Jump to content

Talk:Tim Ball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weatherlawyer (talk | contribs) at 03:36, 1 June 2016 (→‎AFD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AFD

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

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

Ping RW: Evidensely spoiled for choice

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Actually, the subject passes WP:BASIC, per (from the recent AfD discussion):
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 00:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Ball&oldid=723117694"