Talk:Tim Ballard

Did Tim Ballard really work for DHS?

This article claims that Tim Ballard worked for the Department of Homeland Security, but the link provided to corroborate this claim is a website connected to Ballard's own organization. I don't believe this is a valid source for corroboration: Ballard (or a Ballard supporter) is simply pointing to a site that Ballard himself created, as "proof" of the claim.

If Ballard really worked for a government agency as prominent as the DHS for twelve years, there should be a legitimate source to point to to substantiate the claim. I propose that if no such source can be produced, then the claim must be regarded as false -- or at best unprovable -- and should be deleted. Chillowack (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: an article in the Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/children-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-epidemic/620845/) notes that DHS and CIA could confirm Ballard's alleged work history with them were he to grant them permission, which he has failed to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.245.88 (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If we can't find a real source for this, it should be deleted, especially in light of the numerous reliable sources that have pointed out how Ballard exaggerates in his efforts to promote himself and his organization. Andrew Englehart (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Was not aware of this point until this section was recently undeleted. Does anyone have a problem with deleting that information until we have a legitimate source for it, per Chillowack's proposal above? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the claim. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.state.gov/biographic-information-for-members-of-the-public-private-partnership-advisory-council-to-end-human-trafficking/

This says he worked at DHS 103.183.140.65 (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks unreliable and primary-sourced. That blurb was put up during the time in the Trump administration when Ballard was a right-wing darling and they just took whatever he said as gospel and reprinted it without questioning it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He testified befoee senate (or congress) saying he worked there for 12 years and nobody questioned it. GOV website says he worked there. Are you saying he perjured himself? What would be a reliable source then if these aren't? It's not the trump administration anymore, hasn't been for a long time and why haven't they taken it down then? Also if people start disregarding GOV sources because they don't trust/like the people running it, we are going to have a whole new problem here. 103.183.140.65 (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source reporting that testimony? That would be better. As for Ballard perjuring himself, I have no idea, but given the allegations against him, the fact that O.U.R. saw fit to kick him out, the LDS saw fit to kick him out, and that he made up stories about fictitious rescues, let's say I wouldn't be shocked if that turned out to be the case. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's why I have doubts: In this (trumpwhitehouse.archive) gov document, Ballard claimed he was a "former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special agent on the southern border who fought sex trafficking for over a decade". That was 2019. But in February 2023, even before the lawsuit, Ballard admitted in an interview that, during his time with HSI (Homeland Security Investigations), what he did "wasn’t operational stuff. It was an analyst officer position. It wasn’t, like, hands-on." Pressed further, asked if he was an analyst, Ballard said "Yeah. I was an analyst." Direct contradiction. So I'm very wary of promoting this guy's wild claims, which seem to change over time, without extremely good sourcing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This person doesn't seem to be notable

the referenced articles do not seem adequate to justify notability. 166.137.19.53 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

says paedho eh? 112.215.154.251 (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This person is insanely notable a movie inspired by the actions in his life for rescuing children from human trafficking. box office more than 50 million Katielyne99 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of negative content, adding content without RS

These edits removed content criticizing O.U.R., saying, e.g., that it's not about him but about the organization. Ballard is the head and face of O.U.R., and features prominently in every article about O.U.R. His only claim to notability is his role at O.U.R. The negative content belongs here as well as at Operation Underground Railroad. The sentence removed because of a missing citation: here it is with the citation and an added sentence. The Vice article mentions Ballard numerous times. A 2021 follow-up article further criticized O.U.R.'s practices, which included using inexperienced donors and celebrities as part of its "jump team", a lack of meaningful surveillance or identification of targets, failing to validate whether the people they intended to rescue were in fact actual trafficking victims, and conflating consensual sex work with sex trafficking. Ballard reportedly consulted a psychic for intelligence on one mission on the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic.

Content in the "Education" section and the entire "Federal Service" section added here is based entirely on bios Ballard submitted to various venues who hired him as a speaker or did fluff Q&As. None of it has been vetted by RS. The Atlantic asked the CIA and DHS for confirmation but were told that "they could not confirm Ballard's employment record without his written permission, which he did not provide."

References

We shouldn't mention this in WP voice without reliable sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Added archive-url to paywalled Atlantic source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The criticisms section is not ready to be on WP. The three sources are just three opinion pieces with that attempt to tie Tim Ballard and OUR by using association fallacy. The articles provide no proof to back their claims and just take the readers into a wild good chase with no that leads nowhere. The whole section should be deleted and re-done until it can be fixed with concrete proof. WP is not the place for the opinions of writers of news agencies. WP is meant to give factual and verifiable information as an encyclopedia not opinions. This may help: https://edu.gcfglobal.org/en/digital-media-literacy/the-blur-between-facts-and-opinions-in-the-media/1/# Hti143 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has restored the content you deleted. Paywalled source: you haven’t done much editing so you may not know that, except for the Wall Street Journal, you can usually look up the archived article on the Wayback Machine. In some cases, you may have to click a few saved results until you find one without the paywall notice. I assume that the three sources your mention are the cited sources for the first sentence? They're articles, not opinions, reporters reporting on their research/observations/investigations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Books

It's interesting that the subject of this article is described as an author, but it doesn't list any of his books. Kirby777 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

QAnon

{{ Why is this QAnon-"criticism" still there considering his verbal and on-air denial of such connection. Based on three articles? I mean really?

With keeping this you might even work against his work on child trafficking by damaging his credibility. That is crazy. 185.238.219.77 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

agreed Katielyne99 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

why not publish about what work he has done in his actual career? like the stings in columbia and haiti? Katielyne99 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence that any of that happened. Provide a notable source for your claim. 166.137.19.53 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

here's another source of his attachment to q, the person who funded "his movie".

'Sound of Freedom,' this summer's surprise blockbuster, is fronted by a QAnon supporter and financed by a man who defrauded Medicare

https://www.insider.com/sound-of-freedom-tim-ballard-qanon-medicare-fraud-2023-7 166.137.19.53 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 2601:18C:8F00:4D30:F7B5:63A7:A8F4:CD58 (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

--Richwilkinson (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC) The sources cited for the criticism that Ballard "supported QAnon conspiracy theories" do not actually contain any quotations from people saying that!!! In those sources, Ballard is said to have simply responded to questions designed to tie him to QAnon-aligned parties with the reply that, regardless of who is in favor of his work, "Child trafficking is real and happening!!!” Some have pointed to supposed QAnon supporters of the "Sound of Freedom" movie as proof Tim Ballard supports QAnon conspiracy theories but that's connecting dots that aren't there!!! It makes less logical sense than saying Biden supports crime because almost all convicts love him or that he's a pedophile because we know one pedophile voted for him. I recommend either removing the sentence with the citations that fail to support it or find some citations that point to sources that identify exactly who accused him of "supporting QAnon conspiracy theories" and when and where. If such cannot be found, news media who applied the term "QAnon-adjacent" to the movie about Ballard could be cited. A quick web search will return several of those. Let's promote accuracy here on Wikipedia!

As for Ballard's claim that African children are suffering from "ritual abuse" being an echo of QAnon theory, such abuse is actually happening, especially to albino children — See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice_in_Uganda

Ritual child abuse is happening in other African countries also: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/commentisfree/2022/jun/08/witch-hunts-ritual-child-abuse-albinism-africa

Trying to tie Ballard and the "Sound of Freedom" to QAnon is a purely political ploy without supporting evidence. And it says nothing about the tragic truth of trafficked toddlers and teens! --Richwilkinson (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Richwilkinson, this is a lot of conjecture and WP:SYNTH on your part, and regardless I don't think the case you've made is particularly strong. Citing child sacrifice in Uganda to support claims of "baby factories" in West Africa? Really? We go by what reliable sources say, and it's not our place to second-guess them unless you'd like to take this to WP:RSN. We currently say "Ballard and supporters of O.U.R. have been accused of promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory" which I think you would agree is a factual and DUE statement, as those accusations have certainly been made and are covered widely. If you have reliable sources that specifically disagree with the Qanon accusations, then we can talk. –dlthewave ☎ 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

'Sound of Freedom,' is fronted by a QAnon supporter and financed by a man who defrauded Medicare

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
noteworthy, who paid for the movie. 'Sound of Freedom,' this summer's surprise blockbuster, is fronted by a QAnon supporter and financed by a man who defrauded Medicare https://www.insider.com/sound-of-freedom-tim-ballard-qanon-medicare-fraud-2023-7 166.137.19.53 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) --Richwilkinson (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Not so noteworthy when you look at the big picture. True, Andrew McCubbins, a Utah serial entrepreneur has been convicted of medicare fraud. He estimates his investment in the movie was several hundred thousand dollars. But that pales in comparison to a group of Mexican backers, who mainly funded the production of the movie for a reported $14.5 million. And it's not much compared to the $5 million that Angel Studios raised via crowdfunding for marketing and distribution from more than 7,000 people. Eduardo Verástegui paid an undisclosed amount to buy the movie from Disney. He originally produced the movie. He also directed and co-wrote the movie with Alejandro Monteverde. So, you see, the medicare fraudster's contribution was minor and says nothing about Ballard's character or the value of the movie in making people aware of the tragic trafficking of toddlers and teens for slavery and sex! As for whomever the frontman was, if Caviezel is meant, it should be noted that he denies even knowing anything about QAnon when filming the movie. He made the point that, just because somebody is against human trafficking like him, doesn't mean he endorses whatever else that somebody else is up to. Let's avoid the fallacy of guilt by association. It would be wrong to say that, since disgraced Sam Bankman-Fried donated to Joe Biden before being found as a campaign fraudster, that Biden is an illegitimate president or that Joe Biden is a NAZI because he took donations from NAZI collaborator George Soros. --Richwilkinson (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

WP: Questionable and self-published sources

It seems literally none of this guys credentials are verified AT all by any reliable source.

This section

>As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he served a two-year mission to Chile. After completing his mission, he attended and graduated cum laude from Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish and political science. He then obtained a Master of Arts in international politics from the Monterey Institute of International Studies, graduating summa cum laude.

Cites: https://ourrescue.org/about-us#team

Yet the only relevant information on this page about his credentials are his claims that he worked for DHS.

I did some more digging and his website makes no such claims about his degrees: https://www.timothyballard.com/

He has claims on LinkedIn as well, but I don't believe linkedin does any form of verification for this?

Based on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

It seems poorly sourced information like this should be removed immediately, I am not exactly a Wikipedia expert but this appears to be blatant poor references but do to the likely controversy of this page I am posting this talk section. Cynicaldebian (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

these arent any exceptional claims, its just his education so it can be kept, see WP:ABOUTSELF --FMSky (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Wuerzele:

See WP:PROSELINE#Example of a proseline and a possible resolution.

Your edit also introduced another error. In August 2020, Ballard and supporters of O.U.R. were accused of promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory.[27][28][29] Ballard stated that this claim is not true and is being used to discredit him and the film Sound of Freedom.[30] - the movie was only released in 2023 --FMSky (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi,FMSky. First of all, let me vent that I am a bit aghast at your uncivil behavior, accusation above and WP:edit warring - I come here to contribute without agenda, and you have whole-sale reverted my WP:good faith edits three times; initially you didnt even give a reason for your revert. You could see yourself, that I have absolutely no stake in this page, as I have never edited on this page before.

As an experienced WP: BIO author and editor, I was summoned by the bot to comment on Operation Underground Railroad. You could see that on my talk page, when you wrote there.

You on the other hand, I can see, have a major stake here: You are the editor with the most edits on this page. You behave like you WP:own this page. However, this bio is still poorly written, it is poorly sourced, even if you just removed the flag.

• As fas as me introducing proseline: I added dates, where they didnt exist. Dates and "As of.." are very important pieces, they add structure for the reader of a bio.
• As far as introducing an error: show me where, and I will correct it. I added dates and I ordered chronologically. I introduced a customary section called "Career". You deleted that without explanation. This section with an "expand" flag gently pointed out, that we do not know what Ballards career actually is, and when it started, other than founding of OUR.

Given the fact that I see no wrongful introduction of proseline or errors I will revert your reversal a third time, and I expect that you solve any disagreement with these formalities amicably on this talk page. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What "uncivil behaviour" and "accusations" are you talking about? You are also supposed to find a consensus FIRST and then reinstate your edits, see WP:BRD --FMSky (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I see that you are continuing not to respond to my responses, which is key to a discussion however. You responded by shooting questions. Let me reply to those first:

It is uncivil to revert without edit summary as you have done numerous times now here, here, and here. Many more edits have no edit summary at all like this or an incorrect summary, for why you are reverting numerous different edits whole-sale here with a single argument.

It is uncivil to ignore the good faith editing at the very least - I clearly came her to improve the page, I was summoned by the bot as you could clearly see on my talk page where you eventually wrote.

I consider your tone starting the section above, just to jot down WP:PROSELINE uncivil, at minimum it is WP:lawyering. (If you have no time for civility, maybe you shouldnt spend so much on WP as you say on your talk page?)

You accused me "Your edit also introduced another error." The accusation stands. I asked above: "What is the error? show me where, and I will correct it." You didnt answer. - And why did you say "another error" ? what was the first error? you didnt respond, instead, you insist on reverting and reverting like you are driven by something.

This page has garnered significant "readership" - I see that it was viewed 6,400 times/ day a week ago, and still 4,000 times yesterday, so there is responsibility. It better be cleaned up.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and restore your version and then tweak it to remove the proseline issues you introduced, alright? --FMSky (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Merged

Why was this not merged when the Afd in April in a clear consensus called for a merge? scope_creep^Talk 14:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

since the release of Sound of Freedom he has gained independent notablity, also reflected in the page views https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Ballard&action=info --FMSky (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yea, so I see. Wow, that is heavy duty reading numbers. Carry on. That is some mad story about his life. I hadn't heard of the film. Looks like a genuine hero type. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Definitely is. Unfortunately it seems like people rather want to portray him as a conspiracy theorist and criminal, sad times -- FMSky (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It needs to change. If you can get it to GA you can get a DYK, hopefully change the whole outlook on him. He deserves to be widely recognised. I hope you get there. I'll pop in now and again and fix anything that needs fixed. scope_creep^Talk 14:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Woah woah woah, hold your horses there buckos WP:PROMOTION and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Also note that hero types don't get fired by the organization they founded for misconduct... You can't change a bio simply because you don't like what WP:RS say, thats not an option... We're not here to do OR, promotion, or whitewashing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Did somebody say that was going happen. Was that even discussed. You seem to have taken meaning where theyre is none which is a failure of WP:AGF. scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"It needs to change." despite there not appearing to be anything wrong with the article we currently have. "hopefully change the whole outlook on him. He deserves to be widely recognised." despite that being in direct contradiction with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:PROMOTION. What else could those mean? Its rather plain English, you believe that the page needs to change and that those changes can promote the subject to such a great extent as to change the whole outlook on them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Tim Ballard has yet to produce even one hard piece of evidence that he's saved anyone or stopped one trafficker. No one else has either. He's a master of self-promotion, and that appears to be about it. Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@FMSky: You just claimed that the info you took out of the lead was found only in Vice ("rv, only vice reporting about it so it is undue for the lead, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad#RfC:_Reliability_of_sources") but that doesn't appear to be true when I look at he body, we seem to have multiple sources including this NBC piece [1]. How do you explain this error? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"Ballard, a former Homeland Security agent who founded the Utah-based “Operation Underground Railroad” in 2013, denied the allegations laid out in a VICE News story " --FMSky (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes they did, but it doesn't appear due for the lead without some sort of support for their position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand you tbh. Is Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023 amid accusations of misconduct due for the lead or not??? --FMSky (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the addition of Ballards denial is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

But he allegations are only sourced to WP:Vice: denied the allegations laid out in a VICE News story --FMSky (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thats not how sourcing works, a NBC article doesn't become a Vice article because they mention Vice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see this is another case of a difficult editor. This will need input from other users --FMSky (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, would you like to take this to RSN and ask if NBC is reliable in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed WP:EXCEPTIONAL which says we would need multiple high quality sources to support such a claim. We currently dont even have one. NBC saying "according to Vice" is not a proper source. You can read all of that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad#RfC:_Reliability_of_sources - please self-revert for now per WP:BRD --FMSky (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We have NBC and WaPo, that is multiple high quality sources. At the link I see a man making the argument that referencing another source makes a source non-independent of that source, thats even dumber than your argument which is hard to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I will restore the Status Quo for now and remove the bold lead addition. Once you have established a consensus I can be re-added again --FMSky (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What policy based challenge to the text is being made? We have multiple high quality sources, so what is the challenge? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No we only have sources saying "according to vice" and we have a discussion that leans heavily towards not including it in the lead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad#RfC:_Reliability_of_sources --FMSky (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

They appear to be saying more than that, those are full articles. Vice broke the story, that doesn't invalidate reporting from other outlets. Also note that the link is to a discussion about a completely different page and its open, there is no consensus there and the policy based arguments actually lean heavily the other way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that you edit summary appears to be inaccurate, you say "statement only attributed to VICE" [2] but this is not the part which you contend is sourced solely to Vice, this is the other half of the statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So what do you suggest, another RfC? --FMSky (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggested that we take the NBC piece to RSN to see if its a proper source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright then --FMSky (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you challenging WaPo as well? If so I'd bring that along. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If all theyre saying is "according to vice" then I'm obviously challenging that as well --FMSky (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Thats not all they're saying, again I think this may just be you misunderstanding how sourcing works and where due weight comes from. You can challenge Vice separately (we do use Vice alone in the article), but you aren't challenging Vice when you challenge NBC or WaPo. You could also challenge all the sources together, so WaPo, NBC, Vice, Deadline, and whoever else we have in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Where is the WaPo article even linked? --FMSky (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Source 34 Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That source doesnt say anything other than he left the company --FMSky (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That is one of the facts which you have challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Im obviously not challenging the fact that he left, just the reasons for the departure --FMSky (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you remove all of it and not just the reason from the lead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and reinsert his departure then --FMSky (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You would appear to be baiting me into edit warring after dropping an edit warring warning on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont care if its in there also as long as we dont state in wikivoice "because of allegations of ..." --FMSky (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Imagine that, the only source we have is VICE who attributes his departure to an ANONYMOUS letter ALLEGING misconduct. This probably shouldnt be even in the article at all, let alone in the lead--FMSky (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this a repeat the lie enough times and it becomes true situation? We have a number of sources, a source mentioning Vice does not become Vice. The anonymous letter appears to have been validated by the board of OUR, or do I misunderstand what the sources are saying about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Didnt you want to ask at RSN ? --FMSky (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead is meant to summarize significant portions of the body. One sentence will suffice. Whitewashing the Ballard misconduct allegations isn't something Wikipedia should be doing. Ballard didn't leave the organization he founded for no reason. The misconduct allegations are well-sourced. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Englehart: No its not. Its sourced to single unreliable outlet, WP:Vice --FMSky (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I see sources from VICE, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and WaPo. There are likely more but there's no need to REFBOMB. Andrew Englehart (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Have you even read this talk page section? --FMSky (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read your WP:WALLOFTEXT, yes. I am not convinced by your arguments, and am actually convinced that you have a vested interest in protecting Tim Ballard's reputation. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convicted by your arguments, and am actually convinced you have a personal interest in ruining Tim Ballard's reputation --FMSky (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That's of little importance. What is of major importance is that you've reverted at least 4 editors that have added or restored that sentence to the lead, without consensus, and you're clearly not interested in any point of view on this besides your own. I actually just noticed a few minutes ago how many times you've done this, and reported you accordingly. Have a nice day. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC 2

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. The other RfC is still ongoing to the extent that editors are literally commenting on it today. As such, WP:DE, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BLUDGEON may apply. SN54129 15:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC) SN54129 15:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Since the first RfC was ignored (1) and there are continued disagreements about it, again the question if the following is due for the lead and can be stated in wikivoice: Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023 amid accusations of sexual misconduct, grooming, and manipulation of women affiliated with the organization. --FMSky (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: As stated in both the previous RfC and in the discussion at Talk:Tim_Ballard#Lead, the claim is only attributed to WP:Vice, whose reliability is disputed, making it UNDUE for the lead. As for the other sources presently in the article: NBC calls it "allegations laid out in a VICE News story"; Deadline states "according to a story published by Vice"; The Hollywood Reporter calls it "a Vice News report detailed anonymous allegations against Ballard". Since this is a biography of a living person and a highly damaging claim it needs multiple high-quality independent sources to be due for inclusion, also highlighted in WP:EXCEPTIONAL. ----FMSky (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per FMSky. We would need much more and better sourcing for something like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer the more concise and better supported "Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023 amid accusations of misconduct." Also note that the first RfC wasn't ignored, I see solid participation and what appears to be a consensus to use Vice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

alright, can someone remove it from the lead then? i dont want to do it myself, as the user Andrew Englehart (talk · contribs) will likely file another admin report --FMSky (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

All of it or do we have consensus for a shorter version? Also note WP:NPA Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think for now the condensed version is fine until we have a consensus --FMSky (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the short one "Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023 amid accusations of misconduct." or the really short one "Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023"? Also note that you removed a source under our Fox restrictions but those only apply to core Fox and that is an affiliate which remain reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

First one then i guess. Just saying he left in 2023 isn't all that relevant or informative as it already says hes the former CEO so might as well give a bit more detail. And also a note to not tinker with it until a consensus is found maybe helpful --FMSky (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, hopefully that should make everyone happy for now. Thoughts on the Fox affiliate coverage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Im still not happy, i would prefer not having it there at all as long as its only based on Vice reportings, but until the rfc is done i guess its ok. The Fox statement is completely irrelevant, of course someone will find it disturbing if the allegations were true. I dont see how this is relevant insight --FMSky (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What makes it relevant is that Fox covered it in this context, we don't second guess the sources like that. Perhaps we can better summarize the source but not summarizing the source doesn't appear to be an option here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I think its complete irrelevant but if you insist on including it fine --FMSky (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It certainly needs some clarity, particularly as he appears to be commenting about both accusations (the one involving co-workers and the one involving the LDS Church). Let me take a look and see if I can't come up with something more relevant, IMO the most relevant bit is that the Governor confirmed that the LDS statement was fully authorized and supported by the Church. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Seconded that this is very important. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with the accusations of forum shopping, disruptive editing, etc in the close since this is a different article even though the wording and RFC2 label imply otherwise. However, I left the following comment at the O.U.R. RfC post-close discussion and I think it applies here as well:

The sourcing concern has become a moot point since the sexual misconduct accusations were covered in a whole bunch of top-tier sources around Sept. 19, well after the RfC was undeway: The Salt Lake Tribune, NBC News, USA Today, Vanity Fair, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, ABC 4, Deadline, Hindustan Times, KSL News, Independent and Yahoo! News. Since it's no longer sourced to just Vice and Rolling Stone, I think that it would be uncontroversial to say "Ballard left O.U.R. in 2023 amid accusations of misconduct" in the lead with a slightly longer explanation in the body. –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023

Please change "That same morning, O.U.R. released" to "That same morning, O.U.R. reportedly released" Jennadar (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: the currently cited source is sufficient to back up wording that they released a statement. Cannolis (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Excommunication

The article currently says “ After the public sexual misconduct accusations, he was excommunicated from the Church.” The source for that states the lawsuit filed against him states he was excommunicated. Given anyone can file a lawsuit and state whatever they want, that doesn’t make it fact. To state it as fact is misleading. People have sued their own split personality and God, for Christs sake. 2601:8C0:380:35C0:2DF0:BB27:4F70:C0DA (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)