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.
So if I write "Joe Bloggs holds the clearly false view that the Earth is flat" I'm violating NPOV? No I'm not, because in that case it really is clearly false - though it could do with being rewritten for a more sympathetic, encyclopedic style. But NPOV isn't the problem there.
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.
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.
Cheers,