Talk:Natalia Brasova

Neutrality of Exile section

[Pasted from User talk:DrKiernan 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)]

Hi, I see you reverted my removal of controversial statements on Natalia Brasova, the text I removed was POV that should be fought in Line of succession to the Russian throne and not on every possible page that mentions a Russian pretender. Pevernagie (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The material I inserted was cited, relevant and accurate. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's POV, I am not claiming that you are not using sources to back up your POV-version of the facts. Pevernagie (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you actually know what a weasel word is? Look it up. Pevernagie (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the article. It looks fine to me. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

you are summing up arguments why Grand Duke Cyril should not be considered the legit pretender of his time, that's a discussion you should have on Line of succession to the Russian throne and not on articles related to the Russian dynasty that do not deal with the disputed headship. There is no problem mentioning that he was just one of the pretenders (although the others never publicly outed themselves as such), and that his position as head was not universally accepted, but you are practically holding his trial here. Pevernagie (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a third opinion. We could ask for feedback at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. DrKiernan (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That might be the solution, do you file it? Pevernagie (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Natalia Brasova and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: If this article was shorter, I would think that the details of the explanation of why Cyril's claim may have been insupportable might be excessive, but since those details do help to explain why Natalia's titles may have been invalid, my opinion is that they improve the article and ought to remain. The fact that there is another article at which the whole controversy may be more fully set out doesn't make them any less relevant or beneficial here (and we need to remember to only look at the edit, not at the possible motives of the editor, in judging whether there is a POV issue).

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion.Pevernagie (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)