Talk:Sound of Freedom (film)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 [1], the Economist [2], etc. You really need to explain your edit making it an entirely non-neutral statement. Hzh (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [3][4][5], 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Hzh: WP:TLW Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You have been dishonest about Sound of Freedom. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

QAnon clearly merits mention in the lead per WP:DUE. VQuakr (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 [6] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Is it possible or even allowable to add a facepalm gif to talk page comments? A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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:

• BBC: "What's less clear, though, as evidenced by the conversations happening around the film, is what the film's unique selling point, which has made it the summer's surprise hit, really is. Is it a truly Christian/faith-based movie or not? Is it a thriller simply highlighting an all-too-important and harrowing global issue, or one implicitly aligning itself with popular conspiracy theories? Its ambiguity in these respects may have worked in its favour at the box office – though what its impact may be on the film industry longer-term is another matter altogether."

• The Collision: A Christian website that does not once refer to the film as being Christian.

• Newsweek: Doesn't call the film Christian, not even once.

• The Witness: A Christian website that brings up the debate about whether it is a Christian film or not. "It is worth noting that while the film has Christian themes and elements, it is not marketed as a “Christian movie.” The filmmakers have stated that their goal was to tell a compelling story that sheds light on the issue of child trafficking, and they hope the film will raise awareness and inspire action."

• The Today Show: Referring to the film as Christian is not even mentioned. The only mention of a Christian film is noting that the star of the film, Jim Caviezel, played Christ in The Passion of Christ.

• The Christian Post: Doesn't refer to the film as Christian. As with The Today Show above, the only mention of Christianity is Jim Caviezel playing Christ in The Passion of the Christ years ago.

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)

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)

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)

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.[7] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Utah lawsuit

I think it'd be a good idea to include a discussion about a lawsuit in Utah, where one of the people portrayed as a villain in the film says that she was defamed by the filmmakers. Reporting here from The Salt Lake Tribune: [8] Archived: [9] -79.234.56.20 (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Also a link to the fact-checking film by Patrick Courrielche called "Rescue Ruse" that fact checks this film and exposes many lies in it.[10]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVgi06ZGa3U 104.220.249.24 (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Add an award in the Accolade section

Hey everyone, could we please add an additional award to the accolades section? This film was the recipient and winner of the 2024 Movieguide Awards Faith & Freedom Award for Movies Award. Thank you! AB12349 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Section title: Pay it forward "scheme"

Given that reportedly 84% of the "pay it forward" tickets were used, calling it a "scheme" is misleading and defamatory. There seems to be no evidence that suggests Angel Studios used the "pay it forward" feature as a way to intentionally artificially increase viewership. There are no sources for Wiki title names, thus no accountability. I suggest changing it to "controversy" instead. 150.220.54.154 (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The "report" is by the film's production company, not an independent source. We are only reporting what they claimed, but that's not a valid basis to change the term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be otherwise... They certainly didn't expect it to decrease sales and any intervention like that is artificial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)