Talk:Operation Underground Railroad/Archive 1

Archive 1

NYT article on OUR

The NYT published an article by Michael Winerip, Aug. 27 2020, titled "Guilty of Sex Crimes with No Victim". It reveals the involvement of OUR in the WSP's Net Nanny sting operations. These highly questionable operations resulted in 300 arrests of men on 18+ legal dating sites. The only media written about these stings were provided by the WSP media department. Quoting Det. Carlos Rodriguez and publicizing OUR. Thereby allowing OUR to greatly increase their donor donations. Not one news organization in Washington State has reported on this or ran the NYT article. There are 2 lawsuits against WSP and so far 1 against OUR and 1 where they have settled as they are publishing the dismissed case to advertise the sting.And get more donor dollars.They are currently sitting on about 71 million dollars.Toothpick33 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Toothpick33 (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Toothpick33 (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toothpick33 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Protection?

The article appears to be monitored by OUR, since statements by Dutch Journalists in light of their operations against Maatman and Uittenbogaard in South America were removed by an anon. --86Sedan 22:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Aftercare

I have found one recent article, from GhanaWeb that repeats the claims about having an aftercare program. I believe there must be older sources that repeat this, and these would be of a "higher quality" but likely partisan in nature. --86Sedan 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the new cite justifies the present wording "local media sources in Utah and Ghana". Like the Deseret article on their interview with O.U.R. employee Mass, the GhanaWeb article is a report on a PR event, "the launch of the merger between ARC and O.U.R.", not a report on any work done by O.U.R. O.U.R. made a small donation (10 laptops) to Ghanaian police in return for PR. Neither source confirmed independently that O.U.R. has a qualified aftercare program. Other sources, such as the Vice article you cited, and a New York Times article (scroll down to several paragraphs on O.U.R. and Ballard) were unable to verify their claims. This is another VICE article on "another example of OUR using survivors to promote its own brand." OUR helped 10 Venezuelan women escape from what the organization says was trafficking, assisted them in entering the United States with the help of Tony Robbins and the Trump White House, and gave at least some of them help in entering an academic program. ... The truth appears to be less heroic than it is exploitative, another example of OUR using survivors to promote its own brand. After Ballard called in a favor from the White House, the women entered the country under an obscure program offering none of the legal certainty or support that comes with a visa. And as Utah journalist Lynn Packer first reported, rather than graduating university, the women took training in entrepreneurship from interns at a business school program, with OUR staging a camera-friendly ceremony designed to look like university graduation. Meanwhile, the women appear to have been housed by a religious group that had only started operations months before; the organization is run by an audiologist who declined to answer basic questions about the backgrounds and qualifications of its staff, but did say clearly that it "does not provide aftercare services." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuniting survivor with family

86sedan, you added the Dec 10, 2020, VICE article as source for this sentence: It also lists among its achievements, reuniting a trafficking survivor with his family. I've read the article twice but I don't see any mention of a survivor having been reunited with his family. Did I miss that? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes in line with your comments. Certainly, media have repeated the org's claims about providing aftercare, but this is, as you say, uncritical repetition of O.U.R.'s own claims about its activities. In other words, what you would expect from local media in areas O.U.R. have made "acquisitions". I found a video in which the org presents the story of a trafficking survivor, including an emotional reunion with her family. From a brief summary of their video materials (Christmas singing and long speeches by Ballard which almost take on the form of sermons), I believe they are nearly all LDS members. So maybe the lede should acknowledge in some way their religious background. --86Sedan 20:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The unsourced sentence before your edit said that It also reunites trafficking survivors with their families. I don’t understand which source also lists among its achievements is based on. The video, a WP:PRIMARY source produced by O.U.R., would need a reliable secondary source for verification of the story, and, according to Toone’s Faith article in Deseret News, O.U.R.’s support was limited to paying the travel costs from Germany to Italy for one of Barbu's sisters. Barbu says that she found her biological parents through a Facebook group for Romanian adoptees ([1], [2]. If her story is true, she would have been one of the many Romanian children adopted by foreigners between 1989 and 2004 for adoption fees between $9,000 and $30,000. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Merging discussion

As the template at the top of this article suggests, this article received a merge from Timothy Ballard. If any regular editor around here believes that the merge left out relevant material, click here, go to the page's history and copy the relevant content that you want from a specific page version. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Removals

I suggest adding material sourced to the Foreign Policy piece to the lead, to maintain NPOV after the removals. DFlhb (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

I'm suggesting a change to clarify a long, clunky sentence and add more context.

CHANGE (under the Aftercare section) "In February 2020, O.U.R. paid for the trip to Italy, where her birth family now lives, of an American woman who says she was stolen as a baby from her parents, who were poor farmers in Romania, and raised by adoptive parents in Wisconsin.[29]"

TO "In February 2020, O.U.R. paid for an adopted Wisconsin woman to visit her biological parents after she discovered that she had been stolen from them as a baby and trafficked through orphanage fraud. Her birth parents were poor Romanian farmers that had since moved to Italy." Atycus (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023 (2)

Remove the sentence, "The group says it disavows conspiracy theories, though founder Tim Ballard was criticized for refusing to condemn the QAnon conspiracy theory." On the basis that none of the three cited sources indicate that Tim Ballard has refused to condemn Qanon, nor is he being explicitly condemned in any of the three sources. 2601:40B:C280:2A80:D8EF:1F3B:BBE7:4634 (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Xan747 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I rewrote/expanded it: A September 2020 Vice News article called O.U.R. a "QAnon-adjacent charity," and said the "organization has embraced followers of that particular baseless conspiracy theory, rather than condemning it the way that other anti-trafficking charities have"—even though the organization claims no association with the group, and its website "vaguely disavows conspiracy theories." The Vice article quoted Ballard telling The New York Times a month prior, "Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes. So now it's our job to flood the space with real information so the facts can be shared." A spokesperson for O.U.R told Vice that they're "not affiliated with the group QAnon in any way, shape or form, and to date we have had no interaction with them."[41][42][43] Xan747 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

It appears that the newest revision of this article has omitted properly sourced and attributed information, using as its justification - policies that do not support the removal of such material.

This appears to be based upon tendentious editing by one new editor who is seeking (at the very least) to deprioritize the corruption and criminality allegations against O.U.R., if not eliminate them entirely.

As such, I will ask for editor consensus before reverting to an earlier copy of the article. 86Sedan 20:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC) BANNED USER

:It appears that sources were also added, which would provide evidence for a section on celebrity endorsements further down the article. 86Sedan 20:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC) BANNED USER

I have removed negative info from the intro to comply with WP:NPOV. We shouldn't only include such info in the intro and leave out positive info...so best just remove it. This is an anti-sex trafficking organization that has done so much and rescued many underage teens from sex trafficking. I just cannot believe that people try to put them down. Maybe they exaggerated their numbers, but does it really need to be pointed out in the intro? In addition, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources VICE is to be used with caution and plus they are the ones that did the investigation, so using VICE as a citation would be considered to be a primary source. We need more than one citation and investigation to used for something like this to make sure there were no ulterior motives by the investigators. A journal investigation is not a police or government investigation and has no legal bearing. Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV does not make necessary the removal of potentially damning information. The criminal investigation is a statement of fact, which we have to document. The criticisms with respect to how the organization records its numbers are widely acknowledged, and I believe relates to expedient methods of recording. Otherwise, we are here to reflect whatever has been said about the organization in a claim and counterclaim manner, with respect to most areas of its operation

Your personal feelings about the "good intentions" of organizations involved in the child trafficking arena are of no importance to the process of building this article. I doubt that you will get very far with most editors here after the Somaly Mam mess, and other such events. --86Sedan 20:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC) BANNED USER

1) According to WP:DUE "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." One of the sources here used "Insider" is also to be used by caution and could be unreliable per WP:RSP. So if were going to include all such negative info in the intro then why not also include positive info to keep it balanced? such as all the endorsements they have got from celebrities, which you removed without explanation? It seems that you removed 3 paragraphs without explanation. Do you have something against this organization?

2) The section that says "In 2020, Operation Underground Railroad was placed under investigation by Utah authorities after being accused of illegal fundraising efforts and taking credit for the efforts of a law enforcement agency." should not be in the intro because investigation is still ongoing and this does not represent WP:DUE either, because it makes the organization look negative when these investigation has not yet been concluded.

3) The section that says "The supporters of O.U.R. have been criticized for promoting the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon,"

The 3 supporting citations do not say that the supporters of O.U.R. promote QAnon. All they say is that Tim Ballard has tried to reach out and share the real information about child trafficking to QAnon followers. Once source even says that a spokesperson for O.U.R. specifically said the organization is not affiliated with QAnon. It is from VICE, though, and the article is actually quite biased against him, so it should be considered unreliable, which bring me to the next section

4) Regarding the paragraph about VICE investigation, when VICE is the only organization that has investigated them, that does not make it reliable. There has not been any investigation or charges by the law enforcement. In this case we would need another source other than VICE to investigate and verify the same issues. VICE is to be used by caution per WP:RSP. Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

VICE isn't the only organization that has investigated O.U.R - so much is obvious from the article.

Policies cited clearly do not support your edits, hence your failure to quote directly from policy. Please justify your editing pattern on this talk page before removing sourced material again. 86Sedan 01:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC) BANNED USER

Mysecretgarden, if you believe a passage is unbalanced, the solution is not to delete the viewpoint that exists, but to add the viewpoint you feel is lacking. Therefore I agree with 86sedan that your editing actions are not supported by the neutrality policy you have cited above. Chillowack (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chillowack Please note that both @86sedan and @22spears were reverting some of my edits before and both have been banned I believe for their weird point of views and not complying with Wiki policies, although it does not seem like they were investigated for being socks, it is my belief that they were the same person, based on their edit patterns and conversations between each other. I also found some similarities between their accounts, so if you want more details, I can send it later. Therefore, everything they said above should be dismissed. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mysecretgarden, thank you for your message. Are you saying they have just been banned anew, or are you referring past bans? Chillowack (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Both of these users have been banned, so their opinions no longer matter. "No consensus" does not mean unreliable necessarily. It means that users have a wide variety of opinions, with some considering it reliable. Vice News is a bog-standard WP:NEWSORG in my opinion that happens to publish some imo trashy content. There is no reason to doubt their reliability regarding their investigations, which are conducted by reputable journalists. Their coverage of OUR is corroborated by other publications cited in the article like Slate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Tim Ballard does not support QAnon. That’s a blatant lie and should be taken down. Just listened to him say live that he denounces it. 2600:1700:6B0:7EC0:D969:F526:844E:8C34 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I think this statement is better removed and dealt with more nuace. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I think it needs more nuance but part of the problem is that Timothy Ballard or OUR are not reliable, or consistent about QAnon and connected conspiracy theories so there is that big issue?

"The first rule of QAnon: you don’t talk about QAnon where the normals can hear you." [3]

"Some activists, such as Tim Ballard, the founder of the anti-trafficking group Operation Underground Railroad, see an opportunity to reach a new, hyper-engaged online audience.

“Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes,” Mr. Ballard said."[4]

General QAnon-connected conspiracy theories "

Ballard and OUR are the exact point where the world of legitimate anti-trafficking work and the world of dangerous conspiracy theory meet. When, in 2020, the Wayfair child-sex-trafficking conspiracy theory took off, Ballard himself seemed to encourage rampant and bogus speculation.

“With or without Wayfair, child trafficking is real and happening!!!” he wrote on Twitter. “The children need us.” He then added, “Reports of child abuse cases are millions higher this year than they were last year. This is not a small thing or a conspiracy theory; this is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world.” This was false.

In an Instagram post, he told more than 2 million viewers: “No question about it, children are sold on social media platforms, on websites, and so forth.” Later he told the New York Times, “Some of these theories have allowed people to open their eyes.”

Putting aside the harm that can come to innocent people who are unwittingly caught up in any conspiracy theories, sex-trafficking conspiracy theories are especially worrying because they drain resources that should be saved for legitimate trafficking cases. Because of this, in 2020, dozens of anti-trafficking organizations signed an open letter condemning anyone who lends legitimacy to QAnon. As the Atlantic pointed out, OUR was absent from the list of signatories.

"[5]

Im not sure if Ballard is someone who is in over his head believing conspiracy theory stuff or if hes just selling it because it gets him money but I think this needs taking into account. Saikyoryu (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Ballard claimed that prior to founding O.U.R. he served 12 years as a U.S. Special Agent for the Department of Homeland Security, on the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) and the U.S. Child Sex Tourism Jump Team. According to The Atlantic, "spokespeople for the CIA and DHS said they could not confirm Ballard's employment record without his written permission, which he did not provide."[5]

Change that too

Tim Ballard, the founder and President of O.U.R., spent 12 years working as a special agent at the Department of Homeland Security. It was while working with Homeland where he began his job working to rescue children from sexual slavery and exploitation. This was at a time when the U.S. Government began forming the first anti-human trafficking units. As an undercover operative, he would assume the role of a pedophile or child trafficker to get inside trafficking rings, and bust them up. Thereby successfully dismantling literally dozens of these organizations over a ten-year period. Understandably, Tim was very reluctant at first to work in those child trafficking task forces due to the utter darkness and evil of the crimes involved with the exploitation and trafficking of children. In his own words, “I knew it existed, but I didn’t want to see it.” Despite a decade of rescuing children at Homeland Security, Tim felt there was more that could be done in this fight if he started a non-profit organization. He knew that by creating a private organization that works hand-in-hand with governments and law enforcement, this work could be taken to a whole new level and many more children could be saved. Tim retired from his government job in 2013 and a month later he started the private, non-profit organization, Operation Underground Railroad to continue his work.

Source

https://www.usafa.edu/staff/tim-ballard/ Bbehlnig (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added the above edit request after a false positive on an edit filter was reported on WP:EFFP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The proposed addition is not encyclopedic and is promotional in tone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia did you check the url https://www.usafa.edu/staff/tim-ballard/ it goes to "PAGE NOT FOUND" so that's not good either. Saikyoryu (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Saikyoryu: It did once go to a real webpage as recently as a few days ago [6], but obvious has very recently been deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's weird but also the archive page doesn't give a job title or anything so I am not sure it is reliable? Saikyoryu (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead fails to summarise article

It comes no where near complying with WP:LEAD. Removing criticism is not the way to fix it - in fact made the lead worse. WP:UNDUE says articles should represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That should be reflected in the lead. As it is, the lead implies there has been no criticism. IIRC surveys have shown that a lot of people only read the first few paragraphs of an article. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, as I wrote that, the sentence was restored by the editor who removed it on the probably correct assumption it would be restored anyway. So now it needs expanding. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

yes it should be expanded as its only showing criticism and no positive aspects. the frist entry from in criticism section is from 2020, what happened between 2013 when the company was founded and 2020? giving so much prominence to these 3 years is undue --FMSky (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Anne Gallagher criticised the org as early as 2015, as mentioned in the section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to find any positive feedback on an organization that apparently has no proof that it's ever rescued a single child from anything, and has amassed $80 million in assets along the way. All of the positive information comes from one guy - the organization's founder, Tim Ballard. He's apparently a master of self-promotion and not a reliable source. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

This organization seems to get a lot more criticism than the article admits to. The lead doesn't mention any criticism. Here are some examples:

• The organization's name has been criticized for taking the name of the Underground Railroad.[7]
• There is no evidence that the victims, even if "rescued" during a (doubtless frightening[8]) undercover event, stay rescued.[9][10] The victims may be back on the streets or in the hands of their abusers within days. The victims may face legal problems.[11]
• The events don't dismantle criminal organizations.[12][13] A one-time arrest of a few people isn't the same as dismantling an organization.
• Criminal convictions are doubtful, and in some cases, impossible precisely because of the group's methods.[14] This means that the criminals are back at work almost immediately.
• The article doesn't mention the amount of money they raise, which was above $20M in 2019, more than most similar groups.[15][16] In some years, they spent more on overhead than on helping victims.[17]
• It doesn't provide the context of what functional and effective anti-trafficking work looks like – such as making sure that parents always have enough food to feed their kids, and that orphans aren't left to fend for themselves.[18][19]
• It doesn't mention Ballard's exploitation of QAnon and similar conspiracy theories to raise money.[20][21][22]
• Their claims can't be verified independently.[23]
• They use untrained amateurs and donors for dangerous tasks.[24][25]
• Ballard's source for one event was a psychic medium.[26]
• They use medical missions as a cover.[27] This is unethical because it undermines and endangers future public health efforts that really are being run for legitimate medical purposes.
• The rescue attempts seem to be organized more for publicity than for effectiveness.[28]

I think this article needs to include more criticism than is presently the case, and specifically to mention the problems in the article's lead.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi WhatamIdoing. I've made edits to try and do just that, as well as cut down on bloat and repetition. KenzoShibata (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Though this organization seems to be somewhat notable, this article is incredibly biased and has many sourcing issues. Everything in the lead section is sourced to OUR's own website (primary source produced by the organization's own members). That is explicitly forbidden by WP rules and has to be changed immediately, especially considering OUR's tendency to lie and exaggerate their participation in police investigations. 🔥 22spears 🔥 21:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's biased against OUR. Here is an example:

"CharityWatch gives O.U.R. a question mark rating because the organization does not disclose financial information."

https://ourrescue.org/financials 98.97.178.34 (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It is extraordinary to me how people can line up against a man and an organization who are actually DOING SOMETHING about the problem. This fella risked his own life to save children, and now has a worldwide network that partners with policing organizations to limit child sec trafficking. And you want more criticism?! There are a lot of sick individuals in the world. You have to wonder about anyone who would take issue with those trying to stop them. Makes one wonder whose side you're on. MJDoc4 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because they attempt to prevent child sex trafficking doesn't mean that they are above reproach, or that criticism the organisation has received isn't due to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

True, yet after reading the article, I thought it was mostly critical without fair rebuttals. Any married couple knows that that amount of criticism that can be dished out can be relatively infinite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.43.16.144 (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Neutral? Lol, it sounds like you are more interested in degenerating the organization than anything. 174.78.136.58 (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. This has got to be one of the most biased wiki I’ve ever read. It states OUR has not released financial information; yet it’s IRS filings can be found on the website under financial link. Really bad journalism…can someone please correct this. I have no idea how, which is quite telling that Im able to obtain this info and somehow these Wiki writers cannot.

here is the financial information for OUR:

https://ourrescue.org/financials 98.97.178.34 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

And let's be honest. The IRS would be all over OUR if they did not. 2A02:A420:27:B815:147F:4A46:3265:A63A (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Assets, and Ministry Watch

Collapsing discussion with block-evading sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The very first word of this source is "Opinion". Opinion pieces can't be used for facts doubly so when coming from an advocacy organization like MinistryWatch, whcih is of questionable reliability to begin with. Red Slapper (talk) "Ministry Watch is an independent American evangelical Christian organization whose purpose is to review Protestant ministries for financial accountability and transparency, and to provide independent advice to Protestants considering making donations to them." Ministry Watch I will leave this here because they are a watchdog group and I do not know how that relates to the Reliable Sources policy so I will ask for more people to comment on it. Saikyoryu (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Opinion is opinion, from whatever source, and can't be used for facts. Red Slapper (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Saikyoryu is dead right here. Regardless, there's another source now anyway. Ask yourself why you're really removing information about a so-called non-profit amassing tens of millions of dollars when there's no proof they've ever saved a single child from anything. (Hint: look up the word "grift") Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) This encyclopedia has rules for editing, and you need to abide by them, just like everyone else. Opinion pieces can't be used to state facts in wikipedia's voice. The source you added is a primary one- you need to find secondary, reliable sources - not opinion pieces - if you want to keep that material in. Red Slapper (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC) You just made up all of that. The piece states facts which are backed up by another source. The source isn't "primary" - a primary source would be if O.U.R. itself had released those numbers. (Gee, I wonder why they didn't do that?) Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Stop your personal attacks. The MinistryWatch piece literally begins with the word "OPINION", and is further tagged as "Opinion" above the title. The 2nd source you added is an IRS Form 990, filed by O.U.R (contrary to your assertion) and is a primary source. Red Slapper (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Hmmm, sounds like the document's source is the IRS. O.U.R. certainly didn't release it themselves. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC) If you had bothered to read before posting, you'd see, on that very form, that the forms are open to public inspection, and that Tax returns filed by nonprofit organizations are public records. The Internal Revenue Service releases them in two formats: page images and raw data in XML. The raw data is more useful, especially to researchers, because it can be extracted and analyzed more easily. The pages below are a reconstruction of a tax document using raw data from the IRS. raw data from the IRS == primary source. Red Slapper (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC) You'd better read WP:PRIMARY again. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the advice, but I actually think it is you who needs to read it, or, to save you there trouble, read this Red Slapper (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC) I am very certain that the Internal Revenue Service is a reliable source. If it's not, then this wiki article is the least of our concerns. 2603:7000:AE3E:BC08:B0AF:1CA4:1A10:8C97 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Charity Watch

Collapsing discussion with block-evading sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I removed the following statement from the article - "CharityWatch gives O.U.R. a question mark rating because the organization does not publicly disclose financial information." While it is true that CharityWatch gives O.U.R. a question mark rating, it is not because 'the organization does not publicly disclose financial information" - that is false, as evidenced by the IRS 990 form linked to in the article. The ? rating is due to the Davis county investigation - "CharityWatch is providing a "?" rating for Operation Underground Railroad (O.U.R.) at this time due to our concerns related to a reported investigation into the organization, according to Fox 13 News of Salt Lake City, Utah." But as the article says, that investigation was closed with no charges, and Charity Watch says it is currently updating the report. When that updated report comes out, we can revisit it. Red Slapper (talk) That's WP:SYNTH by you. Charity Watch is a reliable source. They're not talking about the Form 990, which is the bare minimum required. You don't get to judge whether or not Charity Watch gives a charity a question mark rating. They gave it. It's reliable and WP:DUE. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SYNTH does not apply to removal of content from an article. When Charity Watch says "we gave a ? for reason X" and our article says "Charity watch gave a ? for reason y" that is misrepresentation of the source and needs to be removed. Red Slapper (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC) Our article says exactly what Charity Watch says. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC) It does now, after you restored my version, Thank you, and take more care next time. Red Slapper (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC) IMO, we need a 3rd party citation that says "Charity Watch gave them a question mark rating"...because if we state it this way then it is considered Original Research and it would be considered a primary source. Jackinthebox9 (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

PROFIT?

Why does this WP page characterize this organization as having "profit". It is a nonprofit. A simple example of the horrific bias we see currently against anyone and everyone who opposes the sexual exploitation of children. There are two cites provided for this claim, one of which is an OPINION piece, the other does not contain the word "profit". 162.255.67.118 (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be removing that section shortly, per the consensus here. Red Slapper (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As you have been blocked as a sockpuppet, I don't think you'll be doing much of anything. Fred Zepelin (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but i just did, based on the same reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Is_an_IRS_Form_990%2C_together_with_a_piece_on_Ministry_Watch%2C_enough_to_be_considered_a_reliable_source%3F You have a history of disruptive and POV-pushing edits across a number of contentous articles. Continue this behaviour and i'm bringing this to ANI--FMSky (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No, there's several problems with that. First of all, you have to discount Red Slapper's comments in discussions (since they were a ban-evading sockpuppet, their opinion carries no weight); without them, in a conversation that so few people participated in, there's no clear consensus in that discussion. And even beyond that I feel they misconstrued my comments in order to get the conclusion they wanted - if we do attribute, then we don't need to gut the section completely like that. And finally, it's not that hard to find additional sources anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Aquillion. As for you, Mr. Sky, I think if you decide to go to ANI, the WP:BOOMERANG concept will become very clear to you. I've half a mind to do it myself but I think other editors have noticed what you're doing here and at Sound of Freedom (film) so your whitewashing will probably be taken care of without admin intervention. But if you feel the need to go that route, by all means, go ahead. Might want to apologize and/or strike this first, though. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone culture as a source

FMSky (talk), thank for bringing my attention to WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE: "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters." The source you're trying to remove is in the Rolling Stone Culture section: [29]. Not politics. Stop trying to use ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as an excuse for your whitewashing, please. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material to the lead

FMSky, you just reinserted a sentence in the lead without edit summary and without a source. I removed it in this edit because it wasn't supported by the cited source. The sentence is also not supported by the body of the article, in violation of WP:LEAD which says that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." If you have a source that supports the claim that O.U.R. gained popularity because of the movie, please add the info with source to the body of the article. If not, please self-revert your edit to the lead. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 15:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Falls clearly under WP:BLUE so it doesnt need a source --FMSky (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead also establishes notabilty so it should be there --FMSky (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky, WP:BLUE is an "essay should never be cited in a dispute about whether or not a certain fact is true or not and should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies. Since all material that is likely to be challenged must be cited, if someone else is challenging material as false or misleading, then it is by definition likely to be challenged." You need a reliable source supporting your claim that the organization gained popularity because of the movie, and the material needs to go into the body. The lead is "a summary of [the body's] most important contents". Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert it yourself then --FMSky (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I reverted, and now you have added the sentence to the body of the article with an Atlantic article from 2021 that doesn't mention the movie. Please, self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 16:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)