|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A Wikipedia contributor, Rtol (talk · contribs), may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
|This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.|
Guilty as charged. I edited the page about me. Did I introduce anything that is not true or biased? I do not think so, and nobody told me so. The warning sign should be taken down unless someone shows that there are errors on the page. Rtol (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The pretension that one can greatly edit an article about themself without introducing anything that is biased already suggests something. The warning sign is there because what it says is true.
A question you could ask yourself is: how many people with your h-index don't have an article on Wiki? Then start researching and writing their articles instead of yours.
I have tried to make your opinion on climate change issues more clear, please do correct me.
I completly agree that the warning sign should be put up on this page. Mr. Tol has enough space to write about himself on his personal homepage. This is actually where people will expect information that is edited by himself. Editing ones own biography in wikipedia is really bad style! --Rumburak2 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given that he goes against mainstream thinking about climate change, i would expect significant criticism of his viewpoints by other academics, but the article only talks about his interviews and his viewpoints, not the reactions of others thereupon. A "Criticism" section should perhaps be added. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
New Scientist Ref
This is cited in support of the statement that "Tol argues the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits", however there is no statement to this effect in the article. Can someone come up with a more appropriate place to cite this? It does seem worth including, but citing things of no relevance to a sentence is not on. Dduff442 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The article contains many references to his ranking in systems rating economists' standings. Does this not constitute original research? The inclusion of this information is not in keeping with precedents set by other economists' bios so far as I can see. For example, the bio of Gary Yohe, who recently collaborated with Tol on a paper, contains no such information. I have not encountered any references to Tol's rankings elsewhere and the notability of this information would appear to be in question as well.Dduff442 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Tagging the "top 250" claim for being original research is silly, the cited footnote proves it. IDEAS is regularly used as Wikipedia source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
LS as a source
Per Christopher Landsea and User talk:Cla68, LS's opinions aren't notable. So whilst I'm just about prepared to hold my nose and OK the use of "the deniers" as the source of uncontroversial facts (though I'd rather we left them uncited) I don't think that "According to Solomon..." is tolerable in the text. Nor is putting his inclusion in the deniers in this BLP, because he isn't, obviously William M. Connolley (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree that Solomon's opinion isn't notable, he is a columnist for one of Canada's major newspapers, but I don't object to your edit. Cla68 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Tol says upcoming climate report 'alarmist,' pulls out of writing team
News report here. Since Fox News is a red flag to some, might be better to use a different source. Does seem worth adding to his wikibio.
Quote: "It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them," he said. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Using any criticism by this Kåre Fog person is inappropriate. He is not authoritative; he doesn't even have his own page on Wikipedia. His sources are links are to blog pages in complete violation of Wikipedia policy. This should be removed immediately if this article is to have any credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)