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)

(3) Sure. Here you go (just some examples).

• In the 5th century BC, Herodotus was the first author to write a detailed account of the natives of south-eastern Europe. In connection with a Persian campaign in 514 BC, he mentions the Getae, which he called "the most courageous and upright Thracian tribe".Strabo wrote that the language of the Dacians was "the same as that of the Getae".
• Literary tradition on the conquest of Dacia was preserved by 3-4 Roman scholars. Cassius Dio wrote that "numerous Dacians kept transferring their allegiance" to Emperor Trajan before he commenced his war against Decebal. Lucian of Samosata, Eutropius, and Julian the Apostate unanimously attest the memory of a "deliberate ethnic cleansing" that followed the fall of the Dacian state. For instance, Lucian of Samosata who cites Emperor Trajan's physician Criton of Heraclea states that the entire Dacian "people was reduced to forty men". In fact, Thracian or possibly Dacian names represent about 2% of the approximately 3,000 proper names known from "Dacia Traiana". Bitus, Dezibalos and other characteristic Dacian names were only recorded in the empire's other territories, including Egypt and Italy. Constantin Daicoviciu, Dumitru Protase, Dan Ruscu and other historians have debated the validity of the tradition of the Dacians' extermination. They state that it only refers to the men's fate or comes from Eutropius's writings to provide an acceptable explanation for the massive colonisation that followed the conquest. Indeed, Eutropius also reported that Emperor Trajan transferred to the new province "vast numbers of people from all over the Roman world". Onosmatic evidence substantiates his words: about 2,000 Latin, 420 Greek, 120 Illyrian, and 70 Celtic names are known from the Roman period.

(4) So if Schulte is not connected to any of the theories (that is mainstream academic/scientific theories that address the Origin of Romanians) then what is the relevance of the citation to the Origin of Romanians, and what is the WP:RS that establishes that relevance?

(+ new one - 5) could you please point us (properly cite) towards the specific Wikipedia policy where this concept of "neutral fact" that you seem to keep mentioning (and using as the basis for structuring an article) is defined? Thank you too.Cealicuca (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(3) Sorry, I do not understand your list. Do you claim those neutral statements are connected only to one of the theories? To which theory? (4) Do you really think Schulte's statement that the Romanians developed from a bilingual population is not connected to the Romanians' ethnogenesis? Do you know the meaning of the word "ethnogenesis"? (The reliable source is the following: Schulte, Kim (2009). "Loanwords in Romanian". In Haspelmath, Martin; Tadmor, Uri (eds.). Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 230–259. ISBN 978-3-11-021843-5.). (5) Please read WP:NPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating facts as opinions" - we should clearly make a distinction between facts and their scholarly interpretation. You have been trying to distribute facts between opinions. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(3) First of all, "I not understand your list" seems almost bot-like and I find your approach ("sorry, I don't understand your ...") bothersome. I have (no-so-subtly) tried to show you (by using it to respond to you in my last couple of answers) that this deflection technique you employ so frequently is not constructive at all. Again you use "neutral statements". I again ask you to cite/point towards the specific WP:POLICY defining such term(s). (4) Don't try to deflect, I know the meaning of "ethnogenesis". Nevertheless, please explain what is the relevance, and who establishes that relevance of Schulte's statements in relation to the ethnogenesis of Romanians, especially since, as per your answer, she is not "connected" to any of the three mainstream theories. (5) I have been doing what? "You have been trying to distribute facts between opinions."? What does that even mean? Please back up your WP:CLAIMS.Cealicuca (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(3) If you cannot name the single theory to which the above statements are connected, how can you allocate the same statements to one of the theories? ["Neutral" is a well-known adjective, referring to anything that does not support or help either side in a conflict, disagreement [5]. Consequently, we can use this adjective when referring to facts that neither support nor contradict any of the three concurring theories. I referred to the relevant WP policy - WP:NPOV - above under point (5). We cannot present facts as opinions. Furthermore, we cannot state that a neutral fact supports or contradicts any of the theories if we cannot verify this statement, as per WP:NOR.] (4) Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistics. Her statement is relevant, because she proposes that the Romanians' ancestors were among a bilingual population. Ethnogenesis can hardly be imagined without ancestors. (5) If you do not want to distribute the facts between theories, how do you want to restructure the article? Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(3)

I have given multiple examples already on this. If I keep re-iterating them you complain of "long posts" (since showing that a particular statement is referring to a particular theory would mean me quoting it). I won't play this "game" of yours anymore. And you using google.hu to find out what "neutral" means doesn't mean that "neutral fact" is still an original concept.

Facts are facts. Fact is that there is time dilation near strong gravitational sources. Does it support Einstein's views? Yes it does. Is there something wrong about that? No. This is the normal process - academics use facts to support their theories. There is no such thing as the concept of "neutral facts" since facts, by themselves, facts cannot be anything but neutral. Facts don't "take sides" and thus they are useless unless put into context. This (neutral fact / statement) is a gimmik that you use to justify hat the article does not present the academic views on the subject AS THEY (those vies) ARE (stated by the sources) - facts along side their academic interpretations and context - thus breaching WP:NPOV and constituting actually WP:OR. You still haven't given us a quote from WP:POLICY where this "neutral fact / statement" is mentioned. If it's that easy and straightforward please cite the policy text that refers to it.

"Furthermore, we cannot state that a neutral fact supports or contradicts any of the theories if we cannot verify this statement, as per WP:NOR." - I beg your pardon? This is precisely the problem of the article. If a WP:RS mentions a fact as supporting argument for one or several theories (as shown in the examples I have given, the examples that you ignore, the examples I will not reiterate because you'll complain about posts being too long while at the same time ignoring them and asking for me to post examples...), we HAVE TO mention that, according to WP:NPOV. And no, we are not supposed to "verify" that a "fact" supports a theory or not, we only need to look at the source and reproduce, as close as possible, what the source says.

(4)

I do not dispute that Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistic. Nevertheless, why is it relevant towards HOW the ethnogenesys came to be (because I hope you do understand that since a people exist the question is not IF there is an ethnogenesis but rather HOW that ethnogenesis happened)? So - how is her statement (or the fact that Romanian's ancestors were among a bilingual population) related to the question of HOW. How does that statements fits into the picture of HOW the process (of ethnogenesis) unfolded? If it's that clear you should be able to articulate it easily. If it has any relevance whatsoever it must be able to describe the process of how Romanians came to be (ethnogenesys). The statement itself only gives a description of some people, not of a process.

(5)

First of all - your question is a leading one. It's not about "distributing facts among theories". We don't get to decide what goes into a theory (sources do that), how valid a theory is (sources do that) etc. Our job is to reflect what a WP:RS states about a particular subject, not to pick those statements apart and decide on their validity or if they support or contradict a specific theory. The mere fact that you seem to be hell-bent on separating "neutral facts" from their context breaks WP:NPOV.

The structure of the article - as I believe it should be according to WP:POLICY - would mean that a lot of those so-called "neutral facts" would either be integrated in their respective theories (according to what the sources say) or be removed entirely as per WP:DUE - that is if a statement/source (be it a WP:RS) falls outside any of the three mainstream theories (that is, according to your concept of "neutral facts", independent of any of the mainstream theories) then it certainly is breaking WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT to have the article mostly "dedicated" to such elements (as it is right now). Again, any such "neutral facts", being independent (according to you that is) of any of the theories that describe the process (ethnogenesis) are, by themselves, not a description of the process (for which it seems you kinda need a theory...). Thus, they are irrelevant, simply because it's not a question of "IF" the Romanian people had an ethnogenesis but HOW that ethnogenesis unfolded.

I would bring an example right now of how important the context is and how you manage to skew what a WP:RS means simply by ripping the statements out of the context.

• The number of frequently used words in Romanian of Slavic origin suggests that Daco-Romans and Slavs lived together for an extended period before the Romanian language had been fully formed and before the Slavs north of the Danube had been assimilated by the more numerous Daco-Romans. The Slavic element in Romanian was reinforced later by the expansion of the First Bulgarian Empire north of the Danube and across the Carpathians before and after the conversion of Tsar Boris to Christianity in AD 864. It was the form of Slavic brought by the Bulgarians, that is, Medio-Bulgarian, based on the language spoken around Salonika in the ninth century that was the source of numerous Slavic words in Romanian relating to church life, ritual, and the hierarchy.

The text above is from A Concise History of Romania (Cambridge Concise Histories - Cambridge University Press) - Keith Hitchins / ISBN 978-0-521-87238-6 (hardback) 978-0-521-69413-1 (pbk), p. 16 / Chapter "Continuity".

It is a tertiary source - a kind of source that "sums up widely accepted results of large amounts of primary and secondary sources". Pretty good one. Cambridge University. WP:RS I'd say, right?

The quoted text is in support of one of the theories (not according to me, but according to the source) - without the source needing to specify that for each and every sentence (or statement). Relevant to that is the fact that the chapter is called "Continuity" and the context (Slavs north of the Danube being assimilated by Daco-Romans implies that the Daco-Romans were already living north of the Danube at the time of this assimilation; the expansion of the Bulgarian Empire north of the Danube reinforcing the Slavic element in Romanian implies the the people speaking Romanian were living north of the Danube at the moment of the expansion etc.). So the context matters. A lot.

If we take each statement by itself - of course, the WP:RS does not specify support for one or another theory in each and every statement. Yet all those statements are made in the context of a specific theory.

Questions: Care to tell us how your "neutral facts" should take precedence before such sources? Or how, for example, why the not-yet-established-relevance of Schulte's "independent" observation should be in the article at all? If it's truly "independent" it means that the academics have not deemed it relevant/important enough to the question of "how" (since the "if" is irrelevant) or otherwise it would be included in one of the theories (no longer "independent") - so isn't including it in an article that should explain the "how" means that the editors has "taken" upon himself/herself to answer the "how" questions - thus constituting WP:OR? What gives us the right to seek answers to a question that the academia already answers (multiple answers, maybe even diverging - true. But it matters not) by using what seems to us is relevant to that question?Cealicuca (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(3) You have not named the theory which is exclusively supported by the statements you quoted from the article, although you claimed that these statements support only one of the theories ([6]). If you cannot name the theory, let the administrators close this debate. (4) Schulte's statement describes one of the many phrases of the Romanians' ethnogenesis: the Romanians' ancestors formed a population with strong bilingual elements. (5) You have not been able to mention a single fact from the article which exclusively supports one of the theories. Consequently, your whole argumentation is baseless. Your reference to the historian Hitchins proves that the same facts are interpreted differently by different scholars. Most linguists agree that most Slavic loanwords were adopted by the Romanians' ancestors after around 850 (I can refer, for instance, to Petrucci, Peter R. (1999). Slavic Features in the History of Rumanian. LINCOM EUROPA. ISBN 38-9586-599-0.). If you distribute facts between theories, how can you secure the neutral presentation of concurring scholarly POVs about the same facts? (+1) If you are unable to provide a fact from the article which is exclusively related to one of the theories, I stop debating this issue with you. Sorry, I do not have time to read your long texts. Please, don't bludgeon the process. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Here are some of the examples already given. Note that they are taken directly from the article.

(1)* As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century. - This statement is made near the beginning of Chapter IV, Subchapter 5 (source). The author considers it as a sort of cliche (not refuting it though), and then goes on to explore other explanations as well, in the context of the continuity theory. So the whole statement is entirely misleading, as presented in the article, because the context (according to the WP:RS) is the continuity theory, the statement being a supporting argument (according to the source).

You responded to the examples with "(i) sentence i.: it contains a neutral fact that does not contradict or strengthen any of the theories;" - So the source itself states that what is quoted in the article is in the context of a theory but you dismiss it as a "neutral fact" and be done with it. So the article presents your take on the statement, instead of what the source mentions. WP:SYN / WP:OR

(2)* [...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated "near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...] - This statement is only a small part of a chapter-wide analysis, weirdly enough the article contains more than just this statement form the same source but without the conclusion. The WP:RS ends this analysis with the following: "In conclusion, the Slavic and Hungarian historical traditions (the latter expressed by the Gestae written by the Anonymous Notary and Simon of Keza) certified the presence of the Romanians in Pannonia, before the Hungarian conquest.", thus considering the subject of the whole book, this is simply and argument for the continuity theory according to the source.

You continue, for the second example, with "[...] actually, the article presents the facts as you proposed, mentioning the tradition [...]" which is again a fallacy simply because the source (again, the source from the article, the WP:RS used for that particular statement) actually states that as a supportive argument for a specific theory. I didn't say that the "facts" are not presented correctly (say the citations are incorrect). I said that the source presents the statements in the context of the Continuity theory while the article does not. Again, what has been done with the statement given as an example, in the article, falls under WP:SYN / WP:OR.

(3) "Your reference to the historian Hitchins proves that the same facts are interpreted differently by different scholars." - I am sorry, did you just equate your opinion on what "most linguist" say about the issue with Hitchins?And moreover, it does NOT matter if the same fact is interpreted different by historians. Why do you insist on disregarding the mainstream theories (and the interpretation that those theories give to facts) and adopt an original synthesis?

(4) "If you distribute facts between theories, how can you secure the neutral presentation of concurring scholarly POVs about the same facts?" - By presenting the POV's (in our case theories) as they are argumented by the academia.

Questions (some have already been asked yet you did not answer):

(5)*Please quote/cite WP:POLICY where "neutral fact" is mentiond, as well as explain what is the difference between a "neutral fact", a "fact" and a "non-neutral fact". Care to tell us how your "neutral facts" should take precedence before what a source says (presumably "non-neutral facts" since the sources use "facts" to support a theory or refute theories)?

(6)*I do not dispute that Schulte is an expert in the field of linguistic. Nevertheless, why is it relevant towards HOW the ethnogenesys came to be (because I hope you do understand that since a people exist the question is not IF there is an ethnogenesis but rather HOW that ethnogenesis happened)? How is Schulte's statement (or the fact that Romanian's ancestors were among a bilingual population) related to the question of HOW. How does that statements fits into the picture of HOW the process (of ethnogenesis) unfolded? If it's that clear you should be able to articulate it easily. If it has any relevance whatsoever it must be able to describe the process of how Romanians came to be (ethnogenesys). The statement itself only gives a description of some people, not of a process.

• Or how, for example, why the not-yet-established-relevance of Schulte's "independent" observation should be in the article at all? If it's truly "independent" it means that the academics have not deemed it relevant/important enough to the question of "how" the ethnogenesis of Romanians unfolded (since the "if" is a non-problem) or otherwise it would be included in one of the theories (no longer "independent") - so isn't including it in an article that should explain the "how" means that the editors has "taken" upon himself/herself to answer the "how" questions - thus constituting WP:OR? What gives us the right to seek answers to a question that the academia already answers (multiple answers, maybe even diverging - true. But it matters not) by using what seems to us is relevant to that question?

(7)*Could you tell us based on what criteria you determine that one "neutral fact" or another is relevant to the Origin of Romanians, and what is that relevance?

(8) *Could you explain to us why would an article dedicate most of it's content to sources presenting a non-mainstream PoV, in spite of WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT / WP:FRINGE (Let's presume you are right, and that "most" sources in the article do not support one or another mainstream theory - reductio ad absurdum) Cealicuca (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

[I added numbers to your lengthy message] (1) The same statement (the Romanians are not mentioned in historical sources before the 10th century) is a common place in scholarly works dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis. (For instance, *Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1999). Romanians and Romania: A Brief History. Boulder. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-88033-440-2.; *Vékony, Gábor (2000). Dacians, Romans, Romanians. Matthias Corvinus Publishing. p. 211. ISBN 978-1-882785-13-1.) How could we present the "context" (your wording) of this statement from all referred scholarly works? Why should we present the "context" if this is a fact which neither support nor contradict any of the theories (that is, it is a neutral fact). Or can you name a scholar who uses this fact as argumentation in favor of or against any of the theories? Or do you claim, only Madgearu's "context" should be presented? Based on which WP policy? (2) Again, Kekaumenos' reference to the Vlachs' homeland to the south of the Danube is a common place in the relevant literature (I will not refer to specific books, because almost all the books written by historians cited in the article mention this). Of course, we can add that according to certain historians, this is an evidence for the Romanians' continuous presence in the lands to the north of the Danube. However, in this case, we should also mention that other scholars regard it as a clear evidence of the Romanians' Balkan homeland, as per WP:NPOV. Is this an acceptable compromise for you? (3) and (8) Sorry, I do not understand your reference to "mainstream theories"? Please quote a single fact or statement from the article which is not mainstream, because it should be deleted. (4) You again claim that there is a more or less uniform set of continuity arguments and a more or less uniform set of immigrationist argumentation. Based on which works would you describe these uniform sets? How can you secure that different scholarly interpretations of the same facts are properly presented? How can you decide whether an argument supports, for instance, the continuity theory, if other scholars say that it contradicts it, or if other "continuity" scholars denies its relevance. (I refer to the literary tradition of the extermination of Dacians, the reliability of which is denied both by "continuity scholars" and by immigrationist scholars.) (5) Neutral fact is a fact which neither supports nor contradicts a theory. I referred above WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We cannot pretend that a fact supports a theory or contradicts it, if the same fact is referred to scholars both in favor and against a theory. (6) Please read my answer above: according to Schulte (and also according to other scholars) there was a phase of the Romanians' ethnogenesis when the Romanians' ancestors were mainly bilingual. If you do not understand the relevance of this statement you do not understand the meaning of ethnogenesis. I will not comment on this issue. Please initiate a separate debate on it. (7) Based on reliable sources, as I have hundreds of times explained it to you. (+1) You have not named the theory which is exclusively supported by the statements you quoted from the article, although you claimed that these statements support only one of the theories ([7]). If you cannot name the theory, let the administrators close this debate. Borsoka (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you have the decency of formating your own statements?

(1) "How could we present the "context" (your wording) of this statement from all referred scholarly works?" OH wait, I didn't realize Wikipedia is supposed to cater to your WP:OR, or your original concepts, or your original interpretation of WP:RULES. You present ALL the context, this is how you do it. Even if it is contradictory (duh!). WP:NPOV actually gives examples of how to do it. What you are doing is coming into direct conflict with WP:FALSEBALANCE and a whole slew of other WP:RULES. See here the example:

*Handling conflicting sources

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

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

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

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

(2) Nice WP:SYNTH. Are you trying to justify the misrepresentation of sources by offering us your own original research? Or your opinions?

(3) Oh, so now those are mainstream statements? Then how come they are not presented in the context of the mainstream theories? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the statements are mainstream then they should be included in one of the 3 mainstream theories. If they are not, then according to WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT or even WP:FRINGE an article should not be "dedicated" to non-mainstream views.

(3) I am sorry that you cannot understand. The article precisely defines what the mainstream theories are. Are you having trouble with that?

(5) Ok, so you say. Cite the WP:NPOV part that deal with "neutral facts" (that allows you to neuter what sources say).

(6) So what if they were bilingual? What is the relevance of that? If it's that obvious you should be able to articulate it. Or will you continue with your "Sorry, I don't understand" excuse?

(7) Case to provide a reliable source that defines what a "neutral fact" is?

(+1) But I have. The citation is attributed to a specific source (according to the article), and as I have given the example - that source makes that statement (as it is cited in the article) in support of a theory.Cealicuca (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) You are referring to conflicting interpretations about a neutral fact (the lack of Romanians in written sources before the 10th century), but you have not mentioned a single scholar who uses this fact as an argument in favor of or against any of the theories. If there is no debate we do not need to pretend that a debate exists. (2) If my understanding is correct, you say you do not accept the compromise. (3) If my understanding is correct you cannot quote a single non-maintain statement from the article. If this is the case, we can close this issue. If not, please quote one. (5) I quoted above: "facts cannot be presented as opinions". (6) Please seek advice on this issue from other editors. I see you are unable to understand the concept of ethnogenesis. (7) We do not need to define well known adjectives. (+1) You have not named the theory to which the statements are exclusively connected to. Why did you suggest that you could name it? Sorry, I abandon this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(1) I have repeatedly asked, and you repeatedly ignored it with grace or generic "Sorry, I don't understand your statement" to provide a direct quotation from WP:POLICY that defines this "neutral fact" you keep on using as a cornerstone of your argumentation. Moreover, care to explain what is the difference between a poor old "fact" and the new improved "neutral fact"?

(2) Wait, you offered a compromise? Yes, I accept the compromise as long as it's properly discussed on the Talk page (just to make sure all the "commonly accepted" things are, well... "commonly accepted"). Do you agree?

(3) Ah, so is it "independent" or part of the "mainstream". Because you argue both. It's either that or the other. I gave plenty of quotes - you just have to scroll up. Plus, why should I do that when then you'll simply ignore (like you did the rest) and complain about "long posts"?

(5) No, again. We already both agree on "facts cannot be present as opinions". What I said (and gave example as to it) is that the article contains statements made by different sources that do not accurately present the source's opinion on the matter. I never said to present a source's opinion as fact. In any case, you keep on arguing that somehow presenting accurately what the sources say is breaking WP:NPOV and keep bringing into discussion this weird term "neutral facts" (weird because a fact is a fact. "The Sun is a star" is a fact. It can't be neutral or otherwise. And if we would have an article about the Sun and we would have two opposite, non-fringe WP:RS that said that the Sun is a fourth generation star or a third generation star respectively, by your logic we should say that both sources mention that the Sun is a star and that's it... because "neutral facts").

(6) So you're unable to articulate what the relevance is, right? Thank you very much for your advice, I am aware of what "ethnogenesys" means. Unfortunately the article deals with the three mainstream theories that describe HOW the ethnogenesys came to be. It should not be a collection of what the editors think (or are even unable to articulate) is relevant, but what WP:RS state is relevant in the context of those three mainstream theories (or otherwise it would break WP:DUE / WP:WEIGHT or would be WP:FRINGE.

(7) Such a well known adjective that you're the about the only person ever to mention it. So much so that even Google can't seem to be able to find (the closest is the process of neutral fact-finding, which is something else entirely).

(+1) I gave examples. "As a result of their lack of state organization, Romanians are missing from historical sources older than the second half of the 10th century." (Madgearu 1997) and "[...] The 11th-century scholar Kekaumenos wrote of a Vlach homeland situated near the Danube and [...] the Sava, where the Serbians lived more recently. [...]" (Madgearu 2005). Both of those statements, as per the sources cited in the article (and not some original syntheses of one or another Wikipedia editor) are made in the context (supporting argument) for the continuity theory. There are several examples too of statements made by WP:RS, as per the sources cited in the article (and not some original syntheses of one or another Wikipedia editor) that are related exclusively to the immigration theory (for good measure). But it doesn't matter, does it? Because "neutral facts" right?Cealicuca (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

→*Closing argument - I fully realize that this has blown out of proportion. Nevertheless, to conclude this, I would like to add to all that has been said already what moderating editors also had to say about this article, some being very recent observations... if I'm crazy, it seems I'm not the only one.

• How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
• An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
• An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
• How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
• Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
• Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...] Cealicuca (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

And you have not been able to demonstrate (1) how could you distribute facts among theories if those facts are differently interpreted by scholars who accept the same theory; (2) how could you secure the neutral presentations of the concurring interpretations of the same facts if those facts are distributed among the theories. This was my closing remark. Borsoka (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who initiated the debate the article of "Origin of the Romanians" is in its ruins now. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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?

Remove link to Thoughts and prayers

Please see Talk:YouTube headquarters shooting#Remove link to Thoughts and prayers. I have tried to be reasonable with @JesseRafe:, but he seems stuck in a particular POV. I would put more information here, but it is all there and I do not care to repeat myself or have the conversation get split between here and there. We just need more eyes on this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I do not have any personal POV on the matter and I would like this user to assume good faith and stop talking in circles around the issue. That linked page is specifically about instances of public officials using the phrase after disasters. As such, the page is best served by having links to it when that phrase is already included in well-sourced instances of public officials using it after disasters. This is a neutral stance and should be cut-and-dry. Seems like the above user has a non-neutral POV he is trying to push and is actively de-linking the phrase indiscriminately across Wikipedia, not just on this one article as the above message would have one believe. JesseRafe (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: This edit I did before we started this discussion shows I just want the links where they belong, not anywhere anyone happens to use the phrase. The policy MOS:LWQ calls for conservationism in linking within quotes. Should we link "thoughts and prayers" in the article Clay Ford where Will Weatherford uses it? The article is about a politician and is stated by a politician. The death of Ford was certainly a disaster for his family. What is your criteria? It seems to be when you do not like the politician. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this same topic earlier this year. [8]. Hard to tell what the conclusion was, if there was one at all, but personally I think including the wikilink within quotations at least is definitely inappropriate, as per MOS:LWQ. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@JesseRafe: Regarding this edit: I don't think I claimed that a consensus existed, I was just citing my comments on the talk page rather than reiterating them in the edit summary. You indicated on the talk page that you were no longer participating in the discussion and were waiting for outside input. And I think you've received it. Unless you think that Trump was intentionally trying to call attention to his use of a platitude, this doesn't conform to MOS:LWQ. Nblund ^talk 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Links should be used with care inside of quotes. MOS:LINKSTYLE Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after. Unless the person being quoted meant "thoughts and prayers" to be seen in the way described by the linked article the links should not be included. For example it wouldn't be OK to link a genuine comment like "happy to be here" within a quote to an aticle about cynical or sarcastic uses of the phrase. Springee (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed some of the other examples added by one of the editors above, I would say most examples were inappropriate. If a connection between the platitude and the politician or other person making the public statement is going to be made, it needs to be made by a RS and should be outside of the quoted text. Springee (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If you pick a recent mass shooting, almost any one, you'll find 1) politicians responding with some variation of "thoughts and prayers", and 2) people responding to that response with the observation that "thoughts and prayers" means no action. For example, with the above YouTube headquarters shooting, a piece titled "Donald Trump's Tweet About The YouTube Headquarters Shooting Has People Pissed", specifically states: "a lot of people weren't happy to hear 'thoughts and prayers' yet again. And almost immediately, other users responded to the comment, reinforcing the sentiment that "thoughts and prayers" are not enough to solve the gun control problem in this country". bd2412 T 19:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If that opinion piece is notable enough to include a mention in the article without violating WP:UNDUE, then a link to thoughts and prayers would be appropriate. But there is no mention of political criticism anywhere in the YouTube headquarters shooting article. I have restored my edits on other articles JesseRafe reverted. The articles are Aberdeen, Maryland shooting, William Hughes (born 1998), Capital Gazette shooting, List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2018, Thunder River Rapids Ride, and Martha Roby. I left the link on Cory Gardner as the controversy is implied. Some of these might warrant a reference to the controversy, just not surreptitiously. Maybe in a month I will go through the list of articles that link to thoughts and prayers, but I think I got all the inappropriate ones. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment If a politician explicitly says thoughts and prayers I don't see linking to the article on this notable phrase to be a WP:NPOV or WP:BLP violation. Nor does it show a lack of care using wikilinks within quotes to wikilink from a common phrase to the article about that common phrase. I'm struggling to see the problem here. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the article Thoughts and prayers? Half the article is dedicated to calling people who use the phrase ineffectual hypocrites. You don't see how that might bring up some BLP issues? In addition, MOS:LWQ specifically advises against this very practice. And finally, what does the link even add? I think it's pretty obvious what someone means when they say "I offer my thoughts and prayers to the victims of this tragic event". The reader gains nothing from the link, any more than they would from a link to Tragedy (event). Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The article neutrally and correctly reports a phenomenon widely reported in reliable sources, that the use of the phrase "thoughts and prayers" has come to serve as a substitute for taking action to address something. It is not the fault of Wikipedia editors if the phrase has come to have that meaning, and if politicians still use it despite it having come to have that meaning, or even because of that. bd2412 T 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Point is that the article "thoughts and prayers" has a very strong USA-bias and is POV. For example in the Republic of Ireland the phrase is absolutely harmless and used by public and politicians alike as method of consoling people after a bereavement. No activism involved. So the article must be neutralised or rewritten (and re-titled) to an USA-only article. The Banner talk 21:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, the instant dispute is about the linking of this term in articles about U.S. politicians using the phrase to refer to events in the U.S., following the advent of criticism of use of the phrase. I have no objection to clarifying that the article reflects U.S.-based criticism. If there are sources outlining the distinction between implications in the U.S. and in other countries, we should include reference to them. I frankly doubt, however, that a proposal to retitle the article would succeed. bd2412 T 22:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's "absolutely harmless" as used in the US as well. Most people, politicians and otherwise, use it simply to express condolence. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with many of the criticisms of the use of that phrase, but that's sort of why it strikes me as patently non-neutral to link to it in the middle of a quote. This seems analogous to linking Bill Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" to non-denial denial, or linking Adam Carolla's "I'm sorry if I offended you" to the entry for non-apology. If reliable source criticize the use of a cliche, then we should cite those reliable sources and then link to the entry in that commentary, but linking in the middle of someone else's quote reads like we're using Wikipedia's voice to offer a snarky editorial aside implying that someone was being insincere. It's lampshade-hanging that almost makes it sound like Trump was using the phrase ironically. Nblund ^talk 23:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If someone literally used the exact phrase "non-denial denial" in a statement or a tweet, we would definitely link it, because it has a specific meaning which we cover in the encyclopedia. We're not talking about Easter eggs here, but about a phrase with a specific political history. To the extent that there are sources indicating that it is used merely to express condolence (along the lines of rest in peace), we should also discuss that in the article. Fairness is achieved by explanation, not by reducing the information available. bd2412 T 23:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The phrase does have a specific history, but Trump obviously wasn't intentionally evoking it here - unless you think he wanted to appear ineffectual and insincere. If the goal is to provide more information, then why not cite the relevant criticism in text and link to the phrase there? E.g. "Trump was criticized by x for using the phrase 'thoughts and prayers'"? Nblund ^talk 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Did that here for Trump specifically. Unfortunately, this is not possible in articles where such criticism does not make it into the article. A lot of it goes on in the Twittersphere. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The significance of the phrase in recent U.S. political discourse, when used by a person speaking in the context of that discourse, is the same irrespective of whether the specific history of the phrase was intentionally evoked. Of course, there is no doubt that it would be useful to provide citations to relevant criticism, but we need to balance that against the possibility of articles on tragedies becoming more about criticism of the response to the tragedy than to the tragedy itself. bd2412 T 20:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So we should ignore the intent of the speaker? That seems inconsistent with the plain reading of MOS:LWQ: "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author", as well as MOS:LINKSTYLE, which urges editors to avoid linking inside of quotes when possible. Nblund ^talk 01:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The article, thoughts and prayers, plainly indicates that the intent of the speaker doesn't matter with respect to how use of the phrase is perceived by the public. The controversy is not that it is used at all, but that it is used in response to specific kinds of events, in lieu of a statement that some other action is being taken. In that sense, it could be considered a compliment, to those who oppose particular actions that are suggested in response to the events where it is used. The fact of the specific phrase being used is its own significance. bd2412 T 02:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Sérgio Moro

Please check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A9rgio_Moro&action=history

The section being removed is terribly biased as it ignores all of Moro's highly popular and praised merits in leading the Operation Car Wash, even ignores his most famous case in which he convicted Lula, and instead focuses entirely on leftist rhetoric and on disqualifying him over criticism that comes exclusively from biased editorials. I've got my account blocked because of this so is there any experienced editor who can give a throughout check? The section they want to keep clearly violate NPOV and doesn't give its due weight. Besides, it's not even in the Portuguese Wikipedia.

Criticism within Israeli law in the West Bank settlements

There has been a dispute over whether it is appropriate to include criticism within the article Israeli law in the West Bank settlements. The disputed sentences are both sourced to Haaretz, Israel’s primary left-wing newspaper:

• The term has been reported by Haaretz legal analyst Moshe Gorali[19] to be an alternative to the term "apartheid".[20][21][22] (diff)
• In June 2018, Israeli newspaper Haaretz described the continued application of Knesset laws to West Bank settlements as "a creeping legal annexation of the occupied territories", stating that it considers the strategy will be counterproductive in that it will "no longer be possible to launder Israeli reality".[15] (diff)

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

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

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I am object the use of two sources here

• Cook, Jonathan (4 April 2013). Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair. Zed Books Ltd. pp. 46–. ISBN 978-1-84813-649-6.
• Halper, Jeff (20 February 2008). An Israeli in Palestine: resisting dispossession, redeeming Israel. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-2227-8.

This sources are not by experts were published by fringe publishing houses could not give enough due weight to Gorali opinion. --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The wider question here is whether we stick to academic level source, which are not lacking - and several (probably most) share Haaretz's POV (or leftwards) - or do we introduce op-eds and polemics (which can be found for all sides of the debate)?Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Concern about a DYK hook

Please see discussion here, which pertains to NPOV:

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Concern about a hook in Prep area 2

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

--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews Icewhiz (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

NPOV title: Genesis flood myth.

See this move request discussion I started here: [9]. jps (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The reasons include POV, style, and conventions. Thanks!!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC Template:United Kingdom in the European Union

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

NPOV issue in the Harm Reduction section of the Needle exchange programme article

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

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

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

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

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

Acupuncture article.

The article on acupuncture does not have a neutral point of view and is very biased against acupuncture. A few people have reported to me that they have tried to edit it and their edits have just disappeared or they have been dismissed. As Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view, surely this article should be itself more neutral, just stating facts rather than pressing the point that the writer believes acupuncture doesn't work. Yes there are some studies that suggest it doesn't work in those cases but there are plenty of studies that say it does, and there are more positive ones now.

The same with the Homeopathy page. This page is also very biased against Homeopathy and indeed claims false "facts".

Please could you assure us that if these pages are fairly edited, they will not be changed back again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaderon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. Both articles are far too biased towards these fake practises. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shaderon: If you think there is false information in an article, you need to be more specific about what you believe to be false in the article, and make sure to cite reliable sources for medical content. If reliable sources say that acupuncture doesn't work, then the article should say so, this doesn't necessarily mean it is biased.

@Roxy the dog: Dismissing a new editor's concerns as "nonsense" and responding to a vague claim of bias with your own vague and opinionated claim of the opposite bias is not helpful. Shaderon may well be wrong, but when a new editor sees comments like the one you just made here it only makes them think of Wikipedia as unpleasant and biased. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Haha. You are calling me opinionated. Haha. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: This is exactly what I mean. There are opinions and evidence both ways but any evidence with reliable sources (and by the way the statement "The conclusions of many trials and numerous systematic reviews of acupuncture are largely inconsistent, which suggests that it is not effective." is a biased point of view, to say that something is not effective because no one has managed to produce evidence is nonsense. No proof of a thing is not proof it doesn't exist and if something only works sometimes, this suggests that it might work in some cases so therefore to say it doesn't work at all is AGAINST the evidence. So bias is already evident in this article.

Also to say "Medical" evidence is against acupuncture in itself because most people in the "Medical" industry (I'm talking Western Medical) do not consider Acupuncture medical, however people in the TCM acupuncture industry consider Western Medical to be "masking symptoms"... who is right? Again opinion. So any evidence given in a medical setting, is going to be like proving that a cat can bark. It's just not made that way, Acupuncture and the Western Medical industries do different things so can't be proved using each other's methods.

It's going to take a lot of fairness from now on to convince myself any many other users (who I have talked to so therefore I personally have evidence) that Wikipedia is a trusted source of information because of biases just like this in many articles and in fact there is a rumor beginning that the people behind Wikipedia may just be paid off to take a biased approach. I think that in general, not just this article, but many others need looking at for just this type of bias and experts in the relevant subjects approached for any evidence to support instead of letting the noisy people who are editing articles dismiss any facts because they don't believe them. I understand that this is a public domain but Wikipedia does have people checking for fairness, so maybe these people need a more thorough understanding of scientific principle and bias. BTW I trained in scientific argument and I could tear holes in ANY experiment or study, as every single one can be disputed in some way.

• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs, however lucrative they might be for fake doctors. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 14 December 2018]]

I totally give up! This has convinced me that the editors in the BAIS section ARE BIASED! Wikipedia is biased because of this alone.