stringtranslate.com

Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)

"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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about "Connections to Qanon theorists"? –dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If it wasn't for those two, there would be no film. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

No. MOS:ALLEGED
Alcyon007 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, MOS:ALLEGED says don't use the word. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RfC: Ballard and Jordan Peterson discussing the film

Should this paragraph, and sources, be included in the article?

In an interview with Jordan Peterson in July 2023, Ballard claimed to have recently raided a West African "baby factory" where children are sold for organ harvesting and "Satanic ritual abuse", echoing another QAnon myth.[1][2] In July of 2020, in a video post, he lent credence to a QAnon conspiracy theory that falsely accused furniture company Wayfair of laundering money gained from child sex trafficking.[3][4] He told The New York Times "Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes, so now it’s our job to flood the space with real information so the facts can be shared." [5][6]

Yes or no? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

"and there are multiple reliable sources in this paragraph that all detail Ballard's involvement with the film" like what? The only thing i saw was his wish that Jim Caviezel portrayed him --FMSky (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So as long as the wording is changed, the vote on the content being included is a yes, correct, Super Goku V? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the wording is changed, then my vote should be considered as if it was stricken. I still do not have any opinion on if it should be included or not. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The promotional events were by Tim Ballard, who is not involved in the production of this film. --FMSky (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ballard and Jim Caviezel, the main star of the film who was playing as Ballard. So, yes, these were promotional events of the film by the cast of the film, who also included the person the film was sourced on in the interviews. Which is all very common to do when promoting a film, such as getting the author of the book involved in the interviews and promotions. SilverserenC 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple writers from community wide consensus reliable news outlets have explicitly stated that the film itself does not directly mention any QAnon conspiracy theories.—Tracy, Marc (July 11, 2023). "A Film About Child Trafficking Takes on Summer Blockbusters". The New York Times.—Gularte, Alejandra (July 10, 2023). "Sound of Freedom Earns $40 Million at the Box Office". Vulture.—Scribner, Herb (July 13, 2023). "The man at the center of 'Sound of Freedom' abruptly leaves group he founded". The Washington Post.—della Cava, Marco (July 13, 2023). "Why 'Sound of Freedom,' Jim Caviezel's controversial child sex trafficking film, is a hit". USA Today.
This section in this article, specifically and unequivocally states that "Both Ballard and star Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement". My main concerns are that (1) the topic of this article (the film) is being turned into a soapbox to list every batshit crazy thing Ballard and Caviezel have ever said. We have previously had entire sections from Ballard's and Caviezel's articles copied/pasted into this article. How many examples of batshit crazy listed in this article is enough (two, four, a dozen, two dozen)? Their respective biographical articles adequately and completely cover their beliefs in conspiracy theories. It's not like we are hiding it from our readers in their articles or this article. This article should provide a brief summary of the coverage in reliable sources, not detailed coverage that bloats the article.
(2) At least one of those sources does not have community wide consensus of reliability and engages in synth. Some sources are being misrepresented. For example: Neither The AZ Republic source or The Atlantic source verify the Wayfair passage as it is written. Neither source says "lent credence" (the belief that something is true), or anything close to that. So that Wayfair content (as written) fails verification, a core policy on WP. We don't use sources to editorialize our own beliefs. And please note that I am specifically responding to the content/sources proposed at the start of this RfC.
Now, having said that, I would support a proposal of amending this sentence: Both Ballard and star Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement, and while promoting the film in various media appearances, both have reiterated their beliefs in Qanon conspiracy theories. (refs/sources that actually verify → film promotion/reiteration of beliefs) This is a succinct and adequate summary, without the article becoming a magnet for bloated details.
And I shouldn't have to remind an established editor not to cast aspersions as seen here, and make spurious remarks about accounts being compromised or personal attacks about editors trustworthiness. Please keep your replies limited to commenting on the content, not the contributors. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) The marketing of the film is tied to QAnon and numerous Reliable Sources say so. Saikyoryu (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)strike sock –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion by Isaidnoway... "Both Ballard and star Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement, and while promoting the film in various media appearances, both have reiterated their beliefs in Qanon conspiracy theories."... seems fairly reasonable and neutral. I would also keep the NYT context as long as it is confirmed and accurate (I don't subscribe) "He told The New York Times "Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes, so now it’s our job to flood the space with real information so the facts can be shared." DN (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I highly rebuke the suggestion that my account has been "compromised" or I am simply untrustworthy on controversial topics. There have been many users that have been against inclusion so I am not sure why Isaidnoway & I are being singled out. In fact, I mentioned that the paragraph would be better suited on Ballard's own article. I simply do not see how this one interview is significant enough to justify inclusion, as well as Caviezel, the actor in the movie, is not mentioned in the proposed paragraph. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the frick, The Four Deuces? When has we don't know if the video represents what was actually said. Even with a transcript, we don't know if it is accurate ever been a statement made about reliable source coverage? You're basically saying any coverage of statements made in reliable sources are unreliable? Why are you actively pushing pro-fringe whitewashing? SilverserenC 19:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, you are somewhat misrepresenting the purpose of this RfC. No one is suggesting that the youtube clip alone is enough of a source - in fact, it's only there for reference. Reliable sources do discuss the interview: Insider, Vice, The Federalist, Forbes, The Independent... The list goes on. An article at KCRW.com states "Ballard recently told right-wing podcaster Jordan Peterson that claimed adrenochrome harvesting is real." How many more do you need? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the interview is mostly about the film, there is a source about the interview and the film, and it is important to a reader's understanding about the background of the film. Andrew Englehart (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Long, Katherine. "'Sound of Freedom,' this summer's surprise blockbuster, is fronted by a QAnon supporter and financed by a man who defrauded Medicare". Insider. Retrieved 18 July 2023.
  2. ^ "Jim Caviezel and Tim Ballard EP 372". YouTube. Retrieved 18 July 2023.
  3. ^ Robinson, KiMi. "Why is Wayfair accused of trafficking children? 7 things to know about the conspiracy theory". The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  4. ^ Tiffany, Kaitlyn (9 December 2021). "The Great (Fake) Child-Sex-Trafficking Epidemic". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 July 2023.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Independent was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/technology/qanon-save-the-children-trafficking.html

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)[reply]

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

QAnon in the Lead

Since @Hzh: has chosen to ignore WP:BRD and edit war, I guess I'll be the one to bring this up here.

A sentence was added to the lead weeks ago, mentioning the film's connection to QAnon. I feel it's appropriate, as we have a well-cited section documenting this, and it's become a major point of contention over the film in multiple reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QAnon is a contested issue, and denied by the makers of the film, who said that the film has its genesis in 2015 before QAnon existed. The film's connection with QAnon is probably a false claim since it appears to have more to do with Ballard and Caviezel rather than the film. I can see why "indirect connection" is written, but giving prominence in the lede to something that is not directly related to the film is wrong, especially when it is not made clear that the QAnon claim is disputed and has been denied. There is then also the problem of giving emphasis to a single unverified and likely false claim (out of many bits of information) from the article in the lede, and that is UNDUE. I would say if you want to add anything from the reception section, it's the divide in perception of the film between the left and the right. If the QAnon accusation is to be mentioned, it would need to be as part of that, even then it needed to be written very carefully since it is not part of the film. Hzh (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is well crafted, and saying [t]he film's connection with QAnon is probably a false claim seems like a POV-push, given the reliable sources we have to back the connection. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You pretty much accept that there is no direct connection of the film with QAnon with the wording "indirect connection" (if you accept that wording, you probably also think that any suggestion of direct connection to QAnon is likely false). Why would anyone give so much prominence in the lede to something that isn't directly connected to film apart from wanting to add a loaded term like QAnon to lede? There are plenty of things to say about the film in the lede, to ignore those and emphasize something controversial that is not directly connected to the film is just wrong. Hzh (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're making unfounded assumptions, and I do not appreciate it. I'll let others weigh in, rather than butting heads with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HandThatFeeds is correct here; the only thing that matters is whether or not the sentence in the lead is summarizing a sourced section of the body. It is. I find Hzh's opening statement "QAnon is a contested issue" rather vague and meaningless - QAnon is a real thing, albeit a real conspiracy-theory-supporting thing, and the volumes of material written about this film's connections to it are not in doubt. While we do have editors that don't like having QAnon mentioned in the lead, that in and of itself is not a valid reason for removal, as Hzh appears to be saying. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is given in isolation of the context, which is the culture war fought between the left and right. I see that you changed it to something even more extreme by removing the "indirect" part. thereby dismissing any counter argument. Your edit shows precisely what is wrong, since it is not a summary at all, but pushing the POV of one side. Hzh (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the context, which is the culture war fought between the left and right." - sorry, maybe I am mistaken, but this sounds like potentially WP:OR to me. Do you have a source to back this up? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The culture war is mentioned in the Los Angeles Times and Vox cited in the article, and plenty of sources besides, for example the Guardian [11], the Economist [12], etc. You really need to explain your edit making it an entirely non-neutral statement. Hzh (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe first you can explain how that edit makes it a non-neutral statement? It appears to accurately summarize the given source, they certainly aren't saying that they're indirect connections. They're direct connections to the film's principles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already explained, you effectively ignored all the arguments against it being connected in the section, for example, the film has its origin before QAnon appeared. In fact the section explicitly stated that the film does not mention any QAnon conspiracy theory. Many sources do state that QAnon has not direct connection with the film (e.g. Vox), and many mentioned it's Ballard and Caviezel who are linked to QAnon, or that supporters of QAnon promoted the film, rather than the film itself, in fact the major sources that made the link mention Ballard and Caviezel as the connection (Washington Post, Guardian, etc. i.e. it's not a direct connection with the film). Any connection would have been indirect. Removing "indirect" is to present an entirely false and non-neutral POV. Hzh (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caviezel is the film's star and Ballard is the subject its based on. Those aren't indirect connections. The sources state that QAnon is not directly featured in the film, thats not the same but we can add that to the bit in the lead if you like. Also note that we didn't replace indirect with direct, so where is the entirely false and non-neutral POV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without the word "indirect", the assumption would be that the film is directly connected to QAnon (which is unlikely when the genesis of the film predates QAnon). They are indirect because the film does not make any direct connection to QAnon, in fact the Guardian source says that those involved in QAnon don't talked about QAnon - it accepts that the film is not directly connected QAnon, but interprets the film as being "QAnon adjacent". The fact is that the great majority of sources (even those that make the accusation of links to QAnon) does not says that the film is connected directly to QAnon, trying to make it sound like so is trying to push a very minority POV. The article is about the film itself, and what Caviezel and Ballard believe is a side-issue to the film, giving it such prominence is UNDUE. I will still come back to this point, why give such prominence to this issue when there are other things that could be written about it in the lede? Hzh (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that its being given the *minimum* of prominence in the lead it can be, not mentioning it is not an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the fact that it is still more prominent than other topics in the article, and since the film has no direct connection to QAnon, what's written is also misleading. If you want to write that, put it into a proper context, and as part of a rounder view of the film. As it is, it's just POV-pushing. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing others of POV-pushing without any basis is very much an attack on an editor. I'd drop that tactic if I were you, immediately. The sentence is an accurate summary of what's in the body and as HEB said, it's being given the minimum at such a short mention. If you feel that other sections deserve a spot in the lead, you're certainly free to write a short summary of those sections for the lead. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't adequately explained the removal of indirect when it is clear that there is no direct connection, to imply that there is is a false summary of the section. None of the points I made has been adequately answered. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to satisfy you. The explanation has been given, your refusal to accept it is a "you" problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the statement was "well-crafted", but someone now come and made a significant change to the wording, and you have no problem with it? It calls into question whatever explanation you made, and that is your problem. You cannot just blandly make assertion that you don't even bother to defend while ignoring evidence that it is not the correct summary. Hzh (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the film and QAnon is covered extensively in reliable sources and therefore should be in the lead. No rs dispute the connection. Bear in mind that although the film does not explicitly mention QAnon, that does not mean that it does not implicitly endorse it. TFD (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you missed the argument that this is about its prominence and how it is written. There is in fact no RS that would state that the film is directly connected to QAnon, because the QAnon link is the opinion of the film's critics, and per WP:RSOPINION, such sources may be considered RS for statement of fact, but not for opinion asserted as fact. Even the film critics don't claim that it is directly linked to QAnon - for example, the Guardian interpreted the film as "QAnon adjacent". The RS that reported on the film merely stated the QAnon link was a claim made against the film, or that the star of the film supports QAnon, or those on the right supported the film [13][14][15], rather than stating that there is a direct connection as a fact. Many RS in fact explicitly state that the film does not say anything about QAnon or politics. You need to be careful how you write it, and should avoid making it sound like the film is directly connected to QAnon when it isn't. The way it is written now suggests that the connection is direct, and that is wrong. Hzh (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's written now states that there are connections. Reliable sources document how there are connections. You're accusing others of POV editing when, in fact, your desired edits are distinctly POV; that is; you want to minimize the appearance of the existing connections that are documented by reliable sources. You have 2 editors telling you this, and frankly, I'm tired of wasting time beating this dead horse. I've seen enough. We're done here. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's you who significantly changed the wording and meaning, accusing me of wanting a POV edit is bizarre. You haven't actually given a good reason why you wanted to change the wording, neither has anyone else. "Indirect connection" is significantly different from just "connection". And no, the RS does not document that there are direct connections, they say there are accusations of connections and interpretations of a connection (accusations and interpretations are opinions, not facts, so RSOPINION applies, meaning that the sources that made the accusation and interpretations are not considered RS for statements of fact), and any clear connection are indirect, e.g. via the star.
Well, I will rewrite the lede when I have the time. Hzh (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Direct connection" is significantly different from just "connection" why is it POV pushing when other people do something other than connection but not when you do?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was the original wording, and because I didn't change that wording (so you cannot say I'm POV-pushing because I didn't make that change), you should ask Fred Zepelin to explain. And what I said was "indirect connection" is significantly different. Do you want more explanation as to why "indirect connection" is significantly different from just "connection"? Hzh (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly POV-pushing here on this page. And it's becoming disruptive. I suggest you drop it, no one else here agrees with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strange accusation since I haven't edited the article for a few days. The discussion here to ask for explanation for the edits. It is disruptive to disregard other editors requests for explanation, you for example has refused to answer why you regard someone changing significantly a sentence you considered "well-crafted" to be acceptable. Fred Zepelin has refused to answer my point that there is no RS that says the film is directly connected to QAnon. Just making a statement is not giving an explanation. If you like the edit by Fred Zepelin then say so, but that isn't any explanation. It is quite clear to me that there is no interest here at all in presenting a neutral summary that accurately reflects the article as a whole, so with that understanding, I'm out. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't about whether or not you edited the article, but your clear POV-pushing here on the talk page.
Dropping your parting shot ("It is quite clear to me that there is no interest here at all in presenting a neutral summary") just solidifies that in my mind. But if you're out, then we're done here. Someone uninvolved can close this section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have anyone more satisfied at not answering question and just throwing accusation instead. Hzh (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: WP:TLW Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have been dishonest about Sound of Freedom. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Well, I will rewrite the lede when I have the time. Don't. I think an unqualified "connections" is a reasonable terse summary of the various connections this film has to QA as described in the article body. VQuakr (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QAnon clearly merits mention in the lead per WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

The Wikipedia page states and suggests that the SOF movie is connected to QAnon conspiracy theory. This is false and is misleading to connect the film to a conspiracy. The movie never discusses anything political, and only reports on the real problem of child trafficking in the world. 12.11.109.231 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the wording slightly in the opening paragraph of the article. The Q-Anon connection theory did exist, but the article still should present that alleged connection in a neutral light. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: This issue has been discussed over and over again. In fact, at the time of writing, almost all of the existing threads on this talk page are about QAnon, and in every case, consensus decided that the information on QAnon stays. I'm getting very tempted to put a FAQ or an editnotice on this page, but that probably won't help. If meaningless forumshopping like this continues, semiprotecting this talk page may be necessary. Liu1126 (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did restore the change I made, not to be contentious or even controversial, but because the wording is certainly not neutral and it does validate the unsubstantiated claims that the conspiracy theory group QAnon has a direct connection to not just the film but the script and real-life story. Can someone actually discuss the POV wording and come up with a better solution that what I wrote? If so, great! It's far too non-factual and opinionated to be encyclopedic in the version before my edit. Thanks, A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. This has been discussed before, most recently in the "Connections to the Qanon conspiracy theory" section above, and the connection to QA is well-sourced in the "Connections to QAnon conspiracy theories" article section that the lead summarizes. The proposed change separates "QAnon" from the descriptor "conspiracy theories" with an "or", which is a significant change in the meaning of the sentence. The film received attention for its QA connections, not because of "media claims" about those connections, and the attention was not limited to political attention. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the article's "powers that be" are settled on something not really within Wikipedia guidelines, then. Carry on. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, the guidelines preclude using unwarranted expressions of doubt. The connection between the film and QA is well-established. The proposed edit fails the requirements of neutrality and verifiability, along with not having consensus. VQuakr (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Christian"?

The opening paragraph of the article says, "Sound of Freedom is a 2023 American Christian crime thriller film". The reasoning for adding "Christian", as stated in the edit summary, was: "Film is released by Angel Studios, so the "Christian" descriptor should be added". This was reverted not long after with this edit summary attached: "Not a Christian film simply because of the cast’s beliefs, the film has one single mention of religion". I agree with the reversion and reasoning behind it. This was reverted again today with this edit summary: "it's described by sources (NPR for example is extant in the article) as a Christian film by a Christian studio." The problem here is this: Angel Studios is not "Christian", it's owned by people who are members of the LDS (Mormon) Church. LDS Church members own and operate a lot of businesses in the United States, and around the world. That does not make those businesses Mormon faith-centered or Christian-faith centered. The mission statement of Angel Studios can be found at this link [16] The statement reads thusly:

"Dear film fan, We’re building a home for stories that amplify light (or, as we call it, our North Star).How do we define light? True, honest, noble, just, authentic, lovely, admirable, and excellentJust as a compass, the stars and magnetic North guided sailors through dark waters centuries ago, our North Star for filmmaking helps us navigate dark times and focus on light in our day.Darkness can seem pervasive. Last year introduced fires all over Australia, pandemic, economic turmoil, locusts infestations, rising food prices, protests and riots, earthquakes, and financial warfare (look up Hedge Funds and GameStop). Sometimes it feels as if the tumultuous events are becoming more frequent. There’s a reason the film business was one of the few industries that grew during the Great Depression. Hope is a fundamental human need and in yesteryear, the filmmakers mastered storytelling to meet that need. Unfortunately, most shows offered these days add to the cynicism, division, and darkness so pervasive in society. Fortunately, darkness and light, hope and despair, cannot exist in the same place at the same time. And we believe if we build a home for creators and communities to connect, specifically those who align with our North Star, Angel Studios will become known for fulfilling our universal human need for hope and light. Our time feels short. Choosing, funding, creating, and spreading stories that matter has never felt more urgent. Whether as a customer, investor or team member thank you for joining us.

Neal Harmon Co-Founder and CEO Angel Studios"

Nothing in that mission statement (or anywhere else at the Angel Studios website) says they are a Christian studio, a Christian business. The film, Sound of Freedom, doesn't mention Christianity and there is nothing that truly makes it that as part of a genre. It does have Christian themes, and at least one of the film's actors (Caviezel) is known for a strong Christian faith. Even so, I don't think it's at all accurate to call this a Christian film. Especially not because of which studio made the film or that a source such as NPR mislabeled it. I've not yet been able to find anything in the way of even the studio's founders/owners/representatives saying Angel is "Christian" or that the movie is. Isn't that where our sourcing for putting a business under a label should come from?

A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the claim that NPR mislabeled it? The answer to your last question is a resounding no, we don't let subjects define themselves we let reliable sources define the subjects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when the reliable sources are wrong? Misstate? Misspeak? Mislabel and misidentify? Then what? We still go with the unreliable and incorrect label from the reliable source? I don't mean to sound or appear confrontational, because that's not at all what I'm feeling or thinking. But to say something is something it's not because a reliable source said it's so doesn't seem like great policy to me. The film isn't Christian. The studio isn't Christian. NPR got it wrong, Angel Studios has never said they are "Christian". If NPR referred to the Hilton as a hostel chain instead of a hotel chain, even though Hilton has never said they are a hostel, are we to go with what NPR says rather than the primary source and actual subject of the topic? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have jumped the shark... Your argument would only make sense if we had a statement from Angel Studios which said "We are not Christian" but you haven't provided that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their mission statement says nothing at all; it has zero bearing on this discussion as does any editor's WP:SYNTH that concludes reliable sources are incorrect. The producer, director, and lead actor are all Catholic and the main character quotes the Book of Mark in a pivotal scene. All that said, the NPR source doesn't make a huge deal about it being a Christian film; it's mentioned in the headline and introduction but isn't the main focus of the source. So upon consideration, I'm open to the argument that this isn't a sufficiently pivotal aspect of the subject for it to rate mention in the first sentence of the article (I also didn't notice how recent the addition of the descriptor was). VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VQuakr: What you may not know/understand is that Christian companies intending to produce a product to promote Christianity openly and actively will include that intent as part of their mission statement. This is why I went directly to the Mission Statement at the studio's website. The founders and owners of Angel are all members of a church that is the second wealthiest church in the world, that is true. The films and streaming series' they produce often have a Christian and/or Biblical theme, that is also true. But the studio's mission is not evangelization or proselytization or specifically "Christian". If anything, its productions are largely faith-based and free of excessive violence, coarse language, and sexual themes. This is true with the Hallmark channel, but they cannot be called "Christian", either because Christianity as a focus is not the purpose, mission, intent, regardless of what the actors and production team believes in spiritually. My original point is this: Sound of Freedom is not a Christian film just because Angel Studios made it. As well, Angel Studios is not a Christian company where everything they produce is "Christian" any more than the Marriott Hotel chain or Black and Decker are Christian (also owned by the same church the founders/owners of Angel Studios belong to). Upholding Judeo-Christian values does not make what these entities produce "Christian". See my point? At any rate, thank you for doing the right thing and reverting out the addition of the label/genre as it was not accurate or appropriate. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is incorrect. We really don't care much what orgs have to say about themselves. We care what reliable sources have to say about them. Black and Decker and Marriott are both publicly-traded companies so they are particularly poor choices of analogies, not that it matters per WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible or even allowable to add a facepalm gif to talk page comments? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing here is one editor insisting this is not a Christian film, and VQuakr, Horse Eye's Back, and myself all pointing out that reliable sources say it is, and that's what matters. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zepelin, VQuakr reverted his re-addition of the wording and returned it to what the status quo was before the errant edit that included "Christian" to the beginning of the article. The studio doesn't refer to it as a Christian film, why should Wikipedia? The studio isn't a Christian studio. Christianity isn't mentioned in the movie. It wasn't marketed as a Christian film. While it's true one of the actors is a Catholic who is portraying a man that's a Mormon, those are the personal lives of the man portrayed and the man playing him, and none of these things equate a film listed or categorized the genre of "Christian". Also, there is nothing in the body of the article that mentions how the film could or should be categorized as Christian. Please explain your rationale for why the film is undoubtedly a Christian film, apart from a reliable source getting their information wrong. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the tenth time, we rely on secondary sources. The studio's description of the film, or lack thereof, is not as relevant as the descriptions in reliable secondary sources. This has already been explained to you, so I don't know why you're pretending to not understand that concept. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could take it or leave it in the lead, its not as much that I object to as Alaska4Me2's contrived argument for why it should be done. If they just said "Due weight, mention in body but not in lead" I'd be like "Ok, I can see it" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that "faith-based", in the context that it's used in this article, is essentially a synonym for "Christian" (no one is talking about "faith-based audiences" or "faith-based distributors" when talking about Muslim, Jewish, etc, films) and that term is used, with sources, multiple times throughout the body. If Alaska4Me2 needs an explicit, sourced mention of "Chrisitian" in the body that would certainly be simple and I could accomplish it in about 3 minutes. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to the body. Not only are there numerous sources referring to the film as a "Christian thriller", the Guardian article actually points out that the film is "Often described as a 'Christian thriller'" - now you have a reliable secondary source documenting the fact that OTHER sources are calling it a Christian thriller. I think we're done here. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: hopefully we agree that an editor presenting bad arguments and generally being abrasive isn't ideal, but isn't a great reason to do or not do something in article space. @Fred Zepelin: thanks for the added sourcing. Do you think the "Christian thriller" descriptor is important enough to the subject to merit mention in the first sentence? VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty standard to have two adjectives in the first sentences of films article before the word "film", I think. If it's good enough for C Me Dance, it's certainly good enough for this one. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the film considered a "Christian thriller"?

Is the film considered a "Christian thriller" by more than one source? Not according to most sources found online:

Literally the only truly reliable source that refers to the film as a "Christian thriller" is NPR and its affiliate station websites that have reprinted the same article/interview from NPR. NPR mislabled the film. Are we to take that one mislabeling and use it or should we be going with most of the reliable sources online that do not call it that - to include the studio itself?

If some are so bent on needing the film to be categorized here as undoubtedly being related to religion and religious mores (even though no particular religion is mentioned in the film), why not just say it's "faith based"? "God's children are not for sale" doesn't equate Christianity. It equates a belief in God. That does include Christians AND Jewish believers in God, does it not? For me personally, I find it offensive to label a film as Christian when it never was meant to be specifically Christian. The reason why is because it appears we are pushing Christianity as THE moral standard in relation to belief in God. That leaves those who are Jewish out in a big way, in an offensive and exclusive, bigoted manner. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to represent? I think not.

If we keep the religious morality of the film highlighted in the opening paragraph, then it should be ambiguous rather than specific. "Faith based" fixes the bias and bigotry. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have to point out that at best, Alaska4Me2 missed the multiple sources calling it a "Christian thriller film" or "Christian film" in this article, and at worst, they are deliberately misrepresenting reality when they say "Literally the only truly reliable source that refers to the film as a "Christian thriller" is NPR". Check the multiple sources in the article. One source in particular, the Guardian, even states that the film is "Often described as a 'Christian thriller'" by other outlets, so the arguments being presented by Alaska4Me2 are pretty clearly inaccurate right from the start. I'd recommend WP:DROPTHESTICK here. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've combined this section with the above one for organizational purposes, per WP:SHOWN. They discuss the same topic (whether the word "Christian" is appropriate in conjunction with the genre "thriller"), and being a subsection still allows the different vein of conversation but keeps like-themed discussions under the same heading. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EducatedRedneck, although I appreciate how you've worded your comments and explanation above, I'm curious about how you happened to end up here only to then revert my revert, when you've never edited this page or the article previously.[17] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had your talk page on my watchlist, and when I saw a situation escalating into an argument, I figured it wouldn't hurt to step in and see if I could deescalate. But as this conversation is not germane to the article, I'll continue the conversation on your talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply here and at my talk page, EducatedRedneck. Your approach and sincere interest in working things out for the benefit of all is greatly appreciated. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://thecollision.org/the-sound-of-freedom-christian-movie-review/
  2. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-astonishing-box-office-success-summer-1814500
  3. ^ https://thewitness.org/is-the-sound-of-freedom-a-christian-movie/
  4. ^ https://www.today.com/popculture/movies/sound-of-freedom-movie-controversy-rcna95992
  5. ^ https://www.christianpost.com/news/sound-of-freedom-tops-250-million-in-worldwide-box-office.html

"positive review" or "C+ grade"?

In the "Critical Response" section, User:‎StubbyPopsicle recently changed Adam Graham also gave a positive review: to Adam Graham gave the film a C+ grade, writing. The source does, indeed support the grade of C+, which in the context of the review also seems to be positive. I'm unsure what level of specificity is most appropriate. "a C+ grade" is somewhat ambiguous, and could be viewed as a positive, negative, or neutral, while "a positive review" is very clear. However, the letter grade also implicitly acknowledges Graham's view of the film's drawbacks. I think my preference is for "positive review", but I'm far from confident on this matter and would like to get other editors' thoughts. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "C" review would be either negative or ambivalent, there is no way to spin a C as a positive assessment (or at least there wasn't with my parents...) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review itself would be more accurately characterized as "mixed" or "neutral", which is consistent with the C+ grade. This was a good change. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I have known some people who would've been happy to get a "C+" ("I passed! Now let's get drunk!") the point is well-taken. I wasn't sure, and now I've come to agree that the change is a good one. Thank y'all for the input! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've changed the article to accurately reflect that this reviewer gave the film a C+ review, not a "positive review" as previously incorrectly claimed. A C+ review is a not a positive review. StubbyPopsicle (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I was afflicted with status quo bias, which you and the rest of the community have knocked me out of this time. Thank you! And doubly thank you for engaging on the talk page; if all editors did as you've done here, Wikipedia would be a much better place! EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]