[ravitation]

That seems mostly irrelevant, aside from maybe providing credit. The way in which you "co-opt" it in this piece is not as some questionable hypothesis, whose veracity is unimportant - which seems to be your intent based on this comment and the rest of the actual piece. It's hard to see how you are not explicitly endorsing this hypothesis when you have unquoted lines like "but that answer is wrong, as can be shown by examining historical records of the time." You are not saying that Donald Gibbs thinks this is wrong, you are saying you think it's wrong.

[lisper]

Yes, that's a fair criticism. If I were to rewrite this article today I would try to make this clearer. I think at the time, having recently seen Gibbs speak, I found his argument compelling. But I clearly could (and should) have done a much better job communicating it. Mea culpa.

[ravitation]

Also, for the record, I really enjoy/get a lot of value from your writing (if I didn't I probably wouldn't have criticized this tiny part of it).

[lisper]

Thanks for the kind words. And I always appreciate constructive criticism. It's the only way to improve.

[SilasX]

Your post is written on a hard drive, not stone. You can still correct the error.

[lisper]

That's true, but my blog is not a peer-reviewed publication, it is a personal journal, and as such my policy is not to make substantial changes to posts after they're published. I want my blog to be a reliable representation of who I am (or, in this case, who I was) warts and all. Sometimes I'll post corrections and updates, and maybe I will in this case, but geez, it's a twelve-year-old post and this is the first time anyone has brought this up. This probably isn't be the most egregious uncorrected error I've ever made.

[SilasX]

You're confidently propagating misinformation, and it would be a trivial fix but for "your policy". I don't know why you're making such a fuss.

[lisper]

I don't think it would be as trivial to fix as you think. I can't just say, "This is Gibbs's position, not mine" because I don't actually know that to be a fact. This happened 12 years ago, and my recollection could be wrong. It's entirely possible that this was actually my position at the time and I just don't remember. So before I can confidently attribute this position to Gibbs I'd have to verify that this was indeed Gibbs's position at the time, and that seems like a non-trivial undertaking.

I'll tell you what, though, if you can find a reference that this really was/is Gibbs's position I will make the correction.

[SilasX]

It is trivial. No one's expecting you to find and state the exact current state of the literature, just to clarify that you were overstating the case at the time.

The problem is, you stated it as undisputed fact, when you didn't actually know it to be. Posters are only asking you to correct that overconfident "fake it til you make it" misrespresentation.

"Update: I was going off of my memory of the literature at the time, it turns out I was just parroting what I understood Gibbs's position to be; there are good reasons to believe China wasn't a major factor."

That didn't seem so hard. OTOH, if you're just optimizing for sounding confident and smart, I guess none of that matters. But you've spent at least as much effort complaining about changing as it would have taken to correct it.