I can't revert it, because I promised Dr. Connolley I wouldn't engage in an edit war with him. That doesn't mean I "accept it" as neutral, let alone correct. I'm more interested in maintaining my good working relationship with Dr. C. than in "winning" a point temporarily. I'm thinking about the long-term good of the Wikipedia. I want William to remain as a contributor and/or source. I also want the article to be neutral and informative.

SEPP lists 4 points at ozonefranklin.html -- and claims that all 4 are controversial, not just the one WC and I are discussing.

The big picture is: * Some people say "the science is settled" * Other people say "there is still a controversy"

I don't want Wikipedia to say Singer is right, or Moon is right, or the UN is right. All I want is a nice clear neutral article which says what everybody's point of view is.

Is that too much to ask for?

Wearily,

Uncle Ed