Talk:Tim Ball

Michael Mann and Frontier Centre for Public Policy

User:Dave souza made an edit which effectively reverted this edit by User:CEOmike which had said Michael Mann was in a lawsuit with Ball, and then Dave souza added this edit containing a long quote from a statement from a few days ago by Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I reverted, but Dave souza re-inserted. I believe that WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE apply, but let's see whether the change has the required consensus anyway. My objection is that the Frontier statement is about Frontier's interaction with Michael Mann and not explicitly about Mr Ball who is not even mentioned by name in the statement, although of course it probably has to do with a work by Ball which according to the quote is "untrue". I do not know whether the lawsuit filed against Ball in a British Columbia court may still exist and may be separate from what happened with Frontier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

According to the reference for the lawsuit where Mann sued Ball, the offence occurred in an interview Ball gave to Frontier, and Frontier published. Mann was demanding that Ball and Frontier retract it. So I think probably Souza has this correct. – M.boli (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Science journalist David Appell covers this in a blog post: Michael Mann Wins a Court Case. That includes a link to Mann's tweet stating "I've settled my claims in BC Supreme Court against The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc. on a basis which includes the following retraction & apology. I have not settled my claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in that lawsuit". . . dave souza, talk 05:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC) (removed redlink to David Appell, who was already covering the general topic area in David Appell (24 June 2003). "Hot Words". Scientific American. – but no wiki bio. . .dave souza, talk 05:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC) )

Now that I know David Appell thinks it was "the Canadian Supreme Court" I'll know to be wary of his journalism. If Michael Mann's tweet is correct then the statement that he's in a lawsuit with Timothy Ball is not "superseded and inaccurate" as you claimed. If it's not correct then the Frontier letter is not about the lawsuit with Timothy Ball. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

My summary comment "superseded and inaccurate" was premature, but I remain of the view that the deleted wording "isn't very relevant here". Not only that, but it's not supported by the cited source – hope you're not proposing WP:SYN on a BLP issue. Don't know how many lawsuits you think Frontier had on the go. . . dave souza, talk 16:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Seeing M.boli approving Dave souza's edit, and seeing nobody but me disapproving, I will not pursue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Gulutzan on this topic. The quote from Frontier Centre for Public Policy contains "untrue and disparaging" which in current context suggests a stance in the Mann-Penn case and brings fourth an accusation of Mr. Penn lying. This is misplaced, premature and, I assume, from a non WP:RS. Besides, links are dead. I'm about to remove the paragraph for being an exercise in disparaging. Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Rakeroot (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you're on weak grounds complaining about "untrue and disparaging"; these are the direct words from the Frontier Centre and (I'm guessing here) were likely a form of words agreed as a condition for settling the case. You're on better grounds complaining that the link is dead, but I don't think that's good enough either, since you're not actually disputing that the words are genuine; you just don't like them. Poking around, I don't find many sources; the best I can find still up is this image from Mann's twitter feed, https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1137079201863995392/photo/1 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

This only proves Frontier Center has come in line with Mann and I don't see the link to settling the case. Don't assume Penn had any part in the retraction and apology. What purpose do you see in keeping this in the article? And, if I like the words or not is irrelevant. They are words from Frontier Center, uttered in predicament. How is that for a reliable source? I only see the messenger bailing out here!?!?!?! Rakeroot (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Climate Change Litigation Database, from Columbia Law School Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, has a summary of this case. It can be found here. I've added emphasis to the part about Frontier Centre settling.

In 2011, climate scientists Michael Mann filed a libel claim against Timothy (“Tim”) Ball, The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Inc., and an unnamed defendant ("John Doe"). The defendant Ball participated in an interview with the FCPP and John Doe during which Ball made false and defamatory statements inferring that Michael Mann is guilty of criminal fraud in relation to the alleged “Climategate” scandal or alternatively that there are probably grounds to find Mann guilty. The plaintiff sought damages, an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements, and a court order for the defendants to remove the interview containing the defamatory statements from all electronic databases, including the FCPP website. In June 2019, the FCPP settled with Mann and issued a retraction and apology on their website. According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer, on August 22, 2019, the court dismissed the case on account of delay. This dismissal was apparently responsive to Ball’s request which stressed his poor health. This profile will be updated if a written decision is released or further information becomes available.

The site then links to two documents: the complaint, and the retraction press release from Frontier Centre.

• Regarding the dismissal of the case: the climate database seem to be reserving judgement about what whatever the heck happened two weeks ago.
• Regarding the Frontier Centre: it issued a press release apologizing for having published a defamatory article, there are secondary sources saying this was pursuant to settling their part the suit, and I don't see why it would be wrong to take them a their word.

For what it's worth, I think it is correct to leave the Frontier settlement in this article and wait-and-see until reliable sources describe the dismissal of the Ball part. M.boli (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, agree with your assessment that we've still not got a reliable source about the case being dismissed. While Columbia Law School Sabin Center on Climate Change Law could be considered for a rs, it's carefully describing its report on the Ball case as "According to the media and statements from Michael Mann and his lawyer", which doesn't get us much further. . . dave souza, talk 08:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and the link but it doesn't change a thing. Using FPCC's words to imply Penn is guilty of accusations is clearly biased. How is this hard to see? Or is Penn fair game? I think Dave souza should fight his wars somewhere else. Rakeroot (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Penn? Also, see WP:NPA. . . dave souza, talk 08:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. I do find my last sentence rather dull and I do appreciate the work you all doing for the Wikipedia. ...and I meant Ball, of cause. Apparently I lost a little too mush sleep pondering what is going on here. Again, I'm sorry, this wasn't meant as a personal attack. I wanted to highlight the fact that there is a war going on for the public opinion and the consensus, which is fine with me just not here on Wikipedia and that I find your debated addition to the article clearly biased as you are using the citation to finish the sentence. This way you are giving "untrue" significance to the accusations, which in turn is the topic of the court case. I am aware you are, all, plowing waist deep in twisted wordings but I don't think that warrants for twisting things up here on Wikipedia. Rakeroot (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem is:

• The article doesn't explicitly say there were were two defendants (Ball and Frontier Centre).
• The part where Frontier settled makes it seem like Ball did something wrong.
• ...but the actual outcome is: case against Ball is dismissed!

I've found a reliable source that the case is dismissed, the British Columbia court registry, but it is behind a paywall. I paid the $6, here it is copy-pasted with formatting and web-page navigation stuff removed.

File Number VLC-S-S-111913

Details for Document: Order
Date Filed: 22Aug2019
Filing Parties

Terms of Order

Order
    Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
    Costs will follow the event  and of the action since the action is dismissed

I could edit the article to clarify that there were two defendants (Ball and Frontier Centre), Frontier settled with the apology, and Ball was dismissed. We still have no RS explaining the dismissal. Can I use the Columbia database plus the (paywalled) court registry as additional sources for the disposition of the case?

The other documents in the case are also available, there are over a hundred, each with a price. I didn't go there! Also it would be useless for sourcing Wikipedia pages, and it would be squarely in OR territory. --- M.boli (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I edited the article as I suggested. Please check it.

Also maybe somebody can correct the cite template for the BC courts registry? I have two URLs. One is to the main page, the other is for the case itself. The URL for the case itself is paywalled, clicking on it directly produces request for payment without even saying what for. So I put the main url in the cite, and used |article-url parameters for the case. But this doesn't work. M.boli (talk)

Thank you M.boli! Rakeroot (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

M.boli Thank you. The court registry is RS but will probably be superseded when there are more RSs so fussing about the cite may be unnecessary. (Does the document really say there were two defendants? It's not in what you quoted.) Climate Change Litigation Databases does not look like RS, thank you for not using it. But to get back to the topic about the sentence about FCPP retraction and apology: you and dave Souza think it is okay (I should also count William M. Connolley if the topic ban does not apply to talk page edits), Rakeroot and I think it is not okay. Will you accept that there is no consensus? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding of your objection was to the effect that Mann sued Ball, and Frontier apologized, but Frontier apologizing seemed to be a side-issue with respect to Ball. So publishing their retraction was perhaps unfair to Ball, who didn't retract.

I understand that objection, but I think it doesn't deal with Frontier was a co-defendant along with Ball. See the front page of the complaint.

It occurs to me that I have not been looking at the pages for Michael Mann and for FCPP. Conceivably it would be logically consistent to:

• Quote the retraction by FCPP on FCPP's page and Mann's page,
• Not quote the retraction on Ball's page since that retraction wasn't Ball's.

On Ball's page mention only that FCPP settled. It could be odd to write that Mann sued Ball and FCPP, and Ball's fork was dismissed, without mentioning that there was different outcome for the FCPP fork. --- M.boli (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work to find sources for dismissal of the case against Ball. As stated below, I've raised the need for context at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball – hope we can find more sources soon! . . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The bald statement from the BC courts registry is such a primary source, requiring context from a secondary source. Using the sources cited, I've modified the wording to "the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball, on grounds of delay." That at least avoids giving tacit support to the wild assertions which some editors have attempted to add to articles.
Regarding the problem that "The part where Frontier settled makes it seem like Ball did something wrong. * ...but the actual outcome is: case against Ball is dismissed!" – the dismissal wasn't a question of whether Ball had made a defamatory statement, it was apparently in response to a plea for the case to be terminated on grounds of delay, citing the defendant's age, illness and lack of influence or credibility – much as in the Weaver defense.
Mann's said "It was a ruling from the bench, there isn't (yet) any written decision. We will likely challenge the dismissal of the suit." A written decision will give a much better source, and hopefully it will be covered in reliable secondary sources. . . . dave souza, talk 03:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I dispute the reliability of your source of "on grounds of delay", they don't give us their source. Also stop claiming accusations were untrue. You have no grounds for that. Also the "age, illness and lack of influence or credibility" part is from somewhere else (Weaver case, right?) Rakeroot (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Everybody except the crackpot fringe agrees that Ball's accusations are untrue. Wikipedia has a WP:FRINGE guideline. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Taking account of the case made at WP:RSN#climatecasechart.com, I've agreed with others that site isn't a reliable secondary source for the dismissal of the case, so have edited the article accordingly and raised the issue at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball. . . dave souza, talk 15:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the dismissal is in dispute and thereby it doesn't need any source but it might be best to hide it anyway so the crackpot fringe deniers don't use the information, like you suggested. But I still disagree with using this case to judge all Balls accusations false. Or at least define what accusations are we talking about. Rakeroot (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The coverage in this article specifically refers to Ball's FCCP interview claims about Mann – your earlier proposal to show the case dismissed cited the blog Watts Up With That?, which promotes climate change denial, and it's possible that Ball has made other false accusations on that blog, but we'd need a reliable source to discuss them. . . . dave souza, talk 11:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I saw a case was dismissed and thought I could contribute on Wikipedia. What I didn't know was it was this complicated. Now we can't even say the case is dismissed although everyone agrees... Then, I found that you felt the urge to discredit and judge Tim Ball anywhere possible. In this context, where a case was filed and dismissed I found this misplaced. Rakeroot (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edit didn't give due WP:WEIGHT to the reliable secondary source cited for the point: Ball's viewpoint is fringe and so has to be shown in the context of mainstream views. At first you apparently thought Mann had "refused to back up the figures behind his 'hockey stick'," but as noted at Data and methods these were available from publication in 1998, with clarifications in 2003 and even his private property (the Fortran coding) was made available by 2005. If reliable secondary sources give credit to Ball for anything, then that can appear in this bio. The way the case was dismissed is certainly rather confusing, which is why good sourcing is essential. . . dave souza, talk 14:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your insertion of "untrue and disparaging" lacked good sourcing. The source is not Mother Jones, they merely repeated an article in National Observer which repeated those words from a Frontier page that cannot be found. Even if it was about Ball (which you failed to prove), it would be Frontier's opinion, SPS and undue. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The words "untrue and disparaging" were quoted (not "merely repeated") in an article published by Mother Jones (generally regarded as a good source) with a header stating "This story was originally published by National Observer and is shared here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration" – National Observer looks a reputable news website / online newspaper, it doesn't seem to be in the RSN archives. Its article includes an image of the relevant Frontier page, so superseded the direct link to that page, but that's still available on the wayback machine here, if required. The article is clearly about the lawsuit with co-defendants Frontier and Ball about the words Ball said in the interview they published. The same point is made in the Climate Change Litigation Database, from Columbia Law School Sabin Center on Climate Change Law, quoted above. . . dave souza, talk 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Dave souza, this is not the place to talk about my Wikipedia history but I feel like I need to defend myself now. I came to another Wikipedia TALK-page with some news. I don't believe I pushed for them in any particular direction and I never touched the article. I'm sorry if my news was from a bad source but there seems to shortage of news about the dismissal of this case. By the way, do you work for National Observer? Rakeroot (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Eh? . . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, that's a wee joke – I don't think the National Observer has a Scottish outpost, but we share some terms. Just remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. You did the right thing in bringing news to a talk page rather than just putting it in an article, unfortunately your source has a track record of misinformation. While its accusations may look convincing in isolation, they don't meet Wikipedia's core policies, including WP:WEIGHT, which always apply. . . . dave souza, talk 09:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I actually thought you might, but had you mixed up with Mike De Souza of National Observer which made your comments look weird in my head. Sorry!!! Rakeroot (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Rakeroot, it looks like Vsmith has joined in support of dave souza by re-inserting the contentious material, and nobody has joined our side. So I'll once again decide not to pursue this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, think we're all on the same side in trying to improve articles. . . dave souza, talk 09:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

So, we have to state Balls accusations are untrue but stating they are a lie is "incoherent"? Rakeroot (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

We don't state either, we show the assessment made by reliable sources; in this case, one that quotes the retraction made by the FCCP. Shuffling the paragraph made it incoherent, don't think there are any reliable sources for stating his assertions are a "lie" and don't think that's helpful language. . . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify the situation, Ball (with the interviewer) made the allegations in February 2011, after the PSU investigatory committees and EPA report had cleared Mann. In August 2011 the investigation by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation exonerated Mann, but Ball and the FCPP refused to withdraw their accusations, and blogs like WUWT, American Thinker and Power Line have continued their efforts to damage Mann's reputation. The data and methods they allege wasn't provided was all linked in Mann's 2005 letter responding to Senator Joe Barton's demands. The letter includes a copy of a 2003 email from David J. Verardo of the National Science Foundation confirming its requirements for providing data and methods had been fully met by MBH. . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I dont like "They" in "They settled the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's part...". Can we change it to "This settled the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's part..."? Or if there is any better suggestions. Rakeroot (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Taking this and your edit summary suggestion that "untrue and disparaging" "should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion" into account, I've rephrased the relevant sentences:
On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology in which they accepted that they had published "untrue and disparaging" allegations about Mann, and said that "Although the Frontier Centre for Public Policy still does not see eye to eye with Mr. Mann on the subject of global warming and climate change, we now accept that it was wrong to publish allegations by others that Mr. Mann did not comply with ethical standards". Mann said that this retraction and apology was part of the basis on which his claims against the Frontir Centre for Public Policy had been settled, but Ball remained a defendant.
Hope that's sufficiently clear, no doubt it can be copyedited. Not convinced we need the FCPP's "eye to eye" sentence here, but have left it in place. . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I think there still might be a problem though. The wording "[FCPP] accepted that they had published "untrue and disparaging" allegations" still doesn't clearly attribute to FCPP. Maybe just try something else instead of "accepted"? Rakeroot (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, have changed "accepted" to "stated", think that covers the point. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

With the discussions at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball and here in mind, I suggest we write the paragraph short and concise like this:

Ball also found himself at the center of controversy in February 2011 when he told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," due to Mann's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. The interview was published on the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's web site. Mann then sued Ball and Frontier Centre for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the web site. On 7 June 2019 the Frontier Centre For Public Policy published a retraction and apology and settled their part of the case. On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball.

Rakeroot (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I continue to think the "untrue and disparaging" quote provides important context. As discussed at WP:BLPN#Tim Ball consider the Seattle Times opinion piece questionable, and I've shown a newer source there which gives good mainstream coverage of the situation so far. Will comment further when time permits, . . dave souza, talk 11:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Edited proposal above. Removed unverifiable source. user:Dave souza, you will have to elaborate on "important context". For discussions I suggest WP:BLPN#Tim Ball . . . Rakeroot (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edited proposal above. Added source to proposal. "Oral reasons for judgment" by BC court. . . . Rakeroot (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks. That [1] is an excellent new primary source, and primary sources are permitted under the second paragraph of WP:BLPPRIMARY. I can see no reason not to use a slightly modified form of your last sentence "On 22 August 2019 the court dismissed the action against defendant Ball on ground of delay." supported by this. I don't see the need for other sources, but have no necessary objection. I make no comment on other suggested edits at this stage. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now added this reference on to an IP's edit which I was broadly happy with. The time has come when we really can't ignore this any longer: giving the impression that a case is active against a living person after it has been dismissed is a breach of core BLP principles. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I think that covers the main point of this thread and I will move my proposal to a new thread. . . Rakeroot (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Than you to everybody! I think the language has converged on a good solution. I dropped out of this discussion about 2 weeks ago when it started taking up too much of my time, and more people were getting involved. I think the result does justice to the topic while being fair to everybody. M.boli (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Timothy alone or also Tim? Redirect?

To all page-watchers:
Should the first line of the article be Timothy Francis Ball or Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball?
If the former, should the article redirect to "Tim Ball"?
Please see the above discussion between User:Joel B. Lewis and myself for more details. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Timothy Francis "Tim" Ball. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Update: after reading the 2016 RfC discussion I withdraw my initial support for restoring "Tim". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

So, should the article be redirected to "Tim Ball" per the example of Tom Hopper? A deleted version of this BLP was titled "Tim Ball." YoPienso (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

No opinion.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yopienso, in your opinion, is it correct to say that he is typically called "Tim Ball" in references (and the world at large)? --JBL (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would say generally or usually, not typically. He nearly always presents himself to the public as Tim Ball (or Dr. Tim Ball or Tim Ball PhD, which we wouldn't do). Check every page of his personal website, including the donations page. Then there are his Frontier Centre bio, his books on Amazon (also here), and interviews, including this podcast just last week, lectures, and columns. The media--including wikis and blogs--call him Tim Ball too: Sourcewatch, RationalWiki, DesmogBlog (and here), Climate Depot, WUWT, Principia Scientifica, Friends of Science, New York Times, etc. A significant exception is that Heartland refers to him as Timothy Ball. Also, his email is timothyball@shaw.ca. Notice that his speaker's profile at ICSC is headlined SPEAKER'S PROFILE - DR. TIM BALL and his photo his labeled "Dr. Tim Ball," but the profile itself, logically enough, uses his full name and degree, "Timothy F. Ball, Ph.D." YoPienso (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No redirect possible

At least for a tech-unsavvy person like me, a redirect can't be made because this article--"Timothy Ball"--is already a redirect of a previous article titled "Tim Ball." See here and here.
It seems to me that the simplest thing to do is to restore the opening line, Timothy F. "Tim" Ball. YoPienso (talk) 00:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Would crudely switching the source code for the two articles work? First copy the "Timothy Ball" article code into "Tim Ball" using an article editor, eliminating the hash-redirect. Second maybe wait a bit for Wikipedia to stop registering "Tim Ball" as a redirect. Third replace "Timothy Ball" with the hash-redirect.

NEVER MIND: now that I think about it, that removes the article history and talk page history etc. Not a good plan. — M.boli (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's ask @IntoThinAir:, who created this version of Tim Ball's BLP, what he thinks. YoPienso (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:HYPOCORISM we do not need to put "Tim Ball" in the lead, we should just put "Timothy Francis Ball". Per WP:NICKNAME if Ball is most commonly referred to as Tim, not Timothy, then the article should in fact be moved to Tim Ball. The way to do that if you are not an admin would be WP:RM#CM, unless you think it wouldn't be controversial. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it could be controversial since the present article is a redirect from "Tim Ball", indicating prior debate and/or consensus that "Tim Ball" was not the best title. At present, all here seem to agree that it should be titled "Tim Ball", for reasons enunciated in this section. YoPienso (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Title appears to be uncontroversial based on above two sections and no objections here after 7 days. Deletions of former articles about this subject do not affect the article title. Station1 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Timothy Ball → Tim Ball – This is the name he is commonly known by and uses in his professional life. (See 18 links posted above at 17:39, 27 June 2019.) This question arose after a good-faith edit of the first line from Timothy Francis"Tim" Ball to Timothy Francis Ball per MOS:HYPOCORISM: 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. MOS:FULLNAME states that the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, . . .. Ergo, the title of this article should be "Tim Ball. YoPienso (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This request is a good idea and uncontroversial (the discussion about it has been open for 10 days, no one has raised an objection). --JBL (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I was unable to redirect the article. Would you care to? YoPienso (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lawsuit

I reverted [2] a change since the source was just a teensy bit unreliable. FWIW, Mann's version is https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/2470358663020321?__tn__=-R and is, as you'll notice, somewhat different. But I don't think that counts as an unbiased RS either William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, don't think HotWhopper's terribly rs either, but shows Mann's view for those avoiding FB. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Retirement

Born in 1938, retired in 1996 - at age 57/58. Is this really a retirement or a job change, as he kept being active after 1996, didn't he? --Gunnar (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it just means he retired from teaching, not from working. YoPienso (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits on June 16 and June 17 2020

After my update regarding the Weaver lawsuit, M.boli and Dave souza and Rathfelder have made new changes. I disagree with this M.boli edit since it doesn't solve the problem that the paragraph has become bloated, removes Ball's contention, and adds unnecessary material while truncating what the source said ("to decide the amount of damages, and whether the article was fair comment" became "to determine possible damages"). I disagree with this Dave souza edit because it adds climate-change-denial claims based on a book that merely name-calls, I have no trouble finding sources that call Mr Ball a skeptic instead (e.g. Global News, Vancouver Sun, National Post). I agree with this Rathfelder edit which removes the category Climate change denial, as it is a removal of contentious material on good faith BLP grounds, so I hope that people will read WP:BLP and realize consensus is required before re-inserting. Does anyone else have opinions about the recent changes? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! I was adding the disposition of the case, while at the same time tightening up. How does this look:

 Writing that Ball's statements "meet the classic test for defamation," the BC Court of Appeal in April 2020 reversed the dismissal. It sent the case back to the trial judge to decide the amount of damages, and whether the article was fair comment.

I thought the sentence Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming added nothing, that's what the defendant is expected to say. But we could easily put it back. The source for that sentence also supported the previous one. -- M.boli (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The book used as a source, published by Columbia University Press, doesn't "merely name-call", it's a book about climate change denial by the eminently well-qualified James L. Powell. He concisely outlines Ball's contribution, and covers the earlier lawsuits, but think that's pretty well covered – maybe should appear in the lead? The article is over-full of primary source material which really needs trimming. . dave souza, talk 13:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

M.Boli: okay, adding "and whether the article was fair comment", and continuing to leave out Mr Ball's objection, would make me withdraw my objection. Dave souza: I disagree and nobody so far has agreed, in other words you have no consensus for the name-calling. But I won't revert based on that alone; I was asking whether others have opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2017 opinion piece

Yopienso on 4 August 2017 added mention of an opinion piece co-authored by Tim Ball and Tom Harris. (The article had also been mentioned on this talk page in August 2017 but only in passing.) David Gerard on 1 August 2022 removed the mention, with edit summary = "notresume". I know of a WP:NOTCV shortcut but it doesn't look relevant. I believe the material should be restored as Mr Ball's opinions are relevant in an article about him. Are there other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Lists of a subject's published articles don't connote notability; if his ideas are notable, they'll be in third-party sources, and already are. Wikipedia articles are not hagiographies - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso added that in 2017, commenting "that quote gives undue weight to the petition. I'll bury it in a footnote, along with the opinion piece co-authored with Tom Harris, with the combined footnote a citation for "Since then he has continued to advocate against governmental intervention to ameliorate climate change." Five years later "since then" is outdated, the most you could say is "as of 2017", so no longer relevant for that.
It's rather WP:PROFRINGE, so needs other high-quality reliable sources discussing it as an alternative position. The position looks rather quaint now, "Fortunately, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is launching a program to critique climate change science" – oops, we now know that following assorted ethics and management scandals, Pruitt resigned in July 2018. Also, "the science is all over the map with experts even arguing about whether warming or cooling lies ahead" – does he have opinions relating to more recent developments, and have good secondary sources commented on these opinions? . . dave souza, talk 20:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A notice in wattsupwiththat.com

With regret I read: RIP Dr. Tim Ball, Climate Realist. This is a blog site, waiting for confirmation will be appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source: [3] --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a far worse source than wattsupwiththat.com -- an author who won't give a last name, a lead question "Is Tim Ball obituary available?", based on a social media post, and possibly based on Wikipedia i.e. WP:CIRC too, e.g. compare what it says: In 2003, Ball co-authored the book "Eighteenth-Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay," which was reviewed in the American Indian Quarterly in 2005 by Theodore Binnema of the University of Northern British Columbia and in the Auk in 2004 by Fred Cooke. with what the Wikipedia article says: In 2003, Ball co-authored a book entitled "Eighteenth-Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay," which was reviewed in the American Indian Quarterly by Theodore Binnema of the University of Northern British Columbia in 2005,[12] as well as by Fred Cooke in the Auk in 2004.[13]. It seems to be some people based in South Africa who wander about looking for obituaries, and in a Canadian conversation it's been condemned before. I've reverted your edit which by the way was so badly formed it only led to a "Page Not Found" anyway. I expect there will be an okay source soon, I suggest that we wait for one. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Whoops. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

On 27 September ElliotSweets cited generalistjournal.com and Hob Gadling reverted. On 1 October 1 Normantas Bataitis cited manhattancontrarian.com/blog, and I reverted. I've also seen notices on heartland.org, rocketryforum.com, desmogblog.com, newsboardforme.com, steynonline.com. But not on timescolonist.com. So we know it but still don't have a source we could all agree to cite. And Jkaharper + Editrite! + Robby.is.on have added dates or changed tenses -- I believe they should all be reverted but am taking to the talk page first. Does anybody have a policy-compliant proposal? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't see what good reverting the page would do. It's plain to see that the subject is dead, and whilst I agree none of the above sources are the best, there are some which could skim by WP:RS. Steyonline being one such source. I don't think the subject is exactly going to spawn national newspaper level obituaries. More sensible we make do with what's available. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

You think steynonline.com could "skim by" WP:BLP? Peter Gulutzan (talk)

@Peter Gulutzan:, please ping me so I get a notification to say you've responded next time... I do. It's not social media or a blog. The page about Ball's death is an article. Do you have any particular problem with it? --Jkaharper (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

He's stiff. WP:BLP no longer applies. Just the date of death with would be more useful than what we have now. OTOH the lack of interest in his death does rather re-inforce the notability problems William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP does mention recently deceased people, and WP:BLPDS in particular mentions deceased people so if William M. Connolley is still subject to his topic ban I believe it applies to the above remark. Anyway the suggestion from Jkaharper is to cite Mark Steyn's "Ave atque value" posting Ball's bearing. I regarded it as a blog post but I could be wrong. Anyone support it? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jkaharper: Of course it is not an RS. It is a big plate of anti-science hatemongering with one piece of information (Ball's death) as a tiny decorative side-dish. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether you personally disagree with the nature of the content on the website or not has nothing to do with the reliability of the website when it concerns the reporting of a death of an individual who was clearly closely associated with the author(s) of that site. Important that we eliminate bias and look at sources objectively. --Jkaharper (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not "me personally". Go read WP:FRINGE, WP:QUESTIONABLE and Climate change denial. That website should be blacklisted. Any link to it would make an article worse. Every other source, even wattsupwiththat, would be better. But "cn", as Willam Connolley said, is probably the best solution as long as nobody outside the denialist subculture noticed the information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

There is now an obituary in the Winnipeg Free Press. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

... And at last I see it was in "published in Victoria Times Colonist from Oct. 4 to Oct. 6, 2022". I think the Winnipeg Free Press link might look better, and do not think "citation needed" is a good idea because it might encourage people to "fix" by citing poorer sources. But I'm not going to add a cite myself. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

He has denied accusations of being a member of energy industry funded lobbying groups...

I just removed He has denied accusations of being a member of energy industry funded lobbying groups, which is a just-added alternative to the restored He has been a member of energy industry funded lobbying groups. But the latter is problematic. Firstly, there's the plural: our sources only support one, the FoS. Second, it isn't clear he was a "member": he sat on their advisory panel, but that's not quit the same thing. Further, he only appears to have been occasional there, so it isn't obvious that's important enough for the lede.

So I suggest that if you want text like this in the lede, it needs to be improved William M. Connolley (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)