Talk:Tim Ball/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thanks

Thank you, Jinkinson, for creating this page. Ball is an important player in the climate wars and imo WP should tell the public about him. This article has been deleted in the past because Ball is not a notable professor. Your content makes clear that the BLP is not about a notable professor, but about a notable climate crank skeptic. Just the coverage given him by Jim Hoggan in his 2009 book, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, should be more than adequate to make this article a keeper. (The Google book shows 17 times Ball is mentioned in the book. He's mentioned much more than that. I counted 17 times just on pp. 49-54.) Yopienso (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was actually thinking the same thing, namely that while Ball is not a remarkable or notable professor, he has done a lot of other things outside of academia (particularly inflating his credentials) that have attracted coverage in reliable and/or independent sources. Jinkinson talk to me 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested new material

I'm short of time or would do this myself.

I think the lawsuit brought against Ball by Michael E. Mann is very noteworthy. This blog is almost certainly correct but isn't a WP RS.

According to Hoggan, Charles Montgomery discovered some funding irregularities with a group Ball was/is associated with. Tim Ball is the "Mr. Cool" referred to in the article's title. I'd cite the article. Yopienso (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Forbes opinion piece by Larry Bell, not sure his "posts" are blog posts, includes blatant nonsense and is obviously unreliable. In the first page he only makes a passing reference to Ball, does he go back to that topic in later pages? . . dave souza, talk 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Larry Bell's opinion columns are only good for self-statements about Larry Bell's opinions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Teaching career

I think you're giving Ball short shrift on his teaching career. To say he "is a former professor in the department of geography at the University of Winnipeg, where he worked from 1988 until his retirement 8 years later" counts only his last years as full professor, leaving out the first steps every professor goes through. If his CV is accurate, he worked there from 1971-1996, which makes 26 years. We don't know if he taught the year he was acting dean, but it seems fair to say he taught at the U. of Winnipeg from 1971-1996.

1988-96 Professor, University of Winnipeg

1984-88 Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg

1982-84 Assistant Professor, University of Winnipeg

1977-78 Acting Dean of Students

1972-82 Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of Winnipeg

1971-72 Instructor, Geography Department, University of Winnipeg

Yopienso (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair point; I think I will update the lead accordingly. Thing is, 1971-1996 is 25 years, not 26. Jinkinson talk to me 16:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why I think Ball is notable

I am aware that this page has been deleted twice before. However, I am still convinced that Ball is notable. Here I will reply to the arguments that he is not:

• "Nothing's changed since the last AFD!" Or, as it is also sometimes worded, "There are no sources here that weren't in the previous AFD!"

Allow me to list some sources in this draft that aren't in the last AFD:

• Reference 4
• Reference 6
• References 11 and 12 (some have argued that this only established that his book is notable, and not necessarily that he is, so feel free to discount these if you agree)
• Reference 20 (not to be confused with the other Calgary Herald mentioned in the last AFD which is from 1986, whereas this reference is from 2006)
• Reference 21
• Reference 26

Also, I would like you to bear in mind the following quote: "He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science." Sounds a lot like Tim Ball, huh? Actually, though it was said by John Holdren about Patrick Michaels. So just because someone hasn't published much research or made a significant scientific impact (i.e. just b/c they don't meet WP:PROF) doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't have an article on them. Jinkinson talk to me 02:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP Guidelines

You may want to review WP:BLP as you work as this article, being particularly careful keep it neutral and not to attack.
I'm doing some major tweaking to the first paragraph as a suggestion. I don't really have time to work on this, but the lede needs to avoid clunkiness. Yopienso (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

AFD

This was deleted twice. Nothing has changed. Why have you recreated it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Because I think that while Ball is not notable as an academic, he is notable for other stuff, such as claiming to be the first Canadian to get a PhD in climatology and to have been a professor of climatology (neither of which are true). Also, as stated above by Yopienso, he is discussed a great deal in the book "Climate Cover-Up," and I haven't even mentioned the Andrew Weaver lawsuit thing, which has been covered by the New York Times (cited in the article). Jinkinson talk to me 21:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If everyone who ever told a lie is "notable" then everyone should have an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite what I meant. I'm sure everyone reading this (including me) has lied at some point or another. The difference is that Dr. Ball lied in a major Canadian newspaper, and in a movie viewed by 2 and a half million people, and then had his lie discussed in a well-known book (Climate Cover-Up), which I don't think is the case for any of us. Jinkinson talk to me 22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not me anyway .....but that probably means I just haven't been caught yet! Seriously, I don't know enough to evaluate the issues so I'm mostly an observer/commenter here and don't plan to !vote for the time being. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The raison d'être for this BLP is that Ball is a notable climate skeptic. Yopienso (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. This article was twice deleted (here and here) precisely because Ball is not a notable climate skeptic. The current argument seems to be that he's now notable because he's been called out prominently for misrepresenting his credentials, which is quite different. MastCell ^Talk 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Your first link reports, "The result was delete. No one was able to refute well enough Guettarda's argument about Ball not being notable as a professor." Doesn't say anything about climate skeptic. The other is not clear as to why it was deleted; near the top of the page is "The regional newspaper used to create this article does not contribute to establishing notability." Such is clearly not the case here; as I said above, just the Hoggan book gives notability. I'll paste in some sources given by user Spoonkymonkey:

There were an awful lot of keeps there, and for very good reasons. Here's a Globe and Mail piece on him (reproduced in a web site because the Globe archives are behind a paywall.) A full-page piece in Canada's leading national newspaper has got to count for something: http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html. Updated link.

Here's something from Canwest wirre service, the in-house wire service of the dailies in most of the country's major cities: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest-circulation daily: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/425729241.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+07%2C+2001&author=Peter+Calamai&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Doubters+struggle+to+make+voices+heard+%3B+Not+all+scientists+believe+that+global+warming+is+occurring&pqatl=google

The Calgary Herald: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZnhkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Hn8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1277,2110073&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

The New York Times (story this time): http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/30/30greenwire-scientists-tout-climate-skepticism-at-heartlan-70831.html

Aberdeen (Scotland) Press and Journal: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1500335/ [Subscription required.]

Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,471264,00.html

London Ontario Free Press: http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2009/11/28/11960891-sun.html

Canada.com (website for Canada's major big-city newspaper chain, publishing story from print editions): http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=31184233-bbd5-4040-9054-8a6d6fb49068

The Windsor Star: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mlU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=tlIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1023,1266761&dq=climate+tim-ball&hl=en

Los Angeles Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/nation/la-na-climate-noaa-20110630

El Salvador Times: http://www.elsalvador.com/mwedh/nota/nota_opinion.asp?idCat=6342&idArt=5443948

L'Express (Paris): http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/environnement/qui-sont-les-climato-sceptiques_931831.html

Westefalenpost (Germany): http://www.derwesten.de/wp/wp-info/al-gore-spricht-in-iserlohn-medien-unerwuenscht-id3622339.htmlhttp:

Arizona Daily Star (behind paywall): http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADSB&s_site=azstarnet&f_site=azstarnet&f_sitename=Arizona+Daily+Star%2C+The+%28AZ%29&p_multi=ADSB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12CCDB944713A540&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_the_prez_climategate_deniers_zYFrmzZLmD366k4Ln6zpON

Toronto Sun: http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/29/11968031-sun.html

TAZ (Germany): http://www.taz.de/!44330/

Faux News (again): http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,450067,00.html

New york Sun: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/debating-global-warming/65274/

I hope this is enough. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I agree with you that Ball's habit of exaggerating does not make him notable. My argument is that he is an important enough skeptic that Hoggan wrote a great deal about him, that Michael Mann sued him, and that many mainstream media with wide readerships single him out by name as a climate skeptic. Yopienso (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Those sources were all presented in the most recent AfD, and despite them the consensus was to delete the article as non-notable. Why would you present them here, again, and expect a different result? I'm not understanding what's changed since the last AfD, except that Ball was called out for misrepresenting his credentials. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

For those, such as MastCell and William Connolley, who remain unconvinced about Ball's notability, I would like to point out that a book Ball co-wrote, "Eighteenth-Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay," was reviewed in 2 well-respected journals (both reviews are currently cited in the article). If those aren't independent reliable sources I don't know what are. Jinkinson talk to me 17:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are arguably reasons that the book is notable, but not that Ball himself meets the criteria for personal notability. And again, those reviews have been around for awhile. What's changed since the most recent AfD that we should revisit the consensus that he's not notable? MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of notability: A friend of mine referred to Ball in a Facebook post. I had no idea who Ball was, so I went to Wikipedia to find out. He is getting notoriety whether you like it or not. Where would you want people to go to get the facts about the man if not Wikipedia? Do you want the main place people have to find information about him to be his own for-profit web site? JD Lambert^(T|C) 03:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed

If something had changed to make this person notable, that would be an argument for recreation. But the article creator has offered no new arguments, new content, or new analysis. No new events have been identified. Therefore, it's clear that this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. jps (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the subject passes WP:BASIC, per (from the recent AfD discussion):

• Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. pp. 49-54
• The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. p. 95.
• Climate Change and Philosophy: Transformational Possibilities. p. 150.
• The Globe and Mail
• The New York Times
• The Telegraph
• Nature Magazine (newsblog)
• Houston Chronicle
• Courthouse News Service
• The Calgary Herald

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I've done some major revision on your lede, and made a suggestion in the edit summary. You may want to consider if using numbers of articles and lectures in the lede may be too detailed. Yopienso (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Have just moved some details from lede to body. Some of the sections are just one long, dense paragraph; I suggest breaking them into short paragraphs that are easier on the eye and brain. Yopienso (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to change the opening statement from:

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a participant in the global warming controversy who has made speeches at Heartland Institute conferences opposing the scientific consensus on the topic.

to

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a participant in the global warming controversy and affiliated with the Heartland Institute, which opposes the scientific consensus on the topic.

I would source it to http://heartland.org/experts and note he is designated as an expert by the HI. Yopienso (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Tricky, he is included in their list of experts but they don't seem to say how they designate him. Also, it's an unreliable source and misrepresents his former field of expertise. The NYT doesn't say he's affiliated, it does say that the Heartland Institute is " a Chicago-based libertarian organization dedicated to questioning the science of global warming and opposing government actions to combat it. It is financed by corporations, foundations and individual donations." So that goes rather beyond opposing the scientific consensus. . dave souza, talk 19:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think if the HI lists Ball on their page labeled "Experts," they're designating him as an expert. Saying he is listed as an expert works, too. It's a RS for itself and is appropriately cited to three times in the article, if I've counted right.

My point is that the opening statement suggests he has made speeches only or mainly at HI conferences, which is not the case. He has appeared in many, many venues. We could drop the HI altogether from the first sentence and say something like, ''Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a participant in the global warming controversy, opposing the scientific consensus on the topic. (Or, "in opposition to the scientific . . . ")

I think I understand why you removed "climate change skeptic" from the first sentence, but not why you removed "public speaker." What is an "easter egg redirect"? My own rewording would be, "Ball is a public speaker in opposition to the scientific consensus on climate change."

What sayest thou? Yopienso (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence was cited to a source which only covers the HI conferences, looking at the body text there are (dubious?) sources for him doing more so I go along with your suggestion in principle: needs another source. Rather than the general "opposes the consensus", perhaps something on the lines of "disputes human causes of climate change, instead asserting that global warming is due to natural variations." Maybe should note his conspiracy theories, and appearance in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

A public speaker implies lectures, he also writes on the topic. An "easter egg redirect" is one that gives a surprising result: climate change skeptic goes to Global warming controversy which isn't all that helpful. . dave souza, talk 08:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ta for the easter egg explanation.

Hoggan, p. 49, and Montgomery, already cited in the body, show Ball appearing frequently at many places.

My impression is that Ball talks a lot more than he writes. He wrote only a chapter, IIRC, of Slaying the Sky Dragon. He talks in person, on the radio, and on TV. Yopienso (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I see I literally "dropped the Ball" here. Well, now I'm back. I just made a minor edit that I failed to make a summary for--just fixed a link. Now I'm going to go ahead and change the lede, a little differently from my suggestion back in February.

• Saying he "has made speeches at HI conferences" is a limiting statement; he has spoken at many venues.
• He is affiliated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
• The DeSmogBlog calls him a "prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community." I would support including this quote in the lede. Yopienso (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Timothy Ball

Tim Ball generates an incredible amount of hostile energy amongst the supporters of Climate Change and the anti-skeptics hit squad pulls out all the stops in order to eliminate any trace of him. The most persistent tactic amongst the Tim Ball opponents is now to deny that he's "notable". They have figured out that it's relatively simple to deny that an opponent is "notable", and to use the AfD process to bury the their opponent, in this case Dr.Ball. There is an excellent trail of the desperate arguments used by the anti-Tim Ball crowd in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball. They returned in 2013 for another ambush in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball. The AfD articles alone should qualify Tim Ball as notable; no non-notable person would generate so much Climate Change hostility! Many thanks to Jinkinson, Spookymonkey, Yopienso, and Everymorning for bravely standing up for the notability of this extremely notable non-notable person. Santamoly (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I just thought I would point out that my username used to be Jinkinson. Everymorning talk 21:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment from User:Weatherlawyer

(I moved this from its initial position because it wasn't right where it was; I can't really work out where it was supposed to be; William M. Connolley (talk) 07:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC))

Who put the line in the article "that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas" He states that it is and gives an exact ratio of the gas compared to water vapour. The slanted message should be cleaned up: scientific opinion for example, is a matter of opinion. Science is not a democracy. Weatherlawyer (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ping RW: Evidensely spoiled for choice

Weatherlawyer (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timothy Ball. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ob9iwnfUcP8J:mediamatters.org/research/200705040001+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20120614204605/http://mediamatters.org/research/200705040001 on http://mediamatters.org/research/200705040001

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Attributing Mann's statement to Mann

The article says Ball has been called "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada" with a footnote to cite a book by Mann -- but not an explicit statement in the text that this is Mann's statement. WP:BLP says quotations must be "explicitly attributed"; I am claiming it's significant that Mann, whom Ball has made fun of, is the source. But User:Yopienso says "It's not impt here that Mann made the comment. It's attributed in the footnote, anyway." Any other opinions whether the quotation should have in-text attribution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The exact sentence from the BLP policy is: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. So, the footnote fulfills the requirement.

Please notice that the quote should be in the paragraph I restored it to because it's about Ball's activism, not about Mann. YoPienso (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

YoPienso is correct about that BLP section but WP:INTEXT says "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation) ...". So I renew my question: Any other opinions whether the quotation should have in-text attribution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition except from YoPienso, knowing the article mentions Ball's comment about Mann and Mann's lawsuit against Ball, believing that WP:INTEXT and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV support such action, I moved the quote and added the words: Michael E. Mann has said that Ball is". If YoPienso disagrees again, I suggest we try WP:THIRDOPINION. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I still disagree with you. Here are my reasons:

• That sentence is the perfect clincher for the Section 4, about Ball's activism.
• That sentence is out of context in the paragraph to which you moved it.
• Mann's statement supports Ball's notability for this article, but doesn't demonstrate controversy.

Please note that while I'm the sole opposer, you're the sole proposer.

WP:INTEXT says, "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references."

Regarding WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, Mann's statement is not biased: Ball is (or at least, was) "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada." YoPienso (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have made the post on WP:THIRDOPINION. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Two years ago, Brian Palmer called Ball "our northerly neighbor’s [Canada's] most prominent climate change denier." YoPienso (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, no third opinion has been offered, so I've gone ahead and put the quote where I think it belongs. To compromise, I wrote a silly sentence to replace it down below where Mann comes in. It should be removed, however, because Mann's comments on p. 95 of his book don't deal with the libel suit at all. Apparently, p. 95 had been written before the State Pen insult was uttered. (Copyright date is 2012 so book was likely written a year earlier.)

Mann added a postscript to a later printing, but if he mentioned Ball, it was in pages not included in Google Books. If anyone has a full copy of the postscript, I think Mann would have mentioned Ball there, and we could reference his comments. YoPienso (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

YoPienso, Indeed the WP:THIRDOPINION request was closed. I suppose an RfC will be necessary, then. First a few comments about your comments.
* The sentence in WP:INTEXT that you point to is explicitly about the publisher, it's irrelevant.
* If you believe Brian Palmer is a notable person, with an independent confirmation i.e. he didn't just read it in Mann's book or in Wikipedia, then I suppose you could propose adding that somewhere -- but we're talking about Mann's words, said by Mann alone.
* You say that the sentence you added, "Mann criticized Ball in print on other issues.", is silly. I agree.
* I believe that you insist on the exact quote "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada" and will not accept removal or truncation or substitution, is that correct?
* I believe your guess about the order in which Ball and Mann insulted each other is incorrect. Ball's comment appeared on February 10 2011, Mann sued Ball in March 2011, Mann's book refers to several publications and events between May 2011 and November 2011 as you could see by going to books.google.com and searching "hockey stick and the climate wars" 2011 ... that's not an early hardback printing, I will try to find an older copy iff you claim your guess is important.
* I accept that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is only relevant if one believes Mann does or might have a bias. I will mention it because I do believe it and others might too. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV's example -- "John Doe is the best baseball player" -- to me seems comparable to "Tim Ball is the most prominent climate change denier".
* The WP:BLP wording has changed, I have asked the responsible editor why it was changed.
I propose a single RfC question without talking about moving the quote:
The Tim Ball BLP currently says about Ball: He has been called "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada."[40] The citation is to a book by Michael E. Mann. Choice 1: Leave it as it is. Choice 2: Change it to: Michael E. Mann has called Ball "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada."[40].
Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter, for engaging so collegially. What do you think of my most recent edits to the article? YoPienso (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That change answers my objection about naming Mann, therefore the RfC that I was talking about is unnecessary and we can end this discussion. Thank you. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

POV in lede?

I removed what I thought inappropriate POV lnguage (italicized) in a BLP lede:

Ball has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, organizations funded by the fossil-fuel industry which advocate against taking action to combat climate change, and is a research.... diff

Dave Souza in turn substituted:

Ball has worked with think tanks which advocate against taking action to combat climate change, and is a research fellow .... diff

While better than the original, I think this is still problematic, as an org that "advocates against taking action to combat climate change" is still a contentious value judgement (imo). Traditionally, when contentious descriptive language is questioned, we revert to a simple wikilink to the org (or whatever) in question, and let readers judge for themselves. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a properly sourced description, and is clearly reflects the majority expert view of these deceptively misnamed think tanks. Your POV is showing when you suggest that simple clarification is contentious. . dave souza, talk 12:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We should give readers the names and wikilinks to the specific advocacy organizations. Removing them reduces clarity. Yopienso (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the David Cameron article says he represents Witney. We don't decide "ah, nobody ever heard of Witney" and replace it with "represents a constituency which has a big air force base" -- people who care about Witney will click. With such analogies in mind, I agree with Tillman and reverted to his last edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If all the article says is "Ball is a member of something and something else", only giving the names and linking to articles, without giving a short description of the organizations, we are hiding the information behind the links. Especially when the name of an organization is designed to hide its intentions, as is the case with the organizations in question, should we help those organizations do that?

Think tanks are climate change denial's home, and that is not just an opinion. See Merchants of Doubt. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lede

I have swapped two sentences because they seemed more logical that way: Ball has a position and works with other people who share it. Then I noticed that they were in that order before User:Yopienso swapped them. That means I inadvertently reverted Yopienso's edit. What was the reason for swapping them in the first place?

What I did not like at the original wording is that the reader is confronted with a nice name like "Friends of Science" and does not know that those people are anything but that, unless he clicks on the link. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Pardon, then--your POV is showing. My reason for swapping them was because it's more logical to continue with Ball's employment and then tell about his opinions. My version, from the perspective of English composition, is better. I think that matters more than your POV. (Not to sound huffy here--I appreciate your friendly engagement.) All three of those groups have innocuous-sounding names, but we can't change that. I think ending with his opinion points back to their possible orientation. In any case, clicking on the links is not an undue hardship.

I would very much like to restore my version. Is that OK with you? YoPienso (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem.

But "my POV", as you call it, is supported by what the science says: those organizations are fake, pretend, pseudoscientific, astroturfing, and have nothing substantial to contribute to the discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

One moment: I would like to keep the short description, as in [1]. Do you insist in hiding the characterization behind the link? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So, this has been discussed before a few sections up the page.

Wrt your POV, you're saying "those people" aren't nice, which is a personal attack. Your allegations that the organizations are pseudoscientific and that they practice astroturfing may be correct. I'm not sure they're pseudoscientist; they may simply interpret data differently than most scientists do. About the astroturfing, I'm unable to find proof that they are funded to any great degree by the fossil fuel industry. I'm not sure the Natural Resources Stewardship Project still survives, since most of their online presence was around 2007-08. More later. YoPienso (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is specific on tone. WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." WP:SUBJECTIVE: " Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)." What I was objecting to was your comment here on the talk page, which indicated a non-neutral point of view that could carry over into the article.

The issue here, though, is crafting the opening paragraph. Besides being tweaked stylistically, it needs to be updated.

• I suspected the NRSP was defunct, since I could find only old webpages about it. Ball said here, "Private citizens funded the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), but funding failed and so did the organization."
• The most recent article by Ball posted at FCPP is from 2011, and he is no longer listed as a fellow. (Cp. this archived page copyrighted 1996-2012, where he is unalphabetically listed last.) Note that the FCPP isn't primarily about climate.

How is this?

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian public speaker and writer who taught in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996. He has worked with Friends of Science, a non-profit advocacy organization that states the Sun is the main driver of climate change, and for the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project. He is a former senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Ball rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas."

I suggest we call Ball a public speaker and writer, per his CV, rather than a geographer. (What's a geographer? I combined "author" and "columnist" as "writer," and omitted his claim to be an environmentalist.)

You will notice I have already made various tweaks to the article, which I hope are uncontroversial. YoPienso (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I fail to understand why "no-climate-change-policy advocacy groups" is not impartial. Neither do I see where the word "nice" is coming from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe "no-climate-change-policy advocacy groups" is impartial. It's just clunky. What's wrong with saying they think the Sun is driving climate change? Or, we could say, He has worked with Friends of Science, a non-profit advocacy organization that opposes the anthropogenic climate change theory.

You introduced the word nice: ". . . the reader is confronted with a nice name like "Friends of Science" and does not know that those people are anything but that . . ." [Bolding added.] I remarked that "you're saying 'those people' aren't nice." Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah! Sorry, no, I didn't mean they are not nice, I meant they are not friends of science. They are friends of the free market.

Clunky is right. But since "do not interfere with the market!" is the key concern of all the denial industry think tanks, I guess the Sun idea is rather ephemeral. As soon as a big enough section of the public realize that the Sun idea does not work, those think tanks will replace it by some other reason for not interfering with the market, such as "global warming is not happening", "global warming is good for us" or "it's too late to do anything anyway".

Is there an "anthropogenic climate change theory"? The term smells funny. I do get a few Google hits for it, but they all point to William Happer. Why not use a more common wording such as "opposes the scientific consensus on global warming"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for much for clearing up the "nice" thing. My apologies for misunderstanding your original comment.

I chose "anthropogenic" because Friends of Science says the Sun, not human activity, is driving the warming. It's more specific than your suggestion, but yours is fine with me. --YoPienso (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK with you now? All that consensus-rejecting looks a bit repetitive now that I look at it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's OK. I would write it differently, but I've invested enough time on this, I think. My compromise would be:

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian public speaker and writer who taught in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996. He has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which oppose the scientific consensus on global warming, and is a former research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.[6][7][8] Ball also rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas."[9]

My preference would be:

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball (born November 5, 1938) is a Canadian public speaker and writer who taught in the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1971 until his retirement in 1996. He has worked with Friends of Science and the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and is a former senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Ball rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas."

Why can't we call him a public speaker and writer? That's what he is. See my comment above on June 23.

"The scientific opinion on climate change" is indeed repetitive, but if you think readers won't click on the links, well, I don't know what to say. If we have to explain their position, we should also say the NRSP is defunct.

We must either say Ball was a fellow at the FCPP or is a former fellow.

Working with you is great; I just have other things to do. YoPienso (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Same here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Cornwall Alliance

Yopienso added a claim that Ball signed the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship. I removed it. Yopienso re-inserted it. There are at least three things wrong now: (1) WP:V requires that the claim be clearly supported by a cite, but it isn't, the cite is to a source that says Ball signed something else (a support-our-favourite-candidate letter). (2) WP:BLPSPS requires that the cite be to a non-blog, but it's a blog, in fact it calls itself a blog. (3) WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires that an editor not re-insert this kind of material in this kind of article without going to the talk page and getting consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's a list of signers of the Declaration anywhere. It would be better to say that Ball has endorsed various statements by the Cornwall Alliance (e.g., [2][3][4]). Either way it's not a big deal. It isn't like either Declaration or Cornwall itself holds much sway in the wider world. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for that carelessness of mine; I've undone it. I mistook a different document put out by the Cornwall Alliance (and signed by Ball) for the Cornwall Declaration.

Blogs haven't generally been accepted as RSs (though some by reputable writers are), but are becoming more accepted by the Wikipedia community. I think we accept DeSmogBlog because, well, I'm not sure why, other than the powers that be like it. Am I mistaken? YoPienso (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are exceptions to the no-blog rule. DeSmogBlog isn't one. YoPienso (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for self-reverting. I believe that's the end of this matter. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've found my mistake. What do you think about adding that Ball signed a petition from Richard Lindzen to Pres. Trump asking him to withdraw from the UNFCCC? It was reported in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and is also reported and reproduced on a anti-warmist unscientific contrarian site that has Lindzen and Patrick Moore on its board of directors. They are a RS for their own views. It's also reproduced by E&E. The purpose of inserting it would to update Ball's activism. Just today Ball and Harris published their opinions about this. See also United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. YoPienso (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-warmist"? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Give me a better term. YoPienso (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-warmist is a red link. Climate change denier is not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that petition-signing is important but don't know a policy saying it can't be mentioned. The Ball and Harris article didn't originally appear in Greenville Online, it appeared two days earlier in USA Today. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I've put details in footnotes. See my edit summaries.

Boris and Hob, your comments are so terse I can't understand them. YoPienso (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What we are trying to say is that "warmist" is term that is not normally used - except by the denial industry. What it denotes is "mainstream climatologist" or "someone who does not subscribe to crazy conspiracy theories involving thousands of scientists" or "someone whose attitude to science is not biased against global warmist by a belief in free markets". "Anti-warmist" has the opposite meaning and is also used by the same industry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. How about "denialist"? Equally if oppositely bad? Should I say "climate-change denial website"? YoPienso (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Both are terms used in reliable sources. There is no symmetry here. We have science on one side and pseudoscience on the other. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Many reliable sources (e.g., PBS) have tended toward "contrarian," presumably because it lacks the emotional connotations of "denialist." Associated Press has tried to promote the use of "doubter" or the clumsy but accurate "those who reject mainstream climate science" but it hasn't caught on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Weaver Suit

The edit describing the dismissal of Weaver's defamation suit used very selective editing to completely mischaracterize Judge Skolrood's decision. The judge didn't say that Weaver's views on climate were extreme. The judge said that Weaver's characterization of Ball's article was extreme. The judge explicitly dismissed the suit because Ball's article was so shoddy and badly written that it couldn't have damaged Weaver's reputation. It took some pretty high-level rhetorical ju-jitsu to pretzel the judge's words into that paragraph. I just fixed it up to match the two newspaper articles. M.boli (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

M.boli, I'm a bit worried about the version as it stands now, and I've seen what the judge actually wrote. He did not write that Ball's article was defamatory, he wrote the opposite: "it is not defamatory". He did not write that Ball's article was "written with indifference to the truth", he wrote about "a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth". And he wrote lots of other stuff, e.g. (regarding Mr Weaver's notice of civil claim) "I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader.", so the article should not give the impression that Mr Ball's poor writing was the sole consideration. Less important but should be fixed: in direct quotes one should use the capitalization that is in the original -- MOS:SIC -- so "Article" not "article". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a point. I've re-written it a little based on what I think are direct quotes. Arguably it is now a little repetitive and could be compressed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! I apologize, that was quite sloppy. M.boli (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's edit handles the essential part of my complaint and WP:BANEX seems applicable, so that ends this issue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ellipsis

@William M. Connolley: Wrt "you can't create a full stop," actually, you can ... at least in the USA. Canada may follow British rules, which are likely different from American rules. Experts disagree in America, though--how shocking.

APA style--"In general, it is not necessary to use an ellipsis at the beginning or end of a quotation, even if you are quoting from the middle of a sentence." See the example in the first green box and the explanations just above.

Chicago and MLA styles--"When a quotation is placed at the end of a sentence, but the quoted material is only part of a larger sentence, authorities differ on the use of ellipsis points. The Chicago Manual of Style allows the use of a sentence-terminating period; the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers requires ellipsis points." Examples are given.

I personally think the article looks better and is easier to read without the ellipsis, which is why I removed it. But it's a trivial difference I won't worry about. YoPienso (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of your quotes justifies inserting a full stop that wasn't there William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, but the omitted part contained what was arguably one of the most important findings, viz. "...including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr Connolley:
APA style:

Original sentence: “Stars have disproportionately high and prolonged performance, visibility, and relevant social capital, and there are minimum thresholds for each that must be attained to be a star.”

Correct use: One theory of exceptional employee behavior posits that star employees “have disproportionately high and prolonged performance, visibility, and relevant social capital” (Call, Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015, p. 630).

Incorrect use: One theory of exceptional employee behavior posits that star employees “. . . have disproportionately high and prolonged performance, visibility, and relevant social capital. . .” (Call, Nyberg, & Thatcher, 2015, p. 630).

Chicago style:

The following examples are based on a paragraph from Henry David Thoreau’s Walden:
I learned this, at least, by my experiment: that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours. He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded, and interpreted in his favor in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings. In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

Thoreau argues that by simplifying one’s life, “the laws of the universe will appear less complex.”

But the difference is insignificant and I'm happy to let you have your way. YoPienso (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

SBHB: The question was one of punctuation, not content. Please add anything you think improves the article. YoPienso (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very slightly curious if you'll ever be able to accurately parse what I wrote William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Timothy and Tim

@Joel B. Lewis: I'm not going to edit war with you, but I will ask you to please revert yourself. Please look at the example of Tina Fey, which is included in the link I included on my edit summary. That exactly applies to this article. You seem to have missed the following in the link you provided wrt to hypocorism:

If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of or in addition to a given name, and it is not a common hypocorism[d] of one of their names, or a professional alias, it is usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial; the quotation marks are not put in lead-section boldface. Example:

Bunny Berigan has: Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan.

A nickname can eventually become a professional alias, even the most common name for a person. Such a case loses the quotation marks, other than in the subject's lead section if introducing the nickname in mid-name. If the monicker is dominant (in general or in a particular context) it can often be used in other articles without further elaboration. :Example:

Earvin "Magic" Johnson Jr. (born August 14, 1959) is ...

Your edit has completely removed the diminutive, "Tim," by which Ball is frequently known. Per both MOS:FULLNAME (Ex.: Elizabeth Stamatina "Tina" Fey) and MOS:NICKNAME (Ex.: Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan), it should be as it was: Timothy F. "Tim" Ball.

Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Oy vey. This is the relevant section of the guideline:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses into or after their name. Example:

• Tom Hopper's lead has simply: Thomas Edward Hopper.

There is a footnote on the word "common" (suppressed in the quote) that, in relevant part, says:

As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the Hypocorism § English subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix ..."; consider treating names listed in the "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case. ...

Hopefully no further explanation is required? --JBL (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Very well, then; redirect the article to "Tim Ball" since that's his professional name, used on his own website and on the covers of his books. Does it seem right to you that in this biography "Tim" appears only in the references? YoPienso (talk) 23:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to moving the page to Tim Ball. --JBL (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

We'll need to ask the community about that. There have been several iterations of this BLP. "Tim Ball" was redirected to "Timothy F. Ball" in 2007 and then deleted in 2010 and 2013.

The community might have some thoughts on the long-standing consensus to introduce the article with Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball for over 5 yrs. YoPienso (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Um, okay, if you want to solve easy problems in hard ways, have a blast. --JBL (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)