Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the neutral point of view noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
  • Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.
  • State the article being discussed; for example, [[article name]].
  • Include diffs to the specific change being proposed; paste text here.
  • Concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question.
  • Keep in mind that neutrality is often dependent upon context.
  • It helps others to respond to questions if you follow this format.
Sections older than 21 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes:
Search this noticeboard & archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73

"Rule" versus "Occupation" in articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict[edit]

A question was brought to the fore on the Village Pump (see: QUESTION) where we had asked about the propriety of having two different distinctions for Israel and Jordan when it comes to their conquest of the West Bank, the one (Jordan) in 1948, and the other (Israel) in 1967, and where the one (Jordan) is universally referred to in Wikipedia articles as "rule over the West Bank," whereas the other (Israel) is referred to as "occupation of the West Bank." The reply given to us is that Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... it merely chronicles what reliable sources say about a topic," and that 'occupation' is the term that is "used in the real world... by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources."

So, if we cannot expunge the fact that in the real world they do, indeed, use the term "occupation" with respect to Israel's hold of these territories, can we at least add as a supplement the lesser known view (as held by the majority here, in Israel, and even by the current government) that the Israeli government objects to its being labeled as "occupier" in the traditional sense, due to the absence of prior sovereignty? I call your attention to the following articles published by JSTOR, see: Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?, and The Need for Fundamental Change in the Law of Belligerent Occupation. In order to give a more neutral point of view - without expunging the word "occupation," is it permitted for editors in articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to write in the sub-section "Post-1967" in pages such as Jab'a, Khirbet Beit Zakariyyah, Husan, Battir, Nahalin, Beit Fajjar, Beit Ummar, Tuqu', Nablus, Beitin, As-Sawiya, Beit Iba, al-Khader, Burin, Nablus, Jenin, al-Eizariya, etc., etc., etc., that "such-and-such a town is under Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty"? (emphasis mine, according to page 46, of article Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"?). We have already seen its precedence in the past, where arbitrators have agreed on a neutral wording with respect to Israeli settlements in the West Bank (See text here). Perhaps another way of preserving WP:NPOV would be to add after the word "occupation" the following: "While Israel's Supreme Court has labeled Israel's presence in the West Bank as 'belligerent occupation,' many in Israel dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes... stating that Israel objects to the term "Occupation" (supported by reliable sources where they express their opposition, obviously) is a legitimate balancing of opinions and within the scope of NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 2 cents - 100 years from now (however this turns out - e.g. also if Israel were to retreat tomorrow) sources will probably use "rule" for the 50 odd (and still counting) Israeli rule/occupation period (and the same goes for Morocco and South Sahara, etc.). However, sources (and Wikipedia as well) tend to suffer from recentism and apply the present tense POV label. Wikipedia, follows the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no...and Davidbena is forum shopping here, he raised the same issue over at here, having gotten no support there, he comes here. I will not repeat the arguments agains it, pleople can read there. Read also this BBC overview, Huldra (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Huldra, with no offense, the question posed on the Village Pump (which I've already pointed out in my opening statement here) had more to do with policy, in which they replied that the preponderance of reliable sources must be mentioned as a first. The question here is different, and has more to do with also mentioning the lesser known disputed view (namely, that held by many Israelis), as a legitimate balancing of opinions and within the scope of NPOV. In this regard, it does not differ from what we've seen with regard to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and where two diametrically opposed opinions are mentioned.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sigh, even the JSTOR articles you bring up to allegedly support, don't actually do that. Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"? ...yes, you might question it, but it does not change the fact that is is still called an occupation. Huldra (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. I think that you missed the point. The world does, indeed, call it an "occupation", but, according to many Israeli scholars, the premise behind the term "occupation" with respect to Israel is wrongly based. That is the second opinion that we wish to point out in these articles, to give them more balance.Davidbena (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said, even the sources you mention place a question mark. To include it would be widely WP:UNDUE, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Huldra, the author of the article, Why Is Israel's Presence in the Territories Still Called "Occupation"? (pp. 40–41), clearly points out the following distinction (from Israel's perspective), which does not make it undue, but rather a view that should also be brought-up under the aegis of WP:NPOV: "...The term 'occupation' is also employed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to advance the argument that Israel bears ultimate responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians, while limiting or denying Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian terror, and relieving the Palestinian side of responsibility for its own actions and their consequences. The term is also employed as part of a general assault upon Israel's legitimacy, in the context of a geopolitical narrative that has little to do with Israel's status as an occupier under international law."Davidbena (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
A reminder that in WP:UNDUE, we read: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."Davidbena (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Some evidence would be required that the article cited represents a significant viewpoint of some prominence, rather than simple and gratuitous apologetics. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the way that we can do that is to cite other Israeli academic sources as references and which uphold and maintain the same viewpoint, such as Dore Gold.[1] These sources can be placed as references after the general claim that many Israelis dispute the view that it illegally occupies territories in the West Bank. -- Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gold, Dore (16 January 2002). "From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Israeli Security, Regional Diplomacy, and International Law). Retrieved 30 June 2017. 
  • Wikilink "occupation" or "occupied" to Israeli-occupied territories and add opposing points of view there if they are not adequately represented. A tiny minority POV is not very relevant and doesn't need to be repeated everywhere a commonly used term appears. It'd be like adding "But some people dispute that the earth is round" every time the word "globe" appears. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No We need to follow what sources say rather than present our own opinions. The circumstances of Jordan's annexation of the West Bank differ from Israel's occupation and both differ from the previous British administration of the territory. But it is not up to us to analyze those differences and determine what they should be called. Incidentally, occupation is a neutral term. There's an article about Allied-occupied Germany for example. It merely means that the territory is held by military force before formal annexation or relinquishment. TFD (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree that the word "occupation" has dual meanings, and can be used in a neutral connotation, as in "the Allied occupation of Germany." With Israel, however, it is used entirely negatively. Our appeal to this Noticeboard is that we be permitted to use the word "occupation," just as the international community has applied the term to Israel's hold of the West Bank, but that we also cite a reference to the fact that many in Israel disagree with that determination. This, mind you, we seek to do only for bringing a more neutral tone to our articles.Davidbena (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
      • And you want to insert this right after every mention of "Israeli occupation" on Wikipedia? You're kidding. Minority POVs are not given so much weight that they appear everywhere a term they disagree with does. Discussion of the Israeli POV belongs in Israeli-occupied territories and any other general articles on the topic, and only with due weight to reflect that most of the world disagrees on how to phrase it. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Despite the claims, the official position of Israel is that the West Bank is held under Belligerent Occupation. That is what the High Court of Israel has ruled on many occasions, and that is what the Israeli government uses as the legal basis for its rule there, including when it is arguing before the High Court. It is true that politicians of the Israeli right wing like to make public statements to the contrary, and it is also true that professional propagandists like Dore Gold make a career out of preparing the world for annexation by Israel. But we should never present that point of view as if it is the official Israeli position, because it isn't. It is not even the uniform Israeli public position unless you ignore the large factions in Israeli politics and public life that call it "occupation" every day. One of the great victories of the Israeli right wing is that the phrase "pro-Israel" has come to mean "pro-Israeli-right-wing", including here on Wikipedia. It is a con and we shouldn't be taken in by it. Zerotalk 02:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
First, in answer to DIYeditor's question, I am only asking to say both: "While Israel's Supreme Court has labeled Israel's presence in the West Bank as 'belligerent occupation,' many in Israel dispute the notion of occupation, on grounds of its presence in the country before 1948." Specifically, I'm asking permission to say this in the sub-section entitled "Post-1967" in articles treating on those Arab-villages named by me above, and those with similar sub-sections, where the village is always listed there as being under "Israeli occupation," and where in the sub-section entitled "Jordanian era" the same village is described as being under "Jordanian rule" (a clear POV distinction). I do believe that editors on Wikipedia should be passionate about what they do here, and since this falls under the scope of WP:NPOV the suggestion should not be seen as frivolous, strange or unusual. In fact, it is similar to what we've seen with respect to Israeli settlements in the West Bank here. In my humble opinion, this would bring a semblance of balance to our otherwise good articles.Davidbena (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not relevant to the village articles. This is termed "occupation" by almost everyone. Put the POV of some (or "many") Israelis in Israeli-occupied territories and link that article if you want. Don't cram minority POV into articles that aren't directly related to that POV. Like I said, flat earth theory belongs in its relevant article, not everywhere there is a mention of "globe". How does it help someone reading an article about an Arab village to know that, contrary to what almost everyone in the world says, some Israelis don't like the term "occupation"? —DIYeditor (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Unlike the "flat earth theory," this is a real issue that will be around for a long time, a contentious issue though it is, but worthy of our mentioning in brief that, in Israel, the view is contested. Again, we will say that the village is under "Israeli occupation," but an alternative edit after establishing the international community's view on this subject is to add - if there's consensus to do so - that "such-and-such a town is under Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty." This statement is very terse and incorporates complete balance in a most subtle way. The words "in the absence of prior sovereignty" will include several references, and which fact, by the way, is not disputed by anybody. It is not a minority POV claim as you have surmised to say. It simply adds balance to the articles named.Davidbena (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean being mean giving equal balance to differing views but providing greater weight to majority views. Since the world described Jordan's control of the West Bank as rule and Israel's as occupation, Wikipedia should as well. In fact, as I pointed out, the circumstances are different. Jordan formally annexed the West Bank, Israel has not. TFD (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we are aware of de jure annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, while Israel has chosen de facto annexation[1] which precludes any formal declarations. But this is irrelevant, since even in Jordan's case, annexation of the West Bank was considered illegal by the international community,[2] with only Great Britain, Iraq and Pakistan recognising it. The United States and the Arab states did not acknowledge the annexation. See The United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, by Sandra Berliant Kadosh, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1984), Indiana University Press.
In any case, the non-expressed reason for the use of "Jordanian rule" in the sub-section Jordanian era in those articles as opposed to "Jordanian occupation," was to disassociate the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from the so-called Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank. This is unfair and not in keeping with WP:NPOV. While we CANNOT disassociate Israel's presence in the West Bank from being an "occupation" (based on Village Pump policy), we can at least add the distinction that the aforementioned villages in the West Bank are under "Israeli occupation in the absence of prior sovereignty."Davidbena (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Aeyal M. Gross, "Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperor's New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation?", pub. in: European Journal of International Law (1 February 2007), who says that, in his view, Israel's presence in territories captured from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War "appears more like a de facto annexation than occupation as anticipated in international law."
  2. ^ Benvenisti, Eyal (2012). The International Law of Occupation. Oxford University Press. p. 204.
  • Yes to wikilink: I think the sensible, balanced way to present the various views is to wikilink the occupation terms made in various articles, to another article that can better unpack the subject, for example in Israeli-occupied territories, as DIYeditor wisely suggested. In that article, if not already, various points of view can be laid out, giving the due weight according to their prominence.(talk) user:Al83tito 16:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No the bulk of sources call it a state of occupation; the UN calls it an occupation; and the Supreme Court of Israel calls it an occupation. Just because some small group does not like the term and want to play semantic games, which do not appear to have received any traction in national or international courts or even legitimacy beyond their own intellectual circle, is not a reason to give that view prominence here. Jbh Talk 17:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    Technically the Israeli Supreme Court has not made such a ruling. The court does recognize that the Israeli authorities have chosen to apply the Geneva convention of their own accord, and that this has created a continuing legal framework (due to continuity). Some polemic pieces, that tend to not understand the Israeli rulings, misrepresent this - however this does not really matter either way.Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 2 cents - I note that not only 'occupied' is used on Wikipedia, but I often see 'illegally occupied' and such. I'm familiar with the view, reiterated above, that every single legal institution (humor me) concerned with international law defines the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 as in a state of belligerent occupation. However, nevertheless, there is an argument to be made, that occupation means the taking of land from a recognized legal owner. Israel took the West Bank from the Kingdom of Jordan, who was illegally occupying the land herself. The technical details of how Jordan came to occupy the West Bank and why it was illegal, are a bit complicated, but the illegality is a fact. Jordan attacked Israel during the 1967 war and Israel's response was to push the Jordanian army back beyond the Jordan river. A state called “Palestine” has never existed within any borders. While I am at it, when it comes to this issue, I have a doubt about throwing the term 'the international community' around like this: 'The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.' -- that's from the 'West Bank' wiki article. I note that apparently, the United States is not part of 'the international community'. Perhaps this seems a quibble? What is 'the international community' to you? Something like the countries of the world considered collectively? Who is the International Community? There is a wiki article on this, of course, and I quote this thought: 'The term is commonly used to imply legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue.' And okay, I wonder what is the position of 'the international community' on the Iran deal, for example? A rhetorical question, though I hint that I am gathering the impression that on Wikipedia, the United States is being edged out of the international community. I think the issue of what is the international community has great merit, and also seems relevant, but getting back to the west bank, I suppose that of course there is 'Israeli control of the West Bank'. And this means, military administration of a territory full of Palestinians who aren't exactly excited about living under Israeli authority. I note a decision by the US State Department to drop the term “occupied” in a report referring to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights, when the US State Department released its annual report on human rights violations around the world. Whereas previous iterations of the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices had a section on “Israel and the Occupied Territories,” this year’s document refers instead to “Israel, Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza.” I am not sure whether we are supposed to 'care' about what the State Department hopes these reports will help other governments and civil society activists to reflect on. However, I am providing the reference. With an apology, as I know my comments are lengthy, and as it seems to me, stridently out of sync with established Wikipedia policy on this Israel/Palestine issue. I intent to relent, but here's that link:
https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/
DanLanglois (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Wikipedia’s role is to inform, not politicise. Nor is its role to be a trailblazer by applying fringe caveats such as, "in the absence of prior sovereignty", which show 3 results under Google search. Attempts to add such comments to articles here reek of propaganda. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Classical liberalism[edit]

There's a fair amount of POV-pushing (WP:OR/WP:SYNTH) going on there, claiming it's responsable for a famine (which is equivocated to genocide). Can I please get a few eyes on this? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I thought I'd check this out, the article says this: 'A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died. The minister responsible for economic and financial affairs, Charles Wood, expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine.'

Well, I don't think it's too bad, even if a free market type might have emphasized that 'it was becoming obvious by the end of 1845, that the potato crisis in Ireland was being aggravated by the restrictions imposed by the Corn Laws.'

A few more remarks: There was a decision in 1847 to cut Treasury spending on public relief efforts during the Irish famine. And there are Robert Peel and Charles Wood's macroeconomic policies of the 1840s, including the gold standard (classical liberal institution), the Bank Charter Act, and corn law repeal. Prime Minister Robert Peel was forced to resign in 1846 over the Repeal of the Corn Laws -- that is, the triumph of free trade (classical liberal institution) in Britain with the repeal of the Corn Laws by parliment in 1846. Without trying here, to reveal the whole story behind the repeal of the Corn Laws, the dominant economic theory in mid-nineteenth century Britain was Laissez-faire. As long as this theory held sway, Coercion Acts and extra British troops enforced laissez-faire exports from Ireland at the point of a bayonet. The economic theories of Thomas Malthus were very popular in England at the time of the Famine. Anyways, it so happens, that the Irish potato famine coincided with the repeal of the Corn Laws by the existing Prime Minister Robert Peel. The protectionist laws had been enacted in 1815 to artificially keep up the price of British-grown grain by imposing heavy tariffs on all imported grain. Under the Corn Laws, the large amounts of cheap foreign grain now needed for Ireland would be prohibitively expensive. English gentry and politicians reacted with outrage at the mere prospect of losing their long-cherished price protections.

In sum, I think the article could delve into greater detail, but of course that would make it longer. It is my understanding that British government officials and administrators rigidly adhered to the popular theory of the day. Throughout the entire Famine period, the British government would never provide massive food aid to Ireland. The British government also did not interfere with the English-controlled export business in Irish-grown grains. Large quantities of native-grown wheat, barley, oats and oatmeal sailed out of places such as Limerick and Waterford for England, even though local Irish were dying of starvation, thoughout the Famine years. Shaky Irish relief effort!

Of course, one might say that the potato crop in Ireland had never failed for two consecutive years. British officials believed the 1845 food shortage would likely end with next year's harvest. Also interesting, that most of the Irish countryside was owned by an English and Anglo-Irish hereditary ruling class. They held titles to enormous tracts of land long ago confiscated from native Irish Catholics by British conquerors such as Oliver Cromwell. The average tenant farmer, these Catholic farmers were usually considered tenants-at-will. Irish peasants were actually healthier than peasants in England or Europe.DanLanglois (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Walkaway (political movement)[edit]

Seems to be a very pov title, given the lack of evidence that this is actually a political movement. See for instance this article[1] which discusses bots, as does this one and Snopes[2]. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better title? The “Walkaway” movement does exist... the question is whether it is as extensive as social media makes it appear. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest the best title would be nothing as the page should be deleted - Twitter ephemera isn't encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Romanians Article[edit]

Original complaint.

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: [3]). 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: [4]). 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:NPOVCealicuca (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: [5]). 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: [6]) 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)

@Someguy1221:, 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 @Cealicuca: 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. @Someguy1221:, 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)
@Iovaniorgovan:, 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 (talkcontribs) 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, Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca 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"?

Tgeorgescu and Borsoka 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, @Borsoka and Cealicuca:, 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)
@Someguy1221:, 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. @Cealicuca: 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)
@Someguy1221: 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 @Cealicuca: suggested, so thank you!Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Iovaniorgovan:, 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. @Cealicuca: 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)
@Someguy1221:: 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)
@Someguy1221:: 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)
@Someguy1221: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)—is this what you say? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Iovaniorgovan:, I would be grateful if you could provide an example. Borsoka (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Iovaniorgovan:, 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 @Iovaniorgovan:, 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)

Request for comment on how to describe the origin of the Poodle[edit]

There is a request for comment on this at Talk:Poodle#Request for comment on how to describe the dispute over the origin of the poodle. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

White South African[edit]

This IP keeps claiming Middle Easterners were considered white in South Africa. This is fine if he can provide a source, but he can't. (The only source provided indicates that some people from the northern Levant, e.g. Lebanese and Syrians, were considered white; it does not follow from this that Egyptians, Yemeni, Sudanese, Kuwaitis, Saudis, and all people from the Middle East were considered white.)

Of course if he adds a source that's great, and he can re-add this content. But I am skeptical of his claims because anecdotally, I have read accounts of North Africans in South Africa who were classified as "coloured" (a broad category that included not only mixed-race black people, but various nonwhite groups). It's also true that the "test" for determining whiteness in south Africa were quite ad hoc and turned on skin color and hair texture. In practice there were even cases of southern European people who were classified as coloured because they had darker skin and frizzy hair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil_test_(South_Africa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Laing. Given the diversity in appearance of Middle Eastern and North African people, it would be strange to assume all of them were regarded as white in South Africa without a source.

A good compromise might be to add "Syrian and Lebanese" rather than "middle eastern" to the description of white south africans, since this is actually supported by a source. Steeletrap (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You provided a source that explains how the government defined whites in 1951.[7] Europeans, Jews and Syrians are specifically mentioned as being white, but the test for anyone else is whether they are in "appearance obviously a white person unless and until contrary is proven." According to Colour & Culture in South AFrica, p. 200, ft. 14, the Ministry of the Interior determined in 1928 that Japanese and Syrians were white, while Chinese, Siamese and Egyptians were not.[8] It is original research to guess how other groups would be treated and it is possible that how they were categorized changed over time or was applied arbitrarily. TFD (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Suicide and the right to die[edit]

The style of the article suicide implies by what "facts" are stated in the lede and infobox a moral imperative to prevent.

By implying rather than explicitly stating, the article offer no opinion about exceptions to that moral imperative.

Moreover, the opinion is expressed in wikipedia's editorial voice, as if it were the opinion of Wikipedia en masse.

Make no mistake, fellow wikipedians, all morals are opinions.

Talk:Suicide#RfC: Neutrality Challenged

2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

"Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." (emphasis in original) -- WP:SIGNHERE
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm not logged in so discussion won't get dragged to my talk page, now that I think about it. Though the blockquote formatting below was meant to separate ping messages from the bulk of the discussion. Rather than post to anyone's talk page, I'd rather issue an easily ignore-able ping. Also, if someone ever stumbles upon this discussion while researching case discussions, I'd like to share my research methods as a pseudo writing-on-the-wall for any wayward researchers.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ofc, anyone can check the log and trace back to my actual account since the article is semi-protected and I edited it. More, I really just wanted to impose the point in a strong way that I don't want dragged too deep into this discussion. I figured signing only with the date and explaining why, would make the point shocking enough.
2600:1702:1740:2CA0:6D5B:7F89:FF9:190 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)



OP pinging potentially interested parties 03:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Having found you by your noticeboard post and discussion for Talk:Rape_myth#Improper_tone_and_approach this being a similar natured issue, also noticing you mention having schooling in Anthropology and Communication, I figured you might have at one point studied ethics regarding suicide in ancient civilizations.
@Arnoutf: Reading through Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_15#If_a_majority_(or_all)_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian,_is_it_proper_to_mention_that?, your perspective was neutral on the over all topic while solely interested in the article covering bias necessary for research and, from my perspective, how it affects alternative views. Also, noticing mentions about experience as a behavioral researcher, that I imagine you could give expert input about the article in question here.
@RGloucester: You're a senior editor who according to your contributions and user_page doesn't find editing extremely politically charged topics on Wikipedia stressful. I officially challenge you with my non-existent personal authority to find a more stressful topic to dispute on all wikipedia.

Imee Marcos' Misuse of Tobacco Excise Tax Funds[edit]

This not my area at all, but this article -- from its very title on down -- seems problematic. --Calton | Talk 06:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated this for deletion. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Falun Gong[edit]

I would like to disclose that I was banned a few years ago for significantly disruptive joke edits involving sockpuppetry on topics that are somewhat linked to the issue. I was later unbanned after two standard offer unban requests. The community did not choose to impose any form of topic ban. I do not have significant strong feelings or political biases regarding the topic. I would also like to note that there are relevant arbitration cases relating to this issue, including Falun Gong 2.

There is an ongoing NPOV dispute on Talk:Falun Gong. A version not substantially different from the last consensus revision in terms of POV is currently being maintained. User:Unicornblood2018, User:TheBlueCanoe, and I are involved.

The locus of the dispute is the inclusion of certain beliefs attributed to Falun Gong (that may or may not actually be held by that group) that might, to many people, appear absurd, such as beliefs regarding aliens and the divine status of its founder.

On 28 August 2018, Unicornblood2018 added information to the lede that had the effect of making the POV more negative. The information appeared to be based on reliable sources, but making information that dramatically shifts the consensus POV part of the lede seemed an incorrect editorial judgement to me. Furthermore, the text added was substantively similar to one of the sources used by Unicornblood2018. I reverted the edit, took the issue to the talk page, and re-added some of the information to a body paragraph in order to avoid dramatically shifting the POV from previous consensus. TheBlueCanoe later reverted my edit and re-added some of the information included within the edit. Information relating to the primary locus of the dispute was not re-added.

Unicornblood2018 has provided sources and information appearing to demonstrate his view that Falun Gong "could be described as a cult". The user appears to question Wikipedia's neutrality on this issue, indicating "And why are their teaching being unconditionally immune to any criticism on Wikipedia today by using Orwellian tactics by subtly stating neutral bias must equate to always seeing falun gong positively and nothing less than that , despite there are known truths that ring alarm bells?"

I have noted that "it doesn't matter how convincingly you argue that Falun Gong is a cult here, since Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research and its content must instead be based on what reliable sources say" and that "While Chinese Government-linked sources do include a lot of information that places Falun Gong in a bad light, and some of that information may be verifiably correct, such sources might not be appropriate for judging due weight due to their bias. Most uninvolved mainstream sources characterize Falun Gong as a respectable religious movement." I have also noted that the current article is a product of compromise and consensus; if a user wishes to change it significantly in a way that would alter its POV dramatically, they had better have a very strong argument.

TheBlueCanoe has concurred with some of my ideas. The user's talk page posts might not represent the entirety of their thoughts on this issue, given that they have stated "I hope to give you a more fulsome reply when I have I have a bit more time." The user has stated that not all beliefs of Falun Gong merit inclusion and emphasis, and that Wikipedia must use sound editorial judgment based on the weighting suggested by reliable sources. --Leugen9001 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

To be unbiased, should the Wikipedia page Maria Butina be renamed United States of America vs Butina?[edit]

Normally criminal cases, such as murders, where the murderer is not notorious the Wikipedia page is titled The Murder of XXXX and not titled after the name of the murderer. With that in mind, Maria Butina is the person named in the lawsuit United States of America vs Butina. Previous to being named in the lawsuit she was likely not notorious enough to deserve a Wikipedia page, although that might have been an omission given she seems to have created, a possibly defunct, gun rights organization in Russia. The prosecution, the DOJ, alleges that Maria Butina was an important agent of the Russian Government and therefore should have registered as a foreign agent under 18 USC 951. Her defense claims she was not an important agent of the Russian government and therefore had no need to register with the DOJ. If the defense is to be believed Maria Butina is not noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia page in her name so the WP should be named USA vs Butina and Maria Butina should redirect to USA vs Butina. If the prosecution is to be believed Maria Butina is an important 'secret' agent of the Russian government and is noteworthy on her own merit of a Wikipedia page. An issue is at this point Maria Butina should be considered not guilty and therefore not noteworthy on her own merits. Her status as an important agent of the Russian government has not been determined by the court so her Wikipedia page should be renamed USA vs Butina.

My question: Should the Maria Butina wikipedia page be renamed USA v Butina, and perhaps rewritten to be about the issues surrounding the lawsuit and not Maria Butina (as she is not determined to be noteworthy)?Geo8rge (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • No This article is structured as a BLP article, so it isn't harming neutral point of view to have it named as per BLP naming structures. If you have concerns about this article as a BLP article, I'd suggest WP:BLP/N would be a more appropriate place to raise your concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you, I will repost there. Geo8rge (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article does not need to be renamed. The subject's locus of notability probably stretches beyond the matters that will be covered in the criminal action alone. bd2412 T 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • My problem with the article name is she is involved in a legal dispute in which she is assumed to be not guilty of having complicating matters that would require her to register as an agent of Russia until there is an official ruling on the matter. It may turn out that there is more to her story than she is admitting to, but the court has not declared her guilty. By naming the article 'maria butina' Wikipedia is assuming her guilt.Geo8rge (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I am confused... How does using a person’s name as the title of a bio article about that person assume guilt? Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No - her notability comes from a long period of activity, not a single (for example) mass murder. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No (keep at Maria Butina) as WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. Appriate to keep the page as a BLP at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No Unless the case itself becomes famous over an extensive period, like Roe v Wade, in which case there will be multiple articles. O3000 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Which case the subject is the case, not the person. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No. As it seems she is independently (e.g. as a Russian guns rights activist) notable and covered. As opposed to a "murder of X" crime, the foreign agent claim is related to most of her career - and is inseparable from the bio.Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No - Article as is gives a broader account about the subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No, distinguishing a case involving a person from the person herself. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Including China's stance[edit]

Please join the discussion and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's stance in the article Hamas to give it NPOV. We need consensus one way or the other. Thanks for your input. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a BUMP to get more input. Stop by and add your point of view. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines[edit]

May I ask for comment on the neutrality of proposed edits at Talk:Sugar#RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines?

RFC on inclusion of cast template box[edit]

Should the article; Desperate Measures (musical) include a template box for the separate casts or is prose enough? Please help form a consensus for the neutral point of view at Talk:Desperate Measures (musical)#RFC on inclusion of cast template box. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What the hell does this have to do with NPOV? Or WP:OR or WP:BLP or WP:RS, which are the other noticeboards you've posted this at? --Calton | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not OK to have a non-NPOV comment in the lead section[edit]

Close per request. Excellent comment by The Four Deuces: "Neutrality does not mean neutrality between racism and anti-racism, but representing views based on their degree of support in reliable sources." —PaleoNeonate – 05:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The slogan has been spread by neo-Nazis, and racist groups including white supremacists." is what is in the lead section on It's OK to be white. It fails MOS:LEAD, which states "[The lead] should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view." This is not a neutral point of view and should not belong in the lead. This should not be in the lead. Computer40 «»(talk) 06:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a plain statement of fact: how, exactly, is it "not a neutral point of view"? --Calton | Talk 06:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll also note that although you edit-warred over this on the article itself, you haven't posted to Talk:It's OK to be white at all, despite being explicitly pointed to it. Why is that? That should be your first stop instead of attempting to recruit co-combatants. --Calton | Talk 06:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
According to you, editors should keep their suggestions to themselves. The people that edit that article are biased against the movement, so it wouldn't be a neutral conversation anyways. Computer40 «»(talk) 18:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and take this discussion to the article talk page as per the guidelines at the top of this page. Claims that it wouldn't be a neutral conversation when you have made no efforts at such are meaningless. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting confused. This editor has told me to keep my suggestions to myself, so does that mean I shouldn't follow other editor's suggestions as well? This user has been on Wikipedia for 14 years, so their advice carries some weight. Computer40 «»(talk) 18:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide a diff where you were told to keep your suggestions to yourself? ~ GB fan 18:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Right here. I was suggesting that the user remove something that seemed like he was a manager at Wikipedia (like Jimbo). He showed no civility for a user that's been on Wikipedia for 14 years. Computer40 «»(talk) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The NPOV noticeboard is not the place to air this grievance. Nblund talk 00:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I literally answered a question that someone was asking. How about contributing to this NPOV discussion? Computer40 «»(talk) 00:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also seeing a plain statement of fact. Nothing violating NPOV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see anything not neutral about the statement. It just states that they have spread the slogan and it is sourced to a reliable source. ~ GB fan 18:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is a factual statement. It's a slogan that was spread by neo-Nazis and racist groups including white supremacists. Every instance of one of those posters going up in Toronto that could be traced back to somebody went back to somebody involved with one of the dozens of little white supremacist groups that have sprung up lately. NPOV may seem non-neutral when reality doesn't conform to your expectations. But in this case there's no problem with the lede. Adding this to my watchlist just to be safe. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The people that edit that article are biased against the movement @Computer40: Are you suggesting that it is improper that WP editors be biased against racists and hate groups? If so, you are wrong. Hate groups are inherently divisive, and their ideologies are based on urban legends and pseudoscience of a wide variety of stripes. They are antithetical in every way to an encyclopedia with an fundamentally inclusive editor base, such as Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If I'm being 100% honest, keeping racist viewpoints off wikipedia is one of my main objectives for participating. So if there's an accusation that editors are against the mainstreaming of racist views then yes, I'll wear that label. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Right there with ya. Hell, I'll even adopt a pejorative title like "Nazi hater". Whatever you call it, you can count me in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
So your opinion on why this phrase should remain in the lead is because you want to keep racist viewpoints off wikipedia? Wikipedia is not censored. There are somethings that people say are "racist", which are entirely opinionated and not factual. You might say that Google only hiring minority women is for "diversity", but some people may view it as being discriminatory. Computer40 «»(talk) 00:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Who said anything about google? If you came here to vent your spleen about non-white people and liberals, you're on the wrong website. Oh, and you're right, WP is not censored. That means we don't care if we offend nazis and racists. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean neutrality between racism and anti-racism, but representing views based on their degree of support in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Probably one of the more strict editors for how labels should be carefully applied, but 100% agree with all above: it is a neutral statement in this case to say, after identifying the original source, that the slogan clearly has been adopted by neo-Nazi and far right groups, given the strength of the RSes that back it. The statement speaks nothing to the intentions of the original source, just how it was taken up by these other groups. --Masem (t) 01:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved close this until the OP fully engages on the article talk. O3000 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Mujaddid - insertion of dissenting opinions[edit]

I'd like to solicit comment on the edits Batreeq has made to Mujaddid. I don't think they reflect WP:NPOV and are basically anti-Ahmadiyya POV that go against extensive discussion of the article content. PepperBeast (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


Heat-not-burn tobacco product[edit]

Considerable activity from disclosed and previous activity from undisclosed paid editors (article creation) are influencing this article in a manner that is WP:UNDUE

It is important to remember that even disclosed contributions from paid editors risk violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. This holds also when acceptable sources are suggested, or when suggestions seem reasonable. The corollary is that these edits would not occur without suggestion by the editor, and when compared to the rest of Wikipedia the article is made to read as a puff piece. We lack the time to find and evaluate the sources that are intentionally excluded from suggestion by paid editors. Each second spent evaluating suggestions from paid editors hinders research into non-biased coverage. It is not enough to find your own sources if the suggested edit is from a paid source (see [9]). The relevant policy by which we can entirely ignore paid requests is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST.

Additional eyes needed to assess this.

Carl Fredrik talk 09:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)