Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

From numerous sources,^[1] 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: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: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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request to Sound of Freedom (film) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

@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)

“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?

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?

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.

talk

) 17:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

☖

18:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

I deleted "however" from " However, in an interview with

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

☖

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)