Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 74

White Privilege
There is ongoing debate about whether additional criticism belongs in the article, I believe more editors are needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You claim that the concept of white privilege is controversial. Do you have any sources which explain this to be the case? jps (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The amount of “controversy” depends on whether we limit our sources to academia or expand beyond academia. Prominent conservative political commentators such as Ben Shapiro have certainly challenged whether it exists in the modern era. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "White conservatives don't like their racial supremacy challenged," hardly constitutes a groundbreaking controversy. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of political controversy regarding not just the existence of white privilege, but the application of the term and whether a colorblind approach to anti-racism is better, dismissing the conservative viewpoint as racist is not a way to write a neutral article. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We've discussed your position on that one conservative's dissonance between his insistence on colourblind approaches to anti-racism and his admission that white privilege exists previously at article talk. I don't believe you've adequately addressed how an in-depth discussion of his personal view is WP:DUE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)(edited to move to correct position in thread) Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We do mention it the controversy, in the lead. Perhaps you would care to point out In the article) where we say criticism is only form racists?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of political controversy over the existence of global warming, and the evolution of life on earth. There is no significant informed dissent in the academic literature. That offers an appropriate model for covering this "controversy". Guy (Help!) 14:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That article definitely needs a controversies section (although it breaks my bleeding liberal heart to say it), but it needs to be made clear that the critics lack the expertise of the proponents. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that people are advocating putting criticism only in the lead, since when does a viewpoint belong in the lead but not the body of the article? Also, David Marcus is by no means the only critic, there are plenty, in't not about "that one conservative" but a major viewpoint that is not given due weight in the article. And what is contradictory about saying that racism exists and a colorblind approach is the best way to fix it? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What sources are people proposing to use here? All I see is grandstanding and a mention of some pundits engaging in punditry. Hardly encyclopedic. If you can find some WP:Independent sources that describe the controversy, then you can start writing about it. As it is, pointing out that racists object to anything that critiques white hegemony is hardly an indication of an ongoing controversy in the sense that we normally think of such things. jps (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this. My comment presupposes that reliable sources exist describing and attributing objections to the concept. If there are no such sources (I highly doubt there aren't any) then of course we shouldn't simply start adding primary criticism from non-experts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is whether conservative op-eds constitute a due critique of an academic theory. Certainly, in the case of the one that specifically referenced at article talk, the author ties himself in such rhetorical knots trying to admit that white privilege exists while simultaneously arguing that the best way to solve racism was to ignore its existence in favour of "colour blind" strategies, that it's hardly a cogent argument for anything let alone a cogent critique of white privilege. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are RSes covering the fact that conservatives rail against the concept (and I've heard so many conservatives railing against it that I'd be surprised if there weren't), and there are enough of them to cover the controversy, then of course it's WP:DUE. But I haven't actually hunted for those sources. If I'm wrong, and there are no secondary sources, then I'm at a bit of a loss.
 * It seems to me like we should cover all the "I'm not privileged!" whinings and complainings, as well as be able to counter those with the "white privilege doesn't mean white people have it easy, just that they have it easier than non-whites" responses that have been penned. But I have absolutely no idea how we're supposed to do that without engaging in WP:OR if all we have are primary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but that's different from "Criticism Jim-Bob McPundit said white privilege is just libs fakery and all the non-whites just need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps." Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody disagreeing with you. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  16:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would say then that a section called "Controversy" is then overwrought according to what we can gather from the sources. A section about "Objections from white people" might be relevant. The obvious connections to white fragility are perhaps apparent. On the other hand, these points seem fairly well discussed in the article at present. So I'm unclear what the to-do is really all about (though I suspect there may just be some grousing over the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to pay the most attention to the best sources which seek to explain a topic, rather than giving equal time for the two sides of the false dichotomy). jps (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, but honestly, I think "Objections from white people" isn't specific enough. "Objections from white conservatives" looks better. I gotta be honest, I've actually started looking for sources covering controversy around the concept and I'm not finding anything worth posting here. It really looks like the mainstream media is taking academia's word when academia says that critics of the concept don't understand it. And to be fair, that's true. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh there are a couple, but none that are that great. More could probably be found with some digging, I don't know if there is enough for a whole section. PackMecEng (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw those. I wouldn't use them for this, honestly. They're all too narrow in scope. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Took another stab at it. It seems to be getting easier to find. PackMecEng (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These are very unimpressive sources considering the level of discourse currently elaborated upon in our article. It seems to mirror a kind of low-church "controversy" that sometimes erupts regarding a topic of academic import. For example, I can find plenty of low-quality sources from huffington post, local news, and op-eds that talk about how "controversial" it is to argue that evidence-based medicine is a gold standard because of the exclusion of alternative medicine modalities. Nevertheless, you see none of that expounded upon in the section of our article which outlines relevant criticism of evidence-based medicine. WP:UNDUE rules the day. jps (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To say that denial of White Privilage is unique to white people is disingenuous. Look at the political commentary by Jesse Lee Peterson for an African-American perspective. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not 100% convinced that Peterson isn't a white guy in blackface. He even sounds like Forrest Gump is making fun of Bubba. But seriously, I don't think he's ever put together a coherent thought in his life, let alone a coherent thought about race. His arguments mostly consists of "because I said so" waffling and anecdotal bullshit (in the sense that you can tell he's making those anecdotes up). If you can find a reliable source that quotes him on white privilege to any extent beyond "Here's a black guy who thinks he's white!" then maybe I might change my mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt that denying the existence of white privilege is a political talking point among a certain segment, but there really is not much we can go on in terms of sources for describing this predilection, and that's putting it charitably. The article seems to pay the appropriate amount of attention to the clamor, and I cannot see how the article might be improved with the sources offered here. The vague protestations on the talkpage are even less convincing. I am reminded of a similar controversy at white pride where perennial complaints are made that the page isn't "neutral" because it spends no time talking about the views of various white supremacists who are published in American Renaissance (magazine) or in obscure reactionary editorials found in otherwise more mainstream venues. Political diatribes that avoid critical venues are not the same thing as criticism, after all. This is, of course, ironic considering they are claiming that the academic study of white privilege is somehow blinkered with respect to them! jps (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after my search, I'm starting to agree. I think it's a bit of a shame, but there's little to no secondary coverage. And now, thanks to that search, youtube started playing a Jordan Peterson talk in the background so please excuse me while I kick my computer to death in a blind fury at the way this man with a PhD manages to talk about a subject he should be an expert in without ever demonstrating the slightest familiarity with it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * i've said this at the talk page, but people like Tornado Chaser are conflating discussions about white privilege, with white privilege itself. Racism in the US is real, and white privilege is just the flipside of it (just like male privilege is the flipside of sexism, etc).  Nobody who is serious contests whether white privilege exists.  This is a little like the whole "climate change" thing.  There is no doubt that climate change is happening; the arguments are about something else. Jytdog (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said white people don't have advantages in society (at least in the US) I want to clarify that this was a misinterpretation of what I am saying, I am saying that white privilege has become a politicized term and controversy over the use of the term and over what to do about white privilege deserves mention in this article, not that US society is racially neutral (it is not). Tornado chaser (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But from what sources are you basing your contention that the term is politicized? Most of the reliable sources that I see which discuss the term make no mention of the term being politicized. jps (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Might it help to create a section with a title like "Debate about the extent of the phenomenon." (or similar) after the history section? There we might be able to review the broad range of positions from extremist believers that white privilege is the source of all misery in the world (which I think is somewhat over the top) through more moderate points of views (e.g. that it is seriously disadvantaging non-whites (all or not in specific cases)) to extremist claims that there is no such thing as white privilege (which also is evidently not true). Such a section (if decently populated) may then provide not only the extremes, but also the nuanced view. Arnoutf (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RSes aren't really covering the claims of those who critique the concept. That seems to be the root of the problem: editors are well aware that there's a lot of criticism of the concept out there, but the sources that we would look to to document that criticism have been ignoring it. That's a little surprising considering how common it is, but significantly less surprising when you considering how ignorant the criticism is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, controversy that has any grounding in reality and is not just rhetoric, is about the extent of white privilege, and what to do about it. Exactly. I am working on that... Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A general anti-intellectual penchant can explain a desire to criticize an idea which has its origins in careful research/academic thought/etc. The article seems to indicate clearly that one of the features of white privilege is a denial of white privilege. This doesn't make the concept controversial in the normal sense. It's like if someone claimed that anti-intellectualism was a "controversial" concept because the people who were anti-intellectuals disputed that this was what they were. Harumph. jps (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're categorically dismissing all criticism or controversy? That dosen't seem like a neutral way to write an article. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Both comments between my last comment and yours are explaining in their own words why we can't find the RSes we need to cover the subject. We need those RSes to write about controversies, but we can't find them, hence editors are speculating why that is, instead of doing said writing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Above, I asked for your sources documenting the controversy/criticism. I'll be happy to consider them when you find them. jps (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean, it's clear that white Conservatives have attempted to politicize the concept of White Privilege, because the idea that an in-born trait could provide an implicit benefit throughout life goes against the bootstrap mythology the've created even if they aren't actually personally prejudiced against non-white people. I mean, if you have privilege from being born white you might actually have privilege from being born wealthy! However the question is whether it's WP:DUE to conflate white Conservative attempts to politicize the concept with an actual, general, politicization is another thing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This sort of analysis seems reasonable, but I don't see much literature explaining that this is going on. (Or isn't going on, for that matter, I don't see any sources at all which describe these attempts at politicization.) jps (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See Simon's talk page for -what I thought was- a somewhat amusing anecdote about the broader claim (namely that no circumstances of one's birth has any bearing on one's success). I've taken a rather quick look, and not found any secondary sources to support that less specific claim, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I could probably dig up something, but it would be of ... dubious reliability ... by Wikipedia's standards. Since most of these sorts of critiques of conservatism show up places like Rabble.ca and New Socialist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL I see that Canada's premiere, "too left for Rabble" newsletter is a red-link. OOPS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I might like to read some of that stuff, but I don't think I'd ever use it as a source. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to concur, unless I'm grinding a particularly sharp axe on the day I use them. ;) (Not that anybody on Wikipedia would ever do such a thing.) Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

New RfC that concerns NPOV policy
A new RfC has started that concerns if an old sentence at WP:NPOV_dispute accurately reflects NPOV policy, please see WP:NPOV dispute -Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

US entry - specifically Trump - on our list of “cults of personality” article.
I am looking for policy based community consensus as to whether or not Trump should have an entry on the article list of cults of personality. It is my opinion that his inclusion, despite being sourcable, weakens the theme and contents of the list article, as it broadens the scope of the article to include any candidate who is generally controversial and presents a wide public profile.

Entries on the list should comply with wp:lasting. The abundant references to news sources in the article are an example of wp:bombardment. At the very least the length of the entry is an example of wp:recentism and it should be cut down.

The intent of this article was clearly to list despotic nutcases who plaster their countries in banner ads of their visages and use their charismatic persona to dissuade detractors from political debate. Other blasted awful leaders like Pol Pot have been excluded from this list because, in spite of having disgusting policies, they don’t fit the definition of a COP, and I think that Trump is one such leader. Edaham (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would agree... if we include Trump we would have to include Obama, Reagan, Kennedy, both Roosevelts, Jefferson, and Washington (just to name a few). Blueboar (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Communist dictators' "cult of personality", enforced by state authority and costing the life of millions of people, should not be compared to any "cult" around an elected head of state. Borsoka (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * American politics has adopted a number of epithets to use against opponents which on close inspection are gross exaggerations. Hence Obama was called a socialist and Trump a fascist. Trump certainly has a stronger personal following than any of his predecessors, but we don't see his portrait or statues of him everywhere we go. TFD (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Even going with the sources in that section, its clear that the sources suggest that Trump has all the makings of what is needed to start a cult of personality, but there is actually no existing cult of personality by the actual actions/reactions to his presidency that is any different from former Presidents. --M asem (t) 14:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow that is quite the article. It needs some major work to bring it into compliance. Assuming the section survives at all. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that user Masem has put it nicely. Most of the sources point to his having in part adopted the qualities of having a COP, while not actually stating that the us leadership revolves around one. I have boldly removed that section from the article with the suggestion that if the subject is notable for having a COP, then it first be established on his main article. I think that would be a good bench mark for establishing notability and due, before adding any inclusion to this list. TFD FYI, Obama has been taken on and off this list amid complaints about the Trump inclusion - this gives a bit of an idea of what’s going on editorially. ... and was quickly reverted, with the request that consensus be established on the article’s specific talk page. Edaham (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said we go with what RS say, and if other non communist leaders (included elected ones) can be said to have fostered a cult of personality why not Donny? It may need a rewrite to make it clear he (and other leaders), and certainly need cutting back. But it is clear RS have said one exists.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I hate to pull it out of my sleeve, but I think that in the event it can be successfully argued that policy supports his inclusion, then wp:IAR applies. We are after clear articles and his exclusion supports the clarity and definition of the other entries. It helps the reader understand the subject to have unambiguous entries on the list. Stretching the definition on this subject makes the article more crap and more prone to becoming a platform for political tit for tat, and that’s exactly why we have IAR. Edaham (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * IAR is not GMW, it cannot be used just to ensure that if consensus goes against you you just ignore it. "This is a list of regimes of countries or individual leaders around the the world which have been discussed in the media or academia as having created a cult of personality.", that is pretty unambiguous, and says nothing about dictators or commies. Donny fits that definition like a glove.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , what are the reliable sources listing him among dictators like Stalin, Mao, Tito and Hitler for his alleged "cult of personality"? Borsoka (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the definition in the lead, I happen to be the chap who wrote it. The ambiguity stems from the fact that he is a rambunctious tit who many have taken well spent time out of their lives to inventively disparage, but he’s not a cult of personality because a cult of personality is for the most part totally different to Trump and has a wholly different effect on a nation which is unlucky enough to suffer from having one in it. The fact that he’s been described as such is recentism, and having said that and noticed that I’ve begun to repeat myself I will now shut up and leave it to the RfC on the article’s page. Edaham (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is there anything that defines a cult of personality as only applying to dictators?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In this book, you can find definitions of "cult of personality" in politics (, pages 50-53). There are multiple lists, but leaders elected at free elections are not listed amongt he examples. Could you refer to the reliable sources listing Trump among among dictators like Stalin, Mao, Tito and Hitler for his alleged "cult of personality"? Borsoka (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The PhD thesis that is used in the article to define personality cults says that one of the conditions is "the leader’s position is not challenged; there is virtually no dissidence, the legitimacy of the ruling group cannot be challenged." Furthermore, the dictator uses state media and state power to enforce his position. Certainly that is not the situation in the U.S. today. TFD (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then there are a few other entries that are just as incorrect. So this needs expanding to include all leaders who were not dictators (also the lead needs rewriting so as to avoid this problem in the future). This cannot just be about Donny.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Just because you can find sources for it doesn't mean those sources are the majority, or even a significant minority of the whole.  G M G  talk  11:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * slater I agree. It’s not just a DT issue but I started on that because it’s the most glaring error in the list, it’s bloated and there was a protracted discussion going on. I agree about the lead. Improvements are more than welcome. Edaham (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I disagree, at least one other entry is unsourced (I had to put the CN tag there). It may have far too much about one president, but it is not the most egregious "error" (if we take it to mean poorly sourced, or just some hacks opinion) on that "list".Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I fear the entire "list" is rife with opinions masquerading as "fact."  This means it intrinsically does not comport with WP:NPOV, the basis for this board. Starting with an Afghan "Great Leader" onwards, and a "somewhat cult of personality" for another in the same nation, the entire list has major problems. Its wording about so many people is so strongly aimed, that I would support its deletion. Heck, where "Leader of the Nation" in one case (Kazakhstan) is the "evidence" for a "cult of personality",  the "list" fails any sense of appropriateness for Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't with the US section, but with the sections for the other countries. Those other countries aren't sourced to peer-reviewed books/articles. For subjects as divisive as this List of COPs, there should be an expectation that entries should be made only if sourced to scholarly articles/books. As for the US section, there was an entry for Obama in the article at various points (e.g., HERE), but the U.S. section in particular just seems to push people's political buttons, no matter if it's Obama or Trump or the Lincoln statue that's in it. Mercy11 (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So what do we do about this then? Should we start a deletion discussion and advocate TNT? -Obsidi (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and NPOV
I suspect this will require a RfC as it effects a lot of articles, but I wanted to start discussion on it before an RfC so I could get a general idea of what people thought as well as consensus of an appropriate question for an RfC. WP has a lot of articles in which we state something is a conspiracy theory in WP voice (see Category:Conspiracy theories). To say a given view is a "conspiracy theory" is to say those that believe it do so without credible evidence. That is a very strong position to take in a dispute basically saying one side is almost wrong as it cannot substantiate their claims in WP voice. Sometimes this is appropriate, for instance it would be inconstant with WP:FALSEBALANCE in the WP:NPOV policy to suggest that the conspiracy that we didn't land on the moon was possibility correct. We can say such a view is basiclly wrong in WP voice because it is a WP:FRINGE view. But what happens when a RS describes a minority view (that is not WP:FRINGE) as a conspiracy theory? Are we to follow the RS in describing it as the RS described it? I believe that per WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL we cannot describe a view as a conspiracy theory in WP voice unless its adherents are WP:FRINGE. What are your thoughts on this? -Obsidi (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there an example of a page where reliable sources are used to describe a minority view that is not established as WP:FRINGE as a conspiracy theory? There might be situations where something like "it has been described as a conspiracy theory by John Doe" rather than "it is a conspiracy theory", but an actual conspiracy theory is usually relatively obvious. Ah, it's presumably Deep state in the United States and List of conspiracy theories. --tronvillain (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC); edited 22:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is one that got me thinking about this issue, but I really didn't want to get into much of a dispute as to if that specific view is WP:FRINGE or if it is a minority view. Really that is a content dispute that should be handled on the individual page. -Obsidi (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean by "fringe" vs "minority view"? I ask because WP:FRINGE seems to use the terms interchangeably. –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In general, I'd say that if a truly reliable and independent source says something is a conspiracy theory, then we can call it that. Whether or not we consider it fringe is beside the point, because we base it on the source. In cases where some sources say it's a conspiracy theory and other sources say that it isn't, then we have to take the balance and relative due weight into consideration. One option is to attribute it as a conspiracy theory "according to (name)". But if we call it a conspiracy theory in Wikipedia's voice, then there has to be a preponderance of sources saying that, explicitly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Using Deep state in the United States as an example, I think there are cases where a topic isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory, but some aspect of it is and thus the category might be appropriate. That seems to be the case with Illuminati, where most of the article describes a real organization that existed in Bavaria in the late 18th Century. But some of the article is about the fictitious organization of the same name, which is so prominent in conspiracy theories that it makes sense to include that category on the page. There is a deep state conspiracy theory, just as there is a more mainstream belief about the power of the security apparatus within the government, and that article describes both. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to I mean it as per the definitions given at in the WP:Neutral Point of View policy at WP:UNDUE in summarizing Jimbo Wales on the topic If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. A view is either a majority view, a minority view, or an "extremely small minority" (aka WP:FRINGE) view. Under WP:NPOV we include in the articles all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. A WP:FRINGE view because it is held by an "extremely small minority" is not a significant view and as such can be excluded entirely from the normal discussion of the topic on WP (outside of a page specifically about the fringe view if it is notable). But a minority view must be included in an article and treated neutrally per WP:IMPARTIAL, however it shouldn't be given the prominence of a majority view in terms of how detailed a description of the view is given. This is what I consider the foundation of NPOV in WP.  -Obsidi (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree -- We should be vary cautious in use of phrases like "conspiracy theory" in a Wiki-voice. Thanks for opening this thread.  One of the problems is that WP:FRINGE has been expanded to not just include a flat earth theory, but to include minority opinions from CREDIBLE SOURCES.  We need to follow WP:NPOV and not classify minority opinions as WP:FRINGE.
 * For example, I comment here at Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich Summary:  the claim that the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak might have been an "inside job" was initially reported in the mainstream media, although later revised and/or retracted because of a lawsuit form Seth Rich's family.  Calling it a "conspiracy theory" now distorts the history of the reporting.  --David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that your "evidence" there consisted entirely of one highly unreliable source (Julian Assange) and one RS documenting a "former gubmint employee" claiming that it's legit. (I dare you to find a government related conspiracy theory that doesn't have some former NSA, CIA, FBI or military retiree backing it up. Seriously, good luck finding one.) Meanwhile, you yourself posted two sources calling it a conspiracy theory, and you can add to those two these:, , , , , , , , all of which were pulled just from the lede of that article (meaning it's not all of the used sources that call it a CS and certainly not even close to all of the reliable sources out there which call it that). Oh, and I accidentally closed one tab before copying the link, but couldn't be bothered to find it again because there are so many already. I mean, the amount of RS coverage calling this a completely unfounded conspiracy theory is overwhelming and yet we have editors here pushing for us to stop referring to it in that way and start trying to treat it like a credible possibility. Un. Fucking. Believable. You folks should be ashamed, because you're actively working to damage this project with proposals like this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If a theory posits that a conspiracy exists, then the theory is by definition a “conspiracy theory”. It matters not whether the theory is plausible or not. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A "conspiracy theory" on WP is more than just a theory that there is a conspiracy (that could be supported by facts that it exists or not). On WP according to Conspiracy theory: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence. That last part, that there is no evidence for what is being claimed is often disputed by people who believe it. The question then becomes if that is a fringe view (in which case we can say in WP voice that it is a conspiracy theory), or a minority view (in which we should attribute who claims it is a conspiracy theory). -Obsidi (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

StarTimes
In these articles, I can't find any single sentence criticising the subjects, yet, the Financial Times have reported that StarTimes was somehow involved in PRC's so-called debt-trap diplomacy. (Note that these articles were edited by User:Daweibj for most occasions.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So... fix the problem. Look for reliable sources that criticize the subject and report what they say. Blueboar (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians: a map
I tried to place a map presenting the "immigrationist theory" in the article Origin of the Romanians, but objects it. First, he stated that the placing of the map would contradict WP:NPOV, than he said that the map should not be placed in the article until the discussion about the article on this Talk page (see above) is on. I think the placing of the map would not contradict WP:NPOV and an on-going (actually, artificially maintained) debate on this Talk page cannot prevent editors from placing maps in the article. The whole discussion can be read here. Thank you for any comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My objection is not the inclusion of the map but rather that we should resolve the NPOV structural issues that are plaguing the article first, then place the edits in their proper framework. Please see discussion above. Actually, the moderator of that discussion agreed that the article is badly structured and had this suggestion to make "I would recommend that each of you try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint. Basically, don't put the cart before the horse: don't try to figure out how to write one article from multiple points of view, before you agree on what the viewpoints are to begin with. This exercise should also help clarify the relative significance of each viewpoint, and might reveal points of agreement, positions on which there is scholarly consensus that could form the basis of background sections. Then you figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on. Someguy1221" Only problem is, Borsoka refuses to abide by that suggestion and keeps putting the cart before the horse. Hence the continuing issues with the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your above summary does not present the facts and my position properly, but I do not want to repeat the above discussion here. Please try to concentrate on this specific issue. Why do you think that a prolonged discussion about the article (which has not raised too much attention by third parties) prevents editors from placing maps in the article if the placing of the map is fully in line with the relevant WP policies? Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You can add it - as long as you show relevance. As such, how is that related (according to a WP:RS of course, not your "expert" opinion) to HOW the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people came to be? What prevents you to put maps at random is WP:SYNTH. We have some mainstream theories, and according to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT if no academic that deals with any of those three theories specifically mentions this map or this source that you added then what you're trying to do is WP:SYNTH.Cealicuca (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, the map presents one of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Why do you think it is not relevant? Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. So, is there a WP:RS that mentions or uses this map(s)? That puts them in the context? Because your source is a cartographer. Labeling it yourself (or as you say adding context - adding it yourself) does not change anything.Cealicuca (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * One of "my" sources (that is one of the sources of the the map) is a historian, who worked as cartographer for the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and conceived and compiled the entire map content of The Times Atlas of European History . The other source is the historian Gottfried Schramm, who dedicated a study to the Romanians' ethnogenesis and presents two maps which are quite similar to the map you deleted. Why do you think their works should be ignored. Borsoka (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This map by a cartographer being "quite similar" to other maps (to be found in WP:RS, allegedly) does not in itself constitute WP:RS just because in your opinion they are "quite similar". It constitutes WP:OR.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You may not understand basic WP policies. There is no WP policy that requires that only pictures and maps published in work dedicated to the subject of the article can be displayed in the article. Please note, there are tens of thousands of pictures which were taken by editors and never published in peer reviewed works. We are not here to duplicate existing works, but to present scholarly theories based on reliable sources. Nevertheless, Bereznay's work is a reliable source, consequently it can be used in WP. Furthermore, the maps in Schramm's work verify Bereznay's map. I could also refer to a map displayed in the following article written by a historian and published by a peer reviewed periodical: . Finally, the map is verified by multiple sources cited in the article, which describe the "immigrationist theory", even if they do not display maps. Borsoka (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We would need more professionally designed maps like these. The author is a cartographer, properly sourced. It is funny to read that according to Iovaniorgovan the content of the map should be NPOV somehow, but he makes no objection when a related article (Romania in the Early Middle Ages) features an old POV map ---> Romania_in_the_Early_Middle_Ages. I can assure you I have no problem with the Gesta Hungarorum map, because we need POV maps to demonstrate the different opinions. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not against maps as long as they're taken out of a WP:RS and placed within their proper theoretical context. This one is not, as it's only "verified" by Borsoka, a Wiki editor, hence amounting to WP:OR. Furthermore, that cartographer is not a WP:RS when it comes to the ORIGIN OF THE ROMANIANS, or else you should be able to produce some of Bereznay's academic work on the subject. Finally, if the maps in Schramm's work "verify" this cartographer's map, as you say, why not just post a map from Schramm's book (with the proper citations and context)?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because there is a specific WP (WP:Copyvio) that forbids this. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know that Schramm's maps are copyrighted, AND that cartographer's work is NOT copyrighted?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because I looked at the relevant licences. You may not know, but the sign © refers to works under copyright protection (this sign is displayed in Schramm's book). On the other hand, Bereznay published this work in accordance with the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International" which authorizes us to use his map freely. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're being condescending now. Okay. Glad to hear you did the background check (or just made stuff up on the fly), but either way it's irrelevant unless you can show that a WP:RS (relative to Romanian historiography) directly references that cartographer's maps and puts them in context. Otherwise we'll all have to take your word for it, and that just doesn't fly at Wiki because it's WP:OR. Alternatively you may go looking for WP:RS which contain maps that are in the public domain and post those maps (once you provide the proper citation and context, as per WP:RS).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please seek advice at Teahouse because you do not understand basic WP policies. Similarly to articles, maps can be completed based on reliable sources by editors. I referred to multiple reliable sources above (including Bereznay, Schramm and Zsoldos) that verify the content of the map. If you think that map is not in line with WP:NOR please initiate a separate debate at the relevant noticeboard: No original research/Noticeboard. If you cannot make further comments on the neutrality of the map, please stop debating the issu here, because this noticeboard is dedicated to NPOV issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Read my first comment re. NPOV, maybe you'll get it eventually.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is not a geographical map. This is supposedly a historical map that is a description of a certain historical theory. As such it is like you want to post a cartographer's (even a respected cartographer's) opinion on a historical theory. So... the source for this map is a freelance cartographer. As such, either this map was created by him (under contract, based on sources that were provided - so not his own academic research) in the context of another academic's article/book that deals with the specific theory (in which case you should be able to produce that academic research) or he created the map based on his own peer reviewed historical analysis (in which case you should be able to produce that peer reviewed research) on that specific theory. Baring that, it's like any of us randomly adding pretty-looking content that is seemingly connected to one of the mainstream theories created by people without proper analysis in the context of that theory. WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Moreover, a map that describes (graphically) a theory is in no way an "evidence". So even if this map is OK (from a sourcing point of view) it should be properly placed in the section to which it specifically refers to (and not induce the reader the idea that the map, in and of itself, is "evidence" supporting a specific theory).Cealicuca (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All editors are entitled to complete maps based on reliable sources. Bereznay's map can be verified by at least two other historians' work. Why do you think a cartographer is forbidden to make maps if all other editors are entitled to do it? The map was not placed under the "Evidence" section. It was placed by a section which describes the development of the theories and mentions several medieval and early modern scholars who wrote about the Romanians' migrations . Please try to respect other editors and read the context of the map before making comments on it. Borsoka (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. For the subject of properly placing, the map describes graphically the arguments of one theory (and no other). We have a section dedicated to that theory. The map itself did not help develop any theory (or otherwise could you please cite the source's peer reviewed research on that theory? Or any other academic's - historian's - peer reviewed research that uses this map to further develop said theory?), it is simply supposedly describing a theory. Therefore IF it is a proper source it should be in the section dedicated to that theory. As for the historians who "verify" this map - please post a historian's research referencing this map. Also, could you please reference the WP:POLICY that allows editors "to complete maps based on reliable sources"?. Again, please note that this is not in essence a geographical map but a map describing graphically the arguments of a historical theory.Cealicuca (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must stop debating this issue with you, because you obviously do not know the five pillars of WP, especially 5P3. Please seek advice at WP:Teahouse before deleting maps from articles in the future. Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel this way. Based on Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles, "[...] maps directly derived from government surveys, GIS data and aerial or satellite images are generally reliable. Maps made by commercial interests for promotion of business may not be reliable. [...]" Did the author create the maps based on his own research? Is this research peer-reviewed? Did he use other reliable sources? Which reliable sources? Is the "Atlas of the History of Transylvania" considered a historical peer-reviewed research? Is the "Atlas of the History of Transylvania" a contract-only (commercial/business) job for the cartographer? etc.
 * Maybe this is not the proper board for this discussion - but rather the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * Moreover, even admitting it, the map graphically depicts a theory (and is not used in academic analysis to develop the theory, nor does it constitute evidence supporting the very theory it depicts). As such, placing it in any other section than the one dedicated to describing that theory is not OK (why induce the reader that the map had anything to do with the development of the theory, or that it is "evidence" supporting the theory?).Cealicuca (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC) — Cealicuca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The question is: is this map used as a source, or is it an illustration? If the article is pulling information from the map, then it is a source and is subject to WP:RS. However, if the article does not pull info from the map... if the map merely depicts what a cited source says... then it is not subject to WP:RS.  It is merely an illustration, not a source. And if it is merely an illustration then all it needs is a consensus of editors agreeing that it is a good enough illustration of what the source says. Of course, other maps can be added depicting what other sources say. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The map in question is an illustration of the immigrationist theory of the Romanians' origins. It displays no original research nor new information of the scholarly arguments of the immigrationist theory but rather it is a cartographic illustration of the points of the scholarly immigrationist arguments. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then the solution might be to create similar maps illustrating the other significant scholarly theories. Obviously, theories held by only a fringe minority would not rate illustrating (per WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar Exactly. Other editors are free to add maps illustrating the points of the Romanian origins theories as long as their relevant to the topic. In this case, adding maps illustrating the scholarly points of the Immigrationist theory wouldn't be UNDUE because the Immigrationist theory is one out of the two main scholarly theories on the origins of the Romanians. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar Inclusion of like maps illustrating all various theories (three in this case), as you suggest, is what everyone wants, provided the maps are placed within their proper theoretical context and properly sourced (for more on this you might want to take a look at this other debate on this noticeboard).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC) — Iovaniorgovan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Yup, two WP:SPA accounts complaining that the article would violate WP:NPOV! Both used a lot of WP:PROXY but they are not WP:SOCKs of each other, checkuser could not confirm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you deny that you are a WP:SPA at ? Could you prove me wrong? Your edits at Nicolae Densușianu are also about his fanciful pseudohistorical views about the origin of the Romanians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: if you put the interests of your country/ethnic group above the interest of writing a fact-based encyclopedia, we do not need you and you do not belong here. Excess of nationalism makes one look like a Sockpuppet (Internet). That is, everybody is free to express nationalist propaganda outside Wikipedia, not inside it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar, @TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Precisely. Since this is an illustration of the IT arguments (and not necessarily a WP:RS) it should correctly be placed in the section describing IT.
 * But that's not the actual problem. The problem is that the map contains some information that is not at all in the article or simply do not make any sense (perhaps because of the auto-translation of the text, speaking volumes of the quality of it imho). For example:
 * Presence of Romanians in Istria could have resulted only from immigration: a hint at Romanian groups having dispersed from where they used to live
 * There is no such information in the article related to the IT theory.
 * Scene of Latinization on the Balkans and living admixed with Albanians: Romanian's homeland if Albanians were original inhabitants in the northern part of their northern home
 * Again there is no such information in the IT section.
 * All C21 Romanian ethnic presence in the Blakans is at the part of the former Roman Empire that was administered in Greek. This indicates Romanian presence having resulted from immigration
 * 21st Century Romanians (considering the legend it's natural to suppose that the author refers to 21st Century by "C21" - look at the legend...) presence in the Balkans comes into conflict with the following WP:RS part of the article: "Common Romanian split into four variants (Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) during the 10th-12th centuries.". Even without the article quote - this doesn't make sense in it's current form.
 * according to a theory a Latinized population of the Danube's vicinity escaping from Slavs in C6 sought refuge in the mountains, living admixed with Albanians (surmised to be here the original inhabitants), thus the area was not scene of their Latinization: it was Romanian homeland in the sense of their turning here into Romanians
 * So first of all this is another victim of "auto-translate" I would guess. But even taking that into consideration, I see no reference to this in the IT section of the article which this map is supposedly describing.
 * The point is that maybe this information should be brought to light in the IT section before adding a map that references that information or if such information cannot be attributed to a WP:RS then the map should not be there.Cealicuca (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Grumpy Monday Simon is grumpy even after more coffee. Is there any chance you all could take this argument back to article talk so that we didn't have NPOV/N being the "arguments about Romanians" page for an indefinite period? I think you can consider the general Wikipedia community sufficiently aware of your content dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Yup, the only thing which the two WP:SPA accounts made clear is that they are against Hungarians. For the rest I guess there is only confusion and misunderstanding of the WP:RULES, so much that they appear to ridicule the ideals they purport to defend. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment @Simonm223: From my point of view this should be in the end OK provided the map is placed in the IT section (that presumably describes) and reflects the IT section content (that is not presenting things that are not sourced properly in the IT section itself), as well as correcting the text it contains.Cealicuca (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment @Simonm223 The map, as I said in my first comment to the OP, belongs in its IT (Immigration Theory) section, presented within its proper context, with all the particulars. There's a related NPOV debate (see top of the page) about this, the issue being that the space currently assigned to each theory is too small and we need to expand the presentations of each theory to allow for a proper presentation of the WP:RS while maintaining NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment When I asked the two of you to please take your endless edit conflict off the NPOV page, the correct response was not to ping me three times in a row. Seriously this is disrupting the noticeboard, please stop. Simonm223 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest
An RfC of possible interest to users who frequent this page Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people) which might have an impact on future NPOV issues. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  11:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Additional opinions would be appreciated since the concern relates to NPOV. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

2018 Ellwangen police raid needs major NPOV work
This article is about a notable event but the language in it is fraught with WP:WEASEL words where it's basically a WP:COATRACK for anti-immigrant sentiments. I don't have the time or energy to pick it apart, but it needs immediate attention and I figured this would be the appropriate place to go to find those eyes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC) I agree with User:Simonm223, it's just one of a number of pages created by User:Greywin and defended by others who share his political viewpoint. I have brought up these problem articles several times at this Noticeboard. Once again, we need intervention from some fluent German speakers who can recognise any nuances in the mostly German-language sources that are being used to support the implication that all crime in Germany is carried out by immigrants. Deb (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just read the page, tweaking and Englishing as I went, but I frankly do not see what the problem is. The text uses phrases like "migrant integration and the deportation process", "African asylum seekers," "asylum seeker from Togo."  The problem I do see is that User:Simonm223 has tagged the page for POV but has not specified, either here or on the article's talk page, what his objections are.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Jair Bolsonaro
A few editors are acting like they WP:OWN the article so additional opinions at the talk page and more patrol would be appreciated since the concern regards NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.229.172.183 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are a few editors who are editing that article. Can you name those who are trying to WP:OWN the article in particular? Qualitist (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also what is the actual issue?Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan is one of the editors I have in mind that don't assume any good faith at all and has received many complaints of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:POV at the talk page. He tends to be uncivil when someone opposes his views and use a lot of wikilawyering and gaming. He also has a tendency to think that everyone who disagrees with him is a sock puppetry (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc), going as far as removing content that he subjectively judge as sock or that challenge his ideas (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc).
 * In regards to the article itself, there are many WP:NPOV issues. Just to name a few:
 * ""A polarizing and controversial politician, his views and comments, which have been described as far-right and conservative in nature" – As per Template:By whom, this passage mentions a vague claim with no named specific example of identifiable individuals or groups who could be used to verify the statement. It must be clear to the reader who exactly describes Bolsonaro's views as far-right, which in this case, it is the media outlets which of course we can cite them to say that "the author said this", but we cannot claim that this is a fact. We are free to claim that the mainstream media claims that Bolsonaro is far-right, but we cannot claim that this is a fact. This a serious case where the subjective political ideology of the editors is being entered into encyclopedia entry. The citations are news articles, which are good enough to say "event x happened" or that "according to person/source x, so and so is the case", but not to state in Wikipedia voice that he is a far-right politician. Altogether, I reckon adding the tag Controversial is fair and reasonable until a consensus is reached. Or even better, just say that his views and comments have been described as conservative."


 * ""Bolsonaro has, during his long political career, expressed views that many regard as being far-right" – This is a clear case of WP:WEASEL. Besides that, as per WP:NPOV, why not simply use a neutral and balanced term like "as being controversial" or even "as being offensive"?"

49.195.104.127 (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ""Bolsonaro's political views have been described as nationalist and populist in nature, and as an advocate of far-right policies" – Again by whom? And most importantly why? It definitely needs clarification."


 * First, since the material you quote says Bolsonaro has been described as far right it makes no sense to say the article says as a fact that he is far right. I agree though that the phrasing "has been described as" is wrong because it implies that there may be reliable sources that dispute the description. Far right is an accepted category of political ideologies in the same sense that liberal and communist are.
 * Anyway, if Bolsonaro is not far right, then that will become apparent after he is sworn in and reliable sources reassess him. He has already backed off some of his more extreme promises, so perhaps he will surprise us.
 * TFD (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An IP appears on Wikipedia for the very first time & seems to immediately know where to go, with his concerns over an article. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC at Jackie Walker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jackie_Walker_(activist)#Request_for_comment_can_we_say_Jackie_Walker_is_Jewish Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Remove link to Thoughts and prayers
Please see Talk:YouTube headquarters shooting. I have tried to be reasonable with, but he seems stuck in a particular POV. I would put more information here, but it is all there and I do not care to repeat myself or have the conversation get split between here and there. We just need more eyes on this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not have any personal POV on the matter and I would like this user to assume good faith and stop talking in circles around the issue. That linked page is specifically about instances of public officials using the phrase after disasters. As such, the page is best served by having links to it when that phrase is already included in well-sourced instances of public officials using it after disasters. This is a neutral stance and should be cut-and-dry. Seems like the above user has a non-neutral POV he is trying to push and is actively de-linking the phrase indiscriminately across Wikipedia, not just on this one article as the above message would have one believe. JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit I did before we started this discussion shows I just want the links where they belong, not anywhere anyone happens to use the phrase. The policy MOS:LWQ calls for conservationism in linking within quotes. Should we link "thoughts and prayers" in the article Clay Ford where Will Weatherford uses it? The article is about a politician and is stated by a politician. The death of Ford was certainly a disaster for his family. What is your criteria? It seems to be when you do not like the politician. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion about this same topic earlier this year. . Hard to tell what the conclusion was, if there was one at all, but personally I think including the wikilink within quotations at least is definitely inappropriate, as per MOS:LWQ. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit: I don't think I claimed that a consensus existed, I was just citing my comments on the talk page rather than reiterating them in the edit summary. You indicated on the talk page that you were no longer participating in the discussion and were waiting for outside input. And I think you've received it. Unless you think that Trump was intentionally trying to call attention to his use of a platitude, this doesn't conform to MOS:LWQ. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Links should be used with care inside of quotes. MOS:LINKSTYLE ''Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after.'' Unless the person being quoted meant "thoughts and prayers" to be seen in the way described by the linked article the links should not be included. For example it wouldn't be OK to link a genuine comment like "happy to be here" within a quote to an aticle about cynical or sarcastic uses of the phrase. Springee (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed some of the other examples added by one of the editors above, I would say most examples were inappropriate. If a connection between the platitude and the politician or other person making the public statement is going to be made, it needs to be made by a RS and should be outside of the quoted text.  Springee (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you pick a recent mass shooting, almost any one, you'll find 1) politicians responding with some variation of "thoughts and prayers", and 2) people responding to that response with the observation that "thoughts and prayers" means no action. For example, with the above YouTube headquarters shooting, a piece titled "Donald Trump's Tweet About The YouTube Headquarters Shooting Has People Pissed", specifically states: "a lot of people weren't happy to hear 'thoughts and prayers' yet again. And almost immediately, other users responded to the comment, reinforcing the sentiment that "thoughts and prayers" are not enough to solve the gun control problem in this country". bd2412  T 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If that opinion piece is notable enough to include a mention in the article without violating WP:UNDUE, then a link to thoughts and prayers would be appropriate. But there is no mention of political criticism anywhere in the YouTube headquarters shooting article. I have restored my edits on other articles JesseRafe reverted. The articles are Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, William Hughes (born 1998), Capital Gazette shooting, List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2018, Thunder River Rapids Ride, and Martha Roby. I left the link on Cory Gardner as the controversy is implied. Some of these might warrant a reference to the controversy, just not surreptitiously. Maybe in a month I will go through the list of articles that link to thoughts and prayers, but I think I got all the inappropriate ones. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment If a politician explicitly says thoughts and prayers I don't see linking to the article on this notable phrase to be a WP:NPOV or WP:BLP violation. Nor does it show a lack of care using wikilinks within quotes to wikilink from a common phrase to the article about that common phrase. I'm struggling to see the problem here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article Thoughts and prayers? Half the article is dedicated to calling people who use the phrase ineffectual hypocrites. You don't see how that might bring up some BLP issues? In addition, MOS:LWQ specifically advises against this very practice. And finally, what does the link even add? I think it's pretty obvious what someone means when they say "I offer my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this tragic event". The reader gains nothing from the link, any more than they would from a link to Tragedy (event). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article neutrally and correctly reports a phenomenon widely reported in reliable sources, that the use of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has come to serve as a substitute for taking action to address something. It is not the fault of Wikipedia editors if the phrase has come to have that meaning, and if politicians still use it despite it having come to have that meaning, or even because of that. bd2412  T 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Point is that the article "thoughts and prayers" has a very strong USA-bias and is POV. For example in the Republic of Ireland the phrase is absolutely harmless and used by public and politicians alike as method of consoling people after a bereavement. No activism involved. So the article must be neutralised or rewritten (and re-titled) to an USA-only article. The Banner  talk 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So far as I am aware, the instant dispute is about the linking of this term in articles about U.S. politicians using the phrase to refer to events in the U.S., following the advent of criticism of use of the phrase. I have no objection to clarifying that the article reflects U.S.-based criticism. If there are sources outlining the distinction between implications in the U.S. and in other countries, we should include reference to them. I frankly doubt, however, that a proposal to retitle the article would succeed. bd2412  T 22:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's "absolutely harmless" as used in the US as well. Most people, politicians and otherwise, use it simply to express condolence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with many of the criticisms of the use of that phrase, but that's sort of why it strikes me as patently non-neutral to link to it in the middle of a quote. This seems analogous to linking Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" to non-denial denial, or linking Adam Carolla's "I'm sorry if I offended you" to the entry for non-apology. If reliable source criticize the use of a cliche, then we should cite those reliable sources and then link to the entry in that commentary, but linking in the middle of someone else's quote reads like we're using Wikipedia's voice to offer a snarky editorial aside implying that someone was being insincere. It's lampshade-hanging that almost makes it sound like Trump was using the phrase ironically. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone literally used the exact phrase "non-denial denial" in a statement or a tweet, we would definitely link it, because it has a specific meaning which we cover in the encyclopedia. We're not talking about Easter eggs here, but about a phrase with a specific political history. To the extent that there are sources indicating that it is used merely to express condolence (along the lines of rest in peace), we should also discuss that in the article. Fairness is achieved by explanation, not by reducing the information available. bd2412  T 23:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase does have a specific history, but Trump obviously wasn't intentionally evoking it here - unless you think he wanted to appear ineffectual and insincere. If the goal is to provide more information, then why not cite the relevant criticism in text and link to the phrase there? E.g. "Trump was criticized by x for using the phrase 'thoughts and prayers'"? [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did that here for Trump specifically. Unfortunately, this is not possible in articles where such criticism does not make it into the article. A lot of it goes on in the Twittersphere. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The significance of the phrase in recent U.S. political discourse, when used by a person speaking in the context of that discourse, is the same irrespective of whether the specific history of the phrase was intentionally evoked. Of course, there is no doubt that it would be useful to provide citations to relevant criticism, but we need to balance that against the possibility of articles on tragedies becoming more about criticism of the response to the tragedy than to the tragedy itself. bd2412  T 20:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So we should ignore the intent of the speaker? That seems inconsistent with the plain reading of MOS:LWQ: "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author", as well as MOS:LINKSTYLE, which urges editors to avoid linking inside of quotes when possible. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 01:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article, thoughts and prayers, plainly indicates that the intent of the speaker doesn't matter with respect to how use of the phrase is perceived by the public. The controversy is not that it is used at all, but that it is used in response to specific kinds of events, in lieu of a statement that some other action is being taken. In that sense, it could be considered a compliment, to those who oppose particular actions that are suggested in response to the events where it is used. The fact of the specific phrase being used is its own significance. bd2412  T 02:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Linkstyle makes it clear this sort of in quote looking is generally discouraged and should only be used when it's clear the quoted person would intended that meaning. I read that as only use it when we could claim the person being quoted would approve of the linking. I'm sure most political who say it would not even if they do say it with sinicism. Springee (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians Article
Hello,

Before continuing I would like to state that this is the first time I am posting on any board, using this as a guide on how to post here. As such, in case I shouldn't have done so (in relation to the aspects that I am presenting) or this is not HOW I should have done so - please accept my apologies and (hopefully kindly) explain what I did wrong. Thank you in advance.

I would like to bring to the board's attention the article Origin of the Romanians. It is my assessment that this article does not respect WP:NPOV. Before proceeding I would kindly ask all contributors to first read the article, as to allow for everyone to draw the conclusions before considering any / all of the arguments that I will make supporting my conclusion.


 * Discussion on the Talk page:
 * While there have been multiple discussion at least touching the subject, this is the last (and probably most pertinent) of them.


 * Summary
 * While the article starts by summarizing 3 mainstream scholarly theories that are pertinent to the subject, the main body of the article (that is everything below the summary) contains WP:RS statements, that although they might correctly reflect the statement itself (as it was made by the WP:RS), they are removed from the context (that is one of the 3 mainstream competing/conflicting theories).


 * In case of statements that are connected to one/several of the three theories (the WP:RS clearly implies or specifically states so) the article, right now, does not reflect that - which means that the relevance of what the WP:RS state is obscured by the editors (simply by not making the explicit connection to any of the three theories), as opposed to what the WP:RS states.


 * In case of statements that are not connected to one/several of the three theories (the WP:RS clearly does not imply or does not specifically states so) the article, right now, does not reflect that - which means that the relevance of what the WP:RS say is implied by the editors (simply because it's not explicitly mentioned that the statements are NOT relevant to any of the three theories).


 * According to my understanding of WP:RULES on the matter, that we have statements all over the place, that were made by WP:RS in a specific context (that is one of the three theories) but this is not reflected in the article (specified which of the three theories is the statement relevant to, according to the WP:RS) constitutes a breach of WP:NPOV, or, if those statements were put in a section that implies something else entirely, it's WP:OR.


 * As it stands it is impossible to determine (by the reader) if a statement is made in relation to any (or which) of the 3 theories (as per the source), or if that statement has nothing to do with any of the three theories (as per the source). Considering the academic debate, and the nature of the theories (historical), the context is extremely important, as academics following any of the three theories may argue differently, and assign different relevance to the same set of fact or reach diametrically opposed conclusions. By removing the statements from the context they were made in the editors substitute themselves to the academia.

Comment: The article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis. It is divided into four main sections. The first of them presents the three principal scholarly theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis; the second main section provides a general historic background; the third section shows the development of views about the origin of the Romanians; and the fourth section presents the facts which are mentioned in connection of the subject in reliable sources and also presents their concurring scholarly interpetations. Differences between scholarly interpretations of the same facts are most frequently independent of the theories that scholars accept: for instance, scholars who accept the continuity theory often refute the interpretation of certain crucial facts by other scholars who accept the same theory (as it is demonstrated here: ). Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, the fact that we have scholars who argue differently, interpret facts differently, cannot constitute a reason for not specifically mentioning the context in which those statements were made. Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: When you writing of the "context", do you refer to a specific theory? Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Proposed solution(s):
 * All WP:RS statements are to be:
 * connected to one/several of the three theories if the WP:RS clearly implies or specifically states so. Therefore each theory would have one "parent" section with one or multiple subsections (as necessary) summarizing the nature of the statements connected (eg: Written sources, Archaeological evidence, Linguistic arguments, Criticism etc.) - this to keep in line as much as possible with the current structure (not to waste all the work done already).
 * removed (as per WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FINGE) or designated to a specific section that is clearly marked as not related to any of the theories if the WP:RS does NOT state the relevance of the statement in relation to any of the theories.

Comment: If we do not present the concurring scholarly interpretations of the relevant facts at the same place, we cannot provide a full and neutral picture. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my above comment, there is no uniform approach which is followed by all/most scholars who accept a certain theory, because differences in scholarly interpretations of the facts are independent of the theories: certain scholars who otherwise accept a theory often agree with "concurring" scholars' interpretations regarding certain facts, and thus their view is in clear contradiction of "their own theory". Even the initiators' attempt to connect certain interpretations exclusively to one of the theories failed (as it is demonstrated here: ). Furthermore, the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, consequently each relevant facts which are mentioned in reliable sources in connection with this subject should be mentioned in the article even if they are not clearly connected to any of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:The initiator's "attempt to connect" certain interpretations to exclusively one theory was just an example. Moreover, it was an example of the end result, not of the process. Considering the lack of such connection (in the article, as it is right now) the editors should consult the source and establish the context. Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: However, the only attempt to make a connection between certain facts and theories failed. A fact can hardly be connected to only one of the theories, because all facts are mentioned by most scholars independently of the theory they accept. We could hardly present a neutral and full picture if we could not present all relevant interpretations of the same facts. Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Set up separate Wiki pages for these theories (with the respective caveat mentioned at the top of the page and corresponding links to the competing theories).
 * Solution proposed by Iovaniorgovan.

Comment: As have I demonstrated several times, there are no "clear" theories, because the concurring scholarly interpretations of most facts are independent of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:Are you an expert? I wonder how you can "demonstrate" that the mainstream theories are not "clear". Yes, there might be debate over details, even between "followers" of the same theory. But that is not an unusual or even an unexpected situation, and definitely removing all content from the context is not a "fix" to it. Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, you allegedly refer to a specific theory to which a specific fact mentioned in the article is connected when writing of the "context". Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: The subsections which presents the three theories should be expanded with a short list of the typical arguments that are used by scholars who accept that theory. (For the time being, only the most typical arguments are mentioned under each theories as quotes. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Arguments
 * It is not the "job" of the editors to asses, interpret or establish relevance to any WP:RS statement, except when that assessment is related to the reliability of the source. The editor's view on what is (or is not) relevant to a specific subject / context should not form the basis for structuring the article. Therefore, if a certain statement is to be presented in a WP:NPOV fashion, it should be done so respecting the context in which the WP:RS made that specific statement.

Comment: See my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article summarizes 3 mainstream theories, that broadly cover the academic debate on the matter. According to WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE, the WP:RS statements that do not explicitly (as stated by the source itself) fall under any of those 3 theories should be treated separately and explicitly, or removed from the article.

Comment: See my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A very good example of an article that deals not necessarily with (only) 3, but with more than a dozen competing/conflicting theories is this article.

Comment: It is not a good example, because the different schools of quantum mechanics can be clearly distinguished from each other based on reliable sources. However, the concurring intepretation of the facts connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis are in most cases independent of the theories. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:Actually you might want to read the article a little bit closer. For example, the article clearly states "Most of these interpretations have variants. For example, it is difficult to get a precise definition of the Copenhagen interpretation as it was developed and argued about by many people." Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had read it before making the previous comment. I do not understand you: the three theories about the origin of the Romanians are presented under section 1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis in the same way as the dozen interpretations of quantum mechanics. Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is at least one editor, who has no relation whatsoever to how and what the article looks like or contains, but has been asked for an opinion regarding a content dispute. I do not know if I should notify this editor (as I don't know if such an editor is considered involved in this discussion) - nevertheless I will quote from his observations regarding the article itself:
 * "I'm not suggesting a pro-and-con list, as I don't think this can be simplified that far. What I'm wondering is if it's necessary to mention the Daco-Roman theory in this section at all? If it is, it should probably be done either in a separate paragraph or under a separate subheading so it's clear which theory is being referenced."
 * "I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two."
 * If necessary I will name / notify this specific editor, but I'd rather not bother him unnecessarily, as I believe the other editors involved in this dispute will not dispute the quotes or the meaning of them. What is important is that there is at least one "independent" person who shares at least part of my view on the article.

Comment: See my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Counter-arguments and my response to that:
 * The present approach (a clear distinction between facts and scholarly POVs) should be preserved. That a source states something is a fact. The interpretation of the fact can be a PoV.
 * It doesn't actually makes sense because the sources used of course state something. Our sources are scholars, which leaves no room for "Scholarly PoV" since a Scholarly PoV is a sources (by previous definition fact). Note that it was mentioned "Scholarly PoV", not PoV as in editor's interpretation on what the sources mean - which I would agree that it would constitute as PoV (eidtor's interpretation...). Therefore, "fact" and "scholarly PoV" designate the same thing. So either there is no need for such "clear distinctions" or the article contains PoV (not scholarly PoV) in which case they should be removed.

Comment: The above is a clear misinterpretation of a statement. The correct statement is the following: "The present approach (a clear distinction between facts and scholarly POVs) should be preserved. That a primary source states something is a fact. The scholarly interpretation of a primary source is a PoV." Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:I'm sorry, is it a misinterpretation or a misstatement? Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is structured logically, according to the types of evidence. A similar approach is followed, for instance, by [...] who first writes of the written sources and then of the results of archaeological research.
 * First of all, there is a difference between the way the content is organized by the source mentioned, as it serves a specific audience, and how the content of an article of encyclopedic nature should be organized, as it serves a general audience. Moreover, the source presents the content in the context of his/her own analysis of the subject, or a subject related to the Origin of Romanians (premises, arguments, conclusions etc.). An article on Wikipedia should not be an analysis of the subject, but a summarizing of existing analysis done by WP:RS.

Comment: No Wikipedia articles repeat whole books or articles, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Could you mention examples when something is mentioned in the article "out of context" and thus ignores WP:NPOV? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:First of all, I don't see the link between the comment and the statement. In any case, sure. I can give an example:


 * Tumuli erected for a cremation rite appeared in Oltenia and in Transylvania around 100 BC, thus preceding the emergence of the Dacian kingdom. Their rich inventory has analogies in archaeological sites south of the Danube. Although only around 300 graves from the next three centuries have been unearthed in Romania, they represent multiple burial rites, including ustrinum cremation and inhumation. New villages in the Mureș valley prove a demographic growth in the 1st century BC. Fortified settlements were erected on hilltops, mainly in the Orăştie Mountains, but open villages remained the most common type of settlement. In contrast with the finds of 25,000 Roman denarii and their local copies, imported products were virtually missing in Dacia.[302] The interpretations of Geto-Dacian archaeological findings are problematic because they may be still influenced by methodological nationalism.


 * The conquering Romans destroyed all fortresses and the main Dacian sanctuaries around 106 AD.[305] All villages disappeared because of the demolition. Roman settlements built on the location of former Dacian ones have not been identified yet. However, the rural communities at Boarta, Cernat, and other places used "both traditional and Roman items", even thereafter. Objects representing local traditions have been unearthed at Roman villas in Aiudul de Sus, Deva and other places as well. A feature of the few types of native pottery which continued to be produced in Roman times is the "Dacian cup", a mostly hand-made mug with a wide rim,[308] which was used even in military centers.[309] The use of a type of tall cooking pot indicates the survival of traditional culinary practices as well.


 * None of the statements above explicitly state the context in which the WP:RS established it. Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: What was the context? These sentences present neutral facts which are mentioned in reliable sources independently of the theory accepted by the scholars who wrote them. Or do you think there are concurring interpretations of these facts? Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The context is "Romanian Origins" not the 3 theories.
 * The subject of the article is indeed the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people. Nevertheless, since there are academic theories (that is scholars that research this subject), we should summarize those theories. Adding content that we (editors) think might be related to the Romanian origins (but not specifically connected with by the WP:RS) should not be permitted. Adding content that is connected with the subject (according to the WP:RS), but falls outside any of the three mainstream theories (again, according to the WP:RS) should be treated as such, observing WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE. Adding content that is specifically connected to one of the three theories (according to the WP:RS) should be presented by us as such, as being connected to a specific theory. On short: while the broader context (subject) might be the "Romanian Origins", since we're not experts on the matter (not WP:RS) we should not be allowed to judge the relevance of any content, respective to the subject, unless the WP:RS states or at least heavily implies that relevance. In that case, considering the mainstream theories, we need apply WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE.

Comment: See my alternative proposal above. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Your (Cealicuca's) arguments are emotional, not factual.
 * I leave this to be judged by this board.

Comment: Although it was not me, who made the above comment about Cealicuca, I tend to agree with it. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You (Cealicuca) are biased (support the continuity theory) and want to push your PoV by making the theory more "provable" than the rest.
 * I could not possibly demonstrate I am not biased. Actually, I have stated multiple times that I personally favour one of the theories (because it makes more sense to me than the other two), the so-called "Admigration" theory. Nevertheless, I will argue that this is irrelevant and frankly, I sincerely believe every editor is biased, especially after the editor becomes more and more acquainted with a subject. But even if I were indeed biased, it's still irrelevant. Asking that the article respect and reflect the context set by WP:RS, and not have the content organized according to, what I consider, editor's opinions, could not possibly affect the article towards my supposed bias.

Comment: Agree: we are human beings, we can be biased. However, when editing we have to respect WP:NPOV. Cealicuca's proposal totally ignores it. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:How could asking that a sourced statement be presented along with the context in which it was done be ignoring WP:NPOV? Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Again, you have not demonstrated that the article presents any of the relevant facts in a biased way or does not present the concurring interpretations of the fact. If there is a scholarly debate about the interpretation of a certain fact, it is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no uniformity between scholars even within the same theory. So we cannot set up continuity and immigrationist sections without seriously breaching WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
 * The fact that there might be debates among the scholars should not constitute a problem. Wikipedia has clear and specific rules on how to deal with conflicting sources. Moreover, if such a debate exists it is all the more important to accurately reflect that. It is not the editor's "job" to cover or decide a scholarly debate. It is not the editor's job to make a subject "more clear" by "hiding" such scholarly debates. Moreover, the very existence of mainstream theories proves that there are core things the scholars do agree on. So the "pillars" that constitute the core things of each theory, and that most if not all the scholars (corresponding to each "house") agree on is a good place to start.

Comment: Yes, editors cannot decide scholarly debates, but editors cannot create articles to demonstrate that there are clear theories if such clear theories do not exist. Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:None of the solutions proposed means to "create" a theory. I believe I have been perfectly clear on that:) But you are free to insist on that if you so wish. It seems to me that your opinion on whether there are or aren't "clear" theories doesn't get in the way of scholars publishing books about those very same theories... Again, the fact that for you the theories are not "clear" - it's your opinion. And the fact that the article is organized based on this opinion is definitely not respecting WP:NPOV Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: When trying to connect facts or their scholarly interpretations to theories, you are creating theories, because there is no clear connection between facts and theories or scholarly interpretations. Scholars who accept the continuity theory often refuse the interpretation of other scholars who accept the same theory and accept an interpretation that is proposed by scholars who accept the concurring immigrationist theory (as I demonstrated here: ). Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We cannot make a clear distinction between PRO and CON arguments. We cannot follow a PRO and CON approach without seriously breaching WP:NOR.
 * Neither of the solutions proposed would, in my opinion, fall under such a label. Nevertheless, I might be wrong so I would like to give the chance to the other editors involved in this dispute to argument how an article like this - which I say it is a very good example of how the article on the Origin of Romanians should look like, or otherwise any article that deals with a subject that has more than one mainstream scholarly conclusions should look like - is a PRO/CON list.

Comment: As I mentioned above, the "Interpretations of quantum mechanics" article is not a good example, because it is dedicated to the different interpretations of a fact, which are clearly distinguished according to "schools". However, the concurring interpretations of the facts that are relevant in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis are independent of the theories: there is no uniform or almost uniform argumentiation within the theories. If we wrote that "scholars who accept the continuity theory say that X is Y", we would ignore WP:NOR, because we could easily find scholars who accept the continuity theory, but say that X is not Y (as it is demonstrated here: ) Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:First of all, Wikipedia has certain rules that deal with conflicting sources. I will not waste the time to exemplify that here since I believe that everyone here is aware of that - except you it seems. Also, as per my comment above, please read the article given as an example again. Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: could you refer to examples when relevant interpretations of a fact are ignored? Borsoka (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * But the [...] academia is known to be biased. Their work is therefore tainted by bias so the [...] theory has a lot of problems.
 * Frankly, within the subject, my opinion (which can be backed up by sources if necessary) is that both "main" academias are or were biased. Nevertheless, the article lists as sources scholars or publications belonging to academies from France, USA, Germany etc. Therefore, we cannot infer that academic bias is present in the subject (since not only suspected biased academias contribute to the subject) or to extend such possible academic bias to all scholars. Moreover, as far as I understood, it's stated that Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research, even if it is aimed at redressing some real or imaginary harm produced by academia. And not least, again, the editor's job is not to asses the relevance of sourced material in connection to any of the theories, nor should the editors be allowed to organize the content as to make "more sense" or to bring "more balance" to the theories. If something doesn't make sense to us (editors) then it's probably because we're not experts on the subject. Alternatively, we might look for WP:RS that would explain those things that do not make sense to us, and add them to the article. If we somehow think that the content supports one theory or another - again, we can't do nothing about it. It is not up to us to decide the validity of any theory. Neither should we remove the explicit link between the content and the theory (as to bring more "balance") neither should we try to somehow imply a connection or context that is not specifically stated or otherwise clearly implied by the source itself.

Comment: I fully agree with Cealicuca's above statement. Even if a scholar is biased, we cannot ignore his/her view (unless it is a marginal view). Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment:Actually, my argument was about supposed academia bias. As for biased scholars (individuals) - again they should be dealt with according to Wikipedia policies (in some cases taken into consideration, in other cases maybe not). Cealicuca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

→Cealicuca (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just noting that the article is under the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not read the whole WP:WALLS, just noticed equivocation between academia, on one side, and Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Romanian Academy of Sciences, on the other side. If his only solution is to reshuffle the existing information, I'm against it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is one of you intercalating through the other's comments? If so, stop it. Otherwise, between that and the bizarre formatting of these comments, I can't follow the conversation, and I'm not going to try. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think you refer to me. What do you suggest? How could I comment such a lengthy text which is divided into different sections? Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply with your own big block of text. Use paragraphs to make it look more organized. Quote the original by using the Talkquote template at the start of one of your sections, or maybe using a different color if you want. "Or just quote it like this". Per the talk page guidelines, you are not supposed to modify another editor's comments, even to insert your own responses. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I think we should ask to summarize his/her proposal and argumentation in 5-6 sentences without summarizing other editors' views, because this approach would enable other editors to understand and comment his/her proposal with their own words., do you agree with my proposal? I also would like to ask Cealicuca to explain the meaning of the word "context" in his/her comments, because it is not clear. I guess he/she refers to a given theory to which a certain fact is allegedly connected when using this word, but I am not sure. Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Restating the complaint in fewer words would be good but I'm not going to recommend a sentence limit. Though the briefer the complaint, the more likely people are to read it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In its current state this article is a mess, as stated by several other editors in the recent past, including ones asked to render third-opinions on various (inevitable) disputes. Cealicuca's summary of the issue at the top of this section is as clear as possible-- we must let WP:RS speak for themselves, rather than cut-and-paste bits and pieces from these sources and create a separate narrative. I've already made some edits along this way in the "Linguistic Approach" section and I fully support further changes to reflect WP:NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , could you provide us a permalink to show your edits which were in line with Cealicuca's proposal? Borsoka (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wiki allows you to look up previous edits so have at it. We've already been over this and called in a third-opinion at some point, if I recall. [FACT]→DRCT→[FACT]→IT→[FACT]→AT, etc, repeat. The more explicit the context (re. the theory, whether Daco-Roman-Continuity-Theory, Immigrationist-Theory, or Admigration-Theory) the better.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not remember that any of your edits were in line with either Cealicuca's proposal or with relevant WP policies, that is why I ask you to provide a permalink. Borsoka (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference, as I understand it, is that Cealicuca proposes a clear delineation of the theories (including their respective subsections) within the article, rather than delineating by paragraphs within the subsections. Which, I think, would go a long way towards improving the article. The gist of the argument is the same, we need to let a theory/WP:RS make its case on its own terms, not the editors'. It's the only way to achieve WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT. So, DRCT(incl. all relevant subsections)→IT(incl. all relevant subsections)→AT(incl. all relevant subsections), with the neutral [FACTS] (as far as "facts" are acknowledged as such) interspersed according to what WP:RS have to say about them.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am in holiday right now. Will post a summary of the complaint (as requested) in a couple of days. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The gist of the problem is: experts cannot agree. What we do when experts cannot agree? We present all notable views without taking sides. So by default, taking the side of one of the theories is a violation of WP:NPOV. There is no smoking gun and the existing archaeological evidence could be interpreted in different ways. In the end, I think that reducing this problem to the idiosyncratic approach of each of these three major views is not doing justice to the complexity of the field. So, it could be that the three major views are all true at the same time. Or equally false. Anyway, what we should not do is reshuffle the information in order to privilege one of those views. To further compound our problem, and  seem unwilling to compromise and seem to push each their own POV, i.e. that one of the theories is evidently superior to all others. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I agree completly with your first couple of phrases, up to and including "What we do when experts cannot agree? We present all notable views without taking sides". But then you had to go on and let everyone know what you mean by that, and I thank you for it. So...really? This is what you call WP:NPOV? "There is no smoking gun and the existing archaeological evidence could be interpreted in different ways." / "[...] it could be that the three major views are all true at the same time. Or equally false."- Are you somehow an expert (rhetorical)? How come should your opinion on how valid a theory is (or is not) constitutes a criteria that satisfies a neutral point of view? And since you're not an expert on the matter, then why should anything you're not an expert in be equally false or equally true? Not knowing an answer to a question does not automatically make all answers to that questions equally true or equally false. It simply means that one does not know the answer to the question (and should maybe refrain from emitting any opinions on how valid or invalid an answer is...).

So thank you for exemplifying me the how this article does not reflect a WP:NPOV approach, how the editors have their opinions on the matter (in your case that all theories are equally true or false - or to quote Borsoka that "each theory should explain all relevant facts or explain that a fact is not relevant.") influencing how the article is structured.

Please explain how would organizing the content to clearly specify which theory is actually mentioned by the source would somehow privilege one of the theories, and even if it did (in that case meaning that the sources themselves favor one theory or another) how would that be a breach of WP:NPOV - because it seems to me that it wouldn't. Please explain how representing accurately what the sources say on the matter is a breach of WP:NPOV or, as you put it, "taking sides"?

and have molded the article to satisfy their own POV, i.e. that somehow all theories are equal or that each theory should "explain" stuff, while at the same time claiming that this is the way to achieve a WP:NPOV. As for me, yes, I'm guilty of pushing the following view: If a source says X, in the context theory A, then Wikipedia should reflect that, and not some misguided interpretation of what WP:NPOV is - exemplified by one editor's belief that the theories should somehow explain whatever the editor thinks they should explain or that the editor's ignorance on the subject means that somehow it's all right to obscure what the sources say on the matter.Cealicuca (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Someguy1221: The gist of the problem is this:


 * The article that deals with the Origin of the Romanians. As such, the article mentions that there are 3 mainstream academic theories that explain it. Apart from the summary of those 3 theories, anything that the sources say in the context of those 3 mainstream theories is categorized, arbitrarily, by the editors, in the "Evidence" section and the subsequent subsections (main body) of the article. Moreover, the sourced statements are never referencing the context (ie: which if any of the theories) in which those statements were made. So I say that this is a breach of WP:NPOV - that what the sources say is misrepresented (removed from the context, that is one of the three theories). I gave an example of an article that deals with not 3, but over a dozen competing/conflicting theories and how the content of the article is clearly organized to actually reflect what the sources say (that is in what context did their statements were made).


 * So should I simply remove my 1st post? It does contain a summary of the complaint, which should be brief enough... How should I go about doing this?Cealicuca (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) The article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Its present structure was developed by efforts of multiple editors. (2) The present structure is fully in line with reliable sources cited in the article (I refer, especially, to Alexandru Madgearu's The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum: Truth and Fiction., to Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu's The North-Danube Regions from the Roman Province of Dacia to the Emergence of the Romanian Language (2nd–8th Centuries AD), and to Gábor Vékony's Dacians, Romans, Romanians). Consequently, the article's present structure cannot be regarded as an original approach, invented by two editors. (3) The article presents all significant interpretations of the relevant facts, so it is in line with WP:NPOV. (4) Differences between scholarly interpretations of the same facts are most frequently independent of the theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Most scholars who accept the "continuity" theory sharply criticize certain interpretations presented by other scholars who accept the same theory. Consequently, all attempts to present a "continuity" or an "immigrationist" or a "middle-of-the-road" theory/argumentation ignore WP:NOR. (5) Cealicuca has not presented a single text which is not presented "in context" in the article. (6) As an alternative, I suggest that the first section of the article (which is dedicated to the three main theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis) should list some typical arguments of each theory. Borsoka (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Responding to @Borsoka:
 * (6) First of all, regarding your proposal (The subsections which presents the three theories should be expanded with a short list of the typical arguments that are used by scholars who accept that theory.) I think it's a good starting point. If you mean that the presentation of each theory could be expanded to include WP:RS statements (otherwise present in the article) that are made by the sources related to a specific theory (or theories) then yes, I agree to that. It's actually the whole point of this.
 * (1) The article should reflect what the academia is saying about the subject. Since there are 3 mainstream theories about the subject our job, as editors, is to present those 3 theories as accurately as possible. Therefore, the subject being Romanian's ethnogenesis, the article should not reflect what the editors think/believe is relevant to the Romanian's ethnogenesis but what the academia says about that. It's present structure allocates only a small percentage of the article content (that is the summary section) to those 3 mainstream academic theories, while most of the article content is not linked to any of those 3 mainstream theories. Moreover, most of the content is organized under the subsection "Evidence". Can you please explain the reasoning for "Evidence"? Because I'm pretty sure we (editors) are not here to "prove" anything. So if it's "Evidence" from the WP:RS PoV then each and every one of the statements under this category should be linked to the theory (or theories) it is an evidence for.
 * (2) I never said that the sources are not accurately cited. But the sourced material is improperly organized and not given the accurate context (that is if a WP:RS says X in the context of any of the 3 mainstream theories it should be clear in the article that this was the case). Please see point (5) below.
 * (3) Please detail what you mean by "relevant facts" and "significant interpretations". We (editors) do not establish the "significant interpretations" - that is already set. As I said, it's the 3 mainstream theories. We (editors) do not establish what "relevant facts" are - again we need to relegate that to the WP:RS, all of this while keeping in mind WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE - that is in the context of the three mainstream theories.
 * (4) Independent (as in independent of any of the three mainstream theories) sources should be treated as per WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT or even WP:FRINGE and definitely the article should reflect that (that the context of those sourced information is independent of any of the three theories). Otherwise, there are over 100 sources used. I was able to identify few cases in which the same information is interpreted differently, involving (in total) about 10 sources (see below, please feel free to correct me or include things I've missed). So, the article itself does not reflect this "great divide" you're talking about. But even if that were the case, it would still be irrelevant. As per the Interpretations of quantum mechanics article given as an example of how competing theories should be presented, as well as Wikipedia policies on contradicting sources there is no reason why conflicting/competing theories cannot be accurately/properly described.
 * In his study on medieval Hungarian chronicles, Carlile Aylmer Macartney concluded that the Gesta Hungarorum did not prove the presence of Romanians in the territory, since its author's "manner is much rather that of a romantic novelist than a historian". In contrast, Alexandru Madgearu, in his monography dedicated to the Gesta, stated that this chronicle "is generally credible", since its narration can be "confirmed by the archaeological evidence or by comparison with other written sources" in many cases.
 * Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs, but the Volokhi have also been identified with either Romans or Franks annexing Pannonia (for instance, by Lubor Niederle and by Dennis Deletant respectively).
 * Coins bearing the inscription "DACIA FELIX" minted in 271 may reflect that Trajan's Dacia still existed in that year, but they may as well refer to the establishment of the new province of "Dacia Aureliana".
 * Whether the shepherds seasonal movements between the mountains and the lowlands secured the preservation of language unity, or the levelling effect of migrations gave rise to the development of a uniform idiom, cannot be decided.
 * Whether this donarium belonged to a Christian missionary, to a local cleric or layman or to a pagan Goth making an offering at the spring is still debated by archaeologists.
 * Whether they represent a common substrate language, or convergent development is still a matter of debate among linguists.
 * Dunărea, the Romanian name of the Danube may have developed from a supposed Geto-Dacian Donaris form. However, this form is not attested in written sources.
 * (5) I will only give some examples as each is time consuming. Since the article disconnected almost all those statements from the context (everything starting with the Historiography chapter), one would need to consult each and every source mentioned to see exactly what the author had in mind. Nevertheless, here are a couple of examples. For each, the article doesn't give context (any of the mainstream theory/theories which is taken into consideration by the WP:RS, either to support or criticise) the statement was made in:
 * As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century. - This statement is made near the beginning of Chapter IV, Subchapter 5. The author considers it as a sort of cliche (not refuting it though), and then goes on to explore other explanations as well, in the context of the continuity theory. So the whole statement is entirely misleading, as presented in the article, because the context (according to the WP:RS) is the continuity theory, his statement being a supporting argument (according to the source).
 * [...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated "near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...] - This statement is only a small part of a chapter-wide analysis, weirdly enough the article contains more than just this statement form the same source but without the conclusion. The WP:RS ends this analysis with the following: "In conclusion, the Slavic and Hungarian historical traditions (the latter expressed by the Gestae written by the Anonymous Notary and Simon of Keza) certified the presence of the Romanians in Pannonia, before the Hungarian conquest.", thus considering the subject of the whole book, this is simply and argument for the continuity theory.Cealicuca (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (6) Only verified statements can be added, as per WP:NOR. (1) Agree, we are not here to prove anything. We are here to present all relevant facts ("evidence") and their scholarly interpretations, as per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. We have to present all relevant scholarly interpretations independently of the theories, because a "clear" line of continuity or immigration interpretation could not be presented without ignoring WP:SYNTH. (2) You have been writing about a "context" without clarifying its meaning. For instance, Elisabeth I of England is a featured article, although it does not repeat any of the cited sources, but it is constructed based on multiple sources in accordance with the relevant WP policies. The article "Origin of the Romanians" is also constructed based on multiple reliable sources. (3) No editor wants to establish the relevance of facts or interpretations. All facts that are mentioned in a reliable source in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis are relevant, as per WP:NOR, and their scholarly interpretations, as they are presented in reliable sources, are also relevant, as per WP:NPOV. (4) Why do you think that all scholars who deal with the several aspect of the Romanians' ethnogenesis are to be divided into three categories? Most of the texts that you want to delete are mentioned in almost all reliable sources dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that the lack of concurring scholarly interpretations is a problem if there is no debate about a fact relating to the Romanians' ethnogenesis? (5) (i) sentence i.: it contains a neutral fact that does not contradict or strengthen any of the theories; (ii) of course, we can add that all early primary sources emphasize that the Romanians' ancestors originaly lived in Pannonia (and Moesia) provinces, but we do not have to reorganize the whole article. actually, the article presents the facts as you proposed, mentioning the tradition about the Romanians' Pannonian homeland: "As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century. Byzantine authors were the first to write of the Romanians. The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated "near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently". He associates the Vlachs with the Dacians and the Bessi and with the Dacian king Decebal.[109] Accordingly, historians have located this homeland in several places, including Pannonia Inferior (Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu) and "Dacia Aureliana" (Gottfried Schramm). The 12th-century scholar John Kinnamos[112] wrote that the Vlachs "are said to be formerly colonists from the people of Italy". William of Rubruck wrote that the Vlachs of Bulgaria descended from the Ulac people, who lived beyond Bashkiria. The late 13th-century Hungarian chronicler Simon of Kéza states that the Vlachs used to be the Romans' "shepherds and husbandmen" who "elected to remain behind in Pannonia" when the Huns arrived. An unknown author's Description of Eastern Europe from 1308 likewise states that the Balkan Vlachs "were once the shepherds of the Romans" who "had over them ten powerful kings in the entire Messia and Pannonia"." (+1) How could we avoid WP:NOR if we wanted to say that "scholars who accept the continuity theory say/interpret this...", taking into account that we could list several scholars accepting the same theory who refute the same interpretation? (+2) How could we achieve WP:NPOV if we did not present all scholarly interpretations of the same facts at the same place? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * (6) What exactly do you mean by "verified" statements? If by that you mean WP:RS, verifiability, then of course.
 * (1) "Relevant fact" in who's opinion? I say relevant in WP:RS's opinion. As such, the relevance that the WP:RS gives is important for the article and it must be clearly stated, otherwise it's no longer a "relevant fact" as you say. As for "evidence" - evidence for what? If the statements presented as "evidence" are independent of any of the theories, then what are they evidence for? Moreover, since we're dealing with 3 competing theories, each statement is an "evidence" for which of the theories (in case we assume it's that kind of "evidence")?
 * You keep pressing with the "no clear line" statement. As I said, there are few examples (but feel free to show us more) of instances where sources actually disagree with one another. Out of more than 100 sources (or more than 450 references) the article cites only about 10 sources, as per my examples, would fall under this category (of actually disagreeing with each other, or otherwise giving different interpretation to the same thing). The rest - which is more than 90% of the sources used, do not.
 * WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with what you're saying, and is not an argument in the favour of the current structure of the article. It's actually an argument against the current structure of the article, since the relevance of the statements is not explicitly stated in the article, in spite of what the WP:RS state (as shown in the example you asked me to present, and I can give a whole lot more given enough time to consult the sources).
 * (2) I have several times stated that context means what theory / theories the WP:RS supported or criticised with the cited material. As for your example - it's a red herring - as the Elisabeth I of England article isn't concerned with any theory on her, say, origin. Or any theory on her, say, morning habits. Competing/conflicting theories in general - none present. Instead, re-explore the article I gave as an example, since it is pertinent to what we're talking about.
 * (3) All facts that are mentioned in a reliable source in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis are relevant in a certain context. Removing the context (again, link to the supported or criticised theory) means removing the relevance.
 * (4) I don't want to remove them, not necessarily. But observing WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT or even WP:FRINGE means that having 3 mainstream theories we are bound to... well... talk more about that and less about what's "independent" of those 3 theories. This is why I "believe" that we should have three categories (maybe each with it's own "Evidence" section and subchapters respectively, if it would reduce the workload).
 * (5) (i) That is your interpretation (neutral fact?!?), and practically you disagree with the source (Madgearu) - as such it's WP:OR. As per WP:NPOV the article should state what the WP:RS states, that being the the WP:RS considers the statement as a supporting argument for one of the theories.
 * (5) (ii) Actually, I didn't say to add primary sources. Secondary sources, on the other hand (which may interpret primary sources and establish relevance taking into consideration lots of other sources of information) are better. The statement I gave as an example is not a primary source, but rather a secondary source's consideration of it. Again, just like point (i), the WP:RS makes that statements (considers the primary source) as and argument supporting one theory.
 * (+1) In order to avoid WP:NOR in this case we simply have to do exactly what Wikipedia instructs. Establish the context (say Immigrationist theory) and then say (example): "Source X states A, while source Z interprets that as B". What exactly would be the problem? How would that constitute WP:OR?
 * (+2) First of all, it's not about presenting "all interpretations" - since according to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT and not lastly WP:FRINGE, compounded with the fact that we have 3 mainstream theories, it means that anything that falls outside those three theories should have less coverage, if at all (if it's fringe for example, no coverage at all). Mish-mashing everything (or, as you say, "present all scholarly interpretations of the same facts at the same place") because otherwise (presenting each scholarly interpretation in the context it was made, clearly stated in the article just as the source stated it) it would somehow break WP:NPOV doesn't even make sense. I'm actually stating that the article should reflect what the WP:RS state as a whole, not only a translation or copy-paste or summary of parts and pieces of what they say regardless of their conclusions or the context in which those statements were made.Cealicuca (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

(6) Yes, I refer to reliable sources. (1) Yes, I refer to reliable sources. Sorry, I do not understand your statement made in bold. Could you clarify it? (2) Sorry, I do not understand your statement. Could you refer to reliable sources based on which you could present the argumentation of each theory without ignoring WP:NOR? (3) Sorry, I still do not understand your reference to "context". Could you explain it, providing a text from the article and explaining its allegedly ignored context? (4) Could you provide an example? How could we push neutral facts (as you stated, 90% of the article) into the three categories? (5) (i) Sorry, I do not understand your statement. I fully agree with the cited source. Its statement is a fact that could hardly be debated. Could you refer to a reliable source which debates the same statement from the article? (ii) Sorry, I do not understand your statement. Earlier, you stated that the article is not neutral, because it does not refer to the alleged Pannonian homeland of the Romanians (as it is suggested by primary sources). I demonstrated that the article mentions (based on secondary sources) that there are primary sources which suggest that Pannonia (and Moesia) were the scene of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Why do you think that books published in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are primary sources? (+1 i) Could you provide an example (I mean, a fact that is only connected to one of the theories and ignored by other theories)? (+2) We agree. We should not ignore WP:DUE. Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm, sorry, I was gone for a while. If I were to make a suggestion, it would be this... It's primary just the two of you,, who appear to be interested in this dispute. It is claimed there are multiple relevant theories regarding the origin of the Romanian people. I would recommend that compromise (and a better article) is easiest to find if everyone can agree on the basic facts first. I would recommend that each of you (not necessarily on this page, could be article talk page or even your own userspace, or continue it here if you want, anything can be copied anywhere later on anyway)... anyway, I would recommend that each of you try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint. Basically, don't put the cart before the horse: don't try to figure out how to write one article from multiple points of view, before you agree on what the viewpoints are to begin with. This exercise should also help clarify the relative significance of each viewpoint, and might reveal points of agreement, positions on which there is scholarly consensus that could form the basis of background sections. Then you figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your suggestion. Actually, there are more than two editors involved. For the time being, the article dedicates a section to the presentation of the 3 mainstream theories ("theory A states X, theory B states Y, and theory C states XY"). The further sections presents facts that are relevant in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis. The core of the debate is, that I say that these facts are connected to each theory and their neutral interpretation can only be secured through the presentation of their different interpretations at the same place. Furthermore, I say there is no uniform presentation of the same facts within the theories, so these facts cannot be divided among the 3 theories without ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. says each fact can and should be connected to one of the theories, so the whole article should be reorganised. The discussion was started months ago and the 5-6 editors involved have not reached a compromise. I think we should not continue the debate on the article's Talk page because we need external input. Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no universally accepted theory about Romanian ethnogenesis therefore NPOV is very important when we try to demonstrate the countering positions. A simple presentation of the different theories like Borsoka said above ---> ("theory A states X, theory B states Y, and theory C states XY") seems to be the best solution IMO. The current article is readable, comprehensive and accurate. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no universally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics either. That doesn't prevent the editors of that specific article to actually present each interpretation, with the supporting sources or even the criticism. Actually, in one week time it is certainly possible that one will become more popular than all the rest, while in one yar's time some other will be become the norm. It depends on the evidence - that is evidence towards one or another interpretation, and not evidence towards... quantum mechanics. The analogy would be that there can be evidence to support one or another theory on the Romanian's ethnogenesis, not evidence in support of the... Romanian's ethnogenesis. You can't present evidence for that - as the ethnogenesis itself is not in dispute (and how could it be? The fact that those people exists it means that they had an ethnogenesis). The evidence is only relevant in the context of one of the theories. And one cannot say that it is somehow WP:NPOV to present that evidence (which is for one theory or another, otherwise it wouldn't be evidence at all) without also presenting the connection - what is that evidence for. The article, because it does NOT mention this connection (between the "evidence" and what the "evidence" is for) it's theory crafting (as one can "build" or imply anything using statements that are otherwise sourced properly but "forget" to mention the context - or relevance - that the sources attribute to those statements).Cealicuca (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you mention a single piece of evidence which is regarded evidence only for one of the theories? Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * you recommend that we "try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint... and then figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on." That's basically what suggested, so thank you!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , please read the article, because it is in line with Someguy1221's suggestion: the first section of the article (1. Theories on the Romanians' ethnogenesis) is fully dedicated to the major viewpoints and cite the major sources describing them. Furthermore, there is a subsection (4. Evidence) which lists fact that are mentioned by scholars in relation of the Romanians' ethnogenesis and describes their concurring scholarly interpretations. wants to divide this subsection (4. Evidence) into three parts in accordance with theories, although differences between scholarly interpretations of the same facts are mostly independent of the theory accepted by individual scholars. Borsoka (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The point is that right now there are a lot (most actually) of sources that support or oppose one theory or another, but the article presents those in a section "Evidence", thus detaching completely those statements from any of the theories - in spite of the source's intention (that is to support or criticise this or that theory). From my point of view this is completely against WP:NPOV. I already gave an example, containing the "statement" as it is presented in the article, in the Evidence section - again, section that does NOT reference any of the theories, and what the source actually states:


 * "As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century." - The source makes this statement near the beginning of Chapter IV, Subchapter 5 (the respective book book). The source considers it as a sort of cliche (not refuting it though), and then goes on to explore other additional explanations as well, in the context of the continuity theory. So the whole statement is entirely misleading, as presented in the article, because the context (according to the WP:RS) is the continuity theory, his statement being a supporting argument (according to the source). Basically the source explains that this (the statement), while being an overused (became at some point a cliche) argument for a certain theory, might not be the only one - and goes further to explore what those other arguments might be.
 * "[...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...]" - This statement is only a small part of a chapter-wide analysis that the author does and the Wikipedia article contains more than just this statement form the same source but without the conclusion. The WP:RS ends this analysis with the following: "In conclusion, the Slavic and Hungarian historical traditions (the latter expressed by the Gestae written by the Anonymous Notary and Simon of Keza) certified the presence of the Romanians in Pannonia, before the Hungarian conquest.", which is argument for the continuity theory. So basically, he makes a statements (reflected in the article) and afterwards goes on with a complex analysis, whose conclusion is that, according to the analysis, the statements is in support of one of the theories. The article does not reflect that conclusion, but only reflects the statement.Cealicuca (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Borsoka: Sorry, I do not understand your statements. It seems to me that you pose a lot of leading questions/statements (containing false assumptions) - for example: "[...] although differences between scholarly interpretations of the same facts are mostly independent of the theory accepted by individual scholars [...]" is false - as I have already shown, and it can be verified by reading the article, that a small minority (10 sources out of about 100!) have opposing points of view on the same thing.
 * Moreover, you state that "The further sections presents facts that are relevant in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis." - and this is the entire problem. As already shown (but ignored by you) is that those statements are relevant to the Romanian's ethnogenesis in the context of one of the theories, as per what the sources mention. As we have already agreed, the fact that something is relevant or not is not to be decided by the editors, but by the sources. At this time the article does not reflect the relevance as it is decided by the sources, but the relevance as it is decided by the editors, as it only lists that something is "relevant" disregarding the critical element of "how" something is relevant and in connection to "what" as per the source says.
 * Basically, if source X states that "something" is relevant in connection to Romanian's ethnogenesis, in the context of theory A the article reflects this as "source X states that "something" is relevant". This is a denaturation of what source X actually says (please refer to the examples given above, with Madgearu's statements). Or, to put it in a simpler way, the article reflects your statement - "[...] facts that are relevant in connection with the Romanians' ethnogenesis." instead of what the sources say - facts that are relevant in connection with the Romanian's ethnogenesis, in the context of this or that theory.


 * ETA: - you are trying to summarize what I am saying and unfortunately it's not quite the correct representation.
 * "@Cealicuca: says each fact can and should be connected to one of the theories, so the whole article should be reorganised." - what I actually state is that IF a source makes a clear connection (state it explicitly or otherwise clearly implied) with one of the theories, then the article needs to clearly make that connection too in order to respect WP:NPOV. And IF a source does NOT make a clear connection with one of the theories then it should either be clearly represented as such. It should no be presented as "evidence" since if the source itself doesn't make a connection to a mainstream PoV we (definitely) shouldn't imply any connection either (which the article does by presenting it as "evidence"). Or even scrap them altogether (take your pick: WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE) since such a statement presents a minority PoV (as it's not related to any of the 3 mainstream PoVs) or it is irrelevant.Cealicuca (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You seem to not be able to make a distinction between what editors think is relevant and what that relevance would be, and what a source thinks is relevant and what that relevance would be - even more - you present this as WP:NPOV, my question to you is the following:
 * Considering the article section Evidence, subsection Written sources, subsection Uncertain references, please enlighten us what each and every statement is an evidence for:


 * The 10th-century Muslim scholars, Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn al-Nadim mentioned the Waladj and the Blaghā, respectively in their lists of peoples.
 * The lists also refer to the Khazars, Alans, and Greeks, and it is possible that the two ethnonyms refer to Vlachs dwelling somewhere in south-eastern Europe.
 * For instance, historian Alexandru Madgearu says that Al-Muqaddasi's work is the first reference to Romanians living north of the Danube.
 * Victor Spinei writes that a runestone which was set up around 1050 contains the earliest reference to Romanians living east of the Carpathians.
 * It refers to Blakumen who killed a Varangian merchant at an unspecified place.
 * The 11th-century Persan writer, Gardizi, wrote about a Christian people called N.n.d.r inhabiting the lands along the Danube.
 * Historian Adolf Armbruster identified this people as Vlachs.
 * In Hungarian, the Bulgarians were called Nándor in the Middle Ages.
 * The Russian Primary Chronicle from 1113 contains possible references to Vlachs in the Carpathian Basin.
 * It relates how the Volokhi seized "the territory of the Slavs" and were expelled by the Hungarians.
 * Therefore, the Slavs' presence antedates the arrival of the Volokhi in the chronicle's narration.
 * Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs, but the Volokhi have also been identified with either Romans or Franks annexing Pannonia (for instance, by Lubor Niederle and by Dennis Deletant respectively).
 * The poem Nibelungenlied from the early 1200s mentions one "duke Ramunc of Wallachia" in the retinue of Attila the Hun.
 * The poem alludes to the Vlachs along with the Russians, Greeks, Poles and Pechenegs, and may refer to a "Wallachia" east of the Carpathians.
 * The identification of the Vlachs and the Bolokhoveni of the Hypatian Chronicle whose land bordered on the Principality of Halych is not unanimously accepted by historians (for instance, Victor Spinei refuses it).


 * I'd really like to know your opinion, since the article mentions those things as "evidence" but... evidence for what?Cealicuca (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am really happy that you both returned to the discussion. All the facts listed above are mentioned in connection of the Romanians' ethogenesis in multiple reliable sources, so their relevance is not established by editors, but by scholars. And the above list also proves, that the facts' concurring interpretations are properly presented, furthermore, the concurring interpretations are mostly independent of the theory accepted by individual historians. For instance, it is a fact that Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn al-Nadim referred to the Waladj and Blagha people; this fact is regarded as evidence for the presence of Vlachs to the north of the Danube by Madgearu, while Spinei says that it is evidence for the Vlachs' presence somewhere in south-eastern Europe (although both scholars accept the continuity theory). Spinei thinks that the 1050 runestone's reference to the Blakumen (which is the second fact on your list) is the first evidence for the Vlachs' presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians. [Sincerely, here the article should mention that the Blakumen's identification as Vlachs is not universally accepted, so we should add this information.] Gardizi's reference to the N.n.d.r (which is the third fact) is evidence for the presence of Vlachs along the lands of the Danube, according to Armbruster, but most other scholars identify the N.n.d.r as Bulgarians. The Russian Primary Chronicle's reference to the Volokhi (which is the fourth fact on your list) is regarded as undeniable evidence for the Vlachs' presence in the Carpathian Basin before 895 by most Romanian historians, while other historians (including Deletant who is not an opponent of the continuity theory) emphasize that the Volokhi cannot be associated with the Vlachs. The Nibelungenlied's reference to Ramunc of Wallachia (which is the last fact on your list) is evidence for the Vlachs' possible presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians according to a number of scholars. Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As to your remark about Madgearu, could you mention a single historian who accepts the immigrationist theory who denies that the Romanians lived in the former Roman provinces to the south of the Danube before the arrival of the Hungarians? If there is no debate between historians, why are you pretending that there is a debate? Anyway, we can add Madgearu's conclusion to the article, because it is not debated by other historians, but this is not a reason to restructrue the article. A side remark, I kindly ask you to write shorter messages. Please try to respect other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * it looks like we're going around in circles here, so feel free to chime in when you get a chance. @Cealicuca made a great case for the re-structuring of the article, which would agree both with the Wiki rules and your suggestions, as I understand them ["try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint... and then figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on."]. @Borsoka's approach is to list what he (an editor) believes to be the relevant "evidence" and then present it out of the context of the respective theory, with pro/con arguments over the validity of each piece of said "evidence", thus undermining the construction of the arguments in favor of a theory as presented by WP:RS, which amounts to WP:OR and violates WP:NPOV.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is time to close the debate. My two closing remarks: (1) I have already suggested that the typical arguments of each theory could be summarized under the relevant subtitles in the first section without ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. (2) The facts listed in the article could not be pushed into one of the theories without ignoring both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, because most of them are connected to more than one of the theories and differences in their interpretations are independent of the theory accepted by scholars (For instance, we cannot say that "According to the continuity theory, Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn al-Nadim's reference to the Waladj and Blagha people proves the presence of Vlachs to the north of the Danube in the 9th century", because there are "continuist" scholars who debate this statement. For further details, I refer to my above message.) Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A typical argument for a/any theory, as presented in just about any WP:RS, would run something like this: because evidence A is (generally accepted to be) true, and evidence B is (generally accepted to be) true, then evidence C is probably true (because C was found in the same area as A and B and they date back to the same era, or something to that effect), hence it's likely that DRCT (or IT, or AT, as the case may be) is true (according to WP:RS). In other words, in the WP:RS we find a logical connective tissue that justifies said theory. This is sorely missing from the type of presentation this article is currently afflicted with, which currently reads like a shopping list: evidence A is supported by DCRT but some IT scholars disagree; evidence B is supported by IT scholars but most DCRT scholars disagree, etc, etc. Again, what's clearly missing from this kind of presentation is the logical connective tissue of the arguments in favor of a theory, as presented by the WP:RS. Instead we get a list of pro/con exhibit A thru Z kind of "evidence" that takes the elements out of their proper context within their respective theory, while suppressing the arguments made by WP:RS. If this is not WP:OR, I don't know what is.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are no facts, just arguments (opinions)&mdash;is this what you say? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would be grateful if you could provide an example. Borsoka (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , if my understanding is correct, your silence shows that you realized that individual scholars' argumentation could be presented based on reliable sources, but a uniform "continuity approach" or "immigrationist approach" could not, so all attempts to divide the article into a "continuity argumentation" and an "immigrationist argumentation" section would contradict WP:NOR. I assume that you also realized that the concurring scholarly interpretations of the facts presented in the article cannot be divided along theories, because differences in interpretations are mostly independent of the theories, so the article could not be divided into a "continuity argumentation" and an "immigrationist argumentation" section without ignoring WP:NPOV. If you do not agree with my statements, please provide an example to demonstrate your suggestion, or let the administrators close this debate. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * @Borsoka, please don't put words in my mouth or ever assume you know what I'm thinking or "realizing". That's incredibly presumptuous and arrogant of you and not conducive to a fair and civil debate. You already stated your closing remarks-- that's in your own words, not mine. And I've made my closing remarks shortly thereafter. Anything beyond that is, like I said, going around in circles. As for the examples you mentioned, please read the thread above, @Cealicuca offered plenty of them already. So, we're done here, provided @Cealicuca doesn't have some closing remarks of his own, so please allow the mediator @Someguy1221 to state/re-state his conclusions. p.s. you "realize" people sometimes go away for the weekend, right?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you reopened the debate because you mentioned that there are facts which are interpreted as X only by "continuity scholars", and as Y only by other scholars. That is why I asked you to provide an example, because not a single example has so far been provided. If these were your closing remarks, I am really grateful. (Just for the record, it was not me who put words into an other editor's mouth or who unfairly summarized an other editor's words during the debate.) Borsoka (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Borsoka: I do not understand why are you in such a hurry... You still haven't answer the question. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, so here I go again:
 * The article mentions three "well supported" mainstream theories. And afterwards we have the "Evidence" section, in which the majority of the content is organized. Nevertheless, the "Evidence" section does NOT specify what the content (the WP:RS statements) are evidence for. So I reiterate the question, and your answers:


 * The 10th-century Muslim scholars, Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn al-Nadim mentioned the Waladj and the Blaghā, respectively in their lists of peoples.
 * The lists also refer to the Khazars, Alans, and Greeks, and it is possible that the two ethnonyms refer to Vlachs dwelling somewhere in south-eastern Europe.
 * For instance, historian Alexandru Madgearu says that Al-Muqaddasi's work is the first reference to Romanians living north of the Danube.
 * You said: For instance, it is a fact that Al-Muqaddasi and Ibn al-Nadim referred to the Waladj and Blagha people; this fact is regarded as evidence for the presence of Vlachs to the north of the Danube by Madgearu, while Spinei says that it is evidence for the Vlachs' presence somewhere in south-eastern Europe (although both scholars accept the continuity theory).
 * Victor Spinei writes that a runestone which was set up around 1050 contains the earliest reference to Romanians living east of the Carpathians.
 * You said: Spinei thinks that the 1050 runestone's reference to the Blakumen (which is the second fact on your list) is the first evidence for the Vlachs' presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians. [Sincerely, here the article should mention that the Blakumen's identification as Vlachs is not universally accepted, so we should add this information.]
 * It refers to Blakumen who killed a Varangian merchant at an unspecified place.
 * The 11th-century Persan writer, Gardizi, wrote about a Christian people called N.n.d.r inhabiting the lands along the Danube.
 * Historian Adolf Armbruster identified this people as Vlachs.
 * In Hungarian, the Bulgarians were called Nándor in the Middle Ages.
 * You said: Gardizi's reference to the N.n.d.r (which is the third fact) is evidence for the presence of Vlachs along the lands of the Danube, according to Armbruster, but most other scholars identify the N.n.d.r as Bulgarians.
 * The Russian Primary Chronicle from 1113 contains possible references to Vlachs in the Carpathian Basin.
 * It relates how the Volokhi seized "the territory of the Slavs" and were expelled by the Hungarians.
 * Therefore, the Slavs' presence antedates the arrival of the Volokhi in the chronicle's narration.
 * Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs, but the Volokhi have also been identified with either Romans or Franks annexing Pannonia (for instance, by Lubor Niederle and by Dennis Deletant respectively).
 * You said: The Russian Primary Chronicle's reference to the Volokhi (which is the fourth fact on your list) is regarded as undeniable evidence for the Vlachs' presence in the Carpathian Basin before 895 by most Romanian historians, while other historians (including Deletant who is not an opponent of the continuity theory) emphasize that the Volokhi cannot be associated with the Vlachs.
 * The poem Nibelungenlied from the early 1200s mentions one "duke Ramunc of Wallachia" in the retinue of Attila the Hun.
 * The poem alludes to the Vlachs along with the Russians, Greeks, Poles and Pechenegs, and may refer to a "Wallachia" east of the Carpathians.
 * The identification of the Vlachs and the Bolokhoveni of the Hypatian Chronicle whose land bordered on the Principality of Halych is not unanimously accepted by historians (for instance, Victor Spinei refuses it).
 * You said: The Nibelungenlied's reference to Ramunc of Wallachia (which is the last fact on your list) is evidence for the Vlachs' possible presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians according to a number of scholars.


 * What you did was simply re-iterate the statements. I did not ask for that, I asked what those WP:RS statements are evidence for, according to the WP:RS's analysis / conclusion. I didn't ask for your opinion on what those are evidence for.
 * For example, "evidence for the Vlachs' possible presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians according to a number of scholars" is meaningless by itself, as we are not here to collect "evidence". Or maybe you are? That's the WP:RS's job. It's the interpretation of those facts (by the WP:RS) that has meaning. And since the article starts with "three well-supported theories" the "evidence", which should actually be the interpretation that the WP:RS give to those statements in relation to a claim. The claim is NOT Romanian's ethnogenesis - as that is an undisputed fact. The Romanian people exist, therefore one cannot argue pro or against the Romanian ethnogenesis. What scholars argue about are the details of how such ethnogenesis came to be.
 * So, considering the "claims" are "three well supported theories", what exactly are those statements evidence for? What is the relevance that the WP:RS give those statements? For example, what is the relevance of "the Vlachs' possible presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians" that "a number of scholars" say it is?
 * As for me - writing shorter sentences - don't put your unwillingness to respond to criticism on me. The fact is that you ignore examples given, only to come later and ask again for such examples leads to having such a long discussion. For example, I already gave two examples of things taken out of context.


 * "As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century." - The source makes this statement near the beginning of Chapter IV, Subchapter 5 (the respective book book). The source considers it as a sort of cliche (not refuting it though), and then goes on to explore other additional explanations as well, in the context of the continuity theory. So the whole statement is entirely misleading, as presented in the article, because the context (according to the WP:RS) is the continuity theory, his statement being a supporting argument (according to the source). Basically the source explains that this (the statement), while being an overused (became at some point a cliche) argument for a certain theory, might not be the only one - and goes further to explore what those other arguments might be.


 * "[...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...]" - This statement is only a small part of a chapter-wide analysis that the author does and the Wikipedia article contains more than just this statement form the same source but without the conclusion. The WP:RS ends this analysis with the following: "In conclusion, the Slavic and Hungarian historical traditions (the latter expressed by the Gestae written by the Anonymous Notary and Simon of Keza) certified the presence of the Romanians in Pannonia, before the Hungarian conquest.", which is argument for the continuity theory. So basically, he makes a statements (reflected in the article) and afterwards goes on with a complex analysis, whose conclusion is that, according to the analysis, the statements is in support of one of the theories. The article does not reflect that conclusion, but only reflects the statement.


 * No "if"s and "but"s, the WP:RS present those statements are arguments supporting one of the three theories. The article does not present the interpretation given by the WP:RS. The fact that other scholars may think otherwise is irrelevant, as such is the nature of scholarly debate. If a scholar thinks differently, our job is to present both positions accurately (both interpretations). It is not for us to come up with made up concepts like "neutral facts", it is not the editor's job to settle a scholarly debate. However, it's our job to properly present the scholar's position. A very good summary was given by, and I will quote him:


 * Sorry, I think you do not understand what I have written several times. The examples above prove that there is no uniform continuity argumentation. Although both Madgearu and Spinei accept the continuity theory, they interpret the same sources differently. Madgearu says that Al-Muqaddasi's work is the first reference to Romanians living north of the Danube, but Spinei writes that Al-Muqaddasi mentioned a people living somewhere in South-Eastern Europe (either to the north or to the south of the Danube), and suggests that the rune stone's reference to the Blakumen is the first mention of north-Danube Romanians. How could you push these scholars' views into the continuity theory without ignoring WP:NOR? Or do you think, individual scholars' argumentations should be presented? Similarly, almost all Romanian historians say that Nestor's story about the Volokhi who occupied the Slavs' Pannonian homeland, but were later expelled by the Magyars, is an undisputable evidence for the Romanians' continuous presence in Dacia. Deletant, who does not accept the immigrationist theory, rejects the association of the Volokhi with the Vlachs/Romanians. How could you present Deletant's view without ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, if the "continuity arguments" were separated from the "immigrationist arguments", especially if Deletant is not an "immigrationist scholar"? Or do you think each argument should be repeated under each theory? It would be quite time-consuming. Finally, the article's subject is the Romanians' ethnogenesis, so any facts related to this subject (for instance, any piece of evidence for the Vlachs' early presence anywhere) which is mentioned in reliable sources in connection with this subject could and should be mentioned in this article, even if the cited source is not connected to any of the theories. You obviously think each scholar who writes about several aspects of the Romanians' ethnogenesis is connected to one of the theories, although this is not the case. Schulte, for instance, cannot be described as a follower of any of the theories, but their works cited in the article contains significant pieces of information about the subject of the article, because dedicated important works to the Romanians' early history. For instance, Schulte assumes that the Romanians developed from a bilingual population. Which theory is supported by this view? Borsoka (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you still haven't answered my question. The article mentions three "well supported" mainstream theories. And afterwards we have the "Evidence" section, in which the majority of the content is organized. Nevertheless, the "Evidence" section does NOT specify what the content (the WP:RS statements) are evidence for. The claim is NOT Romanian's ethnogenesis - as that is an undisputed fact. The Romanian people exist, therefore one cannot argue pro or against the Romanian ethnogenesis. What scholars argue about are the details of how such ethnogenesis came to be.
 * So, considering the "claims" are "three well supported theories", what exactly are those statements evidence for? What is the relevance that the WP:RS give those statements? For example, what is the relevance of "the Vlachs' possible presence in the lands to the east of the Carpathians" that "a number of scholars" say it has?Cealicuca (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Evidence for each aspect of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, as they are presented in reliable sources. For instance, the first reference to the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Danube is a significant aspect of the Romanians' ethnogenesis. Almost all scholars who write of this subject mention facts that they regard as evidence for this specific aspect of the Romanians ethnogenesis. Borsoka (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Facts" are meaningless without the interpretation, without the context. Let's take a heavily contentious fact (the fact is not in doubt but there is still debate as to the context, the interpretation etc. Some say it was justified while other say it was not). Fact is that, for example, Hiroshima was subjected to a nuclear attack by the US. Is that enough? Of course not, it isn't. Especially when writing an article about WW2 in the Pacific, for example. This is what the article amounts to. A list of what you and other editors believe is a "neutral fact", not the scholars (who actually put it into a context and give meaning to it). As I have already given examples, it is NOT "as they are presented in reliable sources" since the sources mention, for example, that those "facts" are weighted, analysed and interpreted in the context of the "migration theory" or the "daco-roman continuity theory" or the "admigration theory".


 * I took me some time to respond because I wanted to re-study an important source... your "beloved" source, Lucian Boia's History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness. For example he mentions (quite telling - see the Chapter name?), in Chapter 2 (Origins) a certain context:


 * [...] Thus, choosing from among the multitude of possibilities, we might recognize as a founding event the Daco-Roman synthesis on the territory of Dacia, identified with the Romania of today [...].


 * That is an example (not the only one, mind you) of "context" that the source gives to the whole Chapter.


 * This source is mentioned several times in the article. Several "facts" (or rather statements) are taken out of Lucian Boia's History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness, thrown in for good measure in several places, yet missing the crucial context (see the example given above of what context means). the single "fact" that is given a context (which the source actually uses it as descriptive, an enumeration of a theory's assumptions rather than a validation or rebuttal of it - yet the article presents it rather as the source would support it, while the whole context of the statements actually goes into supporting another theory...) is this: "Scholars who support the immigrationist theory propose that the Romanians descended from the Romanized inhabitants of the provinces to the south of the Danube, which were under Roman rule for more than 500 years.".


 * Lucian Boia makes it quite clear that he himself considers that the "right" approach would be the "Admigration theory". An example of what the source thinks about that is this: "Onciul and Bogdan were not opponents of Romanian national identity and unity, nor were they advocates of the integration of Romania in the Slav space. Their model was the Western one, and they went so far as to apply this within the field of historical studies. Quite simply, they sought to separate the contemporary political project from the realities of the Middle Ages.".


 * Even more telling is the following excerpt:
 * With the launch of the immigrationist thesis in the late eighteenth century, in the works of Franz Joseph Sulzer and Johann Christian Engel, a major problem confronting Romanian historians was how to demonstrate Romanian continuity north of the Danube. But this was only a minimum requirement. To sustain the significance of Romanian history at a European level, something more than an affirmation of indigenous origins in terms of mere ethnic survival was called for. Thus, even while trying to combat immigrationism, Romanian historians were tempted to emphasize and amplify the phenomenon of Romanian presence south of the Danube, which was better attested in the sources and capable of being integrated into a greater history. First Şincai, and later Laurian, developed a theory according to which the Bulgarian tsardoms were in fact mixed Romanian-Bulgarian states, with the Romanian element even dominant in certain periods. In a manner which could, however unintentionally, serve immigrationist schemes, the center of gravity of Romanian history for over a millennium was shifted south of the Danube. The Romanians thus integrated themselves with greater history again and avoided the marginalization to which a withdrawal within the strictly defined space of ancient Dacia would have condemned them.


 * So there you have it. Lucian Boia's History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness is cited 6 times in the article. While he himself always gives context in the book (and he mentions all three of the theories) the editors presented only one of those "facts" in the a (not quite proper) context. Howeven, even when doing that, it is misleading since the author himself makes a descriptive enunciation rather than given a "verdict". Still, it's better than nothing I guess...


 * But let's assume that you'd be right and that somehow WP:NPOV meant that one cannot present a theory in a neutral point of view because there are scholar debates still within the proponents of the same theory. If so, and this would be the norm, Wikipedia might have to rewrite any article on Quantum Mechanics - as no matter the interpretations there are scholar debated even within the same currents. Or take the Big Bang Theory and Inflation. Inflation is still heatedly debated, and new counterarguments pop often. Using your weird interpretation of WP:NPOV it would mean that Wikipedia should only present a stub of the theory (Big Bang theory) because hey, the scholars that accept it argue about some of the details. Which is a fallacy. You interpret WP:NPOV in a way to fit your own views on the subject, not at all in the letter or spirit of the policy.


 * You fail you realize it but in academic circles it's actually a normal thing to have scholars debating certain aspects of a theory while at the same time accepting the theory (the global premises and conclusion). It actually means that the theory is healthy. Self criticism is essential, it is the first step towards the validation of a scientific theory and instead of making the theory "unreliable" - as you seem to think - it adds to the credibility. Because if the whole theory still stands even when certain details are still debated then it means that the weight of evidence (according to the scholars, not the editors) is, overall, in favor of the theory's interpretation. Again, this is NORMAL. And Wikipedia editors shouldn't take the place of academia and decide that there is more or less to the theory because of a misguided WP:NPOV interpretation, because some aspects of the theory are still debated. What Wikipedia editors could do is to present that debate within the theory (because this is where it makes sense).Cealicuca (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) The first section of the article is dedicated to the neutral presentation of the theories. I have suggested several times that typical arguments of each theory could be presented in the same section. (2) Could you refer to examples when Boia is not properly cited? If this were the case, it should be fixed. (3) How could you divide the facts presented in the article among the three theories if all facts are related to all theories and differences in their interpretations are independent of the theories? (4) How could you push scholars who are not connected to any of the theories into one of the theories? (4) I would be grateful if you could write shorter messages. Please, don't bludgeon the process. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) no comment here. (2) Will do so on the Talk page. (3) Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Do you mean to tell us that you asked a loaded question where you pre-established that "all facts are related to all theories and differences in their interpretations are independent of the theories" as being TRUE? (4) I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement. Do you mean that you structured the article to cover in a disproportionate way non-mainstream information in spite of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE? (5) Sure, i'll write shorter messages.Cealicuca (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) Could you refer to a single fact that is only connected to one of the theories? (4) No, I refer to a number of scholars who write about relevant aspects of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, but are not connected to any of the theories. For instance, as I mentioned above, the linguist Schulte writes that the Romanians developed from a bilingual population, but she is not connected to any of the theories. (5) Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) Sure. Here you go (just some examples).


 * In the 5th century BC, Herodotus was the first author to write a detailed account of the natives of south-eastern Europe. In connection with a Persian campaign in 514 BC, he mentions the Getae, which he called "the most courageous and upright Thracian tribe".Strabo wrote that the language of the Dacians was "the same as that of the Getae".
 * Literary tradition on the conquest of Dacia was preserved by 3-4 Roman scholars. Cassius Dio wrote that "numerous Dacians kept transferring their allegiance" to Emperor Trajan before he commenced his war against Decebal. Lucian of Samosata, Eutropius, and Julian the Apostate unanimously attest the memory of a "deliberate ethnic cleansing" that followed the fall of the Dacian state. For instance, Lucian of Samosata who cites Emperor Trajan's physician Criton of Heraclea states that the entire Dacian "people was reduced to forty men". In fact, Thracian or possibly Dacian names represent about 2% of the approximately 3,000 proper names known from "Dacia Traiana". Bitus, Dezibalos and other characteristic Dacian names were only recorded in the empire's other territories, including Egypt and Italy. Constantin Daicoviciu, Dumitru Protase, Dan Ruscu and other historians have debated the validity of the tradition of the Dacians' extermination. They state that it only refers to the men's fate or comes from Eutropius's writings to provide an acceptable explanation for the massive colonisation that followed the conquest. Indeed, Eutropius also reported that Emperor Trajan transferred to the new province "vast numbers of people from all over the Roman world". Onosmatic evidence substantiates his words: about 2,000 Latin, 420 Greek, 120 Illyrian, and 70 Celtic names are known from the Roman period.
 * (4) So if Schulte is not connected to any of the theories (that is mainstream academic/scientific theories that address the Origin of Romanians) then what is the relevance of the citation to the Origin of Romanians, and what is the WP:RS that establishes that relevance?
 * (+ new one - 5) could you please point us (properly cite) towards the specific Wikipedia policy where this concept of "neutral fact" that you seem to keep mentioning (and using as the basis for structuring an article) is defined? Thank you too.Cealicuca (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) Sorry, I do not understand your list. Do you claim those neutral statements are connected only to one of the theories? To which theory? (4) Do you really think Schulte's statement that the Romanians developed from a bilingual population is not connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis? Do you know the meaning of the word "ethnogenesis"? (The reliable source is the following: ). (5) Please read WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating facts as opinions" - we should clearly make a distinction between facts and their scholarly interpretation. You have been trying to distribute facts between opinions. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) First of all, "I not understand your list" seems almost bot-like and I find your approach ("sorry, I don't understand your ...") bothersome. I have (no-so-subtly) tried to show you (by using it to respond to you in my last couple of answers) that this deflection technique you employ so frequently is not constructive at all. Again you use "neutral statements". I again ask you to cite/point towards the specific WP:POLICY defining such term(s). (4) Don't try to deflect, I know the meaning of "ethnogenesis". Nevertheless, please explain what is the relevance, and who establishes that relevance of Schulte's statements in relation to the ethnogenesis of Romanians, especially since, as per your answer, she is not "connected" to any of the three mainstream theories. (5) I have been doing what? "You have been trying to distribute facts between opinions."? What does that even mean? Please back up your WP:CLAIMS.Cealicuca (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) If you cannot name the single theory to which the above statements are connected, how can you allocate the same statements to one of the theories? ["Neutral" is a well-known adjective, referring to anything that does not support or help either side in a conflict, disagreement . Consequently, we can use this adjective when referring to facts that neither support nor contradict any of the three concurring theories. I referred to the relevant WP policy - WP:NPOV - above under point (5). We cannot present facts as opinions. Furthermore, we cannot state that a neutral fact supports or contradicts any of the theories if we cannot verify this statement, as per WP:NOR.] (4) Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistics. Her statement is relevant, because she proposes that the Romanians' ancestors were among a bilingual population. Ethnogenesis can hardly be imagined without ancestors. (5) If you do not want to distribute the facts between theories, how do you want to restructure the article? Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3)
 * I have given multiple examples already on this. If I keep re-iterating them you complain of "long posts" (since showing that a particular statement is referring to a particular theory would mean me quoting it). I won't play this "game" of yours anymore. And you using google.hu to find out what "neutral" means doesn't mean that "neutral fact" is still an original concept.
 * Facts are facts. Fact is that there is time dilation near strong gravitational sources. Does it support Einstein's views? Yes it does. Is there something wrong about that? No. This is the normal process - academics use facts to support their theories. There is no such thing as the concept of "neutral facts" since facts, by themselves, facts cannot be anything but neutral. Facts don't "take sides" and thus they are useless unless put into context. This (neutral fact / statement) is a gimmik that you use to justify hat the article does not present the academic views on the subject AS THEY (those vies) ARE (stated by the sources) - facts along side their academic interpretations and context - thus breaching WP:NPOV and constituting actually WP:OR. You still haven't given us a quote from WP:POLICY where this "neutral fact / statement" is mentioned. If it's that easy and straightforward please cite the policy text that refers to it.
 * "Furthermore, we cannot state that a neutral fact supports or contradicts any of the theories if we cannot verify this statement, as per WP:NOR." - I beg your pardon? This is precisely the problem of the article. If a WP:RS mentions a fact as supporting argument for one or several theories (as shown in the examples I have given, the examples that you ignore, the examples I will not reiterate because you'll complain about posts being too long while at the same time ignoring them and asking for me to post examples...), we HAVE TO mention that, according to WP:NPOV. And no, we are not supposed to "verify" that a "fact" supports a theory or not, we only need to look at the source and reproduce, as close as possible, what the source says.
 * (4)
 * I do not dispute that Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistic. Nevertheless, why is it relevant towards HOW the ethnogenesys came to be (because I hope you do understand that since a people exist the question is not IF there is an ethnogenesis but rather HOW that ethnogenesis happened)? So - how is her statement (or the fact that Romanian's ancestors were among a bilingual population) related to the question of HOW. How does that statements fits into the picture of HOW the process (of ethnogenesis) unfolded? If it's that clear you should be able to articulate it easily. If it has any relevance whatsoever it must be able to describe the process of how Romanians came to be (ethnogenesys). The statement itself only gives a description of some people, not of a process.
 * (5)
 * First of all - your question is a leading one. It's not about "distributing facts among theories". We don't get to decide what goes into a theory (sources do that), how valid a theory is (sources do that) etc. Our job is to reflect what a WP:RS states about a particular subject, not to pick those statements apart and decide on their validity or if they support or contradict a specific theory. The mere fact that you seem to be hell-bent on separating "neutral facts" from their context breaks WP:NPOV.
 * The structure of the article - as I believe it should be according to WP:POLICY - would mean that a lot of those so-called "neutral facts" would either be integrated in their respective theories (according to what the sources say) or be removed entirely as per WP:DUE - that is if a statement/source (be it a WP:RS) falls outside any of the three mainstream theories (that is, according to your concept of "neutral facts", independent of any of the mainstream theories) then it certainly is breaking WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to have the article mostly "dedicated" to such elements (as it is right now). Again, any such "neutral facts", being independent (according to you that is) of any of the theories that describe the process (ethnogenesis) are, by themselves, not a description of the process (for which it seems you kinda need a theory...). Thus, they are irrelevant, simply because it's not a question of "IF" the Romanian people had an ethnogenesis but HOW that ethnogenesis unfolded.
 * I would bring an example right now of how important the context is and how you manage to skew what a WP:RS means simply by ripping the statements out of the context.
 * The number of frequently used words in Romanian of Slavic origin suggests that Daco-Romans and Slavs lived together for an extended period before the Romanian language had been fully formed and before the Slavs north of the Danube had been assimilated by the more numerous Daco-Romans. The Slavic element in Romanian was reinforced later by the expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire north of the Danube and across the Carpathians before and after the conversion of Tsar Boris to Christianity in AD 864. It was the form of Slavic brought by the Bulgarians, that is, Medio-Bulgarian, based on the language spoken around Salonika in the ninth century that was the source of numerous Slavic words in Romanian relating to church life, ritual, and the hierarchy.
 * The text above is from A Concise History of Romania (Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press) - Keith Hitchins / ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 (hardback) 978-0-521-69413-1 (pbk), p. 16 / Chapter "Continuity".
 * It is a tertiary source - a kind of source that "sums up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources". Pretty good one. Cambridge University. WP:RS I'd say, right?
 * The quoted text is in support of one of the theories (not according to me, but according to the source) - without the source needing to specify that for each and every sentence (or statement). Relevant to that is the fact that the chapter is called "Continuity" and the context (Slavs north of the Danube being assimilated by Daco-Romans implies that the Daco-Romans were already living north of the Danube at the time of this assimilation; the expansion of the Bulgarian Empire north of the Danube reinforcing the Slavic element in Romanian implies the the people speaking Romanian were living north of the Danube at the moment of the expansion etc.). So the context matters. A lot.
 * If we take each statement by itself - of course, the WP:RS does not specify support for one or another theory in each and every statement. Yet all those statements are made in the context of a specific theory.
 * Questions: Care to tell us how your "neutral facts" should take precedence before such sources? Or how, for example, why the not-yet-established-relevance of Schulte's "independent" observation should be in the article at all? If it's truly "independent" it means that the academics have not deemed it relevant/important enough to the question of "how" (since the "if" is irrelevant) or otherwise it would be included in one of the theories (no longer "independent") - so isn't including it in an article that should explain the "how" means that the editors has "taken" upon himself/herself to answer the "how" questions - thus constituting WP:OR? What gives us the right to seek answers to a question that the academia already answers (multiple answers, maybe even diverging - true. But it matters not) by using what seems to us is relevant to that question?Cealicuca (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (3) You have not named the theory which is exclusively supported by the statements you quoted from the article, although you claimed that these statements support only one of the theories . If you cannot name the theory, let the administrators close this debate. (4) Schulte's statement describes one of the many phrases of the Romanians' ethnogenesis: the Romanians' ancestors formed a population with strong bilingual elements. (5) You have not been able to mention a single fact from the article which exclusively supports one of the theories. Consequently, your whole argumentation is baseless. Your reference to the historian Hitchins proves that the same facts are interpreted differently by different scholars. Most linguists agree that most Slavic loanwords were adopted by the Romanians' ancestors after around 850 (I can refer, for instance, to ). If you distribute facts between theories, how can you secure the neutral presentation of concurring scholarly POVs about the same facts? (+1) If you are unable to provide a fact from the article which is exclusively related to one of the theories, I stop debating this issue with you. Sorry, I do not have time to read your long texts. Please, don't bludgeon the process. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are some of the examples already given. Note that they are taken directly from the article.
 * (1)* As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century. - This statement is made near the beginning of Chapter IV, Subchapter 5 (source). The author considers it as a sort of cliche (not refuting it though), and then goes on to explore other explanations as well, in the context of the continuity theory. So the whole statement is entirely misleading, as presented in the article, because the context (according to the WP:RS) is the continuity theory, the statement being a supporting argument (according to the source).
 * You responded to the examples with "(i) sentence i.: it contains a neutral fact that does not contradict or strengthen any of the theories;" - So the source itself states that what is quoted in the article is in the context of a theory but you dismiss it as a "neutral fact" and be done with it. So the article presents your take on the statement, instead of what the source mentions. WP:SYN / WP:OR
 * (2)* [...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated "near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...] - This statement is only a small part of a chapter-wide analysis, weirdly enough the article contains more than just this statement form the same source but without the conclusion. The WP:RS ends this analysis with the following: "In conclusion, the Slavic and Hungarian historical traditions (the latter expressed by the Gestae written by the Anonymous Notary and Simon of Keza) certified the presence of the Romanians in Pannonia, before the Hungarian conquest.", thus considering the subject of the whole book, this is simply and argument for the continuity theory according to the source.
 * You continue, for the second example, with "[...] actually, the article presents the facts as you proposed, mentioning the tradition [...]" which is again a fallacy simply because the source (again, the source from the article, the WP:RS used for that particular statement) actually states that as a supportive argument for a specific theory. I didn't say that the "facts" are not presented correctly (say the citations are incorrect). I said that the source presents the statements in the context of the Continuity theory while the article does not. Again, what has been done with the statement given as an example, in the article, falls under WP:SYN / WP:OR.
 * (3) "Your reference to the historian Hitchins proves that the same facts are interpreted differently by different scholars." - I am sorry, did you just equate your opinion on what "most linguist" say about the issue with Hitchins?And moreover, it does NOT matter if the same fact is interpreted different by historians. Why do you insist on disregarding the mainstream theories (and the interpretation that those theories give to facts) and adopt an original synthesis?
 * (4) "If you distribute facts between theories, how can you secure the neutral presentation of concurring scholarly POVs about the same facts?" - By presenting the POV's (in our case theories) as they are argumented by the academia.
 * Questions (some have already been asked yet you did not answer):
 * (5)*Please quote/cite WP:POLICY where "neutral fact" is mentiond, as well as explain what is the difference between a "neutral fact", a "fact" and a "non-neutral fact". Care to tell us how your "neutral facts" should take precedence before what a source says (presumably "non-neutral facts" since the sources use "facts" to support a theory or refute theories)?
 * (6)*I do not dispute that Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistic. Nevertheless, why is it relevant towards HOW the ethnogenesys came to be (because I hope you do understand that since a people exist the question is not IF there is an ethnogenesis but rather HOW that ethnogenesis happened)? How is Schulte's statement (or the fact that Romanian's ancestors were among a bilingual population) related to the question of HOW. How does that statements fits into the picture of HOW the process (of ethnogenesis) unfolded? If it's that clear you should be able to articulate it easily. If it has any relevance whatsoever it must be able to describe the process of how Romanians came to be (ethnogenesys). The statement itself only gives a description of some people, not of a process.
 * Or how, for example, why the not-yet-established-relevance of Schulte's "independent" observation should be in the article at all? If it's truly "independent" it means that the academics have not deemed it relevant/important enough to the question of "how" the ethnogenesis of Romanians unfolded (since the "if" is a non-problem) or otherwise it would be included in one of the theories (no longer "independent") - so isn't including it in an article that should explain the "how" means that the editors has "taken" upon himself/herself to answer the "how" questions - thus constituting WP:OR? What gives us the right to seek answers to a question that the academia already answers (multiple answers, maybe even diverging - true. But it matters not) by using what seems to us is relevant to that question?
 * (7)*Could you tell us based on what criteria you determine that one "neutral fact" or another is relevant to the Origin of Romanians, and what is that relevance?
 * (8) *Could you explain to us why would an article dedicate most of it's content to sources presenting a non-mainstream PoV, in spite of WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE (Let's presume you are right, and that "most" sources in the article do not support one or another mainstream theory - reductio ad absurdum) Cealicuca (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * [I added numbers to your lengthy message] (1) The same statement (the Romanians are not mentioned in historical sources before the 10th century) is a common place in scholarly works dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. (For instance, *; *) How could we present the "context" (your wording) of this statement from all referred scholarly works? Why should we present the "context" if this is a fact which neither support nor contradict any of the theories (that is, it is a neutral fact). Or can you name a scholar who uses this fact as argumentation in favor of or against any of the theories? Or do you claim, only Madgearu's "context" should be presented? Based on which WP policy? (2) Again, Kekaumenos' reference to the Vlachs' homeland to the south of the Danube is a common place in the relevant literature (I will not refer to specific books, because almost all the books written by historians cited in the article mention this). Of course, we can add that according to certain historians, this is an evidence for the Romanians' continuous presence in the lands to the north of the Danube. However, in this case, we should also mention that other scholars regard it as a clear evidence of the Romanians' Balkan homeland, as per WP:NPOV. Is this an acceptable compromise for you? (3) and (8) Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "mainstream theories"? Please quote a single fact or statement from the article which is not mainstream, because it should be deleted. (4) You again claim that there is a more or less uniform set of continuity arguments and a more or less uniform set of immigrationist argumentation. Based on which works would you describe these uniform sets? How can you secure that different scholarly interpretations of the same facts are properly presented? How can you decide whether an argument supports, for instance, the continuity theory, if other scholars say that it contradicts it, or if other "continuity" scholars denies its relevance. (I refer to the literary tradition of the extermination of Dacians, the reliability of which is denied both by "continuity scholars" and by immigrationist scholars.)  (5) Neutral fact is a fact which neither supports nor contradicts a theory. I referred above WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We cannot pretend that a fact supports a theory or contradicts it, if the same fact is referred to scholars both in favor and against a theory. (6) Please read my answer above: according to Schulte (and also according to other scholars) there was a phase of the Romanians' ethnogenesis when the Romanians' ancestors were mainly bilingual. If you do not understand the relevance of this statement you do not understand the meaning of ethnogenesis. I will not comment on this issue. Please initiate a separate debate on it. (7) Based on reliable sources, as I have hundreds of times explained it to you. (+1) You have not named the theory which is exclusively supported by the statements you quoted from the article, although you claimed that these statements support only one of the theories . If you cannot name the theory, let the administrators close this debate. Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you have the decency of formating your own statements?
 * (1) "How could we present the "context" (your wording) of this statement from all referred scholarly works?" OH wait, I didn't realize Wikipedia is supposed to cater to your WP:OR, or your original concepts, or your original interpretation of WP:RULES. You present ALL the context, this is how you do it. Even if it is contradictory (duh!). WP:NPOV actually gives examples of how to do it. What you are doing is coming into direct conflict with WP:FALSEBALANCE and a whole slew of other WP:RULES. See here the example:


 * *Handling conflicting sources
 * *In many cases, when two (or more) reliable sources conflict, one (or more) of those sources can be demonstrated to be unreliable. Additionally, in the case of subjects about which the general or academic consensus has changed, the older work should be clearly distinguished as such, and should be used primarily to show the historical development of the subject. Be aware that sometimes older works are re-published with very minor changes making their statements seem newer than they really are.


 * *If the conflict cannot be resolved by demonstrating the conflicting source(s) to be unreliable, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include both. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. Instead the article should contain a mention that different information exists.


 * *Of course, if the matter concerning which the sources differ is of at best marginal encyclopedic interest and reporting on several views may lead to giving it undue prominence, then a reasonable approach is to omit it entirely.


 * So if a source says A (statement A) and that A supports theory X, and another source says that A supports theory Z (or that A doesn't, according to the source, support theory X) you think it's OK to just leave out the references to theory X or Z and start building a theory of your own?


 * (2) Nice WP:SYNTH. Are you trying to justify the misrepresentation of sources by offering us your own original research? Or your opinions?
 * (3) Oh, so now those are mainstream statements? Then how come they are not presented in the context of the mainstream theories? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the statements are mainstream then they should be included in one of the 3 mainstream theories. If they are not, then according to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT or even WP:FRINGE an article should not be "dedicated" to non-mainstream views.
 * (3) I am sorry that you cannot understand. The article precisely defines what the mainstream theories are. Are you having trouble with that?
 * (5) Ok, so you say. Cite the WP:NPOV part that deal with "neutral facts" (that allows you to neuter what sources say).
 * (6) So what if they were bilingual? What is the relevance of that? If it's that obvious you should be able to articulate it. Or will you continue with your "Sorry, I don't understand" excuse?
 * (7) Case to provide a reliable source that defines what a "neutral fact" is?
 * (+1) But I have. The citation is attributed to a specific source (according to the article), and as I have given the example - that source makes that statement (as it is cited in the article) in support of a theory.Cealicuca (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) You are referring to conflicting interpretations about a neutral fact (the lack of Romanians in written sources before the 10th century), but you have not mentioned a single scholar who uses this fact as an argument in favor of or against any of the theories. If there is no debate we do not need to pretend that a debate exists. (2) If my understanding is correct, you say you do not accept the compromise. (3) If my understanding is correct you cannot quote a single non-maintain statement from the article. If this is the case, we can close this issue. If not, please quote one. (5) I quoted above: "facts cannot be presented as opinions". (6) Please seek advice on this issue from other editors. I see you are unable to understand the concept of ethnogenesis. (7) We do not need to define well known adjectives. (+1) You have not named the theory to which the statements are exclusively connected to. Why did you suggest that you could name it? Sorry, I abandon this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) I have repeatedly asked, and you repeatedly ignored it with grace or generic "Sorry, I don't understand your statement" to provide a direct quotation from WP:POLICY that defines this "neutral fact" you keep on using as a cornerstone of your argumentation. Moreover, care to explain what is the difference between a poor old "fact" and the new improved "neutral fact"?
 * (2) Wait, you offered a compromise? Yes, I accept the compromise as long as it's properly discussed on the Talk page (just to make sure all the "commonly accepted" things are, well... "commonly accepted"). Do you agree?
 * (3) Ah, so is it "independent" or part of the "mainstream". Because you argue both. It's either that or the other. I gave plenty of quotes - you just have to scroll up. Plus, why should I do that when then you'll simply ignore (like you did the rest) and complain about "long posts"?
 * (5) No, again. We already both agree on "facts cannot be present as opinions". What I said (and gave example as to it) is that the article contains statements made by different sources that do not accurately present the source's opinion on the matter. I never said to present a source's opinion as fact. In any case, you keep on arguing that somehow presenting accurately what the sources say is breaking WP:NPOV and keep bringing into discussion this weird term "neutral facts" (weird because a fact is a fact. "The Sun is a star" is a fact. It can't be neutral or otherwise. And if we would have an article about the Sun and we would have two opposite, non-fringe WP:RS that said that the Sun is a fourth generation star or a third generation star respectively, by your logic we should say that both sources mention that the Sun is a star and that's it... because "neutral facts").
 * (6) So you're unable to articulate what the relevance is, right? Thank you very much for your advice, I am aware of what "ethnogenesys" means. Unfortunately the article deals with the three mainstream theories that describe HOW the ethnogenesys came to be. It should not be a collection of what the editors think (or are even unable to articulate) is relevant, but what WP:RS state is relevant in the context of those three mainstream theories (or otherwise it would break WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT or would be WP:FRINGE.
 * (7) Such a well known adjective that you're the about the only person ever to mention it. So much so that even Google can't seem to be able to find (the closest is the process of neutral fact-finding, which is something else entirely).
 * (+1) I gave examples. "As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century." (Madgearu 1997) and "[...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...]" (Madgearu 2005). Both of those statements, as per the sources cited in the article (and not some original syntheses of one or another Wikipedia editor) are made in the context (supporting argument) for the continuity theory. There are several examples too of statements made by WP:RS, as per the sources cited in the article (and not some original syntheses of one or another Wikipedia editor) that are related exclusively to the immigration theory (for good measure). But it doesn't matter, does it? Because "neutral facts" right?Cealicuca (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

→*Closing argument - I fully realize that this has blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, to conclude this, I would like to add to all that has been said already what moderating editors also had to say about this article, some being very recent observations... if I'm crazy, it seems I'm not the only one.
 * How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
 * An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
 * An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
 * How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
 * Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
 * Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...] Cealicuca (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And you have not been able to demonstrate (1) how could you distribute facts among theories if those facts are differently interpreted by scholars who accept the same theory; (2) how could you secure the neutral presentations of the concurring interpretations of the same facts if those facts are distributed among the theories. This was my closing remark. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the editor who initiated the debate the article of "Origin of the Romanians" is in its ruins now. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Criticism within Israeli law in the West Bank settlements
There has been a dispute over whether it is appropriate to include criticism within the article Israeli law in the West Bank settlements. The disputed sentences are both sourced to Haaretz, Israel’s primary left-wing newspaper:
 * The term has been reported by Haaretz legal analyst Moshe Gorali[19] to be an alternative to the term "apartheid".[20][21][22] (diff)
 * In June 2018, Israeli newspaper Haaretz described the continued application of Knesset laws to West Bank settlements as "a creeping legal annexation of the occupied territories", stating that it considers the strategy will be counterproductive in that it will "no longer be possible to launder Israeli reality".[15] (diff)

These are both critical of Israel - the first is a legal analyst using the word “apartheid” and the second is a Lead Editorial making reference to “launder Israeli reality”.

Views would be appreciated on whether this type of commentary is due or undue.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am object the use of two sources here


 * Cook, Jonathan (4 April 2013). Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair. Zed Books Ltd. pp. 46–. ISBN 978-1-84813-649-6.
 * Halper, Jeff (20 February 2008). An Israeli in Palestine: resisting dispossession, redeeming Israel. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2227-8.
 * This sources are not by experts were published by fringe publishing houses could not give enough due weight to Gorali opinion. --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The wider question here is whether we stick to academic level source, which are not lacking - and several (probably most) share Haaretz's POV (or leftwards) - or do we introduce op-eds and polemics (which can be found for all sides of the debate)?Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Jonathan Cook is an established expert per WP:RS, having been published on the topic by such publishers as Stanford University Press, The Guardian (both opinion and analysis) and Palgrave Macmillan.  nableezy  - 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV title: Genesis flood myth.
See this move request discussion I started here:. jps (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

== RfC: Should "Tattoo medical issues" be renamed to "Medical issues of tattooing" or "Health effects of tattoos"? ==

See RfC on talk page: Should this page be renamed from "Tattoo medical issues" to "Medical issues of tattooing" or "Health effects of tattoos"?

The reasons include POV, style, and conventions. Thanks!!-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Concern about a DYK hook
Please see discussion here, which pertains to NPOV:


 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know

The article in question is Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC Template:United Kingdom in the European Union
There is an RfC regarding the removal of the second vote section. Comments welcome Template talk:United Kingdom in the European Union. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

NPOV issue in the Harm Reduction section of the Needle exchange programme article
Hi, I'm new to editing Wikipedia so apologies if I'm not meeting protocol in some way but I have some concerns regarding NPOV with the section called "Harm Reduction" in the article Needle exchange programme. Here is the paragraph that seems egregiously non-neutral to me:

"Harm reduction begins with the assumption that it is not reasonable to assume that individuals make healthy decisions. Advocates hold that those trapped in dangerous behaviors are often unable and/or unwilling to break free of them, and should at least be enabled to continue these behaviors in a less harmful manner.[6] A tendency in the medical profession has been to treat drug dependency as a chronic illness like diabetes, hypertension and asthma, to be treated, evaluated and even insured in like manner.[7][8] Treating drug dependency as an illness absolves drug users of responsibility for their condition.[9]"

I brought this up a few months ago on the talk page, specifically noting that the article cited to demonstrate the last sentence as a statement of fact, rather than as a subjective, partisan opinion on the subject, was a policy institute with an explicit agenda; that conversation was here, at the very bottom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Needle_exchange_programme/Archive_2 The reference for that last sentence was changed to the Hoover Institute, which is another think-tank; research papers from think tanks are obviously fine to use as references, but you can't simply state the opinion of the think tank as fact without breaking NPOV in a very obvious and jarring way!

As you can see, it's been a contentious article! I understand that this is something many people have very different opinions on this, but there needs to be a clearer line between opinion and the article's neutral viewpoint. I don't think I have the editing experience to do much about this, so I'm hoping some of you can school me on what to do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floatargen (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. That whole section could be improved to more accurately reflect the distinction between opinion and fact, but I think that sentence in particular is obviously not something we can state plainly in Wikipedia's voice. I will remove it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Warning
Hello again, Now I have not left a reply for a while as I was not very happy about the warning you gave me. I do try my best here and the warning you gave me I feel like was and still is unacceptable, I don't randomly change the summaries for no reason, if you have not noticed I do read the final reports so I am not happy with the other person stating that I'm 'making a mess'. I have learning difficulties so please understand that or at least make a note of that on my profile.

All I got was just a warning and that's it, you didn't try to help me or anything and I feel like you made me feel unwelcome here, obviously you haven't read my profile to find that I have learning difficulties which again shows you rushed the warning without even having the time to have a look at my profile to see who you're handing the warning out to. With all due respect If I ever need assistance I'm sorry to say I won't go to you after the unfortunate distress you gave me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrbitalEnd48401 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran
People's Mujahedin of Iran has some rather strange edit-warring going on - with some WP:RS/N discussions being strangely interpreted - including a removal of The Christian Science Monitor and other "generally recognized reliable sources" being removed on a wholesale basis, with possibly an attempt to add a POV to the article. is the latest, where a fairly neutral comment from a UK Parliamentary report is removed and "According to the MEK, over 100,000 of its members have been killed and 150,000 imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran" as a phrasing example. shows one of the wholesale removals, with lots of "citation needed" notes of shame added. There is clearly an animus (possible several opposing ones, in fact) at work on the article, and eyes from those willing to sort out the chaff would likely help. I just fear that removing Reuters and the like as "unreliable" tends not to promote a neutral point of view at all. And the article is too long by half - but my edits would likely really stoke flames. See also several discussions at WP:RS/N  Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)
Evans has recently been involved in what the Washington Post and pretty much all the other local media outlets in D.C. are characterizing as a major scandal (see, , etc.), and some editors have been trying to add additional information about the scandal to his page. However, to do so would require overturning a consensus to only briefly mention the scandal, which was reached before as many elements of the scandal were known. Most of the editors participating in the discussion (including Evans himself, who is an editor) have been involved with the disputes on the page going way back, and they are (somewhat reasonably) asking others who want to jump in to go through all the history of the discussion, but since few are willing to do so, this has essentially had the effect of limiting the discussion to only a small circle. The discussion could use some more attention from uninvolved editors willing to familiarize themselves with the situation and then offer comment. - Sdkb (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First, thanks to Sdkb for a neutrally stated, un-inflammatory request. This particular episode was the subject of a BLPN posting in August, archived here.  A discussion ensued, archived beginning here, and spilling (after some intervening discussion) in the subsequent archived section as well.  Rather than me try to summarize the issues and their resolution at that time, I would simply encourage any newly-arriving editor to review the material.  I'd add though that the only element of the scandal that wasn't known in August, which is known now, was captured in a recent Washington Post article from a week or so ago, linked above.  A Talk page discussion was immediately begun in order to see if the prior consensus should be revisited.  That discussion begins here.  Finally, while not essential to the immediate matter, I think it would assist the disinterested editor to understand that the page has, over the years, been subject to a lot of push and pull from parties with one or another axe to grind, including Evans himself (who, as a condition of having his most recent block lifted, has pledged to stop editing the page directly).  A different, 2015, BLPN posting is illustrative.  This is all reflected on in the Talk page archives.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)