Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)

Archives (Index)

1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Requested move 13 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus to move the second page, but not the first, so the dab page will be moved to the base name. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

---

• Sound of Freedom (film) → Sound of Freedom
• Sound of Freedom → Sound of Freedom (song)

– Clear primary per pageviews; move current article to Sound of Freedom (song) 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162.208.168.92 (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Sound of Freedom titles a page with significant content and so it is ineligible as a target, new title unless it is also proposed to be renamed. This request has been altered to reflect that fact. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a valid reason for this page move. I think this needs reliable sources and futher discussion to see if this is the primary topic. The film article was created in February 2020, while the song article was created in April 2007. I have created the redirect for "Sound of Freedom (song)", which targets the song article. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The pageviews are clearly indicative of a primary topic, see WP:PTOPIC 162.208.168.92 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support 2nd but per Seventyfiveyears we might be better having a DAB at the basename which can also list Soundz of Freedom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that Soundz of Freedom is already linked at the top of Sound of Freedom (song) as that is the album the song appears on. Also, it gets less than 10 hits/day. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Sound of Freedom (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2nd, Neutral 1st per above. I'd say move Sound of Freedom (disambiguation) to basename of "Sound of Freedom". Primary topic swaps are often quite messy. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ballard certainly puts himself forward as an anti-trafficking activist; but this is far from clear, possibly dubious.

This entire description is as if it were uncontroversial that Ballard is who and what he says he is.

From numerous sources, we know that Ballard is a QAnon activist and purports to witness, for example, child traffickers killing children for their adrenaline-laced blood ("adrenochrome"). Caveziel, similarly, adheres to this QAnon conspiracy theory. These caveats are nowhere evidenced in the current entry. Ballard claims many rescue operations that are not his own and/or are not rescue operations at all. His "4000" figure is completely of his own making. This film is basically a propaganda film for QAnon adherents who have mobilized general public disgust for anti-child trafficking for their own political purposes: claiming that their political opposition support child trafficking/exploitation. --Petzl (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Petzl: the article appears to have been written from a pro-Ballard bias, and many important details are omitted. I will try to find time to edit the article, but in the meantime it should be noted that the article as it currently stands does not appear to be completely factual and objective, and other editors are encouraged to correct it as well. Chillowack (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Unfortunately Wikipedia is now extremely biased and far from neutral. This mindset regarding bias is not applied to many contentious Wikipedia sections which lean significantly far left to the point of clear influence and political motivation. Certain users almost gang up on any conservative view points and I have seen people get banned for doing nothing more than disagreeing respectfully. Trying to associate Ballard with QAnon using questionable and dubious politically motivated statements or sources is disagreeable and apalling to the spirit of what Wikipedia was supposed to be. Raj208 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is strange to me that there are people out there trying to spread there own unfounded ideas and negative baseless assertions against a film that is obviously working to help spread awareness to the scourge that is child trafficking. Why, instead of trying to push you own propaganda against something that would most likely be a net positive, would you not a least stay quiet? so strange. 68.207.91.112 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

it will be used for political campaigns and the disturbing nature of the topic can make one blind for facts in rl. it is far from "can´t hurt" to lie about something like this and will change the minds of some voters.

votes are not unimportant. facts are not unimportant. i think it is strange that this is not taken way more seriously. 2A02:8070:6188:76A0:0:0:0:CE8F (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Please, I've read enough of these talk pages to see what goes on here. The association to Q Anon is far from clear, “Health and Freedom Conference” was not a QAnon event and tying two random QAnon people who happened to be at that event to this film is for what purpose exactly? The only connection you have is Jim mentioning "adrenochroming" without context, in what tone was it spoken? Was it said in jest?

There is no need for the whole QAnon segment to be there, in fact it appears to be there purely to poison the well and serves no actual informative purpose. If, for instance, you happened to believe in socialist policies do you endorse some elements of Nazism? 2404:4404:2A08:1D00:B0D6:D34C:8202:1320 (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

When that section was first added (I didn't write it) I had a similar reaction (although certainly not as POV as yours); I wondered if there was a connection. I read the sources; multiple articles make the connection between this film, the film's subject matter, and the QAnon conference. I'm not sure your statement that "it appears to be there purely to poison the well and serves no actual informative purpose" is supported by facts. Seems like it's relevant and it's certainly informative. I would be in favor of leaving it in place. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a film. The entire section added to this article amounts to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Instaurare (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That section has references, and virtually all of the sources discuss the film. Its wholesale removal (by you) was entirely unwarranted. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The section violates WP:SYNTH. Per WP:BRD you must achieve consensus. Instead you are engaged in edit warring. Instaurare (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It would certainly help my (or any other's) evaluation of a consensus if links to essays weren't thrown around like links to policies or guidelines. A relevant policy is WP:BLPRESTORE, which (contrary to the BRD essay) does require finding a consensus for restoring (at least some of) the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the debate has strayed slightly off course, so let me reiterate the earlier poster's point: this is an article about a film. Political gossip that has nothing to do with the film itself is not encyclopedic and does not belong here. You could certainly include it on the relevant individuals' pages, however. 2601:249:9301:FF80:B9A2:E8EC:B2A0:9851 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Adrenochrome

There is a lot of proof of use of Adrenochrome. It is a real drug taken from human adrenal glands. Children have so much it makes them a target. You are running cover for an evil operation by saying it’s imaginary. 147.160.220.232 (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have proof that "Adrenochroming" is real, please share it: but make sure it meets Wikipedia's standards (i.e. no B.S. websites, blogs, etc.) Chillowack (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we at least edit every Tom Cruz movie Wikipedia article to add a small section about how Scientologists believe in a crazy Xenu conspiracy theory involving the spirits of extraterrestrial people from 75 million years ago?

I mean really, how is this "Qanon" smear not an obvious WP:NPOV issue? 174.192.200.161 (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC) minor edits: 174.192.200.161 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A better example would be Battlefield Earth, which has Scientology connections that cannot be ignored, something the wiki for the movie notes TaserTot (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

If Tom Cruise was using Scientologist rhetoric to promote his movies it would be relevant to the movie pages. In this case, Caviezel literally uses Qanon conspiracy-theorist rants to promote the movie. https://www.tmz.com/2021/04/17/passion-of-the-christ-jim-caviezel-adrenochrome-conspiracy-tim-ballard/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

TMZ isn't considered a reliable Wikipedia source. You argument also puts you in a perilous position where we only need one source that claims Tom Cruise talked about a movie project and Scientology in the same interview to debunk it. And let's be honest, how unlikely is that?

Can you honestly say you're striving for a NPOV here, or are you merely hatin' on that movie about child trafficking that Disney tried to shelf? 174.216.156.175 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Read the talk page below. Source after source covers Caviezel's repeated use of Qanon conspiracy theories to promote the movie, and the astroturfing movement similarly promoting it in far-right fringe circles. And try not to fall too hard into the conspiracy theorist rabbit hole with "insinuations about who doesn’t want this story to be told and what real-world traffickers are really up to." https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-movie-jim-caviezel-trafficking-qanon.html 73.206.167.225 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did Caviezel suggest he had seen evidence of Adrenochroming?

The following sentence appears in the article: "Caviezel suggested he had seen evidence of children being subjected to the practice [of Adrenochroming]." The citation points to a cluster of four articles, which I read, but I could not find in any of them an indication from Cavaziel that he had actually seen evidence. On the contrary: Caviezel states that he "never, ever, ever saw it" being done. Did I miss something? Can someone point to the passage where Cavaziel suggests he saw evidence of Adrenochroming? Thanks. Chillowack (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

If no one can answer my question above, I propose this claim should be deleted from the article, because as I said, the statement does not appear to be supported by the cited sources. Chillowack (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read the four sources, but if what you say is true, I support that. Red Slapper (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

He claims in an interview posted to YouTube that he "knows" it is happening, and in almost the next breath says it's something he's "been told" is happening. Not to be unkind, but this suggests his standard of proof is basically "some dude said". I don't think he makes any claim of evidence, and I'm not even sure what counts as evidence to someone who claims to "know" something based on something uncorroborated someone happened to tell him. However, I presume the issue is whether or not he actually said that is verifiable, and I don't think it is, so I agree it should be removed if it hasn't already been. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC) -- Rrburke (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

Is it just me or is this article heavy on content regarding the personal and political beliefs of the film's lead actor and has too much content questioning the film's accuracy? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There's one two-paragraph section about the film's accuracy -- you consider that "too much content"? Chillowack (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Too much content toward the negative, yes. It's unbalanced in my opinion. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Do we have a precedent in place for adding sections to describe the politics of actors involved in a movie? I didn't realize that was common practice. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, consensus is to have it removed Breakpoint25 (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been coming back and screen capturing each change so that I can show people the evolution of a "take down" Haha. It's hilarious to watch it devolve into pure absurdity. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:E98B:8CEF:C7B7:CC6A (talk) 04:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, From 2009 to 2012 Mira Sorvino was a United Nations Goodwill ambassador for combatting human trafficking, and has lobbied Congress to abolish the practice in Darfur. I mean, since they're putting the Q Anon thing in there and loosely tying it to the film through the actors personal beliefs, then shouldn't Mira's support and role in this matter be highlighted, as well? Or, is it just negative stuff we're looking to highlight? 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:1567:9832:DABD:F5F2 (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have an issue with the accuracy section per se. It’s sourced and on topic. I’m not sure what the commentary about QAnon has to do with the film itself. Yes it would be on topic for a bio of the individuals named but isn’t for the film. It would be like adding a section on Scientology to Top Gun II Lepew57 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just a cursory read made me question why Wikipedia was attempting to discourage people from seeing this film- that's how unsubtle it is. Why even bring up QAnon? That is completely irrelevant to the film- except as a dog-whistle. It is not encyclopedic, it is trying to signal to audiences to boycott this. Those references, at least, should be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:9301:ff80:b9a2:e8ec:b2a0:9851 (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are a legitimate Wikipedia editor, then you probably know that signing your posts is required. Why are you not doing it? Chillowack (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why so accusatory? He asked a pretty straightforward question and your response was "You're not a legitimate editor." Seems a bit gatekeepy and weird. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Do any articles point to QAnon conspiracy theories being promoted in the film? Is there any? If not, does any mention of QAnon belong in the film's page? If the actors are involved, it certainly belongs on their pages, but if the film has nothing to do with it, why would QAnon information need to be here? How is it relevant? 69.14.26.25 (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they do. You can read them in the References list. You can also learn to use Google. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you maybe quote some sections from the references that you think are " QAnon conspiracy theories being promoted in the film"? Specifics please, not a general "read the references', and explictly of the movie doing this, vs. O.U.R's founders or the actors doing this outside the movie. Red Slapper (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You seem confused as to how this works. It's not my job to think about how QAnon conspiracy theories are connected to the film. If there is writing, in reliable secondary sources, about that topic, then it's appropriate for editors to include that information in the article, which they have done. You're not going to get very far with your current tactic, which is very obviously geared towards removing any such connection from this article, because you know that QAnon is bullshit, you know that Caviezel has, for better or worse, subscribed to at least some QAnon bullshit, and for some reason, you adore Caviezel and this movie. I'm done beating this particular dead horse with you. Go outside and play. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it is you who is confused. If you want to mention QAnon conspiracy theories in an article about a movie which is not about them, you need to bring sources that make that connection, explicitly. Every statement can be challenged, and when challenged , the onus is on you to provide supporting quotes for the material that editors object to.

I once again implore you to stop personalizing this and stop your personal attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy is important

Almost every movie on wikipedia that is "based on a true story" has an accuracy section and this one should be no different. There are many articles that talk about how it's not very accurate and the people behind the movie make things up. 2603:6081:5C00:F109:A94D:D6F0:3579:4D06 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This being said the accuracy section needs to focus on film inaccuracies vs real events. Details on the O.U.R. network which are not mentioned in the film have no place on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauser4 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

Variety Review

"Let's assume that, like me, you’re not a right-wing fundamentalist conspiracy theorist looking for a dark, faith-based suspense film"

What is the point of this sentence? What does this have to do with the review of the film ? This is unnecessary political bias and slander that is not informative or apropos. 67.80.251.0 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That's just the critic expressing their own personal views. Even if you disagree, that's not reason enough to remove their entire review from Wikipedia, which is only looking to gauge an accurate portrait of the film's critical reception. --Neateditor123 (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing "slanderous" about that sentence fragment. Chillowack (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

How is that not slander? The critic is attacking his political enemies and labeling them as "fundamentalist conspiracy theorist[s]". It's completely uncalled for. 76.8.213.252 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Removing movie critic comments because they are "uncalled for" is not really what we do here on Wikipedia. Are you new here? I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Chillowack (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Chillowack - surely you can think of better ways to engage than "Read the rules noob!" Is that all you ever contribute? 162.222.63.62 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You can see exactly what I've contributed, in my 15 years on Wikipedia, by looking at my Contributions. You appear to have just created your account today? Or do you have another account? Are you posting from multiple IP addresses? Are you even a legitimate Wikipedia editor? You don't sound like you're coming from a place of good faith, nor do you sound like you are aware of how Wikipedia works, or its purpose. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Chillowack (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section

The "Accuracy" section of this article has been repeatedly deleted, reinstated, and deleted again, simply because a consensus on the Talk Page hasn't been decided on. A consensus should be reached one way or the other, because all this edit warring (mainly from users who don't hold accounts on Wikipedia, nor have done any editing outside of removing information in this article) is extremely unproductive. I'm in favor of leaving the section in. Neateditor123 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, 100% leave it in. I'm one of the people in favor of leaving it in and I have now registered an account if that makes my vote count more. Feral Emerald (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Good. I'm hoping this settles the dispute.--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems a formal, neutral RfC could be helpful. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I second this. As ToBeFree mentioned in this article's edit history, the WP:SYNTH concerns haven't been addressed yet, which needs to be done for a consensus to be reached. --Neateditor123 (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the "SYNTH" issue? I have read that link. I don't see what part of the section fits that description. Feral Emerald (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

You should ask Instaurare or ToBeFree, who raised the issue.--Neateditor123 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I ask them specifically? Feral Emerald (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

We both have been notified by Neateditor123's mention. The issue was raised in edit summaries and in the "certainly puts himself" section above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

All I see is statements saying "this violates SYNTH". I don't see any explanation of how any of it violates SYNTH. That web page says that SYNTH is people taking information from sources and drawing their own conclusions, and I don't see any example of that happening in the text that was deleted. Feral Emerald (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping it, it's relevant to the production of the film and is widely-discussed in media coverage. Leaving it out is ignoring an elephant in the room.65.50.221.18 (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the Accuracy section in, and I also agree an RfC would be good. It seems to me that certain biased "editors" with QAnon-related beliefs have descended on this article and tried to manipulate it in ways that are not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Perhaps these people should be monitored. Some of them don't seem to care as much about Wikipedia as aggressively molding the article to match their own beliefs. Chillowack (talk) 08:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just a simple recent changes patroller breaking up the monotony of my job. I agree about RfC and whatever y'all decide is fine by me.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Skywatcher68, looking at Special:Diff/1163588209 and Special:Diff/1163586038, are you personally concerned that the material is (improper) synthesis of published material, and thus a form of original research? Did you attempt to verify the material and failed doing so using the provided sources? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree, which part of this section are you objecting to on WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:SYNTH grounds? If it's about Caviezel's views, the citations in the text are pretty clear that our sources consider these facts relevant. See for example Vanity Fair – bradv 17:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

When a section dedicated to "[Living person]'s political views" is removed with good-faith objections by multiple editors, it may not be restored, at least not in unmodified form, without consensus. This had happened, though. When fully protecting a page, I have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, so I removed it for now. It seems, though, that at least one editor's removals weren't based on actual content-based concerns but rather the monotony of a job. I hope that impression can be corrected rather than confirmed... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Instaurare made the initial claim; I assume (I know, I know) they attempted verification. At the time of my last edits to the article, there had been no progress made here on the Talk page so I reverted per their reasoning.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope for a really good explanation by Instaurare to follow, because else I'll probably just unprotect the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Their initial revert said that none of the cited sources mention the film, which is clearly incorrect. If this is the source of the WP:SYNTH claim it is mistaken. – bradv 18:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, what a mess. Instaurare is topic-banned from post-1932 American politics, had been warned about this a week ago and continued editing the same material. I'll unprotect now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow, sneaky stuff. Thanks for sorting that out. – bradv 18:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in agreement with the controversies section a it is only regurgitated information about an organization and not relevant to the movie. I'd suggest linking the organization and allow people to view the controversies separately from the organization's wiki page. TruthBeToldByFacts (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree the controversies section is not relevant to the movie. And having a section titled controversies is inappropriate, as it implies something the sources clearly don't state in relation to this movie. And for this nonsense about the "accuracy" of the movie, of course it isn't accurate, Ballard states that himself. The movie is a fictionalized account of his life, this film is not a documentary. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: QAnon

Should the article contain a (sub)section dedicated to connections to QAnon? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you feel the QAnon subsection should be there, Blspur's removal of it was not in good-faith. Nobody here is "offended" by the film's anti-sex-trafficking message (as was said in the article's recent edit history), they just feel like Ballard's/Caviezel's QAnon connections are in a relevant-enough context, as that is directly related to how they promoted the film. I'm in favor of leaving it in. --Neateditor123 (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Not in favor. With the attention to the subsection of the films "accuracy" should suffice which discredits the movie. TruthBeToldByFacts (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: This account was registered 6 days ago. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Accuracy" section is only providing relevant information about the organization the film is based on (O.U.R.), drawn from several reliable sources. I don't see why that should be removed. --Neateditor123 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If only two "reliable" sources (ViceNews and Slate) were found credible than perhaps more sources are need to corroborate its "accuracy". For example, thread states "In a 2020 expose", where are the additional sources to corroborate this? Sourcing and journalism 101. In addition, this information is copy and pasted from the supplied link to O.U.R. organization. Its not relevant to the movie thus the belief this is not relevant information. TruthBeToldByFacts (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Vice News and Slate are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia, so even if currently they're the only sources on this topic (which isn't even true, as the same section links to another article by American Crime Journal), that's not a valid reason to remove them altogether. How is this factual information "not relevant to the movie" when the movie itself is, as the article clearly states, "purportedly based on real events involving [Tim Ballard's organization, O.U.R.]"? --Neateditor123 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Neateditor123 and Hemiauchenia, where at WP:RSP is that? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Neateditor123Please provide reliable sources/perennial sources stating that Wikipedia has accepted Vice News and Slate to be exclusive. With its alleged connection to the QAnon movement (which is a characterization of the individuals and not the movie) I believe it is not appropriate material to be added to this thread. TruthBeToldByFacts (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia doesn't consider publications like Vice News and Slate to always be reliable or exclusive, I was not aware of that. Perhaps I simply could've phrased myself differently when saying "[they're] considered reliable sources by Wikipedia", as after looking into WP:RSP myself (which I appreciate being linked to), it's clear that wasn't the consensus there. My bad, but I don't necessarily see any reason for those specific articles to be removed altogether. --Neateditor123 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The easiest more correct different phrasing would have been "by me" instead of "by Wikipedia", I guess. And that's perfectly fine, but I saw the claim twice on this page and found that strange enough to ask. Thanks for the clarification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per the Guardian and others, the connection is clearly relevant to this article. – bradv 14:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is a commentary and critical response to the movie and not source material to validate alleged QAnon connections. TruthBeToldByFacts (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't being used as a source in the deleted subsection, but it is evidence that reliable sources consider it relevant. – bradv 17:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course we can use a film review in a reliable source to talk about the film. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• No — to a sub-section about Qanon crap, and that whole controversy section needs to be deleted, or severely pruned and placed at the bottom. See MOS:FILM for the order of sections. Neither Vice source in that section mentions any specific controversies about this movie. Likewise, the Slate source in that section does not mention any specific controversies about this movie. So why is there a section in this article implying there is controversies about this movie. That amount of content is totally WP:UNDUE, especially in light of the fact that none of the sources mention any controversies about this movie. If there is controversy surrounding Ballard and O.U.R., then that content should be in the appropriate articles, not in this article about — a "2023 American action film", inspired by the work of Tim Ballard, in other words, it is a fictionalized account of his work. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. As it's written, the section feels somewhat WP:COAT or WP:SYNTH, but Bradv's source shows that it has potential. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No. In the most basic sense, the sources 'The Guardian', 'Rolling Stones', 'Wall Street Journal' all fail to specifically state the connections they feel make it related to Q-Anon beyond the concept of child trafficking concerns. There's fundamentally not enough to connect this film with Q-Anon.

Due to the political lean of the sites making this connection along with their lack of defining a legitimate critique, it's clear the criticism comes from a place of desiring hate clicks. It as such has no value being linked to the film. 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:B1E2:7FE9:8B87:23BF (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it needs to be remove, it is irrelevant Breakpoint25 (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Note to closer: This Breakpoint25 account made a total of 17 edits before showing up here, and their last one was from over 3 years ago. Smells fishy. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Does that make their opinion invalid? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It makes them probably a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, so yeah, it makes their opinion here one that should be discounted. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, because the Guardian, WaPo, and Rolling Stone all discuss Caviezel's Qanon beliefs prominently. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, agreed. Support inclusion. There are high-quality reliable sources that discuss the QAnon connection, and it should certainly be included and expanded upon. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Not relevant to the film itself Snotbottom (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Note for closer: This account was created 9 days ago (the day before this comment), this was its first edit, and it made only one edit 7 minutes after this edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Support inclusion. I would also say that Sound of Freedom belongs mentioned on the Q-Anon page as well. Enough evidence that the two are linked, and it is a criticism of the film. Why would the Director of the film have their lead roll filled by someone who engages in conspiracies on a topic of said film? It is a legit criticism of the film.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion. I do not see how an actor's beliefs have anything to do with a film where a topic is not explicitly addressed. This would be similar to if Harvey Weinstein controversies were all of his movies that he was connected to. Obviously, those are not included in those articles because they have no bearing on the films themselves. It seems like quite a far stretch. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I randomly went to the Shakespeare in Love article to see if your statement is true. It is not. The article explicitly discusses the Weinstein sexual abuse cases. So does Wind River. So does Amityville: The Awakening. So does The Current War. So does The Guardian Brothers. So, your argument is basically rendered invalid. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you find a non-"MeToo backlash" example? Perhaps something about a crazy Xenu conspiracy theory involving the spirits of extraterrestrial people from 75 million years ago? If not, maybe we should put a short section about "Hanoi Jane" in the On Golden Pond Wikipedia article as well as a new Jason Mewes' substance abuse issues section in the Clerks_(film) article?

The Wind River example at least pertains to distribution rights. Shakespeare in Love's blurb seems a little out of place. Amityville: The Awakening sorta-kinda ties this in with distribution rights. It's notable that none of these articles you gave as examples have a Harvey Weinstein is a poopy-head like section.

Unlike this article which of course has a bold Connections to the QAnon conspiracy theory section.

So, your argument is basically rendered invalid. Also, stop trying to "disappear" talk page comment you disagree with. This is nothing short of vandalism.174.216.156.175 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You saying "This is nothing short of vandalism" is pretty solid evidence that you have no idea how Wikipedia works. My advice: sit this one out. You're out of your depth. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Take your condescending attitude elsewhere, the log clearly shows your reverts without comment or explanation.

I see you have no rebuttal to the issue at hand, I was hoping you would defend a separate "Harvey Weinstein is a poopy-head" like section inside of every article about every movie he was ever associated with. 174.216.156.175 (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ehhh, I respectfully disagree. Similarly to what 174.216.156.175 there is not a subsection with bold lettering describing sexual assault allegations because it has no bearing on the film itself.

174.216.156.175 also said this so maybe we shouldn't be taking his opinions as those of someone who is looking to make Wikipedia better and more neutral, what do you say? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because I agreed with him on one issue is not a blanket of support or an endorsement of anything and everything he has done. I was unaware of any of his other contributions. I'd ask that you would assume WP:GOODFAITH for me. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I will give you another example a different example Mel Gibson. Many people viewed him as being Blacklisted and his film back Hacksaw Ridge only mentions "controversies".

Here is another one - Bill Cosby. The Cosby Show does not include a bold subsection regarding Bill Cosby sexual assault cases and these are actual criminal cases. It only includes two very breif sentences. I mean if it is not deemed applicable for Cosby, how can we honestly say an actor's conspiracy theory deserves a subsection or even inclusion? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Because reliable sources covering the the film discuss the actor's, and the producer's, connections to QAnon and the subject matter of the film. That's how it goes. You can't ignore the commentary of reliable sources just because you think there should be no coverage outside of the plot of the film itself in this article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not denying nor ignoring the fact that sources have covered their theory of the films connection to QAnon. Personally, I don't see the connection and do not see how a sources opinion (movie reviews and discussions are opinions) has a bearing on the article when the topic is never discussed or mentioned in the movie. To me it violates WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTGOSSIP & WP:RUMOR. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You personally don't see a connection between a film about child exploitation starring Caviezel playing Ballard, and real life events where Caviezel and Ballard talk about adrenochroming nonsense at QAnon conferences? I'm trying to assume good faith but you're making it difficult. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s correct. When the film does not mention it or reference any sort of conspiracy theory AND when all sources have not made a statement of any sort of QAnon or any conspiracy being displayed or promoted in the based on the on-screen performance. Ballard has also said he doesn’t know what QAnon is. [1]https://www.foxnews.com/video/6331029796112 Grahaml35 (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

He's saying that now, but he wasn't saying it in 2020, when he said “Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes". He knows what QAnon is. Don't bullshit us with nonsense. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin WP:HOSTILE & WP:POOR. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Support inclusion. This is not a random link. There are multiple sources that discuss the links between Caviezel, the film, and Qanon, including an article on Fox News that explicitly complains about the various sources that talk about the links. I can't see how we can ignore it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple sources cited in the article make an explicit link between the film and QAnon. Arbitrarily leaving it out is censorship. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple sources make the link, this is Wikipedia, we base these articles on sources, we can't just leave out parts of stories just because some people may not like it.--YannickFran (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Needs to be included. The connections to Qanon are in a large number of mainstream outlets. And it's ridiculous that someone deleted the section out of hand already. https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/sound-of-freedom-jim-caviezel-child-trafficking-qanon-movie-1234783837/ Especially when Caviezel outright used QAnon conspiracy theories to hawk the movie. https://www.thedailybeast.com/passion-of-the-christ-star-jim-caviezel-hawks-qanon-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, against inclusion. I felt the same way before someone decided to try to delete comments I've made on this page arguing against inclusion, and still feel the same way.

I gave the (reverse) example of not having little blurbs about Scientology regularly included in Wikipedia articles where actors like Tom Cruise play a starring role. If anyone can cite a long established example of something like this being a regular feature of films that employ actors that believe in (for example,) Scientology, I would be willing to reconsider. 174.216.156.175 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note for closer: This IP has only made a single edit outside of this article, aside from article-related issues on user talk pages. Googleguy007 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Even covered on CNN. The removal of the section against consensus shown here was highly inappropriate and someone needs to fix it. https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/04/19/jim-caviezel-theory-donie-osullivan-qanon-pkg-newday-vpx.cnn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. Not including a section on the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the article about this film would break long-established precedent for articles on films that claim to be based on a true story. Also, the well-documented connections to QAnon and related conspiracy theories is important for inclusion as well. Wikepedia's readership needs to be given full coverage of this film, not just the marketing materials put out by Ballard, Caviezel, and Angel Studios. Kevin ^{AKA Hallward's Ghost} 18:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

No, against inclusion *Unless* an article can be found saying that the movie contains and/or promotes QAnon conspiracy theories. The article is about the movie, not what the actors believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.26.25 (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Literally every single reliable source cited in the article makes that connection. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The movie does not mention QAnon at any point. Grahaml35 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do, and that is all that matters. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Note for closer: This ip has only made two edits outside of this article, one of which was to respond to an article related comment on its talk page. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Amount of edits is not indicative of strength of argument Anon0098 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It is indicative of sock/meatpuppeting, or offwiki canvassing. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion. --L.Smithfield (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion. The actors/producers views on politics shouldn't be reflected on a page about a movie. If those want to be included or discussed, they should be put on those pages. Plain and simple. Kline | yes? 20:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There are literally a dozen articles in reliable sources about the film that discuss the "actors/producers views" on QAnon. Did you not look into the reference list at all? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. They shouldn't be included at all because this is the page about a movie, not the views of an actor that was featured. Those are unnecessary filler and, at least in my opinion, trying to drum up the general populace about something stupid. Kline | yes? 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A "movie" is more than what is shown on the screen. It includes production, promotion, box office, etc.

And the promotion of the movie is tied with QAnon. Alcyon007 (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What are you basing this ('the promotion of the movie is tied with QAnon') on? Which source says that? Red Slapper (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent question. I haven’t seen any source saying that the marketing or promotion of this movie is tied with QAnon. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.insider.com/sound-of-freedom-tim-ballard-qanon-medicare-fraud-2023-7

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169916

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/jim-caviezel-pushes-qanon-bizarre-media-blitz-new-anti-trafficking-movie

Jim Caviezel was promoting the movie with QAnon theories, this is well documented. Alcyon007 (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Where does the BBC source say the promotion of the film is tied with QAnon? The only thing I can see there is a statement that that star (Caviezel) supports QAnon, but that's not quite the same thing.

There is a claim, by a left wing advocacy group (Media Matters, which is also your 3rd source, "Yellow" at RSNP) that there's prong of the film's marketing that '"The other key prong of this marketing blitz is Jim Caviezel absolutely embracing QAnon messaging and theories.' - but that is an opinion from a partisan advocacy group, not facts that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice Red Slapper (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

3 sources, one uses a left wing advocacy group, I gave you a link to the complete article from the group, with verifiable facts:

"On June 20, Caviezel again appeared on War Room to promote the film, and offered two distinct but related Q-derived conspiracies — one about the chemical adrenochrome and the other about Ukrainian biolabs."

But your reply is "everything is false". Got it.

https://www.vox.com/culture/23794355/sound-of-freedom-controversy-true-story-qanon

Looking at your page is enough to understand your crusade. Wikipedia doesn't work that way and you won't have it your way. The section will remain. But could you stop replying to me when I was replying to Kline? Thanks a lot. Alcyon007 (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Again : where does the BBC source say the promotion of the film is tied with QAnon?

I have no idea what page you looked at to understand "my crusade", my goal is to have accurate wikipedia articles.

Caviezel supporting QAnon is not the same as "the movie promotes QAnon", and when you post something in an RfC, you can expect many people will respond to you. If you want to have a private conversation with Kline, email them. Red Slapper (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Strawman argument. Goodbye, you are not here to improve wikipedia. Alcyon007 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a strawman at all, but off you go, sleeper account. Red Slapper (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• ‘’’ No, against inclusion.’’’ There are no references to Q-Anon in the film. There are no references to adrenalchrome or whatever the hell that is in the film. Its inclusion isn’t relevant to the article. Lepew57 (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion Looking at the references only two are actually about the film. The others predate the film by two years. Most of the section is a coatrack that may apply to people involved with the film but not the film itself. While some might make the argument for including a single Qanon related sentence based on the two sources about the film even there the link amounts to the WP crediting The Guardian with claiming this and then it's how people involved with the movie are Qanon adjacent rather than directly involved. So the film, according to the cited sources is two steps removed. It's that much worse that the section is in the middle of the article rather than at the end (after the movie's reception) and that it contains so much coatract content such as mentioning that L. Lin Wood was at an event in 2021. Springee (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Springee, how about these sources [2][3][4][5]? –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you area aware that Rolling Stone is not considered a good sources for political topics. Variety only mentions that RS made a fuss about the Qanon angle and only did that near the end of the article. Slate isn't exactly a high end source and it says the movie makes no references to Qanon etc. Given the Slate writer appears to be a media reporter on a rant I'm not sure why we would give his opinions any particular weight. It appears you missed that the Guardian is already one of the sources in the article. Springee (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Whether or not its a stand alone section we are going to have to cover it heavily in order to meet WP:NPOV. Some people seem to think that not having the section means we won't cover this at all but unfortunately thats just not possible, we literally can not do that without rewriting NPOV or declaring this a IAR situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• OBSERVATION: it's amazing how every 'no' commenter's argument is just fingers in the ears screaming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT claims that the RS don't show what the RS clearly show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.115.150.77 (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) striking comment by block-evading IP, see [6].

• Yes, include - Although the content removed here includes a number of sources that don't belong because they're about to the actors and people associated with Sound of Freedom rather than the film itself, we do have plenty [7][8][9][10] that cover the QAnon connection directly. As such, NPOV requires that we include it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this; writing to say I think the Accuracy section has a similar issue. ByVarying (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion: WP:SYNTH. There is no evidence that the film is in anyway connected to QAnon and the actors/producers views are not in any way relevant. Wikipedia articles are no place to beat a political horse. Ciridae (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you reckon it's irrelevant? WP:NPOV requires that we cover "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; what policy-based reason do you have for excluding this well-sourced content? –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support inclusion The ties to QAnon and its conspiracy theories are directly relevant to the fact that this film depicts a fantasy vigilante story, rather than the facts of child abduction & trafficking. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  The film is based on a true story so it is not really a "fantasy". Also, it is not a documentary film so it is not going to be about facts. Grahaml35 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You should probably read the Post article which documents how Ballard admits the specific story told in this film did not actually happen, so no, it's not based on a true story. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"based on a true story" doesn't mean every scene has a specific real-life counterpart. The "true story" in this case is Ballard anti-trafficking activities, including raids to rescue trafficked children. Red Slapper (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Based on a true story" means they took some core kernel of truth and then constructed a fantasy around it. It does not indicate any adherence to facts, and we have zero reason to believe Ballard's stories. Especially since he espouses QAnon nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Zero reasons? They arrested child traffickers. [11]https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/ [12]https://heavy.com/news/sound-of-freedom-real-true-story/ Grahaml35 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

neither the historyvshollywood site or the heavy.com site articles count as Reliable Sources. All they do is repeat self-promotional claims from Ballard and OUR without fact checking. The reliable sources on this topic are also clear that Ballard is at best "inconsistent" with his claims to whether he believes QAnon or not, whether he knows what QAnon is or not, and quite often he claims to not know or not be affiliated with QAnon right before using exact QAnon talking points. He is therefore not credible on this topic just as the fact checkers have shown his claims about his past and his organization's conduct are not reliable. Saikyoryu (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

if by "fantasy" you mean a fictionalized account, then yes. But it certainly not removed from real life events. Raids to rescue children by O.U.R are documented, and they very much resemble the depiction in the film. Ballard is a real person, and his activities are known and similar to what is depicted in the movie. Please educate yourself on the background material before commenting further. Red Slapper (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the background material, so take your condescension elsewhere. OUR exaggerates their exploits. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps they do, but that doesn't make this film not based on a true story or lack "any adherence to facts". You should tone down your hyperbole, it doesn't add credibility to your arguments. Red Slapper (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, against inclusion. Opinion laundering. It can't be tolerated. Data.kindnet (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: this datakindnet account has made 29 edits in 5 years, and just came out of an 11-month slumber to post this one comment. Obvious meatpuppet/sockpuppet. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin I ask you to again assume WP:GOODFAITH. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grahaml35: There does appear to be an odd pattern of editing and we've already had a number of socks blocked from this page. This is one of those times where GOODFAITH becomes complicated... Just as Fred Zepelin is required to abide by AGF regarding Data.kindnet you are required to abide by AGF regarding Fred Zepelin. Do you think offwiki canvasing is more likely to explain the disruption? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Horse Eye's Back, I was simply reminding Fred Zepelin of AGF (for the second time in this RfC) as they seem to be becoming more and more WP:UCEPE. I think there have been people coming in on both sides of the issue somewhat out of nowhere. I have no reason to know if offwiki canvasing is happening. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And I hope you realize that I'm reminding you of AGF, happy trails! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Have a good one! Grahaml35 (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grahaml35: If you think that me pointing out the odd pattern of editing from multiple accounts in this Talk page is me acting in bad faith, I encourage you to report me at an administrator notice board. Here's a helpful directory in case you think you have a case. Meanwhile, stop beating the dead horse - I clearly got your message on my talk page, since I responded directly to you, and that should be enough for you. Take it to an admin and watch how quickly they admonish you for wasting everyone's time. Have a nice day. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Well this is awkward … I didn’t leave a message on your talk page - that was a different user. They just happen to be suggesting that you assume WP:GOODFAITH as well. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• No, against inclusion. Since QAnon is mentioned in sources only in passing, it would become a coat rack. Better to have a section on the political dimension of the film which could reference the claim in reliable sources that it is a gateway to QAnon, some of the contributors are QAnon conspiracy theorists and probably most of the viewers. The film attempts to link child sexual exploitation to a liberalism, which can only be countered by Christians. That's similar to QAnon of course, but not exactly the same thing. TFD (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  How does the film "attempt[s] to link child sexual exploitation to a liberalism"? Red Slapper (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• No this is WP:UNDUE, especially for there to be an entire subsection. From what I've seen in the RSs, there is no mention of this in the actual film. If this information is included at all, it should be under critical response or production since it is the extraneous beliefs of others surrounding the movie.
• Yes obviously, per plethora of sources given by others. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Given that most of the RS bring up the (so they say) apparent QAnon beliefs of actors etc. and influences of QAnon on the movie, it seems untenable and a violation of WP:NPOV to just not mention it. But in the interest of finding a solution that more editors might agree to, what if we followed the newer Nytimes review and only said that "some critics say" Sound of Freedom has QAnon attributes (or a different wording) and then discussed the individual reviews' observations about QAnon—but attributively, not directly in wikivoice (i.e., using phrases like "according to Rolling Stone," etc.). ByVarying (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable proposal. Lepew57 (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A review on a website for which you need a subscription to access? Interesting. Traptor12 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"more editors might agree to"? If you discount the IP editors, and the accounts that have only a handful of edits, and the accounts that haven't edited anything in years only to show up here, the consensus is overwhlemingly to leave the material in as is. Let's not "both sides" this in the interest of satisfying an internet mob with an agenda, which has clearly come to the encyclopedia for one reason only. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll just mention I am active on Wiki nearly everyday with over 4,500 edits, and am against inclusion. I have no agenda. Grahaml35 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been archived, so you can read it if you want to. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

"some critics say"

See WP:WEASEL. This would not be a good change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be weasel in this case, because my suggestion is to follow the sentence including the phrase "some critics" with discussion of the specific RS included in "some critics." Read further on WP:WEASEL. ByVarying (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If we're directly quoting the source, sure. But we don't just make a "some critics say" line, and then cite a few articles which use that wording. I am familiar with WP:WEASEL, and it doesn't mean we can just slap those cites onto our own "some critics" phrasing.

So if you want to directly quote an article's use of "some critics say," that would work. But we shouldn't make our own "some critics say" line and then just append some citations to it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said above replying to you, and not what I said in my proposal. I didn't say to merely add citations; I said to have a sentence using the phrase "some critics," and then immediately after have discussion of the RS the phrase "some critics" refers to—just like the exception given at WP:WEASEL:

"The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in ... a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution."

ByVarying (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify what you mean by "discussion" then, because that sounds more like WP:OR than anything appropriate for the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Why assume it would be OR? I don't get it. As I think I well enough implied in the original proposal, the discussion of those RS (say, Rolling Stone and The Guardian) would be of the form "According to Rolling Stone, [summary of Rolling Stone's description of the QAnon connections]. According to The Guardian, [summary of The Guardian's description of the QAnon connections]." That's not OR. ByVarying (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Well for one, that's not a "discussion." A discussion implies we're writing a narrative, hence why it sounds like WP:OR.

What you're describing is more like rote repetition/quotation of the sources. And doing "X said, and Y said, and Z said" isn't going to be very helpful.

What I'd suggest is writing out what you want this to look like in a new section, and allow people to look it over and either suggest changes or say "this isn't going to work." At least then it'll be more clear what you're proposing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"rote repetition/quotation of the sources" I don't know how you got that idea. I said "summary." I meant "summary" the same way the word "summary" is used several times in the first two paragraphs of WP:FOLLOWSOURCE. (Are you claiming that following sources is "rote repetition"?) All I am suggesting, then, is WP:INTEXT attribution of these sources that have been challenged, because it seems like small potatoes. ByVarying (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you got that idea

You literally suggested: "According to Rolling Stone, [summary of Rolling Stone's description of the QAnon connections]. According to The Guardian, [summary of The Guardian's description of the QAnon connections]."

That's not a summary, that's rote repetition. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems like all you could be objecting to is the use of identical sentence structure and the phrase "according to" twice (I refuse to believe you think summarizing two sources in succession is unacceptable, sorry). But did you really think those aspects were in any way essential to what I'm suggesting? Nothing you've written about my proposal has been in any way constructive either. Repeatedly nitpicking at trivia in everything I write as some kind of comeback for your being wrong about WP:WEASEL is not a way to improve the article. ByVarying (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 5 July 2023

Requesting a minor change in the "Critical reception" section. The sentence "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 85% based on 13 reviews, with an average rating of 7/10." should be updated to "On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 87% based on 15 reviews, with an average rating of 7.1/10." This is clearly visible on the film's Rotten Tomatoes page (at least, as of the time of writing), so the article should reflect this. --Neateditor123 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Neateditor123 (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done (but we don't need to update this whenever it changes) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Slate and Vice News

Slate and Vice News are not legitimate sources and have a well-documented history of politicizing movies and TV. 2601:98A:B7F:A9D0:9037:4B8D:1D1A:AAA1 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Stealthmouse (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Although technically, I'm more concerned with the comments above that seem to be writing an editorial and trying to create editorial commentary rather than simply editing a Wiki page. It is not the job of an editor to determine the veracity of a person nor whether typically used sources are accurate or properly "toned." That is a task for readers. Wiki should be an information source, not a propaganda source. Sadly, it has nosedived heavily toward the latter in recent years. Stealthmouse (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Both Slate and Vice News are generally reliable and useable sources. That said, It's debatable how much this article should go into the various controversies surrounding O.U.R., as that isn't the topic of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:Vice says that there is no consensus regarding Vice. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They're both reliable sources. Also, the film itself is political. They are not the ones politicising it. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Take this line out, it's ridiculous

"A 2021 article in Slate criticized a 2014 raid conducted by O.U.R. in the Dominican Republic, saying that it was likely to have traumatized the trafficked children"

Does it sound logical or credible that kidnapped children held by criminals would have been tramitized by being rescued too harshly. Reads like a feeble attempt to smear the rescuers. Please edit it. 47.205.62.21 (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It is perfectly logical to anyone who understands that the world is not as simple as mindless feel-good action flicks like to portray it. Especially ones made by right-wing populists. 46.97.170.154 (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"right wing populism" is when you rescue children from sex trafficking.

Lefties don't defend grooming challenge: Impossible 46.7.28.113 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks have no place on a talk page. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It actually sounds quite plausible to me that a self-appointed vigilante with no formal training in child psychology, who has admitted he is trying to land a reality show, might not have taken the time to understand the nuances of something as complex as extracting children from sex traffickers, and that he would have failed to give sufficient thought to the welfare of the children during and after the operation. There are valid questions about this man's methods and the veracity of his claims. That doesn't mean he's a bad person, but nor is he a flawless hero whom we should blindly give the benefit of the doubt about everything. Chillowack (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The quote in question, up top, is unrelated to this film. I can't think of any reason for it to be included in this article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The quote in question is about the people the film is about, and is meant to expose the blatant dissonance between the idealized vision this film paints and the ugly reality. It's relevant when discussing the accuracy of a fiml allegedly based on real events. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Commercial success

The lead should mention that it is a commercial success too. It's out selling Indiana Jones in the US. Seems a bit harsh giving it the full lock ...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I’m so confused. I have over 2,100 edits and the mods think it’s dangerous to let me edit the page. Wonder what they’re trying to shut down? EytanMelech (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

EytanMelech, the revision history of the article, and the "reaching a consensus" section above, may explain why "the mods" acted this way. The situation changed shortly after you made your comment, and you are now able to edit the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add O.U.R connection to the lede

The fact that this film is a PR piece for O.U.R is one of, if not the most important piece of information here. It's included in the body of the article under the Accuracy subheading, but it needs to be mentioned in the lede. I'm also confused as to why all mentions of QAnon needed to be removed. A brief acknowledgement is perfectly appropriate, as it is relevant to the nature of the film, and the organization it's trying to promote. 46.97.170.154 (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hard disagree on the O.U.R. connection in the lede. Unless OP can provide evidence O.U.R. funded the film, there is no evidence it is a PR piece for O.U.R. Mentioning O.U.R. as the primary source for the film in the accuracy section (which I suggested below) is sufficient. Isaacium (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

OUR connection is clear in news coverage. It needs to be mentioned in the lede. https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2023/07/10/sound-of-freedom-box-office-sales 73.206.167.225 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America

See this article. Doug Weller talk 14:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggesting an edit to remove this section.

The film is based on a real-life story regarding child trafficking and a charity organisation that is attempting to free children. The movie has no aspect of the Q-Anon conspiracy. This seems to be a fake controversy for media outlets to get clicks.

It should be noted also that the media outlets (The Guardian, Rolling Stones and Wall Street Journal) are all left-leaning meaning a political bias is likely. In addition these media outlets who seem to have an issue with this film, labeling it as Q-Anon related, have voiced support for a film sexuality young children 'Cuties'.

It should be considered that the sources attempting to depict saving children from child trafficking may, as such, not be doing so with the best interests at heart and are generating false controversy to get hate clicks. 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:B1E2:7FE9:8B87:23BF (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying the Wall Street Journal is "left-leaning"??? 71.69.178.124 (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Allsides.com an independent reviewed site labels it as 'center' and in community feedback of 55,027 ratings from individuals labelling themselves as left, left leaning and center agreed.

As such it is center or center left-leaning if it's primarily being judged as center by left-leaning individuals.

Source: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/wall-street-journal-media-bias 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:5D9F:EC39:D948:5D6A (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You said "community feedback of 55,027 ratings from individuals labelling themselves as left, left leaning and center agreed" - I don't see that anywhere. Looks like you made it up. Thanks for showing up, but you'll be disregarded for lying. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one RS away from being smeared as a 'far-right' film

Who will be the editor that links to such a future article as a source? ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It can be you, if you are aware of such a source. I have not seen one, but then again, I haven't gone looking for that specific thing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: please add citation for the QAnon section

Hello, please add recent article from The Guardian as a reference / citation for the section on QAnon influences.

Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America by Charles Bramesco, 6 July 2023. Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Wuffuwwuf (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested edit

ScreenRant did an article on the film and confirmed that much of the film's story was accurate, with minor inaccuracies largely occurring as a result of runtime.[22]

This article “confirms the story is accurate” by talking to Ballard who is accused of lying in the other articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.195.186 (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Still worthwhile to include the ScreenRant source. Currently, the accuracy section casts aspersions on Tim Ballard and his organization, not necessarily the movie itself. ScreenRant [1], and History vs. Hollywood [2] add critical information on the accuracy of the movie compared to the accuracy of what claimed to have happened in real life. Can include that the movie is based on Ballard and his organization's claims, which are not yet verified as true by independent sources, as The Cinemaholic has done [3]. Currently, the accuracy section suggests the entire movie is false.

I suggest the following edit (my additions in bold; my deletions in strikethrough):

While the film is purportedly based on real events involving Ballard's O.U.R., the accounts of those events have been questioned by researchers and reporters. The film is based on real events provided by Ballard and O.U.R. but have not been independently verified [3]. According to Ballard himself, there were minor inaccuracies which compressed the runtime and aided flow of the film [1][2]. Though not questioning any specific aspect of the film itself, the integrity of O.U.R. has been questioned by various media sources. In a 2020 expose, Vice News says that Ballard embellished O.U.R.'s role in the rescue of a trafficked woman. A 2021 follow-up article further criticized O.U.R.'s practices, including using inexperienced donors and celebrities as part of its jump team, a lack of meaningful surveillance or identification of targets, failing to validate whether the people they intended to rescue were in fact actual trafficking victims, and conflating consensual sex work with sex trafficking. A 2021 article in Slate criticized a 2014 raid conducted by O.U.R. in the Dominican Republic, saying that it was likely to have traumatized the trafficked children. Anne Gallagher, an authority on human trafficking, wrote in 2015 that O.U.R. had an "alarming lack of understanding about how sophisticated criminal trafficking networks must be approached and dismantled" and called the work of O.U.R "arrogant, unethical and illegal". In 2016, the Justice Department also forbade the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force from giving any official aid to the group.

Investigative journalists Lynn Packer and Damion Moore of American Crime Journal reported that Tim Ballard lied about his involvement in the case portrayed in the film and fabricated details about his child sex trafficking activities.

/End edit

Sources:

[1] Sound Of Freedom True Story - 3 Changes To Tim Ballard's Story (& 4 Things The Movie Gets Right) (screenrant.com)

[2] Sound of Freedom vs. the True Story of Tim Ballard (historyvshollywood.com)

[3] Is Sound of Freedom a True Story? Is the 2023 Movie Based on Real Life? (thecinemaholic.com) Isaacium (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, this line "While the film is purportedly based on real events involving Ballard's O.U.R., the accounts of those events have been questioned by researchers and reporters." is especially egregious and should be removed because none of the sources given actually question "the accounts of those events" as depicted in the film, only other aspects of O.U.R. Isaacium (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I'm impressed that this article has inspired Isaacium to return to editing, as they had only made one edit, over a year ago, and have been spurred into action by the Sound of Freedom article. I'm hopeful they will continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way after this recent restart of their contributions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2023

The section regarding the film’s inaccuracies should be reorganized, as it is misleading in its current form. The writer goes on about sketchy news organizations saying the film is inaccurate and then changes its tune with a few sentences at the end of the section. Very misleading. If this is a reputable encyclopedia, it must not fall victim to bias. The people will inevitably smell it out and stop using Wikipedia. Personally, I enjoy his source and would prefer to continue using it. However, it seems Wikipedia has been hijacked by bias.. we must be better. Normal people can smell BS 73.216.138.78 (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the remarks on actors

The views of the actors do not reflect on the actual film itself and the controversy behind it is focused on the actors,the actors themselves should have the controversy on their pages as opposed to the films page.

It is akin to remarking on the controversies of any actor every time a new film is released. If we did this with every film then we'd have a never ending list. 2A00:23C7:802:DF01:5D9F:EC39:D948:5D6A (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: remove entire section "QAnon" for violating WP:NPOV and replace it with nothing.

If you don't want to do that, cite byzantine rule you are selectively interpreting that allows you to circumvent the "Wikipedia prime directive" when a woke POV is more important. 174.192.200.161 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.216.156.175 (talk)

Please join the discussion in the "RfC: QAnon" section above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Protected"

Film's portrayal: cultish. "On its surface, the movie, directed by Alejandro Gómez Monteverde, is a straightforward search-and-rescue thriller, in which Ballard, a special agent at the Department of Homeland Security, goes rogue to free a young girl from the clutches of a Colombian sex-trafficking ring. But it arrived in theaters surrounded by a cloud of innuendo put forth by its star and its noisiest right-wing supporters—conspiratorial insinuations about who doesn’t want this story to be told and what real-world traffickers are really up to."

"Although the movie makes no reference to QAnon or its associated conspiracy theories, which only began to leak into the mainstream the year before it was completed, Caviezel has been enthusiastically using his press tour to profess his belief in an international black market where a barrel of children’s body parts goes for a thousand times the price of oil."

https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-movie-jim-caviezel-trafficking-qanon.html

Film's factual accuracy: nonexistent even according to a participant https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/05/sex-trafficking-raid-operation-underground-railroad.html?pay=1689043785152&support_journalism=please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I guess Red Slapper wants to ensure there is not accurate coverage on this page.

What I want to ensure is that you don't expose wikipedia to libel lawsuits by violating the projects BLP policy. You can add reliably sourced critical reviews of the film to the article. As a side note, your first link doesn't say the film is "cultish", and your second one doesn't say its factual accuracy is nonexistent. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in your ability to add this article in a productive manner. Red Slapper (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of QAnon section?

Umm, looks like Jpeterson101 has ignored the talkpage discussion and RfC above, and unilaterally removed pertinent information from the article. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Fans of this movie apparently wrote the article and now they're desperate to keep anything that isn't promotional off of this page. It's typical behavior for the Qanon followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

My neighbour was accused of murder. He said he didn't do it. It was such typical behavior for a mass murderer, I can't even. (Sounds dumb, right?)2604:3D09:C77:4E00:25ED:A8FA:9BA7:9869 (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have restored this section. Kevin ^{AKA Hallward's Ghost} 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023

Undo inappropriate large removal of content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Freedom_%28film%29&diff=1164785553&oldid=1164780175

The edit made by JPeterson101 was inappropriate and against clear consensus in this talk page. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have restored that section with a slightly changed subsection title. Kevin ^{AKA Hallward's Ghost} 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with it.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:25ED:A8FA:9BA7:9869 (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Please remove "Qanon" from the categories

Qanon is not mentioned in the article at all, but the Qanon category appears in the footer. Can we please delete that as it doesn't apply to this article. Thank you2604:3D09:C77:4E00:25ED:A8FA:9BA7:9869 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The section regarding connections of QAnon to the movie and the use of QAnon talking points by Ballard and Caviezel to promote the movie was inappropriately removed against consensus, and a request has been entered to restore the missing content. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

well unless or until it gets restored the category doesn't apply at present so please remove it. Thank you2604:3D09:C77:4E00:5822:CD7A:FB66:AA8 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2023 (2)

Please add to the lede: Promotion of the movie has been heavily tied to Qanon conspiracy theories.

Sources: "Caviezel has been enthusiastically using his press tour to profess his belief in an international black market where a barrel of children’s body parts goes for a thousand times the price of oil." https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-movie-jim-caviezel-trafficking-qanon.html

"Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed boosterism among the far-right fringe, a constellation of paranoids now attempting to spin a cause célèbre out of a movie with vaguely simpatico leanings. The uninitiated may not pick up on the red-yarn-and-corkboard subtext pinned onto a mostly straightforward extraction mission in South America, pretty much Taken with a faint whiff of something noxious in the air. Those tuned in to the eardrum-perforating frequency of QAnon, however, have heeded a clarion call that leads right to the multiplex." https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel

"The Sound of Freedom, a film based on a former government agent’s pursuit to rescue child sex trafficking victims, is a hit at the box office and a darling among right-wing audiences, but it’s also come under scrutiny for its numerous ties to the QAnon conspiracy." "Mike Rothschild, a journalist who wrote The Storm Is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything, criticized Caviezel as a “Q-pilled antisemite” for wild references to the Rothschilds and the movement for its ties to antisemitism (QAnon has been described as being rooted in the older antisemitic idea that Jews control the world)." https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/07/11/box-office-hit-sound-of-freedom-controversy-including-qanon-ties-and-false-claims-theaters-are-sabotaging-screenings-explained/?sh=64f3907688cd

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3apm/anti-trafficking-group-with-long-history-of-false-claims-gets-its-hollywood-moment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2021/04/19/jim-caviezel-theory-donie-osullivan-qanon-pkg-newday-vpx.cnn https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/sound-of-freedom-box-office-success-1235664837/ https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-reviews/sound-of-freedom-jim-caviezel-child-trafficking-qanon-movie-1234783837/ https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-movie-jim-caviezel-trafficking-qanon.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/07/07/sound-of-freedom-qanon-theories-jim-caviezel/ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel https://www.thedailybeast.com/passion-of-the-christ-star-jim-caviezel-hawks-qanon-adrenochrome-conspiracy-theory 73.206.167.225 (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done lacking consensus and clearly being controversial. Please join the discussion in the "RfC: QAnon" section above as a first step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy section, redux

It is fine to have an accuracy section that uses current reviews or criticisms that specifically mention the movie's accuracy - e.g. the sentences sourced to American Crime Journal (putting aside the debatable reliability of that source) which mention the movie in this context.

It is not appropriate to take criticisms of O.U.R or Ballard, from years ago, and use them to criticize the movie. That is WP:SYNTH that is not allowable - taking source A that says OUR/Ballard has exaggerated/lied about his actions, and combine it with source B that says Sound of Freedom is a movie based on O.U.R/Ballard's activities, to reach a conclusion of "Sound of Freedom is not accurate" which is not stated explictly in either A or B. Red Slapper (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• eyeroll* what are you claiming is inaccurate? What, SPECIFIC, source and wording are you opposed to? If you are claiming that the current Slate and Vice sources are not sufficient, Slate has a followup article, and so does Vice. It is ENTIRELY encyclopedic to report the fact that a supposedly "based on real events" movie gets its "facts" from an organization and persons with a history of dissembling and embellishment for self-promotional and propaganda purposes.

https://slate.com/culture/2023/07/sound-of-freedom-movie-jim-caviezel-trafficking-qanon.html https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3apm/anti-trafficking-group-with-long-history-of-false-claims-gets-its-hollywood-moment 73.206.167.225 (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Instead of rolling your eyes, use them to read WP:SYNTH. You are not allowed to use a (possibly accurate) claim from one source that OUR/Ballard has exaggerated/lied about his actions, with another (accurate) claim from a different source that says this is a movie about Ballard, in order to reach a conclusion that this movie is not accurate, unless there is a single source that explictly says that. You cannot combine different sources that way. Red Slapper (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Operation Underground Railroad has spent years making big, often unprovable claims about its paramilitary missions and role in rescuing trafficked kids. Now, a new hit movie may help solidify the myth." (Personal attack removed) 73.206.167.225 (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You didn't specify where that came from, but assuming it is from a reliable source, that's an example of something that can be used to say that the movie could solidify belief in some of O.U.R's unprovable claims. Red Slapper (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the SYNTH issue above, the current "Accuracy" section has some things that have nothing to do with accuracy. Some critics of OUR object to its tactics, e.g.,the ways it conducts raids ("A 2021 article in Slate criticized a 2014 raid conducted by O.U.R. in the Dominican Republic, saying that it was likely to have traumatized the trafficked children. ") - but the film depicts these tactics accurately, and dramatizes the raids as they were conducted. This has no place in an "accuracy" section, or anywhere in an article about the movie - it belongs on the O.U.R article. Red Slapper (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You said "the film depicts these tactics accurately" - do you have a reliable source for this statement? Because, otherwise... it's just your opinion. And it won't be in the article on that basis alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

My comment is not in the article nor do I want it to be. As to what's in the article - what does the criticism of O.U.R's tactics tactic have to do with the film's accuracy? Red Slapper (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the accuracy section should focus on the movie specifically, not the organization. The arguments made in the American Crime Journal are persuasive but get obscured as the entire section just reads like an attack on O.U.R., without anything to do with the movie itself. And wouldn't be a bad idea to substantiate the American Crime Journal source, more mainstream sources on Earl Venton Buchanan seems to directionally back up ACJ's claims. Included are some sources on Earl Venton Buchanan.

I get that O.U.R. is not credible as a source and was the main source of the movie, but the way it is currently written did not have me doubting the accuracy of the movie. It was only until I read the ACJ article (and carefully, as the first half was more general attacks on O.U.R.'s credibility) did I see the connection to the accuracy of the movie. I know I may live in a bubble so the average Wikipedia reader may not see it this way and this may be the way Wikipedia operates (as @Fred Zepelin kindly pointed out, I am a very inexperienced editor and should contribute more often), but I think the section could use some editing to make it more focused on the movie's accuracy.

[1] Border Stop Sparks Porn, Molestation Case - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

[2] California man arrested for molesting at least 11 children (wistv.com)

[3] Feds Uncover Child-Molesting Den After Border Arrest | Fox News Isaacium (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot synopsis seems overblown.

The plot synopsis is longer than it should be. It could probably be streamlined by 1/3 or a bit more without worry. Also, if the epilogue is making a factual claim, that needs some citation. 73.206.167.225 (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT applies here. Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as with non-linear storylines, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.) Currently, the plot section has a word count of 689, so it is just under the limit.

Regarding the epilogue, it appears to refer to this hearing. It is likely that the epilogue is referring to International Megan's Law which Ballard does refer to in the hearing and passed a number of months later. I could not find proof that Ballard's testimony was essential to getting the law passed, so that might be a problem. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Source for review: AIPT

Article by Stephanie Kemmerer, 7/7/23. She is also a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. This article details the various Qanon dog-whistles and symbols baked into the movie.

https://aiptcomics.com/2023/07/07/sound-of-freedom-qanon-caviezel/ 73.206.167.225 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the AIPTComics source is super-useful (oh no, butterflys! Clearly a QANON dog whistle! A specialist putting the kids back together! That can't be referring to mental health, it must be another reference to QANON) but The Atlantic article cited within the AIPTComics article is very good and relevant (linked below). Maybe add to the accuracy section how Tim Ballard isn't even verified to have worked with the CIA or DHS? Specifically, it says how he refused to provide permission for The Atlantic to verify his employment record. So even his employment's accuracy in the movie is in question.

The Great (Fake) Child-Sex-Trafficking Epidemic - The Atlantic Isaacium (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2023

Change "was supposed appear at the conference" to "was supposed to appear at the conference" DripioEXE (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023

Vice news is not a reliable source for information and all articles related to such “source” need to be redacted. Vice news is an opinion only hot talk topic propaganda outlet. Often using controversy to drive their views and revenue as they have done with this film. Knight0140valor (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As per WP:VICE, no consensus has been reached whether the source is generally reliable or not, so we're free to evaluate the use of the site as a source. Which parts of the article are you concerned about? Please list them in a "change X to Y" or "remove X"-format. NotAGenious (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Removed text

@Chauser4: what is the reasoning behind this[13] edit? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Discussion of Director/Based on Charaters/Actors personal beliefs and controversies do not belong on a films page. The issue isn't that Ballard is associated with QAnon but whether or not it should be included on the films page. The aggments below for yes simple stat he's involved but not why it should be included here. There is no precedence of this on any other film in Wikipedia. For example on every film OJ Simpsons there is not a section that discusses that he was convicted on murder charges on every films page. Every Tom Cruise movie does not have a section on Scientology and it's faults. QAnon is not discussed in the film and there for does not deserve to be anywhere on the films page.
Due to zero precedence and the logic discussed above of this section I am removing the section till a logical reason for it's inclusion is presented. This is an encyclopedia. All films need to be treated in a balance way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauser4 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

You should comment in the RfC above as it's about this exact topic. Springee (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How does a comment made on the promotional tour for the film not belong on the film's page? Your argument works for the rest of what you deleted, however it does not work for the specific diff you've just presented. Note that I will not be engaging with you further until after the conclusion of the SPI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

“The film has received mixed reviews.”

This movie currently has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 77%. Mulan 2020 has a score of 72% and despite the criticism and controversy it’s enough for Wikipedia to claim it has generally positive reviews. So what’s the difference here? Traptor12 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It takes into account Metacritic. Mulan's is generally positive, here it's mixed. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just seems very limiting, don’t you think? Traptor12 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a precedent I've seen enforced for several film articles. Lightly positive RT + lightly positive Metacritic, "generally positive" in lead. Positive RT, mixed Metacritic, "mixed reviews" in lead. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't take the Rotten Tomatoes score into account, the reviews being talked about are the reviews from professional critics featured in the article. If there have been more positive reviews by all means add them, if its enough of course we can change it to generally positive reviews but currently we don't have generally positive reviews we have mixed reviews. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. We’ll have to wait and see. Traptor12 (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The elephant-sized puppet in the room

Let's face it - a ton of people looking to remove material they view as negative have descended on this talk page (although there are a couple of legit accounts too), and they're mostly from IP addresses and/or accounts that were very sleepy before suddenly arising here. There's already one strong sockpuppet case involving an account that removed a massive amount of material from the "Accuracy" section, and if that's the only sock- or meat-puppet weighing in on this talk page then I am an armadillo. As soon as I have time, I'm going through all those new/sleeper accounts that are in the RfC and listing them here. There's no way they're all legitimate editors. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Let us be candid. Wikipedia is dominated by ax-grinders, mostly from the left, and as such it is unreliable on any controversial topic. This article is just the what, 1,483rd example. As for all those rules being cited, such as SYNTH, et cetera, those are no match for the Wikipedia flash mobs. Of course the Qanon stuff shouldn't be there. Even the movie's harshest critics say that it's not in the movie. As for so-called accuracy, it's a drama inspired by real events, not a documentary. To hold it to documentary standards is not only laughable but it's hypocritical.

By the way, I haven't seen the movie and have no opinion one way or the other on its merits. I live in the countryside, and I'll wait until I can download it from the satellite. I'm not some evangelical on a mission, nor am I some left-winger who's deathly afraid of (from what I've read), lines like "God's children are not for sale." From everything I can tell, it's a topical thriller, just like, say, "The China Syndrome" was. Was that one bashed for grossly inflating the risk of nuclear reactors?

Bottom line, this talk page is symptomatic of why Wikipedia is useful only for what used to be in the old World Book encyclopedias. The minute there's a controversy, all of the rules fly out the window. They have here, and they will continue to, because most Wikipedia editors are here to grind an ax if there's any sort of controversy involved. 2001:5B0:2B3D:CF78:B87C:908F:82BF:870B (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Is an IP address not allowed to have an opinion? Kline | yes? 21:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Kline, do you honestly believe that each IP address and recently awakened account on this talk page in the last few days are all separate people? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What point? That you're superior and don't have to listen to anyone? So if I made an account then my viewpoint would be "legitimate" in your eyes? Somehow I doubt it. LOL

2001:5B0:2B3D:CF78:B87C:908F:82BF:870B (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection (temporary) on this talk page, due to the incredible amount of IP edits we're seeing, virtually all of whom are pushing a POV that wishes to see any negative information deleted from the article. It's hampering the discussion that actual established editors are trying to have. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That seems like an attempt to win an argument by excluding IP edits, rather than a legitimate use of semi-protection. These edits are not vandalism nor disruption, they're just voicing an opinion you don't like. Red Slapper (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you view the discussion as "people trying to win an argument" tells me that you should probably recuse yourself from that discussion. If you think of this project as a place where one "wins" or "loses", the project would be better off without you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is what you view this place as, and I am calling you on it. Otherwise, what problem do you have with multiple editors, whether having registered accounts or not, disagreeing with you? Red Slapper (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

All the QAnon rumor-monging is an attempt to discredit the movie and the movie makers. If there's any truth, it's that Ballard has stated that he has seen video of pedophiles sacrificing children. It's extremely dark, evil stuff no one wants to talk about or acknowledge. You'll have to find that in one of his interviews like that with Jordan Peterson during the past week on https://youtu. be/rTBGNEliczc YouTube. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson is about the furthest thing from a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2023 (2)

The sentence about the accuracy of the events being questioned by commentators and critics is irrelevant to its reaction from the audience, who according to Rotten Tomatoes, is at an 100% audience score. 76.142.146.248 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Release date

I looked back on the history of this article and am confused. It was created 3 years ago in 2020 here and it gave the release date as that same year, 2020, Why does it now say 2023? Rp2006 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

A certain thing happened that delayed a lot of films. We don't have an article to confirm that, but it seems very likely. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes... someone explained it on my Talk page, here. Rp2006 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

(permanent link) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Plot section

Re: the Plot section in article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is showing a 92.4% copyvio suspected with Parody Empire. Our version of the Plot was added on July 8, 2023 by Burmiester. Parody Empire's website doesn't show a date for their article (that I could find anywhere), but view-source shows their article was published at this time stamp in the code — article:published_time content=2023-07-11T13:01:17+00:00. I also checked to see if the Parody article had been archived at an earlier date, and it wasn't. Google shows they cached it on July 12, 16:25, and Bing shows they cached it on July 11. My assumption is Parody copied from us, but I still wanted to document it here, in case it comes up further down the road. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Good catch, that'll likely be important in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources

Heading added, content moved from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Protection does not seem to have been appropriate, and is preventing good-faith discussion of RS such as https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169916 and https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/sound-of-freedom-child-trafficking-experts-1234786352/.

And this. https://www.vox.com/culture/23794355/sound-of-freedom-controversy-true-story-qanon

And this. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sound-freedom-summers-surprise-blockbuster-191311040.html

And this. https://www.rawstory.com/actor-pushes-qanon-theory-of-infant-blood-drinking-while-promoting-film-screening-for-donald-trump/ 73.115.150.77 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Mixed reviews

Editors keep removing the film has mixed reviews. This is supported by reliable sources. mixed reviews, mixed reviews, mixed reviews, Mixed reviews, mixed reviews. Let's stop removing that from the lead. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are avoiding the Rotten Tomatoes score of 74% -- that's the only source that has aggregated all reviews and come to a conclusion about how the film has been received, instead of cherry-picking a few like the sources you have mentioned. Moreover, most every film receives both positive and negative reviews; an Interstellar has a 73% on RT -- the lead says that it received "generally positive reviews", which is accurate and how it should be. Anyway, in the absence of a clear consensus, the lead should not mention either, which is why I have removed it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, Rotten Tomatoes did not aggregate "all reviews". There have been both good and bad reviews from multiple publications, which is why mixed reviews is accurate, and our article reflects that viewpoint from multiple reliable sources used in the article. There is no way that Rotten Tomatoes can possibly aggregate all of the reviews that are out there. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Variety has also summarised that "Critics have been mostly positive toward the movie". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is cherrypicking surely the solution would be to balance out the coverage? If there really are many more positive reviews then add them. If not you don't have a box to stand on here. Note that "other stuff exists" is not an argument which tends to work on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay that pertains to deletion requests. Please don't condescend. Also, the "many more positive reviews" already exist in the article box on which I am standing. Check them. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The article you're currently commenting on would need another half dozen positive reviews to get there. Something like Focus on the Family isn't usable for us here, we need WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right, we do need WP:RS. Hence, RS Variety summarising that "Critics have been mostly positive toward the movie". :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

And why would we give more weight to Variety than to the sources provided by Isaidnoway? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Because we don't cherry pick what we like and don't like. I didn't cherry pick: I gave equal weightage to what RS Rotten Tomatoes and Variety said and what the others said, and removed the critical consensus from the lead, because there is no clear consensus. That's called balance. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you're pushing a POV. Also, knock off the smileys, that comes across as condescending. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Which POV is that? Also, please don't tell me if I should smile or not. It's my choice. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE, we shouldn't be giving views with differing amounts of coverage the same amount of weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we won't, as long as you can prove that the Variety source is basing their statement on a fringe theory or making an extraordinary claim. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be dodging the question and obfuscating (note that I also find the smiley faces to be condescending), are you really contending that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." (WP:NPOV) means giving "equal weightage" to ideas with different levels of prominence in the sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't dodge any question. I said what I had to say, politely, without bias, and without accusing you or anyone else of having hidden POVs. Neither did I pass any personal opinions over text/smiley preferences. Unfortunately, I did not receive that kindness back. Now you can add the film received overwhelming negative reviews for all you like... and I'll still be smiling. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I take it you have nothing which can rebut the clear wording of NPOV regarding proportionality? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I already did, very clearly (and might I add once again, politely and with a smile.) :)) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to have commented on that at all... Unless you're assuming that my use of NPOV has something to do with HTF's WP:POVPUSH accusation. To be clear I have not accused you of having a hidden POV. With that now understood do you have anything to say about the wording of NPOV regarding proportionality? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay sire, let me spell it out without a smile: no I am not contending NPOV. I am very much respecting NPOV, without resorting to FALSEBALANCE. But my question, which you haven't answered yet is: why are you disregarding Variety? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not disregarding Variety. What gave you that idea? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your replies. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you point me to the diff where I say we should disregard Variety? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't, because you never responded to the claim made by the Variety ref, which == disregarded. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"And why would we give more weight to Variety than to the sources provided by Isaidnoway?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not a response made to the claim by variety. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How is evaluating the proportionality of the coverage of the claim not responding to it? Do you expect me to argue against the claim? Thats not how wikipedia works, we don't argue for or against anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"we don't argue for or against anything." LOL. Apart from that, you still haven't proved why the Variety ref should not receive due weight and why you accused it of FALSEBALANCE. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My argument is that it should receive due weight (which in this case means not being in the lead), you are the one arguing that we should give it disproportionate weight (aka "equal weightage"). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say it should be in the lead? I NEVER said that and I DO NOT want it to be in the lead. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You said you wanted neither in the lead "because there is no clear consensus," which would be giving the minority opinion disproportionate weight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

How are Rotten Tomatoes and Variety the "minority opinion"? Many major critics have not reviewed the film -- so there is no "majority opinion" here. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Weren't there five sources which use mixed reviews provided at the start of this section? Two vs five with Variety being the strongest on one side and the BBC being the strongest on the other sure looks like a majority opinion (especially as the reviews we have from WP:RS are also mixed, so if we were to summarize them... Say for the lead... We'd say the same thing). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Quality>quantity. As you said, Variety and BBC are both strong on either side. Rotten Tomatoes is equally strong. Screenrant and Deseret aren't >> Variety and Rotten Tomatoes. There's your proportionality. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

If Quality>quantity is the argument then you're completely screwed. Screenrant and Rotten Tomatoes are equal in terms of quality... Variety and rolling stone are on the same level above them... BBC, CNBC, and Deseret are above them all. 100% of the highest quality sources line up one one side here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This back and forth sniping is not helping us improve the article. Let's move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean you coming out of the blue to accuse me of being a POV-pusher wasn't helpful? How shocking! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So instead of deescalating, you're right back to sniping. Not a good look, and you're getting to the point of WP:DISRUPT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So instead of apologising for making an unrequited WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, you're resorting to further accusations. Not a good look. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Reading through this, you are showing a clear refusal to get the point, and are attempting to bludgeon your preferred wording through. Also, continuing to use smiley faces after two other editors informed you that they found them condescending is plain not nice. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

LOL, the BBC ref used literally says, "Outside the political debate, the movie has received a range of fairly positive reviews." But of course, I am bludgeon[ing] with made-up info. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t recall accusing you of using fabricated data, so I’m not sure why that’s such a sticking point for you? 12:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Try not accusing me of anything (and stick to the issue at hand), and there shall not be anything sticking out. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is why I say you're becoming WP:DISRUPTive. You throw out accusations that people are saying you're using "made-up info," then when asked to point it out you come back with this snark instead. Keep it up and you'll wind up getting blocked by an admin. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the issue and not the person. You have done the exact opposite in this entire conversation. Keep it up and you'll wind up getting blocked by an admin. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This is exact kind of (seemingly intentional) point missing I was referring to. You responded to me by claiming that I accused you of fabricating sources (which I didn’t), then when I asked why you brought that up seemingly out of nowhere, you condescended to me about making accusations in general. You also began using smiley faces again, after being asked not to multiple times, seemingly for the sole purpose of irritating other editors. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And yet again, you keep commenting on the person and not the issue. Must be fun for you two to pass judgements on others (and commanding them on what emojis to use and not use), but this ain't Twitter. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It is valid to comment on an editors behavior if they are behaving unconstructively, which you were. It is not “policing emojis” to ask you to stop intentionally condescending and irritating behavior. Also, what did that “this isn’t twitter” comment even mean? And would you please explain why you randomly responded to me by complaining about validity of sources? Googleguy007 (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did I behave "unconstructively"? If using smiley emojis irritates you, then please do not take it out on me. I am not here to change my writing style on the whims of people who may or may not like it. Also, you are the one who randomly responded to this discussion by accusing me of "bludgeon"[ing]. And yet, not ONCE did you comment on the issue at hand. Even now, you are only commenting on the person and not the issue, despite repeated warnings not to make WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not going to play this game with you, the issue with repeatedly using that emoticon in that manner has been explained to you. You have repeatedly and blatantly failed to get the point of people responding to you, which can be seen quite clearly here. It seems that you are responding to what you would have liked people to say, not what they said. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the free psychological profiling, and for still not commenting on the issue. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes... This is not Twitter... We have a WP:CIVILITY policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, so please be civil, and comment on the issue and not the person who smiles. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Mocking and/or taunting people is generally seen as an issue civility wise. From the perspective of a number of editors here that is what you appear to be doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh you mean, you and your friends hounding me and mocking me for my emoji choice to divert from the fact that the BBC ref used says, "Outside the political debate, the movie has received a range of fairly positive reviews."? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

These are not my friends. We aren't talking about the non-political aspects of the reviews alone, we're talking about the full reviews which include the political debate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Where did you include the political debate so far? And what does "full reviews" mean? What are "half reviews"? We have literally only spoken about the critical reviews so far, and that is all that the discussion is about. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Full review means including the political debate, as the BBC says the reviews are fairly positive besides for the political aspects. All reviews are critical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, political reception is negative and critical reception is fairly positive. Simple. That's what the lead should say. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the non-political part of the critical reception is fairly positive. Note that all of the reviewers mention the political aspects of the film and/or the controversy surrounding it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. "Outside the political reception, which was overwhelmingly negative, critical reviews were fairly positive." See, it's so simple to come to a conclusion, without any personal attacks. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be the same thing I wrote. This is the sort of thing that makes people think you're mocking them BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, instead of commenting on what you or anyone else may or may not think about me and my personality, how about you come back to the issue and tell me your preferred wording. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I did comment on the issue "Doesn't seem to be the same thing I wrote." my preferred wording is "It has received mixed reviews from critics." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

OH MY GOD! That's a shocking twist! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

… you just blatantly (beyond any shadow of doubt) mocked another editor for correcting you. You are behaving without a modicum of civility. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yea, sorry I missed out on the smiley emoji at the end. My bad! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics page, four critics rated it as rotten and the two that rated it as fresh said it was watchable but not great. The much higher rating in All Critics (72% fresh) is skewed because it doesn't give proper weight to the critics based on their influence.

Also, this film had only 36 critic reviews, including 6 top critics. Another controversial film, Joker, had 598 reviews, including 95 top critics. IOW few critics bothered to review it, which also says something about the critics' response. TFD (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

General discussion

I just used {{outdent}} on the above thread because I couldn't even read it on a desktop.
In my uninvolved opinion, if discussion is unrelated to the article it should be taken to a user talk page. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)