Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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[1] 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)

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)

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)

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 was not productive debate. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)

• It appears to me that we have a general consensus to include "mixed reviews" in the lead, but if I missed something in that long wall of text, it might be helpful to indicate support or oppose in your comments for a clearer picture of where we stand. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Mixed reviews" is vague unless we say what the mix was. It appears it ranges from flawed but watchable to unwatchable, which isn't exactly a wide range of views. TFD (talk) 13:30, 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)

box office

People need to know that there's a update daily for box office mojo and the numbers.

Evope (talk) 00:20, 19 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)

I have come back to this and made an adjustment to the wording of the epilogue. Does it look better now with the other changes made in the last week? --Super Goku V (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Super Goku V Saw your edit and I think it’s pretty good IMO. I also had to do a bit of editing a different section due to grammar and wording issues. I’ll let you know as well if there is any else I notice. Wolfquack (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Slapper turns out to be a sock

Their edits here can be struck through, any article edits can be reverted. Saikyoryu has been indefinitely blocked for their repeated attacks,continuing after their block so their talk page access has been removed. I'm unprotecting this. As it isn't in my watchlist, please let me or any other Admin know if the disruption resumes or you suspect another sock. Doug Weller talk 07:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Saikyoryu is a sock as well. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero no surprise, they keep on coming. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 24 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)

Tangent by now-blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy section, redux

Tangent by now-blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)

Use of "however" in an argumentative fashion

I deleted "however" from " However, in an interview with Jordan Peterson in July 2023," per MOS:EDITORIAL. Seemed a clear case of bad use of the word, but User:FMSky restored it saying it was necessary. How is this so necessary we it's vital to use an argumentative word? Note I'm not a fan of Ballard, far from it. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, reading through that section again, i dont see how the 2nd part, "In an interview with Jordan Peterson in July 2023, he claimed to have recently raided a West African 'baby factory' where children are sold for organ harvesting and 'Satanic ritual abuse', echoing another QAnon theory.", is notable at all. How is it related to the film or how does it prove ties to the QAnon conspiracy theory? --FMSky (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be ok with you removing that section altogether.

But if it is to be kept, it can't be joined with "however" to the previous one. Red Slapper (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Because QAnon is pushing these "Satanic Ritual Abuse" allegations, despite having zero evidence that such a phenomenon exists. The fact he's claiming he actually raided such an event puts his other claims into dispute, including the "true story" of this film. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You need a 3rd party source to say that, a wikipedia editor can't make that connection themselves. Red Slapper (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, per WP:SYNTHESIS-- FMSky (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean all the articles we already have saying the film subject pushes QAnon beliefs? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

If they don't make this specific connection, then no, they can't be used for that. You can't take a source that says "QAnon is pushing "Satanic Ritual Abuse" allegations", another source that says "Ballard is pushing "Satanic Ritual Abuse" allegations" to conclude, yourself, that "Ballard supports QAnon" or worse, "despite denying it, Ballard actually supports QAnon". That's precisely what WP:SYNTH does not allow. Red Slapper (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

the interview which includes both Ballard and Caviezel making connections to QAnon conspiracy theories was Peterson interviewing both Ballard and Caviezel for the purpose of promoting the movie. The first line of the Apple Podcast description states "Dr. Jordan B. Peterson discusses the new film “Sound of Freedom,” with star Jim Caviezel and real life inspiration Tim Ballard" and the podcast page also directly promotes the movie. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/372-the-fight-against-worldwide-child-slavery-the/id1184022695?i=1000619149837 Saikyoryu (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment added by request –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

MJL, I still think this is inappropriate (bringing in the comments of a user not allowed to participate here through a backdoor), but will address it just this one time- it is ok to include the interview, given the context (promotion of the movie), but it is NOT appropriate to connect the two sources using the editorial "however" to imply a contradiction in an argumentative fashion, as several experienced editors and administers have already noted.

Please don't do this user's bidding for them again - the admin who semi-protected this article already told you they consider it improper. They can wait another day or two and comment themselves. Red Slapper (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the Jordan Peterson content is not related to the film itself, and neither is the 2020 interview. We are conflating two issues here, what Ballard and Caviezel believe and have said about Qanon, and what the film itself actually portrays, and we have multiple sources saying the film itself does not reference any Qanon conspiracy theories. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway That’s my view on this situation, in fact I tried just removing the Peterson interview part to the more related Tim Ballard article and it seemed everyone agreed with it at first. But it appears some editors took issue with no talk of this irrelevant interview, and now here I am in the gutter trying to figure a way so both ends are at peace *eyes rolls*. Funny how a shelved 2018 film can cause so much strife. Wolfquack (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller I’ve been also noticing some grammar issues with this article, perhaps use the word “although” instead of however? Wolfquack (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wolfquack Same problem. “Words to watch” include “ Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ...” Doug Weller talk 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller Hmm… maybe this can be an WP:IGNORE situation? Because TBH it doesn’t make that much sense that you can’t even use basic conjunction’s in an article.

I just looked at what the article says in the “nutshell”:

Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias, lack precision, or include offensive terms. Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking.

I honestly think the however (or a different conjunction) can be slipped through if it doesn’t introduce bias. Wolfquack (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Conjunctions are allowed, just be careful around WP:SYNTH. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That wouldn't not be much of an improvement - the issue is not grammar, but the editorial context created by joining two separate sources, which implies a contradiction, not present in any of the individual sources. Red Slapper (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Red Slapper I think this could “slide” as a WP:IGNORE. I don’t usually like using this rule, but I think here it could work. I agree it sounds weird with the “In an interview with Jordan Peterson…”, which sounds better with a conjunction since we are trying to link two sources. Wolfquack (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

we are trying to link two sources. - that's exactly the problem. We shouldn't be doing that, if the sources don't make the link. A better solution would be to remove the 2nd section altogether. Red Slapper (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok I think I understand the situation a little better now. I agree it would be better to just remove it. It would be better to move it to the Tim Ballard article. It seems more fitting to place it there. Wolfquack (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey We've got a couple of editors here just blatantly stating mistruths. The Jordan Peterson interview about Ballard talks about the film and QAnon conspiracy theories. Another article references that very interview when it discusses Ballard, Peterson, and the film, and QAnon. Am I in upside-down land? Do editors just say things on talk pages now to suit their purposes and think they're going to get away with it? There's no way in hell that WP:SYNTH applies here, no matter how badly you want to delete any negatively-tinged information about the film from this article. Forget it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

So you are accusing User:Doug Weller, the administrator who started this thread by saying "I deleted "however" from " However, in an interview with Jordan Peterson in July 2023," per MOS:EDITORIAL. Seemed a clear case of bad use of the word" of blatantly stating mistruths? or that he doesn't understand WP:SYNTH or MOS:EDITORIAL? I'd love to hear his opinion on htat. Red Slapper (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you know full well I'm not talking about User:Doug Weller here, and your attempt to smear me is probably enough to get you blocked. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Who then are you accusing of stating mistruths, and on what basis? You are probably very close to being blocked yourself with these personal and baseless attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm really not. Because it isn't baseless - there's multiple editors saying that there's no connection between Ballard and QAnon, and yet, right there in the article references, we have an interview in which Ballard talks about the film and QAnon conspiracy theories, and another piece that talks about the interview in which Ballard talks about the film and QAnon conspiracy theories. Somehow, we have editors on this talk page acting like those sources don't exist, and that is baffling. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anyone in this thread saying there's no connection between Ballard and QAnon - what are you referring to? Provide an exact quote, please. Red Slapper (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read the 2nd and 3rd comments in this section. Surprising that you forgot already, since you wrote the third one yourself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The 3rd comment is by me. it reads, in its entirety

I'd be ok with you removing that section altogether.

But if it is to be kept, it can't be joined with "however" to the previous one.

and does not say there's no connection between Ballard and QAnon, it merely says that if we are to have two separate sources, they can't be connected by "however", as USer:Doug Weller said in the initial post of this thread.

If you are accusing me of mistruths based on that comment, you're going to be reported for baseless personal attacks. Red Slapper (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Red Slapper and @Fred Zepelin calm down! This isn’t really worth arguing about. The Peterson interview with Ballard was out of place for this article, and so I removed the source and moved it to the Tim Ballard respective article. One of you mentioned that there is an article that mentions the Peterson and Ballard interview, can whoever made that claim cite the source? Wolfquack (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I will gladly add the source if it’s cited, but in the mean time, both of you need to remember WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia isn’t twitter. Wolfquack (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hard to remain civil when you are baselessy being accused of "blatantly stating mistruths." Red Slapper (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Red Slapper, even if your being accused of bad faith, you CANNOT under any circumstances be uncivil. Alright? Wolfquack (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This was a bad discussion based on a bad representation. The source's quote uses the word "but" where the text substituted "however." Ballard and OUR have strenuously denied having any links with QAnon. In an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters this week, Ballard said he "still" doesn't know "what QAnon is." But in another interview this month, with alt-right figure Jordan Peterson, Ballard said that he had just raided a West African "baby factory" where children are sold for organ harvesting and "Satanic ritual abuse," echoing myths that have been pushed by the QAnon movement.[2] The use of "however" wasn't argumentative wording or "synth", it was correctly representing the contradiction observed by the source. Saikyoryu (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Red Slapper has been blocked for being a sockpuppet. Yes, discussion is tainted by that. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Taking a look at the sentence at the time of the edit, it was not a direct quote from the article. Thus, it make sense why there was a discussion on it.

I am concerned though that the paragraph as it currently is worded is potentially plagiarism, but that is a different issue. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:28, 21 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)

Just now seeing this, wrote it out myself after seeing the film. There was little to no plot information online, I even had a hard time finding character names I had forgotten. But it seems like everyone understands I didn't copy lol Burmiester (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus required restriction in effect

In my capacity as an uninvolved administrator acting under the contentious topics procedures, I have imposed the following page restriction to this article for one month:

Changes pertaining to QAnon or other conspiracy theories, broadly construed, if challenged by reversion, may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Courtesy pings @FMSky, Isaidnoway, Fred Zepelin, Dlthewave, Horse Eye's Back, and X-Editor. Will also be sending awareness notifs to anyone not yet formally aware of WP:AMPOL sanctions (this turned out to be no one); if I've missed anyone to ping or make aware here, please feel free to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC), ed. 15:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Audience Reception

Should we have an audience reception section? I think we could do away with certain parts, if not most of it. Parts of the sources seem to just recap what it is and then just say "also it had a 100% on RT." Okay? Well, given the controversial debate and nature of this film, shouldn't that be kind of obvious? And shouldn't that call into question our mentioning of it?

By this, I mean that since a lot of people say or imply that it should appeal to this particular demographic of right-wing Christians (I presume), then wouldn't that be the worst example of promoting the audience score RT as a source? Other pages that have this section tend to handle, for example, the controversies, trolling, review bombing, and political nature that came to saturate the audience score. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

since a lot of people say or imply that it should appeal to this particular demographic of right-wing Christians - it actually says the exact opposite and that it has a wide demographic appeal --FMSky (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

With lines such as:

• "Some movie industry analysts attributed the film's success in part to its appeal to an overlooked segment of the film audience."
• "Sound of Freedom directly appeals to a specific religious demographic."
• "[It] also shows that a grassroots marketing strategy and tapping into the power of the faith-based audience has proven to be a very effective method to generate profits."
• "Let's assume that, like me, you're not a right-wing fundamentalist conspiracy theorist looking for a dark, faith-based suspense film"

Well, you could see how I got that impression. It may have appealed to people outside of its target audience, but I think it's patently clear that it was intended for a certain audience and struck them very, very well. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:50, 8 August 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)

Truer words never spoken Joeblackoo (talk) 05:23, 10 August 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 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 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)