Talk:Bob Ward (communications director)

Criticism
user:Dave_souza removed the section "criticism", apparently primarily because of its title. A secondary reason given was the sourcing, but all references but two were to newspapers. One was to the proceedings of the UK House of Commons. One was to a blog - but a widely read blog by a widely published professor of political science. Richard Tol (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The section was introduced by Pete Tillman in this edit, which cited two sources: the first was David Rose of the Daily Mail which is not acceptable as a source on science due to a very poor reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The second, slightly surprisingly, was Economics is clear on the need for climate action, now it's time to act | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian, added by Pete on 30 April 2014 when on 26 April Pete had argued in BLPs Quoting Blog Posts By Dana Nuccitelli that this was a blog unsuitable for BLPs. So, a decision there we'd have to overturn if we use that source in a BLP. Tthe wording Pete added misrepresents the source, which supports Ward's view that Richard Tol had made errors in playing down the economic risks of climate change: if the source is acceptable, we should summarise it more fully, and if that were done it should also be summarised on the Tol bio. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The section was then expanded considerably by Richard Tol, who has an obvious conflict of interest in the topic, and adds various contrarian opinions taken out of context: it's unsurprising that Ridley complains (in a paywalled Times opinion piece) about mainstream coverage of his views, Pielke Jr.'s blog isn't acceptable as a source about anyone but Pielke Jr., and Lindzen's written evidence submitted to the HoC isn't their proceedings, which we'd have to see to find how Lindzen's contrarian views were received: essentially a primary source and context needed if anything of it were to appear in Ward's bio. Wilsdon looks mainstream, but his opinion is in the comments, not in the article, and so is not acceptable as a source. In general, it reads as a one-sided attack, due weight is needed to mainstream views. Communication style is much better as a topic heading, though "style" seems an odd word to use, but much better sourcing is needed if anything is kept: I'll delete the section, and suggest that proposals be discussed here before adding more comments on Ward's style. . . dave souza, talk 08:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Four university professors and a bestselling science writer have protested publicly about Ward's behaviour. Why is that not relevant? 139.184.200.41 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Should have logged in first. Richard Tol (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take the necessary time to read and digest the comment above. — TPX 10:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I read and digested. Fact is, a number of senior academics have made rather disparaging remarks in public about Mr Ward. I selected mild remarks; harsher words have been written. Balance requires that positive remarks about Mr Ward are shown too, but unfortunately I have been unable to find those. Please help me in my search. Richard Tol (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not start by adding a crit section to your own page? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request has been removed (in effect, declined) because the issue stated at the request page has not been discussed here and thorough discussion is a prerequisite to receiving a 3O, but more importantly the request dealt with conduct, not contents, and 3O's are not available for conduct issues. For conduct issues, speak to an administrator or file a report at ANI. Finally, 3O's are only available for disputes involving exactly two editors and there are more than that involved here. If you wish dispute resolution, limited only to content issues, consider DRN but frankly there really needs to be more discussion here before seeking outside help. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer) (Not watching)
 * Thanks TransporterMan. I suggest that Ward's defenders find sources with positive references to Ward, and then we rewrite the section. Richard Tol (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you stop referring to Wikipedia editors as "Ward's defenders". I have very little knowledge who he is, and do not read his material. Thankyou. — TPX 17:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies to TPX. Richard Tol (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Negatives

 * Professor Dr Richard S. Lindzen FAAcAS FAAsAS FAGU FAMS
 * Professor Dr Roger A. Pielke Jr
 * Dr Matthew W. Ridley DL FRSL FMedSci
 * Professor Dr Richard S.J. Tol MEA
 * Professor Dr James Wilsdon
 * Professor Dr Adolf Hitler, Führer and Reich Chancellor of the German People — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B867:87D0:25C8:60DB:8DEF:F963 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Positives

 * Doctor Who

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Ward (communications director). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605233401/http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/WhosWho/Institute%20Staff/BobWard.aspx to http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/WhosWho/Institute%20Staff/BobWard.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)