Talk:Tim Ballard

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.^[1]

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."^[2]

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)

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)

Agreed. He's not notable for being an author, and none of his books are notable. I'm removing it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

{{ 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)

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) ( Blocked sockpuppet)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: FMSky (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

@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)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: FMSky (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: FMSky (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

@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 . 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" 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)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: FMSky (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

The sources for the summa cum laude appear to be pages on the organization he founded. Is there any independent verification of these? Suggest the summa cum laude honors be removed if they cannot be independently verified or confirmed by the schools. Those honors are a big deal to non-wiki-editors. Either they are not, in which case they are not notable and shouldn’t be listed, or they are and they need verification. 2600:1700:F90:6950:489E:F788:18F7:973B (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following users: ~2025-42595-57 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) ~2025-42872-16 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from these users should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

added sourced, attributed wording summarizing how multiple reliable sources describe the relationship between Sound of Freedom and Tim Ballard, and revised it specifically to add attribution per BLP. The edit was reverted by a temporary account with an edit summary alleging motive, which I don’t think reflects the sourcing or intent. I’m happy to discuss alternative phrasing or placement, but the substance reflects reliable secondary sources and current coverage. A movie about Ballard's actual life would have him flying first class and posting malicious gen-AI videos to social media where he demonizes some out-group and begs for money in the name of rescuing children, which he does not do. JustinR1970 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources say "Tim Ballard, the real-life inspiration for the controversial film Sound of Freedom" http://web.archive.org/web/20250429182113/https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2023/09/20/sound-of-freedom-inspiration-tim-ballard-and-film-producer-face-allegations-of-sexual-impropriety/ and "Inspired by the experiences of Tim Ballard, a former Homeland Security Agent" https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20230714-sound-of-freedom-is-the-child-trafficking-drama-a-watershed-moment-for-faith-based-filmmaking It doesn't get much clearer than that. And not everyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.~2025-42595-57 (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Early coverage in 2023 described the film as “inspired by” Ballard’s work; however, subsequent reporting and sworn testimony raised serious questions about the factual basis of Ballard’s claimed rescue operations. You cannot show a single frame of the movie plot that corresponds to Ballard's actual life; that is the shtick he uses for every movie he releases, most recently "Hidden War." Now that the courts are deciding the matter, Ballard's attorneys are claiming it was all fiction that didn't even involve Ballard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bvSHl3wrY The only child sex act caught on TB's cameras was SoF producer Paul Hutchinson getting to second base with a young girl, according to your own Forbes article. Ballard's real life is not child rescue; it is pathological lying about everything having to do with himself and child sex traffic, protecting the johns and traffickers like himself. He was NEVER CIA nor an undercover operative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XePD943o_fw , as this deposition of his former operations officer attests. JustinR1970 (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think these 2 YouTube vids invalidate the plethora of reliably sourced material we have. A film can still be "inspired" by another person or his work/life even if the plot exaggerates things or isn't factual. Jim Caviezel also literally plays the role of Ballard in the film. ~2025-42872-16 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ~2025-43134-35 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Some recent edits by ~2025-42794-39 employ Operation Underground Railroad’s own materials while simultaneously making evaluative claims about its status or credibility.

Per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY, an organization’s self-published materials cannot be used to support contested or critical claims about itself.

~2025-42794-39 also falsely claims that that the wording of the lead-in where SoF is "inspired by Ballard's work" is stable "for years;" this while reverting my language that had it as "marketing." The wayback machine shows the phrase "highly-fictionalized" is used in October of 2024. It is changed in December 2024 without any modification to the sources.

https://web.archive.org/web/20241005185729/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ballard

Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, material wording changes—especially those that soften attribution or responsibility—require explicit support from reliable secondary sources. In the absence of such sourcing, the change appears to be editorial interpretation (see WP:OR / WP:SYNTH).

~2025-42794-39 cannot produce a frame of the plot of SoF that corresponds to Ballard's OUR work, because there is none. It would, however, make sense if ~2025-42794-39 means Ballard's work as a trafficker, as his former employees and "operatives" allege in their lawsuit. (Likewise Kelly Suarez' lawyers in front of the Utah Supreme Court, while TB's lawyers claim he had nothing to do with SoF.) That evidence ~2025-42794-39 dismisses as "youtube videos." cf. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bvSHl3wrY JustinR1970 (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Sourced here:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ballard#cite_ref-6
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ballard#cite_ref-7

~2025-43134-35 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

"experiences" doesn't have the connotation of a job, so is less objectionable, but the sentence still needs a caveat with Ballard's pathological lying". Real journalists have been dealing with this crap for ten years now. The girl and boy story has changed dozens of times, cf https://americancrimejournal.com/exposing-the-sound-of-freedom-hoax/ JustinR1970 (talk) 07:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

A source uses a YouTube URL that includes "wjDyvkLVvxc". This should be "wjDVykLVvxc". --~2026-47792-8 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)