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