Ray Saintonge said:
David Gerard wrote:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050121 21:31]:
Quality of source is usually (but not always) POV. We're supposed to be writing NPOV articles. A caveat such as "warning: the article relies on population projections that were proven by events to be grossly in error" is fine and NPOV. A caveat such as "the claims at this site are patently incorrect" is POV and superfluous. Otherwise rely on the general site content disclaimer and the reader's commonsense.
Yes. I feel sufficient trepidation at separating external links into pro and con.
But in the first example the words "proven" and "in error" make POV assertions. Better: "Warning: this source relies on population projections that have been severely questioned."
No, in the original example it should be taken for granted that the population projections have been falsified. For instance, if I cited Malthus.