Jump to content

Talk:The Red Pill

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.1.96.21 (talk) at 21:27, 29 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Western Sydney University cancels screening

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

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

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Red_Pill&oldid=782892028"