Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: QAnon

The following discussion 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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here is a more recent news piece in The Guardian discussing the connection. Does that change your mind? If not, can you specify what sort of coverage would convince you? --Aquillion (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's poor is your inability to process that you were wrong about Ballard not knowing "what QAnon is". Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That IP was me. I didn't realize my login had timed out. Not a sock puppet, though it's interesting you leapt to that conclusion.

Jbmcb (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note for closer: This Jbmcb account, which admitted to making that one IP contribution, has made less than 100 edits in 19 years of existence on Wikipedia, in line with a pattern of numerous "don't include" votes by some accounts in this RfC. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

So casual editors are not allowed to have opinions? That's an interesting position. How many edits are required before you will allow someone to have an opinion on a topic? Jbmcb (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You're allowed to have your opinion, of course. We're allowed to dismiss said opinion when it's coming from someone clearly canvassed here from outside. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Canvassed based on what? A Number? The insider/outsider categorization is also interesting. I guess I'm an outsider sock puppet whom mostly removes vandalism, unsourced statements, and adds stuff to technology and audio pages, which is my wheelhouse. Jbmcb (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent by now-blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What are you basing this ('the promotion of the movie is tied with QAnon') on? Which source says that? Red Slapper (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Excellent question. I haven’t seen any source saying that the marketing or promotion of this movie is tied with QAnon. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC) https://www.insider.com/sound-of-freedom-tim-ballard-qanon-medicare-fraud-2023-7 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66169916 https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/jim-caviezel-pushes-qanon-bizarre-media-blitz-new-anti-trafficking-movie Jim Caviezel was promoting the movie with QAnon theories, this is well documented. Alcyon007 (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Where does the BBC source say the promotion of the film is tied with QAnon? The only thing I can see there is a statement that that star (Caviezel) supports QAnon, but that's not quite the same thing. There is a claim, by a left wing advocacy group (Media Matters, which is also your 3rd source, "Yellow" at RSNP) that there's prong of the film's marketing that '"The other key prong of this marketing blitz is Jim Caviezel absolutely embracing QAnon messaging and theories.' - but that is an opinion from a partisan advocacy group, not facts that can be stated in Wikipedia's voice Red Slapper (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 3 sources, one uses a left wing advocacy group, I gave you a link to the complete article from the group, with verifiable facts: "On June 20, Caviezel again appeared on War Room to promote the film, and offered two distinct but related Q-derived conspiracies — one about the chemical adrenochrome and the other about Ukrainian biolabs." But your reply is "everything is false". Got it. https://www.vox.com/culture/23794355/sound-of-freedom-controversy-true-story-qanon Looking at your page is enough to understand your crusade. Wikipedia doesn't work that way and you won't have it your way. The section will remain. But could you stop replying to me when I was replying to Kline? Thanks a lot. Alcyon007 (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Again : where does the BBC source say the promotion of the film is tied with QAnon? I have no idea what page you looked at to understand "my crusade", my goal is to have accurate wikipedia articles. Caviezel supporting QAnon is not the same as "the movie promotes QAnon", and when you post something in an RfC, you can expect many people will respond to you. If you want to have a private conversation with Kline, email them. Red Slapper (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Strawman argument. Goodbye, you are not here to improve wikipedia. Alcyon007 (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Not a strawman at all, but off you go, sleeper account. Red Slapper (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent by now-blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"based on a true story" doesn't mean every scene has a specific real-life counterpart. The "true story" in this case is Ballard anti-trafficking activities, including raids to rescue trafficked children. Red Slapper (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) "Based on a true story" means they took some core kernel of truth and then constructed a fantasy around it. It does not indicate any adherence to facts, and we have zero reason to believe Ballard's stories. Especially since he espouses QAnon nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Zero reasons? They arrested child traffickers. [11]https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/sound-of-freedom/ [12]https://heavy.com/news/sound-of-freedom-real-true-story/ Grahaml35 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC) neither the historyvshollywood site or the heavy.com site articles count as Reliable Sources. All they do is repeat self-promotional claims from Ballard and OUR without fact checking. The reliable sources on this topic are also clear that Ballard is at best "inconsistent" with his claims to whether he believes QAnon or not, whether he knows what QAnon is or not, and quite often he claims to not know or not be affiliated with QAnon right before using exact QAnon talking points. He is therefore not credible on this topic just as the fact checkers have shown his claims about his past and his organization's conduct are not reliable. Saikyoryu (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Note for closer: This account was registered 2 days ago, made 10 trivial edits (e.g; http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Henri_de_Verninac-Saint-Maur&diff=prev&oldid=1165656280]) to get autoconfirmed and bypass the protection on this page and a total of 37 edits in all, most of them on this topic. Red Slapper (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Whether Ballard believes QAnon or not is irrelevant to the quetion of is the movie based on a true story. Even the very critical sources we have in this article (e.g [13]) state that "An investigation by VICE World News focused on OUR's operations identified a divide between the group's actual practices and some of its claimed successes. What we found aren't outright falsehoods but a pattern of image-burnishing and mythology-building, a series of exaggerations'. It is amusing that an armed 2014 raid conducted by O.U.R. in the Dominican Republic is used to criticize the organization (for traumatizing the rescued kids, of all things!) and at the same time it is claimed that this raid is just fantasy, not to be believed. You can't have it both ways. Red Slapper (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) if by "fantasy" you mean a fictionalized account, then yes. But it certainly not removed from real life events. Raids to rescue children by O.U.R are documented, and they very much resemble the depiction in the film. Ballard is a real person, and his activities are known and similar to what is depicted in the movie. Please educate yourself on the background material before commenting further. Red Slapper (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) I'm aware of the background material, so take your condescension elsewhere. OUR exaggerates their exploits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC) Perhaps they do, but that doesn't make this film not based on a true story or lack "any adherence to facts". You should tone down your hyperbole, it doesn't add credibility to your arguments. Red Slapper (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Take your condescension elsewhere. Your bludgeoning is not welcome. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) You have commented here as much as I have, so drop the bludgeoning rhetoric. No one is forcing you to respond to my comments, but when you do, I will respond to what your write. Red Slapper (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent by now-blocked sockpuppet. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How does the film "attempt[s] to link child sexual exploitation to a liberalism"? Red Slapper (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) It reinforces a conservative perception that child trafficking is fostered by secularism, sexual permissiveness, loss of family values and weak border control, and not taken seriously by liberals, who tie the hands of law enforcement. There's also the implication that it is part of a shadowy conspiracy by the liberal elites. TFD (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC) How does it "reinforces a conservative perception that child trafficking is fostered by secularism, sexual permissiveness, loss of family values and weak border control,"? which scenes? Border control is portrayed as effective (Ballard catches the trafficker at a border crossing), the father of the abducted siblings is portrayed as a caring family man, etc... Have you seen the movie? Red Slapper (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Do you disagree with any of the perceptions I mentioned? If not, that would explain why you didn't see them in the movie. And no I didn't see the movie, but I watched the trailer and read the reviews. Could you explain why the trailer plays "My Country 'tis of Thee" if the movie has no political message? TFD (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Don't you feel a bit odd, arguing "perceptions" you got from reading 2nd hand accounts, with people who actually saw the movie? I watched the movie, and didn't perceive attempts to link child sexual exploitation to "a liberalism, which can only be countered by Christians". I could have missed them, of course, which is why I asked you which scenes you think do that, but you obviously can't answer, not having seen the film. "My Country 'tis of Thee" is a patriotic song, I hadn't heard that it is associated only with "conservatives" or Christians. You know it was played at the 2020 Democratic Convention, right? Red Slapper (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) You didn't answer my question. Do you disagree with any of these perceptions? Do you think that child trafficking is fostered by secularism, sexual permissiveness, loss of family values and weak border control? And what relevance is a U.S. patriotic song to rescuing children from child trafficking? TFD (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC) I thought I did answer your question - I wrote "I watched the movie, and didn't perceive attempts to link child sexual exploitation to "a liberalism, which can only be countered by Christians". I don't personally share those conservative perceptions, if that's what you were asking, which is hardly surprising since I don't see myself as a conservative, and also don't think that "CHristains" are a counter to "liberalism". There are many liberal Christians, you know. How about you answering my question - isn't it odd for you to argue about this when you haven't watched the movie? I can imagine that the marketing team for the movie thought that a patriotic song with wide appeal to most Americans would be a good soundtrack for the trailer and serve the purpose of promoting the film, but that's neither here nor there. It's clearly not something that promotes any particular political message, beyond patriotism, as its usage at the DNC should have clued you in. Red Slapper (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) How about you answering my question - isn't it odd for you to argue about this when you haven't watched the movie? Your question is irrelevant. Our decisions are based on reliable sources, not personal viewing of media. At this point you are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC) It is not irrelevant. If he had written "Source X says that the movie does Y..." that would have been fine. But instead, w/o seeing the film, he stated "The film attempts to link child sexual exploitation to a liberalism, which can only be countered by Christians. " - That quite a stance to take when you haven't seen the thing you're talking about. I suspect that much is true for quite a few other commentators here. Red Slapper (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) What part of "Our decisions are based on reliable sources, not personal viewing of media" did you not understand? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC) I understood all of it. What part of him not writing "Source X says that the movie does Y..." but providing personal opinion based on watching the trailer did you not understand? Red Slapper (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) My question was not did you see any of the perceptions in the movie. In fact I wrote that you may not have seen them. My question was, "Do you disagree with any of the perceptions I mentioned?" Do you think you could answer this question? I mentioned this because if, as I explained, you hold these views then you may not see that the movie reinforces them. However, if you oppose those views, then you will notice them. That's why conservative viewers like the movie and liberals don't. TFD (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I have directly answered this. Once more, repeating what I wrote above: I don't personally share those conservative perceptions, if that's what you were asking. Take the time to carefully read my responses, and you won't have to ask the same thing multiple times. Niw, how about to finally answer my question? Dp you think it's ok to argue that the movie promotes a certain viewpoint without having seen it? Red Slapper (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) IOW your views are fairly close to those of the producers, just mot exactly the same. And you wouldn't share the view for example that crime in South America is a result of U.S. imperialism. Certainly the patriot music played would seem ironic in that case. Not that I am arguing that point, just showing that different observers could interpret the problem in any different ways. And since the movie's interpretation is close to your own, you don't see any bias. You don't actually need to read a book or see a movie to know what it is about if there are reliable sources that summarize it. TFD (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Where did you get the idea that my views are close to the producers', when I explicitly tell you the opposite - that I don't share their perceptions that you have called out? Do you even read what I am writing? You don't have to read a book or see a movie to comment on it based on 2nd hand reviews of it, but you'd certainly be at a disadvantage defending your position vis-a-vis some who saw the film or read the book - just look at the way you are unable to answer my questions regarding which scenes support your view. Which sources say the film "reinforces a conservative perception that child trafficking is fostered by secularism, sexual permissiveness, loss of family values and weak border control"? Red Slapper (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This is a Talk page, not the article. There's no need to write "sources say" here, so your pedantry is completely irrelevant. And again, WP:BLUDGEON is rearing its head, so I suggest you move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC) It takes two to tango, and don't blame me for someone's inarticulate prose (assuming he meant to say "sources say...") Which sources say the film "reinforces a conservative perception that child trafficking is fostered by secularism, sexual permissiveness, loss of family values and weak border control"? Red Slapper (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• No this is WP:UNDUE, especially for there to be an entire subsection. From what I've seen in the RSs, there is no mention of this in the actual film. If this information is included at all, it should be under critical response or production since it is the extraneous beliefs of others surrounding the movie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon0098 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes obviously, per plethora of sources given by others. Zaathras (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes I do not mind the section because it does neutrally share two contrasting viewpoints. As editors we are only suppose to publish what reliable sources report on a subject. However I would attribute the sources that make such a substantial claim since I find the sourcing to be poor. As the article stands now there is a generic label of "critics" to define the group who claim the film reflects qanon conspiracy theories. The section highlights on the fact that some sources believe the film reflects Qanon conspiracy theories, but the article also outlines Ballard's remarks that it is very hard to make Qanon connections to the film since it was all based on actual events. I would like to throw out the suggestion to add this quote from this Fox news article; "The former DHS investigator (Ballard) emphasized that every child and villain represented in the movie were based on actual events, calling it "sick" for people to come out against the film and compare it to conspiracies." MaximusEditor (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• No, against inclusion. This is a good example of "sources reported it so we must put it in" which simply ignores WP:DUE. Editors at Wikipedia need to start being a little more steadfast against including sources that are simply sensationalized nonsense. Let's face it, money is drying up in journalism and what's left is basically tabloid level commentary that's written for clicks. Good investigative journalism is difficult to find and it's almost non-existant when it comes to entertainment news. I imagine if The Searchers was released today there would be tons of sources discussing John Wayne's racist remarks and how it was connected to the movie. The thinkpieces and discourse would be a click bonanza. Is Qanon connected to this film? No. If the writer or director had used Qanon ideas to make this film this would be relevant, but that's not the case. Leave it out. Nemov (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• Probably not. Based off a survey of RS, there's actually no mention of Qanon at all in the film, and reliable newsrooms (such as NY Times) mention it but attribute the view as some critics say. This is something that ought be dealt with as a part of the critical reception section, with appropriate weight to each review, but I don't think breaking this out into the equivalent of a WP:CSECTION is a good idea here. Nor would it be in line with our WP:BALASP policy—a part of the core content policy that is WP:NPOV—to put undue focus on this specific aspect of the film's reception. Weave it in where critics say it, but we don't need to have an extended section as long as the subsection on "critical response" that's focused on this sole topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, for inclusion The sources covering the subject, particularly this one, make the connection to Qanon in the movie's subject and the use of promotion for the film by the creators quite blatant, including in the title of the review itself. To not include information on this as one of the primary aspects behind making the film is to be actively violating WP:NPOV and, honestly, to be promoting the whitewashing of WP:FRINGE subject matter. The movie is based on made up nonsense, being promoted as if it is an actually true story, with the creators pushing for actual violence and action against the "others" responsible for doing the made up thing. That is pure FRINGE subject matter all the way. Silverseren^C 18:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion per HandThatFeeds - The ties to QAnon and its conspiracy theories are directly relevant to the fact that this film depicts a fantasy vigilante story, rather than the facts of child abduction & trafficking. The text itself appears neutral and the sourcing is strong and relatively widespread geographically and ideologically. Pincrete (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, include, it's a major aspect of the topic's notability and should have both a section and a mention in the lead. Sources covering it in-depth include [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Those are high-quality sources that focus extensively (and sometimes entirely) on the connection to QAnon, often describing it as "QAnon-adjacent". A lot of the people opposing above are essentially saying that they feel that the sources shouldn't be making that connection; but that's not our call to make - they clearly are, to the point where it's a major source of coverage and a major source of notability for the topic, meaning it should make up a significant part of this article and be mentioned in the lead section. --Aquillion (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, Include, obviously. Lot of editors and journalists are pointing out the connections. We cannot ignore it. Andrew Englehart (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
• No, don't include. I just noticed it was filmed 5 years ago before QAnon even became a thing. 😭 So its literally not even possible for it to be related to it -FMSky (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  This is patently false. QAnon began in 2017, and the child-slavery/adrenochrome/pedopihilia-ring conspiracy theories that QAnon had adopted started even earlier (QAnon absorbed Pizzagate, which started in 2016). The movie was shot in 2018. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2023 (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.

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

"some critics say"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know how you got that idea

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

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

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

References

Pay it forward scheme/strategy

Multiple people have been changing scheme to strategy. It gets reverted back by the original editor with the provided reason following:

"No need to create unnecessary changes. Scheme pertains to a goal that can be seen from a company or gov. Strategy is more militaristic and the goal is unknown. You are associating the word scheme with fixed a negative viewpoint, it is not."

This is the most inaccurate explanation ever. Look up the word scheme in the Oxford dictionary- "scheme, verb, make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong."

It's a very common belief that Wikipedia has been compromised by left wing users for years now. And fighting to change the word strategy to scheme because of the implied negative connotation that comes with that word certainly doesn't help people not believe that Joeblackoo (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Joeblackoo – Per WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and the rest of our Byzantine acronym soup: The most important thing is to simply parrot and regurgitate whatever terminology the upstream sources say. We don't have to like it, or agree, but that's all we're supposed to do here. If we could stop the axe-grinding and squawking – which is detrimental – and get back to polishing and parroting, that'd be great…

(More diverse dictionary for scheme vs. strategy sans cherry-picking)

Also: we do have systemic WP:BIAS problems, but this posturing only reinforces and further entrenches the issues we must overcome. (I encourage further discussion of this topic within the User talk namespace, instead of here.)

Also also: WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:TALKPOV(!!) WP:DBF (essay) and all that jazz… Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian calls it a scheme. Therefore, we should call it a scheme. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a bit of a difference between how "scheme" is interpreted in British English vs American English, from what I understand. A "scheme" is used fairly often to talk about how things are organized (see: global talent scheme), but often has a more negative connotation (a sort of dark, plot-y thing) in American English. If the issue here is a WP:ENGVAR thing (which it appears to be), or even if it isn't, then we should try to use less ambiguous language. "Pay-it-forward stunt" seems to be more apt for advertising, as this was an advertising stunt. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLDly changed the section to use the term "stunt", as I agree that this is an apt descriptor. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Appreciate the bold contributions. However, it fails verification, and is OR. I've changed it to the simple and neutral term "sales" – which entirely avoids the issues above. Happy Trails! -- dsprc ^[talk] 05:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Scheme" seems both the more accurate word and the one used by RS. One definition of scheme connotes devious or misleading behavior, not all. VQuakr (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Connections to the Qanon conspiracy theory"

@Fred Zepelin: I'm seeing this edit, which dropped the "alleged" because Having writers point out connections isn't a crime, but also I'm a bit taken aback after reading the sources; there are a very good number of sources presently cited NY Times Vulture WaPo USA Today that indicate that the movie itself... doesn't contain content about the Qanon conspiracy theory. I feel like we're being unnecessarily sloppy with the section header compared to these sorts of reports, and we're also probably having issues with WP:NPOV if the section header is taken as a wikivoice statement that the film itself is a part of Qanon (indeed, even NYT attributes that sort of interpretation to some critics say rather than placing such allegations in their own newsroom's voice). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

:I tend to agree- this should be labeled as "allegations of..." or "accusations of...", rather than using wikipedia's voice to claim or imply such connections exist. Red Slapper (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've edited the article to say "alleged ties"; it seems more reasonable here to have some qualifier. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I also concur with the "alleged ties". While it is true that Ballard and Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement, it is also true that the film itself (which is the topic of the article), does not directly mention any specific QAnon conspiracy theories, so alleged is appropriate in this instance. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple reliable sources that make connections between the film, the man the film is based on, the lead actor playing that man, and QAnon. You may not like it, but the reliable sources discuss it in depth. It's not "alleged". It's not "alleged ties". It's simply sources discussing the connections. Your defense of the film is admirable, as you all appear to be willing to be martyrs for a cause that I don't care to understand, but it doesn't matter. It's way simpler than you're making it out to be. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk, the sources you listed do say that the film doesn't directly mention Qanon, but they ALSO cover the connection via people associated for example "While the movie doesn’t mention QAnon, Caviezel has falsely claimed that Ballard rescues children from 'adrenochroming,' a fictitious technique in which QAnon believers think children are tortured in satanic rituals." from The Vulture. This is what we should be mirroring in the article; trying to wordsmith ourselves away from that would be a NPOV violation. I don't see any support in these sources for the word "alleged". –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats a cool story but its unrelated to the film. What people say or do in their private life is irrelevant --FMSky (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious how you came to that conclusion, as the sources very clearly tie this to the film. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What things people do or say in their private lives? We're discussing public comments about people's professional lives. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I do think that we should cover those statements in an appropriate manner, but I do hesitate to use nebulous terms like "connections" or "associations" without qualification. The movie itself doesn't appear to be QAnon incarnate, but some people involved in making the film have certainly spread misinformation that originated in QAnon and/or adjacent conspiracist circles (iirc the Adrenochrome conspiracy stuff was at least around during pizzagate, which predates QAnon). This is an article on the movie; it's certainly not WP:SYNTH to include coverage of the public statements made in promoting the movie, but I don't think that an unqualified section header appropriately conveys this distinction or does justice to the way that this is being covered. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

:Don't try to edit war your prefered version into the article over the clear consensus against it, above. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE Red Slapper (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Being that Red Slapper was a blocked sock, and that there's no "allegation" of connections to QAnon (just actual connections), I've restored the shorter wording. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ALLEGED We actually have a policy on this. Unless you're talking about "when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial", "alleged" is to be avoided, as it's just being used here to "imply that a given point is inaccurate". This should settle it. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Two things:

1. the Manual of Style is not a policy, and even if it were, occasional exceptions do apply. What is certainly more core is our policy of neutral point of view, which instructs that [a] neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone and that we should seek to give various opinions their due weight. In particular, the policy notes that the prominence of placement does indeed contribute towards whether or not something is given undue focus. A section header is certainly prominent placement, and the use of the nebulous term "connections" in an unqualified manner doesn't quite do justice to the reporting. We should not be putting in Wikivoice that the movie is a manifest of the Qanon conspiracy when multiple independent reliable sources (including multiple papers of record) indicate the exact opposite to be the case, though the criticism should certainly be mentioned within the section on critical response in proportion to the relevant coverage (and perhaps in a section on the film's marketing, given Jim C.'s... well-documented public appearances to promote the film).
2. Also, @Fred Zepelin: Please stop your slow-motion edit warring. You were warned for edit warring on July 20, on July 29, and again on August 1. With respect to the section title alone, you have performed (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) 6 reverts, all without consensus on talk to do so, and with minimal participation in talk page discussion on the topic. I understand that this is a contentious topic, but I would ask that you please self-revert pending discussion. Red Slapper was indeed a sock, but I'm not, and I don't think Isaidnoway is, and there are concerns from legitimate users here about the heading.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a conflation of two issues at play here, the film has been linked to QAnon conspiracy theorists, but the film itself is not linked to any QAnon conspiracy theories. That distinction needs to be made clear, so it is appropriate to use alleged in this instance, as it is an unfounded claim the film itself has any "connections to the QAnon conspiracy theory". There also seems to be a concerted effort to downplay the widely held and significant viewpoint that no claims like this appear in the film itself —There are no direct ties or support of the film and QAnon — The plot never directly invokes QAnon — the film itself does not contain any references to adrenochrome or other conspiracy theories — does not have any plotlines centered around the QAnon movement...the film itself does not endorse any QAnon talking points — it does not push QAnon ideology + four other sources already in the article. It's kind of hard to argue the film itself has "connections to the QAnon conspiracy theory", when it was actually filmed before the QAnon phenomenon started.

Like I stated below, I think this sentence already in the article should be amended: Both Ballard and star Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement, and while promoting the film have reiterated their beliefs in QAnon conspiracy theories. Additionally, that section also already covers the viewpoint that the film is "being marketed to QAnon believers, it's being embraced by this community". So with the combination of those two sentences we are summarizing those two widely held viewpoints, without going into a blow by blow account of every time these two have said something in relation to QAnon. That kind of detail belongs in their respective bio articles. And if we are only going to include one very brief sentence in that section about the widely help viewpoint — The film does not mention any QAnon conspiracy theories, we shouldn't over-emphasize the other viewpoint, which would be WP:UNDUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

How about "Connections to Qanon theorists"? –dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

dlthewave - Sometimes it's staring you right in the face. Duh. Yeah, I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't competing viewpoints, most sources seem to hold both (that the movie doesn't directly mention QAnon and also that QAnon is part of the context for the movie). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

QAnon is well documented: it first originated in 2017. Production and work on the script began in 2015. Given this timeline, it’s clear the conspiracy theory could not have played any role in the film’s development, when it was actually filmed before the QAnon phenomenon started. So there is a clear distinction between the two viewpoints, (1) the film itself is not connected to the QAnon conspiracy theory, and (2) the film is connected to QAnon conspiracy theorists. Even in 2016 and in 2018, the reporting on the film was straightforward; a narrative film in the works, tentatively called The Sound of Freedom; a feature film telling the true story of Tim Ballard’s effort to rescue kidnapped children. It was only after Ballard and Caviezel were accused of promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory (around 2020/2021), that the film became connected to conspiracy theorists. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Something does not have to predate something else to be related to it. It also does no need to contain something to be related to it. There is no contradiction between the statement that it does not contain direct references to QAnon and that it is related to QAnon. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It is only related to QAnon by way of the conspiracy theorists who are involved with, and have been promoting the film, Ballard and Caviezel. If it wasn't for those two, there would be no connection. And yes, the early reporting on the film does matter, because QAnon didn't even exist for Ballard and Caviezel to be involved with, therefore the film couldn't possibly be related to something that didn't even exist. When Ballard and Caviezel started talking about QAnon conspiracy theories, they were described as conspiracy theorists, and it was only then that the film became associated with QAnon. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

If it wasn't for those two, there would be no film. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The MoS is a compilation of best practices based on policy. Trying to use "it's not a policy" to get around it is not going to work well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The film is connected to QAnon conspiracy theorists. The film itself is not connected to any QAnon conspiracy theory. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it isn't based on reality, and reliable sources say you're wrong:

Times of Israel: Surprise blockbuster ‘Sound of Freedom’ echoes antisemitic QAnon conspiracies

NY Times: "invokes QAnon, the wide-ranging, pro-Trump conspiracy theory"

WaPo: "critics have linked Sound of Freedom to the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy"

The Week: "The themes are also strongly reminiscent of the Q conspiracy theory."

There's about 50 more, of course. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not my opinion. It's reliably sourced. It's hard to argue the film itself is connected to any QAnon conspiracy theory when it was actually filmed before the QAnon phenomenon started. That's not opinion, that is reliably sourced. There are no direct ties or support of the film and QAnon — The plot never directly invokes QAnon — the film itself does not contain any references to adrenochrome or other conspiracy theories — does not have any plotlines centered around the QAnon movement...the film itself does not endorse any QAnon talking points — it does not push QAnon ideology — the film itself does not mention QAnon or any issues that are politically partisan — the movie doesn’t mention QAnon — the film has no mention of QAnon conspiracy theories — the film does not mention specific QAnon tenets. And I've got 50 more. The film appeals to the QAnon movement, and people associated with the movie are QAnon conspiracy theorists, that is the connection, because the film itself does not mention any QAnon conspiracy theories. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Mentioned" and "connected" are two different things, and you have changed your argument. The film is connected to QAnon conspiracy theories. The film does not directly mention QAnon. Those are two different things and both are true. In fact, some of the links you provided say both things, so they're actually supporting my argument, and not yours from two paragraphs above. You moved the goalposts. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The film itself does not mention, or reference, or is connected to, or have direct ties to, or have any plot lines, or promotes, or supports, or pushes, any specific QAnon conspiracy theory. The script was written in 2015, and the filming finished in 2018, therefore it is impossible for it to be connected to something that did not even exist when the script was written. And that is also long before Ballard or Caviezel got involved with QAnon conspiracy theories. But when Ballard and Caviezel went down the QAnon rabbit hole, the film is now connected to, associated with, related to, supported by, promoted by, pushed by, and has direct ties to QAnon conspiracy theorists. It's a classic case of the film itself now being "guilty by association". Isaidnoway (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not just say "Alleged QAnon connections"? that contains everything --FMSky (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No. MOS:ALLEGED

Alcyon007 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct, MOS:ALLEGED says don't use the word. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Closing this discussion

The heading currently reads "Connection to QAnon theorists" and the section mentions both the ties to QAnon reported by reliable sources and the fact that QAnon isn't actually mentioned in the film. This seems to present all perspectives neutrally and addresses the concerns raised by editors on both sides. How would everyone feel about closing/hatting this discussion, since we're now mostly just arguing about minor points that have already been resolved? –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what a "QAnon theorist" is. That's not a term I see in any source. I'd be fine with "Connections to supporters of QAnon conspiracy theories". Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)