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,
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
The statement in question is this:
SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone depletion]], making the clearly false assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial [http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html].
This seems unobjectionable. There is certainly no credible evidence to the contrary.
Fred
From: "Allan Crossman" a.crossman@blueyonder.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:15:39 -0000 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
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,
-- Allan Crossman - http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk PGP keys - 0x06C4BCCA (new) || 0xCEC9FAE1 (compatible)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
The statement in question is this:
SEPP (or Fred Singer) has also commented on the question of [[Ozone depletion]], making the clearly false assertion that the statement "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine." is controversial [http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozonefranklin.html].
This seems unobjectionable. There is certainly no credible evidence to the contrary.
Huh? If there is no evidence to the contrary, how can he say that it's clearly false? Ec
From: Ray saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:43 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor
There is no scienfic evidence that the following statement is controversial:
"CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, and there release chlorine."
Diffusion will spread any gas into the stratosphere. The action of ultraviolet will briefly release elemental clorine.
Fred