Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Origin of the Romanians Article

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: [1]). 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: [2]). 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: [3]). 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: [4]) 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 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

"Facts" are meaningless without the interpretation, without the context. Let's take a heavily contentious fact (the fact is not in doubt but there is still debate as to the context, the interpretation etc. Some say it was justified while other say it was not). Fact is that, for example, Hiroshima was subjected to a nuclear attack by the US. Is that enough? Of course not, it isn't. Especially when writing an article about WW2 in the Pacific, for example. This is what the article amounts to. A list of what you and other editors believe is a "neutral fact", not the scholars (who actually put it into a context and give meaning to it). As I have already given examples, it is NOT "as they are presented in reliable sources" since the sources mention, for example, that those "facts" are weighted, analysed and interpreted in the context of the "migration theory" or the "daco-roman continuity theory" or the "admigration theory".

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

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

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

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

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

Even more telling is the following excerpt:

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

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

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

You fail you realize it but in academic circles it's actually a normal thing to have scholars debating certain aspects of a theory while at the same time accepting the theory (the global premises and conclusion). It actually means that the theory is healthy. Self criticism is essential, it is the first step towards the validation of a scientific theory and instead of making the theory "unreliable" - as you seem to think - it adds to the credibility. Because if the whole theory still stands even when certain details are still debated then it means that the weight of evidence (according to the scholars, not the editors) is, overall, in favor of the theory's interpretation. Again, this is NORMAL. And Wikipedia editors shouldn't take the place of academia and decide that there is more or less to the theory because of a misguided WP:NPOV interpretation, because some aspects of the theory are still debated. What Wikipedia editors could do is to present that debate within the theory (because this is where it makes sense).Cealicuca (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) The first section of the article is dedicated to the neutral presentation of the theories. I have suggested several times that typical arguments of each theory could be presented in the same section. (2) Could you refer to examples when Boia is not properly cited? If this were the case, it should be fixed. (3) How could you divide the facts presented in the article among the three theories if all facts are related to all theories and differences in their interpretations are independent of the theories? (4) How could you push scholars who are not connected to any of the theories into one of the theories? (4) I would be grateful if you could write shorter messages. Please, don't bludgeon the process. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) no comment here. (2) Will do so on the Talk page. (3) Sorry, I don't understand your statement. Do you mean to tell us that you asked a loaded question where you pre-established that "all facts are related to all theories and differences in their interpretations are independent of the theories" as being TRUE? (4) I'm sorry, I don't understand your statement. Do you mean that you structured the article to cover in a disproportionate way non-mainstream information in spite of WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE? (5) Sure, i'll write shorter messages.Cealicuca (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(3) Could you refer to a single fact that is only connected to one of the theories? (4) No, I refer to a number of scholars who write about relevant aspects of the Romanians' ethnogenesis, but are not connected to any of the theories. For instance, as I mentioned above, the linguist Schulte writes that the Romanians developed from a bilingual population, but she is not connected to any of the theories. (5) Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on sugar industry influence on health information and guidelines

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

Mujaddid - insertion of dissenting opinions

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)

The specific wording used there (Scholars [...] reject the sect) is definitely not neutral. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@165.234.252.11: Replaced "Scholars" with "The Sunni mainstream" to be accurate with sources as none state that scholars reject it. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple more thoughts on this:

1. It's pretty weird that Mirza Gulam Ahmad is the only entry on this list to be described in any way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't say anything, but it does have a way of magnifying any POV issues.
2. The description of Ahmadiyya should probably be as short as possible. Is it not sufficient to identify the Ahmadis as simply a sect or messianic movement? These are both implicitly non-mainstream. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Did Prohibition Reduce Drinking?

Our article on Repeal of Prohibition in the United States says that:

• Alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition.
• Violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition.
• Organized crime did not increase during prohibition.

There are indeed some sources that support at least some of those claims,[5][6] but a `quick web search also finds:

• The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption
• Did Prohibition Reduce Drinking?
• The Effect of Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption: Evidence from Drunkenness Arrests
• Did Alcohol Use Decrease During Alcohol Prohibition?
• How Prohibition backfired and gave America an era of gangsters and speakeasies
• Alcohol and Crime: The Prohibition Experiment
• Organized Crime and Prohibition: What Difference Does Legalization Make?
• Prohibition and the Rise of the American Gangster
• Prohibition Profits Transformed the Mob

So which view is supported by the sources? Or could it be, as one source says, "In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough -- people like Al Capone didn't pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs."? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a good bit of controversy on all these questions, mostly because there is no actual data on alcohol consumption etc. during the prohibition. This paper which represents the "standard view" argues that consumption fell drastically. Interestingly, this is the same author of the first paper you cite, basically arguing the opposite. He says that the difference lies in the fact that while consumption fell, this fall cannot be attributed to prohibition itself. This paper says that alcohol consumption fell for the heavy drinkers and maybe for the average drinker. This paper (some of the same authors) suggests that production of beer declined but production of corn based liquor increased. The second paper was subsequently published in Southern Economic Journal, if I'm not mistaken, the first one is a working paper and I don't know if it ever found a journal. This paper finds that the *repeal* of prohibition *increased* child mortality (although there is some nuance in there). So yeah, it's messy. Volunteer Marek 04:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Child mortality? Were there a lot of child alcoholics in the 1930s? I don't think it was the parents drinking more, because The Effect of Alcohol Prohibition on Alcohol Consumption[7] by Jeffrey Miron[8] of the National Bureau of Economic Research says "The overall conclusion of this paper is that Prohibition exerted a modest and possibly even a positive effect on alcohol consumption". Maybe parents got drunk more and some other group got drunk less to make the numbers balance?

Given the fact that reliable sources disagree, is the fact that the current article displays such certainty about this a NPOV problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page: "Scholarly literature regarding the effect of prohibition has held that popular claim that prohibition was a failure is false." This sentence is clearly not WP:NPOV and not how a scientific consensus would ever be framed. As for how we describe research, my approach has always been to attribute claims made by specific studies in the body ("According to study X, the impact of Y is Z"), and describe claims as a consensus only when RS say it is. The impact section in the article should rephrased the findings of the AJPH study to "According to a 2006 study in the AJPH, the impact of prohibition was X" and "According to Mark H. Moore, the impact was Y". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

There are sources that claim alcohol consumption did decline. These include the Prohibition books written by Irving Fisher - Prohibition at its Worst (1927), Prohibition Still at Its Worst (1928), and The Noble Experiment (1930). While we can argue that his treatment of statistics is subject to debate, there were contemporaneous insights there that describe a decline including the reasons why. For instance, there was the case of the institutionalization of the Prohibition with the government targeting employers, pressuring them to impose strict rules regarding alcohol consumption. Previously, these provided alcohol rations to their workers. These employers were also increasingly exposed to penalties. He also cited a favorable public view on Prohibition on account of the increasing mechanization of the workplace and that machinery as well as automobiles could not be safely used after one consumed alcohol. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There's essentially only one source supporting that statement and it doesn't seem to be a meta-analysis or literature review. --tronvillain (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not necessary or desirable for Wikipedia to anoint a winner of this debate. Rhoark (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Arun Pudur

I've stumbled across Arun Pudur, an article about an mysterious maybe-billionaire. He was subject of controversy in 2016, when Forbes discovered they could not verify any sources of income that would account for this wealth. This link was included in the article, but in a very unobstrusive way at the end of the article, while the claims of incredible wealth stay in the first sentences.

Two years have gone and Dupur seems to have dropped from the news entirely. More: His companies have, too. The website of the Pudur corporation, which according to LinkedIn has 60 million costumers, arundupur.com is down. So is celframeoffice.com, the alleged source and his wealth and according to the Wikipedia article a close competitor to Microsoft office. celframe.com is still online, but does not show any signs of business activity. It seems pretty clear: This person is not the successfull entrepreneur, he claimed to be. But how do you incorporate a lack of sources into an article? --2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If RS do not say it neither can we. It is a shame that no RS has bothered to follow up on this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

. I've shortened the article considerably and removed many unsubstiated or irrelevant claims. --2A0A:A543:8471:0:76D4:35FF:FE03:2B7E (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Coverage of Roundup Cancer Case

RfC is here. petrarchan47คุก 04:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party

Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc. may be of interest to board followers.Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

John Gross

"John Gross FRSL (12 March 1935 – 10 January 2011[1][2]) was an eminent English man of letters. A leading intellectual, writer, anthologist, and critic."

Someone who knows something of the topic may want to take a look, the article seems to be on the positive side. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Purplebricks

Purplebricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few IP and new editors have been removing sizable chunks of content and/or rewriting content on this article with an obviously positive tone. However, the article before the disruption started was very obviously negative in tone. Additionally, I have noticed at least one editor using "our" to describe the article, implying a possible COI. Requesting more eyes/help with this situation, as I don't have the time to do a more NPOV rewrite on my own right now. Aspening (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

United Daughters of the Confederacy

Following up on a post at the Teahouse, it may be helpful to get more robust participation at this RfC in order to form a more solid consensus one way or the other. GMG^talk 12:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte

Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few IPs have been writing content with a very negative tone. Some of the statements even include possible opinions/OR and/or fake news. Here are some examples:

• allowing greater Chinese intrusions in Philippine economy and sovereignty - which led to Duterte's alternative introduction in Philippine pop culture as a rich Chinese president pretending to be a poor Filipino
• In August 21, it was revealed that Duterte has green-lighted the construction of SEA Games facilities in the proposed New Clark City in Aeta lands in Tarlac or Pampanga, which would displace thousands of indigenous Negrito Aeta people once construction begins, sparking nationwide outrage. - not true, and the complaints came from farmers, not the Aeta association
• Mocha Uson was paid a hefty 120,000 to spread fake news - not true, included source doesn't say this
• Fishes laced with formalin were fished in Philippine waters. - not true, included source does not say this, it came from A COMMENT.

I've tried to make some changes (tried to be as neutral as possible) (diff) but they've been undone (diff here) by an IP. However I have managed removed some of the aforementioned statements so its not there anymore. Please read the entire article. Requesting some open eyes to help, because I don't have a lot of free time, however I'm trying to make an NPOV rewrite in my sandbox. ITSQUIETUPTOWN talk • contribs 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

There are also commentaries like the case of the Marcos burial with a sweeping declaration it was "dividing the country." The citation did not include that info. A quick reading of the source for the claimed 20,000 killed in the drug war also showed that 16,000 are still under investigation. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland#Various issues

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland#Various issues. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48

Joseph Kentenich

I never heard of this guy, but he founded a sub-movement within Roman Catholicism which apparently has a lot of followers. He seems to have been controversial, and the article contains an unsourced assertion that he is now under consideration for canonization. The narrative is written in a strange form of present-tense prose which reads as if it might have been ineptly translated from another language, possibly German. The primary authors seem to be preparing a defense for the guy as a good candidate for sainthood. I sometimes use the term hagiography metaphorically in Wikipedia discussions, but this one seems to veer close to the real thing. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of the term "dictator"

The lead sentence of the article Francisco Franco states, "Francisco Franco Bahamonde[a] (/ˈfræŋkoʊ/;[2] Spanish: [fɾanˈθisko ˈfɾaŋko]; 4 December 1892 – 20 November 1975) was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator". I revised that single word so that the sentence indicated "leader" instead of "dictator", but my edit was reverted. The problem is that no one else is described as a dictator, military or civilian, in the lead sentence of their respective articles. Not Stalin, not Khrushchev, not Ceaucescu, not Castro, not Duvalier, not Ataturk, not Kim Il-sung, not Kim Jong-un, etc.

In fact, very few, if any, are described as dictators at all. Hitler is described as a "dictator" in the third sentence of his lead paragraph. In his lead sentence, Stalin is described as a "revolutionary and politician", Mao as a "communist revolutionary", Kim Il-sung as a "Supreme Leader", Ataturk as an "army officer, revolutionary, and founder", Mussolini as a "politician and journalist who was the leader", etc. We have previously had deletions of categories and lists of dictators, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators currently in power. Views from editors on this subject would be welcome.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictators (such as Franco, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Khrushchev, Ceausescu, Castro, Duvalier) should be described as dictators. Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If the other articles don't have it, this one could just as well omit "as a military dictator". On the other hand, why not add dictator to those other articles if RSs support it? —DIYeditor (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not even true that "no one else is described as a dictator, military or civilian, in the lead sentence of their respective articles." For example: Bordaberry, Pinochet, Torrijos, Debayle, García, Bagaza, Micombero and Antonescu, and this is definitely not an exhaustive list. Smowo (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And Stalin is identified as a dictator in the third sentence of his lead. Smowo (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We take the lead from how similar tertiary sources write about them. As Sidney Goldberg wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

"[Webster's New World College Dictionary] can call Hitler the "Nazi dictator of Germany" but Stalin merely the "Soviet premier, general secretary of the Communist party of the U.S.S.R." Mussolini is an "Italian dictator," but Tito is "Yugoslav Communist Party leader, prime minister and president of Yugoslavia." Franco is "dictator of Spain" and Salazar "prime minister and dictator of Portugal," but Mao Tse-tung is "Chinese Communist leader, chairman of the People's Republic of China and of its Communist Party."

It could be because right-wing dictators are de jure dictators while left-wing ones are not in most cases.

TFD (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It could be because right-wing dictators are de jure dictators while left-wing ones are not in most cases. Excellent point, makes sense to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the above conclusion is based on reliable sources or its an assumption by editors? Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• The use of labels comes down to sources... if reliable sources routinely use the term “dictator” when referring to the subject of one of our articles, then Wikipedia should use the term in our article. If, however, reliable sources DON’T use the term, Wikipedia can not use it (doing so would be inserting our own POV about the subject). So the question isn’t “was/is X a dictator?”... the question is “are there reliable sources that call X a dictator?”. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar. TFD's point may well explain why there is some discrepancy in the sources, however I would point out that a google search for "Stalin" "dictator" returns over 2 million results, many of them RSes, and the top one is our article on the man, so I wouldn't put too much weight in the notion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

That doesn't tell us much. One of the hits on the first page is from Encylopdia Britannica's article "Joseph Stalin PREMIER OF UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS."[9] (They subsequently call him a dictator.) But compare the naming to their article "Adolf Hitler DICTATOR OF GERMANY".[10] I am not saying that no reliable, neutral sources since the end of the Cold War would describe their positions in the same way, just that most do not, for whatever reason. TFD (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't think the language here is consistent. Stalin's "Premiership" is probably a more meaningful title since it was actually position in government that lasted beyond Stalin's rule. The position of "Führer" started and ended with Hitler, so it isn't particularly informative to mention that title. It might also partly relate to Hitler's route to power looking more like that of a classical Roman dictator - he took over an existing government during an ostensible emergency. Nblund ^talk 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Dictators rarely if ever style their title in the negative form "dictator". The closest euphemisms are the North Korean Dear/Beloved/Supreme Leader. Legitimate titles, such as President, Premier, Chancellor or General Secretary can simply serve as a fig leaf. Franco's official title was "Prime Minister", In addition to "Führer of Germany" (a takeover of Hindenburg's title, "President of the German Reich"), Hitler's official title was "Chancellor of Germany".

Ceaușescu was President and General Secretary, Todor Zhivkov was General Secretary and Premier. Castro was, at various times, Prime Minister, President and General Secretary and so on. There is absolutely no "de facto" or "de jure" distinction between dictators of the right or the left in their use of official titles which are also associated with democratic regimes.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think anyone mentioned here could arguably be classed as a dictator, but a military dictatorship is a specific type of government. Changing the description to "military leader" (at least in English) might imply that Franco merely led the military e.g.: "James Mattis is a military leader" Nblund ^talk 14:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that in the Franco article's lead sentence, "...was a Spanish general who ruled over Spain as a military dictator", only a single word was changed — "dictator" to "leader". The emphasized preceding words, "ruled over" provided the context. If it is a question of terminology, a couple of other words could have been revised to the effect of, "...was a Spanish general who geverned Spain as a military ruler" or some other form which indicates such content.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This is definitelly an extremelly interesting topic. My personal view is that we should not label anyone as "dictator" in the first sentence. Dictator has clearly a negative conotation, and by labeling someone as dictator we are taking sides thus breaking neutrality. Another aspect is how much of a dictator a leader has to be to deserve being labeled as one right in the presentation sentence? Also, we will inevitably end up finding some leaders in the grey area and it is utopical to make a strict separation point. My proposal would be to write the introducing first sentence without the labeling of dictator for all cases, and then point out next that by most historiographers (or which ones) they are considered or refered as dictators. FkpCascais (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The opening sentence should contain strictly the official titles for all politicians, without exception. President, PM, etc. As far as I know, there is no official title of "dictator" thus that description is always subjetive to the description of the nature of that leaders rule, and that should not be included in the opening sentence. Agreed? FkpCascais (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoints at AR-15 style rifle

There's a long-running discussion at Talk:AR-15_style_rifle#opinions_on_why_mass_shooters_choose_the_AR-15 concerning the reasons that mass shooters choose AR-15 style rifles and which viewpoints should be presented. Some editors feel that only the opinions of firearms experts should be covered, while others support the inclusion of "lay opinions" written by journalists in sources such as The Atlantic, New York Times and other media outlets. It would be helpful to have more voices in the discussion as only a few editors are participating. –dlthewave ☎ 13:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not wholly true, at least one of the "authorized firearms experts" (I say "authorized" because there appears to be no chair of Gunology at any major US university, nor a degree in gunanomics, nor indeed even an NVQ 1 in looking at a gun and saying it is a gun, the term "gun experts" is applied by the very media sources that are being rejected for information about guns) is in fact a criminologist, not an expert on guns. Also there is an issue of what is an expert, why is a criminologists (or even a firearm instructors) view acceptable but not a medical professionals. But yes the main dispute is between "experts" and "non experts" (such as lobby groups or media commentators).Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. More eyes would be very useful. To give a sense, here's the latest source being blocked from inclusion in the article on the grounds that it is not "expert" opinion. This source was proposed to balance the only view currently represented in the article, which comes from here and here (namely, that there's nothing particularly lethal or special about AR-15s and it's just some kind of copycat effect that explains why they killed so many people in so many recent shootings). Ironically, the first source actually presents a fairly balanced view - but only the part saying AR-15s are not actually very lethal has been allowed into the wiki article, the rest was blocked (again for not being "expert" enough - apparently the Brady Campaign for Gun Violence are not experts on gun violence, and even the NRA isn't allowed when it says something that might imply this rifle is deadly). Waleswatcher (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that we have had multiple discussions on this topic (here at NPOV/N, at RSN and at other noticeboards including the Village Pump)... please look through the archives and read these prior discussions before commenting. I am not saying we can’t discuss it now... but we don’t want to endlessly repeat the same arguments. Try to bring something new to the table. Blueboar (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, after participating for about a month in this discussion, I can understand why it's been ongoing for so long. When the question of whether "more bullets fired faster being deadlier" becomes a debate on WP:MEDRS... Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Why wasn't the article talk page notified of this discussion? Springee (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

[11] –dlthewave ☎ 14:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• This isn't about "authorized" experts. It's about WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The article currently has a lay opinion, AR-15's are "weapon of choice" for mass shooters. This is a lay opinion and widely cited. So what do the experts think? We currently have two experts. One is identified as an expert qualified to offer an opinion by two independent news sources. The second is a criminologist with an appropriate academic background. Other source should be added but only with expert opinions, not additional lay opinions since we already have that. Springee (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Waleswatcher's complaint is that there's no requirement of expertise for inclusion, but rather a requirement of notability, which the lay opinion meets. It's ultimately a WP:DUE issue; but the criterion set on page for what is due seems to be designed to constrain inclusion of criticism of the AR-15 as a device designed to kill large groups of humans. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best now if we allow new blood to comment.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• As a bit of a gun nut, I can certainly understand the position of those wanting to block these sources. Just like with any specialty, the mass media regularly misuses terms, oversimplifies complex subjects, makes generalities based on those oversimplifications and just generally gets almost as much wrong as right, even with an expert consultant on hand.

That being said, there are two things that need to be borne in mind:

1. Wikipedia is guided by the sources. If the sources are wrong, we must also be wrong. It is not our duty to correct the preponderance of sources based on our own knowledge nor even on the disagreement of a small group of suspect (and firearms experts are very much a highly suspect bunch, myself included, and for much the reason that Slater has already pointed out) experts.
2. The popular view of these weapons is a matter of just as much importance as the "crunchy data" about them that the experts like to harp on. I mean, the sources presented as being blocked are quite literally talking about how a certain type of rifle is seen by that portion of the public who commit mass shootings. How one can suggest that the vast preponderance of media depictions of that very type of rifle is not due because that depiction is not entirely accurate is beyond me.

As to the claims in the sources, for what it's worth they're all correct. The 5.56 NATO cartridge and the .223 Rem are not particularly noteworthy in terms of performance characteristics. I personally prefer the 6.8 SPC as an all-around superior round. But that being said, the performance characteristics of the 5.56/.223 are very well balanced for an inexperienced shooter, or for use in a hectic firefight. They will cause more damage than, for example, a 9mm parabellum, and far more than a 22LR, the two most popular rounds around. They perform better at a distance than the .45 ACP or .357 Magnum because they're rifle rounds. But then, that's true of the 7.62 NATO and the .270 Winchester, as well.

So it's fair to say that the rounds fired by the AR-15 style rifle have a performance characteristic that lends itself to mass shootings. It's also fair to say that the performance characteristics of those same rounds are unremarkable (compared to, say, a .50 BMG for example), and their popularity is why mas shooters chose them. Both statements are true. This, my friends, is why no centralized accrediting organization on firearms has ever been formed. There are too many different firearms, different rounds, different shooting styles and different shooting scenarios to ever nail down a science that could be agreed upon by a large majority of firearms experts and taught to prospective experts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just want to make sure it's clear what is being discussed. The section in question starts by offering a lay/mass opinion that these rifles are "the weapon of choice" for mass shooters. Next it introduces expert opinions on the subject. Those opinions are trying to address WHY the rifles are picked vs other guns. So far we only have two experts. The problem is the proposed new sources aren't interviews with experts who would be qualified to say why a mass shooter is picking a particular weapon. What we need in this case is more sources that say "expert ____ says mass shooters pick this weapon because _____". Springee (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If the question is being asked "Why the AK-15 is the weapon of choice in crimes?" it seems completely reasonable to leave it to firearms experts and police/other authorities that investigate the crimes and have interviewed shooters (when they can), when those exist (which they do). They would carry much more WEIGHT relative to what non-experts are speculating. If there are reasons put forth by non-experts that are not covered by experts, maybe those can be included too, but if there is disagreement, in a case like this, the experts' views should be included only. --Masem (t) 15:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And this is where the central conflict lies. Because there is no policy that says the question why must only be sourced to experts and the idea that these guns are popular with mass killers, at least in part, because AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people, regardless of expert opinion, is a widely held, notable opinion that has been commented on by reliable sources, unless we persist in somewhat absurd notion that a statement that AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people is something that must be covered under WP:MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT is a subsection of RS. It actually does say reliability of sources is based on context. If we are asking a question that requires an expert opinion (and we are) then we can only use expert sources because others wouldn't meet the RS standard. Springee (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all fine and good and addresses the implications in the last paragraph I posted above. It does not, however, address the two points I numbered. Notable opinions are notable, whether they're wrong, merely parroting what experts say or novel and insightful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I really think that we do need to consider that while notable opinions should be included, when dealing with an article that there is a known body of experts in a relatively specialized field, deference to the experts has to come first and foremost before other opinions are thrown in. It would be different if we were talking politics which is not a specialized field and nearly all journalists can end up "experts" in this, then we'd not have to defer. --Masem (t) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the last paragraph of my big comment above. I'm arguably one of those experts, having been shooting since I was a boy, having been trained by the US Army in the use, repair and maintenance of a large number of military weapons, and having used them in the conditions for which they were designed to be used. I'm telling you without qualification: firearms experts are just as divided in their opinions on firearms as non-experts, because it is an amazingly complex field with too many variables to ever boil down to a science. It is an art, and as such, experts are only really useful for correction demonstrably inaccurate information. An expert opinion on why a certain rifle is preferred by a certain group is really barely any more valid than that of a non-expert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But a key difference is that an expert is going to be able to rightly assemble known facts, figures, and make appropriate synthesis to come to a conclusion that is otherwise objectively impossible to prove, because they have had the education, training, and practical experience to do this. It is certainly possible that you will get differentiating opinions from firearms experts with the same exact core information - that happens in many different scientific fields too. But it comes down to the logic of the argument with the evidence to back that up and importantly their nature as an expert to synthesis their conclusion. Non-experts do not have that, and while they might end up at a similar conclusion as a gun expert, it is usually not be the same rigor of thought as the expert. It is important to see how this mirrors MEDRS/SCIRS, in terms of the weight put on peer-reviewed journals (or in this case, the expert sources). Now MEDRS is purposely strong to avoid giving misinformation from non-experts, even if that information seems true. Here, we're not under the same concern, but we should definitely put more weight on what's coming from experts as the closest to "truth" over what opinions are coming out of non-experts, but we still should consider non-contradictory, significant opinions from non-experts. --Masem (t) 16:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point is this: If you ask ten scientists what the best way to figure out the parabolic arc of a thrown rock will be, you'll get one answer. If you ask ten oil painters what the best brush to use to get a certain type of brush stroke, you'll get 2, maybe 3 answers. If you ask ten firearms experts what the best gun to use for CQC in an American suburb is, you'll get 15 answers, at least. It's not a science, full stop. It's an art. Sure, there's science behind it, just like there's science behind digital painting and photo editing. But there are extraordinarily few "what's the best X for Y?" questions that have an answer you can get more than two experts to agree on. That's simply not so for the majority of fields. Other subjects like this I can think of include martial arts (for very similar reasons) and film and literature criticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You are asking a subjective question meaning there's no right or wrong answer, but there are answers that are better informed and rationalized than others. It doesn't matter that if you ask the question of X experts that you get X different answers - that's wholly expected of a subjective question. We're not expecting agreement, just that the logic and thought to get there is well-informed due to them being an expert. It's when you get to non-experts that we're not sure if they have the same principle of thought to reach said conclusion. They might, they might not. --Masem (t) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, just because the word "best" is used doesn't make the question subjective. The question asked of the scientists is purely objective: one formula will produce exact results, all others are mere heuristics. The question asked of the artists has only a bit of subjectivity to it: for example, depending on the brush stroke desired, they might name two different fan brushes, but all would agree without hesitation that it must be a fan brush. The question asked of the firearms experts is, in theory at least, purely an objective one. What rifle in what caliber offers the numerically largest results in the following criteria: X, Y and Z (the needs of CQC, which will be fairly universally agreed upon, and the conditions in an American suburb as opposed to typical CQC training environs, which will be purely empirical, so long as the specific American suburb is given). The problem isn't with the question, it's with the answers. Do you want your rounds to be able to maintain a flat arc after penetrating a concrete 8-block so you can shoot through walls? Or do you want frangible ammunition to avoid killing civilians who may not have left? Both have their benefits, but different shooters will have different preferences. What about secondary arms? Pistol or PDW? There are advantages to both, and both depend on the shooter, as well as the environment. As I said, it's an art. In theory, we could make it a science, but we'd have to do the sort of research that would be so incredibly unethical that non-nazi scientists would never consider it. We'd have to shoot people through walls, send thousands of trained and untrained combatants against each other in observed battles in controlled conditions. We know a lot about war and combat. But we simply aren't the kind of species who can take all that knowledge and sort it out using the scientific method, because that's just plain evil. So we can't expose the actual science of combat underneath it, and thus we must treat it as an art. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If we are comparing to the art world, the same concept applies, given art is 100% subjective, and there, we find that we routing turn to known experts in the field to weigh their opinions more over non-experts, even if all those opinions are different. It is clear there is not a black or white answer to why AR-15 is so frequent in these mass shootings, that's a subjective question for certain and will never a single answer, but I would think we weight the opinioned answers of those using science, and those using criminal psychology to be stressed over those speculating without other evidence. --Masem (t) 19:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Art techniques (including getting a certain brush stroke) are not subjective. Come on man, haven't you ever watched Bob Ross? ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, in this case we aren't asking for firearms experts. In this case I would say you need an expert in crime and or psychology. We are trying to understand the thinking a criminal was using when picking a weapon. In this case being a gun expert isn't sufficient qualification. Springee (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would think both areas would be helpful. There are likely technical/practical/tangible elements that a firearms expert could answer related to weigh, size, firing rate, etc. A crime psyhcologist or similar position who has analyzed those that have committed such crimes would be able to postulate more intangible elements and maybe some tangible ones. But again, in both cases, as experts, they have had the background and education and experience to be able to make a sound conclusion from facts. --Masem (t) 16:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it's crime and psychology experts, then I certainly would weigh their opinions more. Those subjects are different, with much more empiricism to them. But I still wouldn't discount popular opinions or the opinions of notable non-experts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you can discount significant opinions from non-experts, unless those opinion are contradictory to what experts have said; when they don't overlap, it is fair to include, just with less WEIGHT as experts (that is, they should come after what experts say, in most cases). --Masem (t) 16:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't add "AR-15s are good at killing large groups of people" attributed to mass media if his doesn't conflict with what experts have said, the statement is clearly attributed as a hypothesis/speculation by whomever said it (as they are not experts nor have access to that information), and it is weighted less significant than expert opinion (eg placed after what experts state). Eg a possible statement would be something like (I am making up facts here) "Criminologist Sam Smith stated that AR-15s are a preferred weight in gun crimes because they are lightweight and can be easily hidden, while weapon expert Joe Smith said that such weapons are also easy to acquire with minimal background checks. Several journalists, including the NYTimes and CNN, speculated that these facts lead to ease of killing people in large groups." But I do agree with the argument that when you consider the spirit of MEDRS and SCIRS, that in other cases, we weight expert opinion much more heavily than non-expert opinion, but don't necessarily throw the non-expert opinion out. --Masem (t) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't need WP:MEDRS for what is effectively WP:BLUE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying that MEDRS applies here, only the spirit. See my comment above to MPants. --Masem (t) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I dont see how WP:BLUE applies, except for saying bullets are lethal, but that isn't what this is about. Afootpluto (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify the facts.

• Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. He is a world renowned expert on active shooter events and has published numerous books, articles, and reports on the topic. He has also presented his research on active shooter events to the FBI, PERF, police chiefs’ organizations, and internationally. A criminologist that our FBI listens to, and can speak to criminals intentions.
• Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator, and recognized as a gun expert. Not a gun expert as claimed for "even a firearm instructors" but a SWAT Munitions Specialist and Armorer for 25 years makes him a gun expert.

The article content mentioned.

• "Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Dr. Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect." I would point out editors Waleswatcher and Slaterstevn have claimed incorrectly the statement claims the AR-15 lacks lethality. But as seen it assert perceived lethality, neither overly lethal or lacking lethality for there weapon selection. The word lethality has even been blocked from the article even though it is used in the sources, "nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity."
• "AR-15 style rifles have played "an oversized role in many of the most high-profile mass shootings in the United States"[62] and have come to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes". The Blair and Hazon content has been blocked from directly following this statement and the distinction of saying the media makes this claim has also been denied. The Blair and Hazon content in the article speaks to the weapon of choice claim. How is something used to balance content, then needs further content to balance it?

The claim being made for this discussion by who and there statements in the source.

• "Other experts believe it is the AR-15s extreme lethality, especially when used against civilians, that is responsible." [12]
• journalist James Fallows "What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?"
• Journalist Tim Dickinson "the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year"

I would point out that compiled data and expert analysis show these statements are factually wrong.-72bikers (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that compiled data and expert analysis show these statements are factually wrong. Umm, those first quote is a question, not a statement. The second quote is a statement, but one the gun experts you cited all agree with: that the AR-15 style rifle is the most popular among mass shooters. And that's something you don't need to be an expert. Now, you can point to claims about "lethality" (which is a BS term if ever I've heard one: trying to boil down penetration, tumble, fragmentation and deflection into a single term is an exercise in futility) as being contradicted by experts, but then I can go get an expert to opine that the 5.56 NATA has excellent performance characteristics for killing quickly, and thereby agree with them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether a statement is - in your opinion - right or wrong. Nor even if experts believe it to be right or wrong. It matters that reliable sources made the statement; unless you're trying to suggest that the AR-15 being a more dangerous weapon than a pistol is a WP:FRINGE position. I really hope you aren't trying to make that claim because it would be silly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And it's important to point out that the reason you were blocked from including the compiled data is that it was so far out of date that several of the deadliest shootings in US history, including most of those done with an AR-15, were not included in the dataset; and the only 2018 dataset anybody could produce was flawed - and criticized as flawed by the same expert you prefer to use as the key RS for this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it is ok to add some views of journalists and such, but they should not overwhelm the article. Coverage in the media is generally relevant for articles, but it is not reliable for facts or conclusions that a surgeon, criminologist, ballistics expert, etc. would make - unless it is reporting those conclusions. And as came up with regards to this before, there is always a question whether a particular doctor is actually a reliable source on this specific topic, or is just reporting anecdotes and opinions. To sum it up, I agree with Masem that the spirit of WP:MEDRS applies, and the article should be strongly weighted toward the views of experts, and that statements or speculation by journalists, or other people who have not done rigorous study of this topic and been published in it as an expert, should be attributed and in no way described as factual. Also I wish that people who are either strongly pro-gun or anti-gun, or have strong opinions on mass shootings (not saying anyone in particular is or does) would leave articles like this alone. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll note I'm not strongly anti-gun, although I do think firearms that are designed specifically for killing groups of humans should not be available for sale. So I do hope that DIYeditor isn't making assumptions about anybody's specific position. (For the record, I'm actually rather gently pro-hunting, and think firearms that are designed for hunting, when properly registered, are a perfectly reasonable privilege to extend to trustworthy people.) Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This general type of firearm is a people-killer designed to kill humans and I sometimes question why some people devote so much time to defending its dubious honour. Simonm223 (talk), 27 September 2018,[13] speaks for itsself. -72bikers (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... Rather than balance between pro- and anti- editors on a topic, I think Wikipedia would be better off if we called that a variety of WP:COI. Let people who are removed from the controversy do the editing. At the least, one should be suspicious in reflection on one's own behavior when one's POVs on political topics persistently line up with what benefits those POVs in articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Ok, so you are anti-AR-15... I own a Bushmaster XM-15 in .223, a Bushmaster Carbon-15 (5.56) and an LWRC Six8 in (predictably enough) 6.8SPC. In addition, though this was many years ago, I have used several military variants of the rifle, including the M4A1 (with a SOPMOD B2 rig), an Mk12 SPR and a bog-standard M16A4. I am absolutely not "anti-AR-15" in any way. I love the platform and think it is the best all-around assault and sporting rifle platform.

Having an opinion doesn't translate to POV pushing that opinion. Simon's comments here have admitted to having an opinion, but do not appear to me to be POV pushing to demonize this type of rifle. I mostly agree with Simon's comments thus far. I would advise you to focus on the content, and not worry too much about anyone's POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work That's why I phrased it as "one", since I don't know Simonm223's editing history. And as I said above I was not saying anyone in particular was doing that. Realistically on a topic like this everyone probably has some kind of viewpoint. I think it is a fair question to ask everyone to consider whether their views on what is policy-compliant for the article are unduly affected by their views on, in this case, whether access to the AR-15 should be more restricted. Personally I think they should be harder to get. It's not a topic I am vehement about though. My point is that like judges sometimes recuse themselves from cases when they can't be impartial, a good Wikipedia editor would do the same. This is not an issue specific to these editors or this article. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The very editors that are claiming NPOV is being denied, have themselves denied RS's with reconized expert analysis.

• a 2013 analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns concluded that 25% of the weapons used in mass shootings were assault weapons.

Only this statement was allowed from a number of sources I provided including the ones below (but not limited to). Only the oldest source was used and only the "were" distinction was allowed as opposed to the "are assault weapons" distinction with more recent support.

• Book by James Alan Fox (a highly respected criminologist) Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [14].
• Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [15]

Both of these are USA Today articles 2017, 2018 in the AR-15 paqge now, February 15, 2018 [16], Nov. 8, 2017 [17], USA Today research and with help from Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. I would also point Waleswatcher is trying to remove one of these right now from the article[18].

• They state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 13 mass shootings and 4 uses in the last 3 years.
• 2015 4 MS with a AR
• 2016 1 MS with a AR
• 2017 2 MS with a AR
• 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR

It would seem some prefer sensationalized journalist speculation of a then news cycle over compiled data and expert analysis and claim it is the mainstream view even when facts show it is incorrect. -72bikers (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well this is a difficult issue and it should only be discussed in proportion to its coverage in published sources (and the media). I think as much coverage as this gets in the article (one paragraph? one section?) should be balanced in favor of criminologists, statisticians, published ballistics and firearms experts, military manuals, to an extent opinions doctors and psychologists have formed, and have very little mention of the media. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the repeated dismissal of journalists and the media as sources of facts and viewpoints. They are experts at gathering and fact-checking information. News articles are backed by the reputation of the publisher and are not simply the personal opinion of the author. All of the sources in question are written by journalists and many of them quote "experts", in fact the Atlantic piece actually quotes the inventor of the AR-15. –dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Again I think this needs to be in proportion to its coverage in sources, which I am not very familiar with. If there is a media storm on this topic then that is significant for the article. On the other hand, if a few typically anti-gun or pro-gun journalists published what are primarily opinions or speculation then I think that should be favored less in terms of balance. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Using quotes from experts (as long as we can affirm they are expects) repeated in RSes is fine to source the expert opinion. Those shouldn't be omitted. What we should be careful of is the reporter's own conclusion if they make one. There's an expert quoted in the Atlantic that can be used if that's the "original" source. (To contrast, if a RS reprints part of a published report made by the expert, we should source the immediate report, not the news article). --Masem (t) 05:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

But also there was, for a while, a statement from a trauma surgeon with combat experience, sourced to Rolling Stone in which he claimed the AR-15 was too close to a military weapon to be in Civilian hands that was disallowed on the grounds that it failed WP:MEDRS. Simply put, the insistence on treating gun death as a medical issue, compounded by the insane American policy of banning federal medical authorities from investigating gun death, has left us with very limited sources we actually can work from. At times, it seems like 72bikers would prefer to only use Fox, wherever possible; which is a problem when they attempt to insert stale-dated statistical information that no longer reflects recent shootings. It's also problematic when they insist that the only relevant statistic for the AR-15 as a weapon in mass shootings is the historical long-term frequency of semi-automatic rifles as primary weapons in mass shootings. While WP:RECENTISM cautions against Wikipedia concentrating too heavily on recent events, the truth is that changes to firearm regulations and popular culture over the last several years have caused shifting patterns that may be buried in the tail of a measure of historical use patterns. Considering that there was a 10-year ban on many of these rifles between 1994 and 2004 and these weapons didn't even exist before the mid-1950s, this is a flawed methodology for assessing the significance of this weapon as a tool of mass-murder. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Simon223, I wanted to correct a few of the points you are making. The material by the trauma surgeon was problematic because it was trying to reach a conclusion that the surgeon wasn't really qualified to make. However, that can be reviewed at the noticeboard. The "insane American policy of banning federal medical authorities from investigating gun death" is a myth with just enough truth and plenty of appeal so it has stuck. There is no such ban and never was one. What did happen was a prohibition on the CDC funding gun control research. Funding research with the objective of promoting gun control is much different than objectively studying gun violence. The Fox (not Fox new, Dr Fox) source that 72biker's has promoted is strong but people feel, without strong rational, that 5 years makes the material too old for use in the article. Springee (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This was supposed to be about fresh eyes, so can those of us already involved please shut up?Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding frequency of use for any particular purpose, there is also the math of prevalence. As bundled here ("AR-15 style") that bundle is the most prevalent type of rifle and general purpose rifle in the US. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah. With Obama inevitably coming for our guns, we need a rifle that we can use to defen- Wait... Obama's still in office, still coming for our guns, right?

Actually, this touches upon something I've been saying when my neighbors ask gun-nut, AR-15-toting ole me why all the mass shooters are using the same type of rifle I like so much: "Because it's the most popular rifle in the country, these past few years". If Winchester 30-30 lever actions become the most popular rifle over the next few years, I'll bet dollars to donuts it also becomes the most popular mass-murder rifle. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Which makes me wonder... would the AR-15 still be so popular if it were only produced in pastel pink? (Think about it... what self respecting mass shooter wants to be remembered as the guy using a “girlie” gun?). Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I own a pastel pink Walther PPQ that I almost always bring to the pistol range. To be fair, I bought it for my wife because she always loved pink guns, but she wanted something smaller, so we replaced that with a black Sig Sauer P365, and I just love the way the PPQ handles, especially when I just unload a mag or two on a CQC course. So I guess the answer to your weapon is "flaming liberal gun nuts who support commonsense gun control because we're smart enough to realize that making it slightly harder for me to buy a new one isn't the same thing as 'coming fer mah guns!' and it might well be the thing that saves my child's life one day when I'm not there to do it." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blueboar, that would have reduced one driver. From what I've seen, the drivers were/are: 1. Appearance / panache.... looks like the military guns. 2. Efforts to ban them makes people want them more. ....that's how people are 3. It's a system, not a gun. The "mix and match" became a hobby itself and also makes it versatile for widely varying uses. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see editor Simonm223's problematic assertion "72bikers would prefer to only use Fox, wherever possible" to be a valid claim. Why would using Dr. Fox a highly respected professor of criminology, that our government and law enforcement listen to, [19], [20],[21] who has conducted numerous studies on the subject of mass shootings, and is cited by literally hundreds of books and articles, be problematic. This is Dr. Fox on C-SPAN[22] (from 15:50 to 22:50) he speaks to how the media tries to get him to sensationalized some claim by filtering the facts to most this or most that, and how they provoke copycat effect. Please watch this I believe it to provide a lot of clarity.

The claim of "stale-dated statistical information that no longer reflects recent shootings" would appear to be just based opinion. Being that no source has been provided to support this claim. And this claim is a prime example "the truth is that changes to firearm regulations and popular culture over the last several years have caused shifting patterns that may be buried in the tail of a measure of historical use patterns" also a claim that has no actual proof (no data no statistics or expert analysis) provided.

I have not asserted this "the only relevant statistic long-term frequency of semi-automatic rifles" I have repeatedly tried to include the last couple of years data.

• Book by Jaclyn Schildkraut, H. Jaymi Elsass 2016 [23] revolvers 14.1% and semiautomatic handgun 47.9% for a combined total of 62% - shotguns13.4% and assault weapons 24.6% with specific AR-15 use just a portion of.
• Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018 [24] with handgun use up to 70%.
• Mother Jones compiled data 1982-2018 shows no significant change in weapon use. [25] His excuse for not using was just fox brought up some argument he claimed. But Fox only mentioned in one article he was not in support of all there inclusion parameters, being a anti gun publication there inclusion is not as strict as the FBI and criminologist use. Also there data is easily filtered is how fox uses it.
• USA Today articles 2018 In the AR-15 page now state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 13 mass shootings and 4 uses in the last 3 years.
• USA Today articles 2017, In the AR-15 page now state in the last 35 years AR-15 specifically were used in 12 mass shootings. I would also point out the editors that started this discussion of including content are now trying to remove this reference to the very content they are now challenging. -72bikers (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I said: I am only suggesting that we verify the amount of media coverage before including many references to journalism itself, not that it should definitely not be included. It may be relevant to telling the story of the AR-15 if we can say there has been strong controversy over it, or quite a number of allegations against the AR-15, or other coverage in the media related to this article. The proportions in article space for each position should be related to how many relevant and significant RSs there are - we should not try to give equal weight unless it exists. WP:DUE is important and perhaps a little tricky to apply. Some weight should be given to prominent media opinions and the opinions of other credible critics. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me use a completely unrelated example of why we want expert opinion over widespread journalist opinion where there are at least some objective aspects to a topic that a layperson is likely not going to know. This week, one of the Nobel prizes went to Donna Strickland - who didn't have an article on WP until this was announced. An original entry for her had been filled with copyvio so was deleted, and while a draft was created (here) it didn't indicate sufficient notability to be in mainspace (nor passed NPROF). But many journalists [26], [27], [28] claimed that she didn't have an article and that her article was rejected because WP has a gender bias. We certainly have a gender bias, no doubt, but it a combination of outside gender bias in both the lack of coverage of important acadaemics, and the bias in the general STEM areas for women, which all are unfortunately replicated in WP due to our reliance on quality sources. Reviewing all the material (as an expert on WP) tells me that the conclusions these articles jumped to are wrong and make bad assumptions of getting from point A to B, which gives a wrong picture of what happened with Strickland's article.

Same thing here on this issue with AR-15. There are specialized areas of this topic that laypersons - everyday journalists - do not necessary know, but experts - firearms experts, psychologies, officers of the law, etc. - do. We want to weigh the conclusions those experts come to - even if it several different subjective answers - first and foremost over those from laypersons that may be making illogical leaps of logic, perhaps fueled by other desires. --Masem (t) 13:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if the media sources do have that kind of bias or ineptitude and they have been publishing on this topic I think it may be relevant to the article to mention that briefly. I am not familiar with the various precedents and interpretations about WP:DUE, WP:RS, only offering my take on this with a little knowledge of those rules, and what I think would make for a full article. But in the Intersectionality dispute mentioned lower on this noticeboard I have sided with limiting the criticisms sections only to experts (broadly interpreted). So I may be contradicting myself if these situations are analogous. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC) This was my stance there. 05:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

In the case of the question "Why are AR-15 rifles common in mass shootings?", the answer is not purely objective, experts are not going to give a wholly objective, unchallengeable answer, but they are going to give an answer that has much weight than laypersons. It is a UNDUE issue to put non-informed opinions over informed opinions. --Masem (t) 06:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Intersectionality

As discussed in the talk page, there is dissagrement on the content that is in the section about criticism. Comments are needed to reach consensus and achieve neutrality. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychology

I'd like to seek help with NPOV issues in the parapsychology article please.

I have been trying to make the article more balanced with the addition of peer reviewed articles from reputable journals. However every edit I make is being reverted.

For instance - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parapsychology&diff=861993182&oldid=861987230

I tried to change "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists." to "Although it has been identified as pseudoscience by a majority of mainstream scientists for many years a recent review of research by psychologist Etzel Cardeña has found that "The evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines, although there is no consensual understanding of them."

I also added some information about the researcher who wrote this paper to the relevant section but it was reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parapsychology&diff=next&oldid=862096145

I also replaced the outdated definition in the lede with one that was from a reliable source, but it was reverted. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parapsychology&diff=next&oldid=862113087

It was

Parapsychology is the study of paranormal and psychic phenomena, including telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, near-death experiences, reincarnation, apparitional experiences, and other paranormal claims.

I changed it to

"a branch of psychology that studies a group of phenomena collectively known as psi, a term referring to the transfer of information or energy that cannot be explained by known physical or biological mechanisms".

I have another reference for a very similar definition "Parapsychology can be defined as the study of purported psi phenomena using the scientific method" which is Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. But I haven't added it as every time I try to make the slightest change now it just gets reverted, even things that are fixing broken references and info about researchers.

Now editors are trying to have the Psychology sidebar removed claiming that its presence is promoting fringe ideas and claiming that parapsychology is not even psychology, despite my pointing out that The American Psychological Association thinks it is (https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/psyccritiques-spotlight/issue-11.aspx) and The wikipedia psychology project thinks it is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_psychology).

I am being accused of promoting fringe ideas even though everything I have added is from reliable sources. Most of the arguments are simply other editors opinions that parapsychology is not reputable. No one has addressed my actual edits or sources other than in very arm wavy terms. They just keep repeating that I am violating policy and trying to promote fringe ideas.

Please take a look at the talk page and see if you can help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parapsychology&action=edit&section=3

I have notified all participating editors.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

References

I think setting the opinion of the vast majority of all psychologists up against one single researcher in the lead is the very definition of false balance. We call parapsychology fringe pseudoscience because that's the opinion of most every psychological institution that matters. Etzel Cardena's research is essentially meaningless by comparison. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Cardeña reference alone is nowhere near sufficient for the WP:EXTRAORDINARY bar and the edits are in clear WP:PROFRINGE territory. This is nothing new, it's just yet another psychologist who got outside his lane and started expounding the magic is real. As I mentioned before he might be better served concentrating on Psychology's Replication Crisis. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not one researcher with a single thesis. The cited paper is a meta review, which means it is analyzing meta studies. He is analyzing 20 meta studies and collating and reviewing the data. I have more references for what he states in the article but I haven't been able to add them due to constant reverts. Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Parapsychologists producing garbage meta-analyses is nothing new either. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

That's looks remarkably like a biased opinion to me... I'd like to remind you that this article is from American Psychologist, the official peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Psychological Association. Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Once more, a single, non-reproduced, peer-reivewed meta-analysis in a psychology journal, is not sufficient coverage to meet the bar set by WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

One researcher getting their fringe views into a prominent publication doesn't overturn years of consensus, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. The article may merit mention in the body, but attempting to change the lede based on that is clearly WP:PROFRINGE. Even less significant is being present on a page like Outline of psychology. --tronvillain (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, a mention in a PsycCRITIQUES Spotlight does not establish a position of the American Psychological Association, so to suggest "The American Psychological Association thinks it is [psychology]" is completely unjustified. --tronvillain (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

So they talk about it on their psychology web site and publish it in their psychology journal but it's not psychology. Have I got that right? Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, a mention on a section of their website does not establish an official position of the American Psychological Association, which is clearly what "The American Psychological Association thinks it is" implies. --tronvillain (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that I'm marching with the beat of every editor except the OP in this thread: this looks like POV pushing. Parapsychology is WP:FRINGE and should be treated as such. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• I concur with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants on this. Morgan Leigh may benefit from reading WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that WP:1AM says that "This editor has been around a long time, has made many edits, has no recent blocks, and generally gets along with everyone." /me points at self. I'd like to recommend that "In this case you should seriously reexamine your own position, especially if you are a fairly new editor. Work with the lone holdout and try to figure out why you are in such an unusual situation." .Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does not. I hope that I made that clear when I wrote 1AM. That being said, I find it interesting that you focused in on the advice I wrote for the many and appear to have totally ignored the advice I wrote for you. Might I gently suggest that you ignore the "Advice for the many" section (which I encourage those who disagree with you to read) and focus in on the advice that was written for editors in your situation? The general consensus appears to be that 1AM is good advice. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh:, This is a long-standing issue at Wikipedia. Parapsychology is firmly a WP:FRINGE study, but it's one that has had its day in the Sun a lot more than other fringe subjects. By some accounts, Margaret Mead is the reason the Parapsychology Association wasn't tossed out of AAAS forty years ago, but this doesn't mean the subject is any less fringe. This is why we need to tread carefully, it's easy to think that because there are people with mainstream connections tooling around with parapyschology that it somehow is a respectable field of study. In fact, it is nearly the definition of a WP:WALLED GARDEN and is used as an object lesson for how problematic it can be to adopt certain idealizations of the way science operates without careful plausibility work. The wet and woolly times of the 1960s and 1970s when there were hopes and dreams that psi would be measured, characterized, and bottled up for application gave way to no progress and statistical rebuffing that either couldn't be countered or was simply countered with "but it's worse in mainstream psychology" (TRUE, but not a defense!). So that's where we've been for some time. To declare parapsychology to be a part of psychology is dangerous because there are a lot of psychologists who take issue with this lumping. It's best to leave the definition as is until there is some major breakthrough and Nobel Prizes are handed out. jps (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I was invited here but my comments were already made at the article's talk page. This noticeboard discussion may permit to gather more participants, however. —PaleoNeonate – 18:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a weasely sort of phrase that, "the evidence for psi is comparable to that for established phenomena in psychology and other disciplines," since the truth of that statement is founded in how poor so many psychological studies are. Highlighting that quote in isolation gives a misleading impression. There may still be a useful role for Cardeña's paper for a more conservative statement outside the lede. Rhoark (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually the quote doesn't give a misleading impression. It's completely accurate, but it's just a summary. In the body of the text he says "As far as a comparison to other areas, in their analysis of more than 25,000 social psychology experiments, Richard, Bond, and Stokes-Zoota (2003) reported an average ES ⫽ 0.21, similar to some of the meta-analyses in Tables 1 and 2. The ES of some psi protocols is not only comparable but much larger than those of the clinically recommended uses of aspirin or propanolol to prevent heart conditions (Spencer, 1995; Utts, 1991) and would be classified as “evidence-based” applying the criteria of clinical practice (cf. Haidich, 2010)." He's comparing it not only with social psychology but with medical science as well. The fact that you think it is misleading shows your bias. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It only makes sense to compute correlations when there is or might be a plausible causal mechanism. Computing correlations doesn't make sense for <insert supernatural explanation here>. Let's say that there is a correlation between electricity consumption in Bijlmer and the flow rate of Niagara Falls. What does that prove? Nothing, I guess. It's just a spurious statistical correlation having no plausible causal mechanism. So, we have causal claims that defy everything else from sciences, and causal claims which don't defy most of established science. See organized skepticism. There is a name for scientists who don't convince the skeptics: losers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a name for scientists who don't convince the skeptics: losers. I am afraid you are mistaken. The proper name is "crank", though yours is a more or less accurate descriptive. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hold up, Cardenas is assuming an equivalent level correlation to clinical studies of Asprin based on a meta-analysis of 20 (almost certainly non-replicated) psi experiments?!? Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That article simple waited until 1:07 to point to the broken clock and exclaim "Look! It's accurate right now!" ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He also opens with some fun quantum mysticism as a mechanism. --tronvillain (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He's not computing correlations. He's demonstrating that the mean effect size in parapsychology experiments is larger than those in some clinical medical studies and would be classified as evidence based using the criteria of clinical practice. It's even cited "Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hyppokratia, 14, 29 –37." Did you even read the paper?

He does mention quantum mechanics, and cites Delbruck "“Modern science . . . has forced us to abandon absolute space and time, determinism, and the absolute object” (p. 279). But clearly you'd much rather exhibit a childish attitude and express your bias than worry about cited sources.Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Why don't parapsychologists ever ask some people active in the field of quantum physics what they think of having their field used in such a fashion? jps (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Immigration and crime in Germany

I really don't like the way this article is shaping up. The title suggests a historical overview of the topic, but in fact the article concentrates heavily on the present migrant "crisis". I'm not even sure that the title isn't WP:Synthesis. I would like to hear other views. Deb (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) has released a report named Bundes­lage­bild Krimi­nalität im Kon­text von Zu­wan­de­rung 2017 so the scope of the article is supported by WP:RS and is therefore not a case of WP:SYNTH. Kind regards, AadaamS (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

BKA released reports for 2016 and 2015 but there does not seem to be one for 2014 or earlier. If the most comprehensive authorative sources are recent, the article seems to reflect available sources. Added link to article in section heading. Perhaps earlier reports used a different title? AadaamS (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter whether earlier information is difficult to find (and your comment suggests you haven't looked very hard); what matters is that the article purports to be something different from what it is. It begins by defining the topic thus: "Immigration and crime in Germany refers to crimes committed against and by immigrants in Germany." It contains a total of five lines about crimes against immigrants, and the other thirteen lengthy paragraphs are all about crimes committed by immigrants in the years since the 1990s. There is no way that can be considered even-handed or written from a neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your concern. Do you suggest that reliable sources proving that the nember of crimes committed against and by immigrants is more or less equal? If this is the case, this piece of information should not be ignored. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm suggesting that a serious attempt should be made to include crimes committed against immigrants rather than concentrating on those committed by immigrants. An article like this must deal even-handedly with the two types of crime, otherwise it will end up as just another stream of "facts" exclusively taken from German-language sources that are unable to look at the situation from an objective viewpoint. And historical information should be included. Deb (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources about crimes committed against immigrants, they should be cited. Why is this a case here? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of studies on anti-immigration violence.[29] I think the other editor is expressing the concern that the regular editors on that article are intentionally adding items that reflect poorly on immigrants while intentionally omitting crimes against immigrants and omitting content that paints a more nuanced picture of immigrant crime. You know, a violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV by exaggerating certain aspects and omitting other aspects, giving readers a skewed view of reality. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

That's right. Because the article is relatively new and there have been few contributors so far, it would be nice to have consensus as to how to improve it. Deb (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely an article that needs more eyes. The editor AadaamS adds content that AFAIK exclusively reflects poorly on immigrants, often sourced to German-language sources (which I'm unable to verify). This coupled with repeated attempts to remove reliably sourced content on the relationship between immigration and crime (both for Germany and Sweden) that provides a more nuanced view suggests that there is cause for concern. The editor has for example argued that high-quality English-language RS shouldn't be used in these articles, and has intermittently started edit-wars to remove the same RS content again and again (presumably in the hopes that other editors have stopped patrolling pages such as Immigration and crime, Immigration and crime in Sweden and Immigration and crime in Germany). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Why isn't this just a subsection of Immigration to Germany or Crime in Germany? We have good quality academic research on the relationship between immigration and crime is there any reason to think that relationship is different in Germany? This seems like having an article for "Health Effects of Tobacco (in Germany)" or "Speed of sound (in Germany). The section that breaks down crime by region seems especially pointless - there's really no way to know whether the number of knife attacks in Baden-Württemberg in 2017 is related to immigration or if it is just noise. This reads like a long string of anecdotes, and it really seems like it should be trimmed and merged. Nblund ^talk 13:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd support that. I almost wonder if it's an attempt to blind-side us so as to circumvent the work that's already been done to improve those articles. Deb (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's a standalone article fundamentally because the article satisfies the WP:GNG general notability criteria. AadaamS (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
      • More contributions by editors who are skilled in the German language would be very helpful. The section on crimes against immigrants should be expanded. AadaamS (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does fit the WP:GNG guidelines - obviously there are sources that discuss this topic, but there don't appear to be sources that discuss this topic as a wholly unique a distinct phenomenon in Germany relative to the rest of the world. Moreover, per WP:PAGEDECIDE: treating this as a totally separate article means that important context - such as research on immigration and crime in other countries and general information about immigration in Germany - is missing from the article. This topic has been studied extensively in the US, but Immigration and Crime in the United States is still a subsection of Immigration in the United States. Why should Germany be different? Nblund ^talk 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are conviced that the article doesn't live up to WP:GNG, you should launch a WP:AFD. Can't hurt to have some extra opinions. What do you think? AadaamS (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the argument that it's a WP:POVFORK of those articles seems credible (in that it essentially covers the same topics, but from an angle that implies a potentially-POV conclusion about the connection between the two topics.) The issue isn't WP:GNG, the issue is that there's no compelling reason to cover this on its own article when we already have articles on crime and immigration in Germany that cover the same topic more rigorously and with more context. --Aquillion (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is basically my assessment as well. -sche (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• It could maybe stand alone because the AfD and others have been quite successful in painting crime as a problem caused by immigrants--wait. That works everywhere. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• The "crime" section of Immigration to Germany could use some work as well. –dlthewave ☎ 01:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The reason that there are no reports for 2014 or earlier is that the report is about crime and the refugees who arrived beginning in 2015. In any case it appears to be synthesis. A tally of crimes by immigrants is presented with no analysis, which implies that immigration leads to crime without actually saying so. And the term immigrant is used in a way that would not normally be used in English to include people whose grandparents had immigrated to the country. (We don't for example refer to Donald Trump as an immigrant to America just because his grandparents were immigrants.) TFD (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Analysis and context can always be added and improved, nobody has argued against that. If terminology needs to be clarified, that can be fixed. Heading 2.2 in the University of Greifswald source is "The crime rates of the second and third generation of immigrants". AadaamS (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE objection at Birthright Israel

An editor has claimed that including the material removed in this edit with this source and this source is a "clearly UNDUE" because in his words there is "scant coverage" in a "weak source" in the case of the Daily Beast. When the book published by Routeledge was brought the user continues to say that this is "clearly UNDUE". Would the inclusion of that material with those sources be UNDUE weight? nableezy - 20:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is the author of the essay and what his credentials? --Shrike (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: Rami K. Isaac, C. Michael Hall and Freya Higgins-Desbiolles. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, those are the editors. The chapter has beeb authored by Suhail Khalilieh of ARIJ.[30] ARIJ, per their annual 2014 report were involved in the KTH tour in question. Highly POV source to begin with, and in this case involved with the subject.Icewhiz (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• The editor in question, myself, raised other concerns as well - namely scant coverage of this single bus tour vs copious coverage for Birthright, PROMO of this single bus tour, and finally the DB article (and summary rehash in a book chapter on tourism) - makes the connection with a question mark and various qualifications - the source does not support the assertion that they are similar - it poses the question.Icewhiz (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As I understand it, one of the main reasons this paragraph was removed from the article, is that the article about Birthright Israel trips, while the paragraph that was removed is about "Know Thy Heritage" trips, and the connection between the is made only hesitantly in the source, which says "Although there is certainly overlap between Birthright Israel and Know Thy Heritage, Rabie hesitates to make the comparison". This reason was explained in the edit summary, which starts "Single source making a connection, and even it does so with a question makrk and qualifications." Sine the comparison between the two trips is made in a single source, based on a single interview in which the comparison is made only hesitantly, this information is therefore not noteworthy on this article. Basically this is not a question for this noticeboard, IMHO, if not that Nableezy is an aggressive and pushy editor, who wants to use this noticeboard to get his way. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

KosherSwitch

See Talk:KosherSwitch#NPOV --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)