[WikiEN-l] William Connelley no longer neutral contributor

[Delirium]

Just to jump into this debate, here are the relevant two paragraphs, 
from [[Ozone hole]]:

----
One prominent opponent of CFC reduction strategy has been the 
atmospheric scientist Fred Singer, who has noted the scientific 
uncertainties such as the lack of direct observations of surface UV 
increases (as mentioned above). However, Singer goes far beyond this to 
claim, for example, that "CFCs with lifetimes of decades and longer 
become well-mixed in the atmosphere, percolate into the stratosphere, 
and there release chlorine" is controversial [4], when there is clear 
evidence for it (though Singer is wrong to use the word "percolate"). 
Singer, who is also a leading skeptic of strategies on global warming, 
has consistently insisted that the remaining level of scientific 
uncertainty about these issues is too high to justify taking the control 
measures recommended by most other atmospheric scientists, given their 
possible economic impact.

As noted above, Singer's objections go beyond reasonable skepticism. 
Moreover, he is a retired scientist who has produced no new research 
since the mid-1970s. His only recent publication in the peer-reviewed 
scientific literature is a single technical comment published in 1994 in 
Science magazine.[5] In 1995 testimony before the US Congress, Singer 
himself stated that his last original, peer-reviewed research was in 
1971. His contributions to the recent debates over ozone deption and 
global warming have consisted entirely of commentaries and letters, 
mostly self-published or published in newspapers and other popular media 
rather than in scientific journals. Environmentalists critical of 
Singer's role also allege a conflict of interest, pointing out that he 
has financial ties to oil companies (Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun 
Oil).
----

I don't think these read like NPOV.  I'm completely unfamiliar to the 
debate, but they read to me like they were written by someone who is 
trying to discredit Singer.  Whether Singer is credible or not is 
another matter, but the tone of the writing shouldn't make it sound like 
it's written by someone who dislikes Singer.  It also shouldn't be 
phrased as *Wikipedia* making the claim that Singer's objections are 
"beyond reasonable skepticism"--we are not in a position to judge what 
skepticism is reasonable and what isn't.  If it is a widely accepted 
viewpoint that Singer's skepticism is unreasonable, we should say 
"However, most scientists find Singer's objections to go beyond 
reasonable skepticism...", preferably with a source.  The rest of the 
2nd paragraph in particular needs to be rephrased--it reads entirely as 
someone trying to build a case against Singer, which Wikipedia is not 
the proper place for.

-Mark