the audience score from Rotten Tomatoes. This represents the divisive reception on the film given that the critics gave it a 29% rating while the audience gave it a 92% rating. I also explained that this is likely due to a combination of factors commonly recognized and provided a link to a medium source relating to research on the topic of Rotten Tomatoes audience/critics review score differences. Tag: Reverted