I think that it is unlikely that good faith is as much of an issue for most of us as is being unconsciously blind to our own biases. It is clear that Rhwentworth is highly invested in NVC, and while he may have a business COI, I think it is more likely he would simply like to protect NVC from what he sees, given his expertise, as unfair criticism. Sunray is more curious. S/he has, in my opinion, been extremely defensive, tendentious and aggressive, having accused several of us of wikilawyering and harboring a hidden agenda against NVC, as well as claiming we had reached consensus when in fact the defenders (mostly me) had simply given up, having felt bulldozed. S/he has also consistently removed material from the criticisms section, because s/he incorrectly assessed the sources, could not find a convenient link to the source, or because the source was deemed inappropriate for criticismyet left the source in place for material elsewhere in the article. I have no idea why Sunray is so aggressive about critiques of NVC, but I doubt it is a COI or bad faith.

The strong objections to the critiques by a number of pro-NVC advocates, such as Sunray and Rhwentworth, essentially consist of the idea that there are no valid criticisms of NVC. In the previous arguments over these sources, the substance of the objection came down to either rejecting the source as unreliable (for criticism but not for promotion) or claiming that the source misunderstands NVC and thus is simply wrong. So at this point, the only critique of NVC we have noted in the article is that it lacks critique. Given the strong and diverse critiques of NVC that have been published, this is sad to me.

I pointed out that disparaging of the sources of criticism of NVC as being unreliable, minority, inaccurate etc. should also apply to the sources supporting NVC. On this talk page, I went through every reference in the article and showed that they were nearly all from promotional or minority literature. It is hard to find traditionally reliable (e.g. academic, peer-reviewed, mainstream, etc.) sources for any aspect of NVC. This has marginally improved.

I suggested previously that we have a responses section rather than a critique or criticisms section, which I hoped would allow some of the responses from non-academic or non-traditional sources to be aired in the article. We have been stuck arguing about the academic sources, however, so I am thinking that the less reliable sources would not be accepted. 

I believe that beyond the argument we are having about sources for explicit criticism of NVC, there are other big issues. The article was originally criticized by editors as sounding promotional, and we made some headway in fixing this. Lately, however, the article has again been rewritten, in my opinion, to promote NVC. This consists of burying information that might cast NVC in a less than glorious light and by making the article essentially a description of how the advocates of NVC see it as working, rather than putting it into a context for naive readers. For example, Sunray argued very strongly that NVC is not a conflict resolution technique, but is a trademark of an organization and therefore should not be criticized under the BLP policy. I then added the information that NVC is trademarked to the intro, but this was removed to the very end of the article. (Perhaps there should be an 'sm' next to each mention of NVC, since it is a trademarked item.) The one study of NVC efficacy described in detail in the article as research was published in a non-peer-reviewed newsletter. This information was removed to the reference section rather than staying in the article itself, where I put it. The fact that there is nearly no discussion, research or confirmation of NVC in the literature was removed from the introduction to become the sole critique of NVC, at the end of the article. And, as one of the sources on NVC notes, one critique of NVC is that it is based on beliefs rather than research. This is no longer mentioned in the article explicitly. 

As far as moving forward, I think the Gorsevski and the Flack sources are high quality and the reasons adduced for exclusion do not seem sufficient. I do not think we have to go into any detail on the contents of their critiques, but we should mention they exist and provide a citation. I also think that one major critique of NVC is that many organization have attempted to adopt it and found it problematic. This is the opinion of one of our high quality academic (and pro-NVC) sources. I think a sentence to this effect should be included, with the reference. I also think it would be legitimate to include here the opencouchsurfing.com and noesis.org mention, and Sarles self-published critique (which is discussed in the academic source). The pro-NVC academic sources are not afraid to address the critiques, so I am not sure why t