Allan Crossman wrote:
In order to show that William Connolley's edit is POV, you have to show that the claim he says is "clearly false" is in fact a serious point of contention in the relevant field.
Not having seen the edit in question, I can't comment on it in particular, but I did want to say that the burden of proof on Ed is significantly less than this. It's best to attribute claims that are in fact a serious point of contention, period, not just "in the relevant field".
NPOV is only an issue for claims that are not yet proven or disproven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the relevant experts. You'll have to show that what William says is in fact in a serious state of dispute in the field. It may or may not be. You've provided no evidence on the matter.
This bit is important -- it might be that "within the field" of postmodern literary criticism (for example), some idea 'X' is accepted as a matter of course, and that no one within that field questions it. But outside the field, others may find reason to dispute it vigorously.
--Jimbo