Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I'm just saying that if he's going to edit a
Wikipedia article to say
that some POV he personally opposes is "clearly false", then he himself
should be cited as the source of that POV.
I'm coming in with the benefit of not really knowing any of the
details of the dispute, so hopefully I can comment helpfully on the
abstract issue.
If a person editing wikipedia is the sort of person we'd ordinarily
consider a source, then it's perfectly legitimate to attribute
something to them, and nearly mandatory if the statement in question
is in any way in dispute.
The best thing about this is that it can really help to move the
article forward without acrimony.
The only danger here doesn't seem to apply in this case, but is
something we should be watchful for in the future of course. And
that's the danger of various people coming in and writing on their own
pet topics, citing their own unpublished or self-published manuscrpts
as authority.
--Jimbo