Talk:Operation Underground Railroad

Removal of reliable sources
, and here you removed one clause of a compound sentence with the three sources for the entire compound sentence with the justification WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS, although the subject isn't politics and two of the three sources are not the Rolling Stone. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it says: According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues --FMSky (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ballard leaving O.U.R. is not a "societally sensitive issue", it's part of the history of O.U.R., and the other two sources are not the Rolling Stone. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga) 16:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is about an anti-sex trafficking organisation, so it definitely is.--FMSky (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The "claims of multiple employees" content is also not found in the body of the article, so its a violation of WP:LEAD (see also your lecture above) --FMSky (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:VICE is also a questionable outlet at best --FMSky (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears consensus is against you. If you continue to ignore that, I suggest you seek another avenue besides unilateral reverts. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Consensus" ≠ one wikipedia editor, who didnt even respond any further --FMSky (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of sources
Since previous discussions didn't come to a conclusion I'm staring this RfC.

Can the following statement be included and presented as a fact: In July 2023, Ballard left his CEO position at O.U.R., after an internal investigation into claims made against him by multiple employees., when it is only sourced to Rollingstone and Vice, see WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS and WP:VICE --FMSky (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * The Rolling Stone article states “the circumstances around Ballard’s departure are somewhat unclear”, they don’t give a date they’re just citing Vice for the split, so I’m not sure why it’s even needed for this sentence. The fact that they have split seems uncontroversial, at least according to this Salt Lake Tribune article, which also states: “Vice reported the split stemmed from an internal investigation conducted into complaints about Ballard, but details are sparse”, and I think that we would be sensible to state the same here. Vice lacks a consensus according to the summary at WP:VICE, so I think an WP:INTEXT attribution is a sensible route. And of course we would be doing better work if we found higher quality sources to cite the same, even if they only attribute Vice. — HTGS (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with attribution per WP:INTEXT if that will settle this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, just wanted to note that I moved the sentence in contention out of the lead not as some clever play to win in this dispute, but because even if it were 100% fine and left worded and sourced exactly as it is, it just doesn’t belong in the lead. Maybe some future version of the page will discuss Ballard and the org’s foundation in the lead in depth, but currently Ballard is absent, and bringing him up solely in the context of his departure is confusing to the reader. As per my edit summary (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY), it’s better to flesh out this detail in the body and maybe have a rewrite of the org’s history in the lead later, and decide at that point whether it makes sense to describe his departure once his prior involvement is noted. (And FWIW I don't have a dog in this fight, and I was summoned by the RfC bot.) — HTGS (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having his exit as the first time he is mentioned is definitely not good. If it is to be retained in the lead (I have no opinion on that) then at least it should first be mentioned that he is the founder. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes there's no issue with the sourcing. There are two independent sources here. The only reason I've seen any editor remove this is because it falls into a pattern of defending O.U.R. and Ballard from any criticism whatsoever. That's not a valid reason for removal. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * FMSKY makes the critical mistake of considering "no consensus" = unreliable . This is not an accurate reflection of what the phrase "no consensus" means. Recent discussions of Vice at RSN have tended to affirm its reliability. I don't see a reason to remove the claim, though I have no issue with it being attributed.
 * Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a problem with Rolling Stone. WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS says: According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues. An anti sex trafficking organization is exactly that --FMSky (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes The sourcing is fine. There's no consensus RE the reliability of VICE publications and there's no reason to doubt the veracity of the reporting in this story. I would also be fine attributing this to Vice if that would resolve the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC), edited 13:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it is actually. Vice is know as a biased far left outlet, that recently filed for bankruptcy.. FMSky (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t know so much about Vice’s bias, but should we really take their filing for bankruptcy as a mark against their journalistic integrity? — HTGS (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for your claim that Vice is know[n] as a biased far left outlet? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * its been two weeks, do you not intend to provide a source for your extraordinary claim? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * NO (Here from WP:RFC/A)Sourcing is very poor. Vice is especially biased.
 * MaximusEditor (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No, especially not in the lead --highly biased sources --FMSky (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes on exit, attribution on reason The fact that he left seems to be uncontroversial and is also supported by articles in the Washington Post and Time. The claim about the internal investigation seems to be entirely based on Vice, all articles mentioning it that I could find (here's one from the Guardian) refer back to it. Given that there is only a single source so far (even if it is reliable) we should attribute that part. So it could look something like this: "In July 2023, Ballard left his CEO position at O.U.R..(sources) According to Vice this move followed an internal investigation into claims made against him by multiple employees.(vice)" -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that there is only a single source so far (even if it is reliable) The reliability of Vice is disputed, WP:Vice --FMSky (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, but attribute the reason to Vice. There is significant secondary coverage of that article; see eg.    - most of those attribute to Vice, so we should as well, but it ought to be included with one of those as a secondary sources to demonstrate relevance. And beyond that the basic fact that he left is definitely uncontroversial and is easily cited to a wider variety of sources, so at the very least that much has to be included. --Aquillion (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree the source is fine. I agree w Fred Zepelin, Hemiauchenia, voorts and Aquillion . I admit I had never heard of Tim Ballard before, and as I read through his page, started making formal edits, which were quickly reverted without an edit summary by the editor who started this Rfc. Behavior of WP:OWN. - Reading through this talk page I see the same pattern. I also see that they participated in voting twice with a No above, which is really not helpful. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't vote twice. I also didnt ever revert you without an edit summary --FMSky (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone voting twice. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw two no´s, the way it was formatted, and attributed them to the same user, apologies. The editor calling the Rfc voted once. For completeness sake, their reversals without edit summary are here, here, and here as documented on Talk:Tim Ballard. I am not against this RfC, but after having read the trinity of WP articles around Ballard (Tim Ballard, Operation Underground Railroad and Sound of Freedom (film)) my perspective is the other 2 pages need more attention for expansion and clean up ... like lede reflecting body, etc. The film page alone still gets 20K view/ day. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did some reformatting to increase consistency and readability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @FMSky in Preferences|Editing|Editor you can activate "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". It saved me from forgetting to add an edit summary before posting a few times. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No, Vice is known to be biased, specially towards O.U.R, if you read the other articles also cited on this page that is from Vice, you will see how biased they are. Hence, we would need a second citation per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I am not against mentioning Ballard's exit, but the part that says there has been an investigation, is what needs a second source. However, we mention his exit, then we should also say that the organization was founded by him first. I would suggest adding a sentence such as: "The organization was founded by Tim Ballard, who was the subject of 2023 film Sound of Freedom. Ballard resigned in 2023." I also think that it is important to mention "Sound of Freedom" in the intro, as it is a large part of why this organization has gotten so much press lately and also why there has been so much recent edit activity on the page. I actually had added it before, but someone has removed it.Jackinthebox9 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was recently removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1173626742 even though thats literally why the organization is notable --FMSky (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how reporting on an internal investigation is an exceptional claim. Could you please explain? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * do you have any sources which support your claim that Vice is known to be biased against O.U.R.? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes on exit, exclude or attribute reason - There’s no reason to doubt the veracity of the Vice News reporting which is backed by a statement from OUR itself, and it’s also been reported separately by the Washington Post. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No We need multiple reliable sources, particularly for a lead, and Vice and Rolling Stones don't cut it, per WP:RSP. Pistongrinder (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No I agree with many of the editors above. We need a higher standard when including a potentially controversial issue in the lead, and Vice and Rolling Stone are not highly reliable sources that get us over that threshold. CranberryMuffin (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, we should use WaPo and NBC instead, same info though. If there are worries about Vice just use the higher quality sources to tell us what Vice reported. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that another source reporting about an unreliable source make the unreliable source reliable? --FMSky (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but I also agree that Rolling Stone, Vice, WaPo, and NBC should be included as sources. I find the RfC has been phrased poorly, because the user that started it misrepresents the sourcing. It should be scrapped and worded neutrally. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but attribute to Vice: basically I agree with Random person/Aquillion/Dlthewave. The exit itself is very well sourced and we should definitely include it. The internal investigation is only sourced to Vice as far as I can tell: there are other reliable sources that repeat the claim but with attribution to Vice. Vice is an okay source, IMO, especially with other sources willing to repeat their claim, but especially since this is a BLP they should definitely be attributed. Loki (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * QUESTION: Is it due to include this statement in the lead? Since its only attributed to a single source --FMSky (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The exit yes (assuming that it is first mentioned that Ballard it the founder otherwise no). The (alleged) reason no. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait for this RfC to finish before we determine whether it's appropriate to include this in the lead. If the result is to not include, this question becomes moot. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it is important to keep in mind that we're firmly in WP:BLP territory. I wouldn't feel comfortable to include the statement about the internal investigation without attribution even if it came from the New York Times. Without at least one second source reporting it without merely saying that Vice reported it I find this too sensitive to state it in wiki-voice even if it doesn't explicitly allege any wrongdoing. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Random person no 362478479 I agree. There is also a policy regarding this here WP:EXCEPTIONAL that says we would need 2 or more sources. Jackinthebox9 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Would you reconsider now that The Washington Post source has been added? –dlthewave ☎ 02:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What does it say? Its behind a paywall --FMSky (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ultimately it doesn't matter, if you read the WaPo article, it references the Vice article for it's claim which does not make them independent of each other. This violates WP:3REFS which states you should have 3 "reliable" sources that are independent of each other to establish notability. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @MaximusEditor The issue is whether the fact is reliable, not the notability of the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to include the archive link. It says in part "The former federal agent whose anti-trafficking exploits inspired a hotly debated film that became an unexpected box-office hit this month has parted ways with the controversial organization he founded. Ballard, a former Department of Homeland Security agent who has helped stage sting operations to catch child sex traffickers, left OUR before “Sound of Freedom” hit theaters, the organization said. Vice News first reported his exit earlier Thursday." Interpret this as you will, but I read it as a courtesy acknowledgement that Vice scooped the story first - I don't see any attribution language like "according to" or "as reported by". I'm confident that we're looking at WaPo's own reporting here and they also cite a statement from OUR itself. –dlthewave ☎ 23:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. I have no doubt that Tim Ballard is no longer with O.U.R. So what I will invoke is WP:COMMONSENSE. MaximusEditor (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The isn't how independence on wikipedia works, who told you that lie Maximus? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Question is moot given coverage by stronger sources like WaPo and NBC . Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Closing
Given that the Washington Post has now reported on the internal investigation, should this RfC be closed, the information incorporated into the article, and a new RfC opened regarding whether the fact of the internal investigation should be mentioned in the lead? Pinging (sorry if I missed anyone). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The RfC is a moot point now. Admins close. And Yes, include in the lede- no new RFC! But once again: this page gets a fraction of the hits (2K) that Tim Ballard gets (16 K) and that needs to be cleaned up.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You dont get do decide any of that. There's still no consensus so another RfC might be viable --FMSky (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes - 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 ☎ 01:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, original question is moot. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, per everyone above, although I have confidence that good writers can figure out how to incorporate important information into the lead without another RfC. Personally I think it will make sense to include in the lead, given enough context. — HTGS (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, fair enough. I like consensus conversations. I wouldn't automatically jump to another RfC to determine lead language, though. We should go in proper form: discuss first, get a few ideas circulating. We may be able to solve it without an RfC, and if not, then we have options to proceed with the RfC. Only open an RfC if consensus cannot be reached between three or more editors, per WP:RFCBEFORE.Pistongrinder (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky's advocacy for O.U.R.
I'd like to open a discussion about FMSky's more or less open advocacy while editing this article. Every single edit they have made has been to either delete negative information about the organization and/or its founder, or to re-word existing text in order to lessen the impact of sentences they consider negative. Thoughts? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fred Zepelin's aversion for O.U.R.
Every single edit they have made has been to either add negative information about the organization and/or its founder, or to re-word existing text in order to lessen the impact of sentences they consider positive. Thoughts? --FMSky (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Deseret News report confirming that O.U.R. investigated Ballard and he resigned at the end of that investigation
This is no longer being reported by "just" Vice. See Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Help
I want to help overseas in search of anyone being ruined by human trafficking. I have many skills that I’ve acquired over the last 10 years. I want to help. When the right person sees this please reach out 309-208-1559. I’m interested in volunteering to be on the front lines asap. 207.179.214.222 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)