Jotamar, I think that your arguments have become very poor after I showed what kind of scholars are members of the RACV. The true Scotsman paradox is based on the fact that no one can define what a true Scotsman is, but it is very clear what a scholar is and in which fields a scholar is specialised, so I don't see in which way the true Scotsman paradox can apply here. If you are speaking of, say, biology, you can give the opinion of experts in biology, but I don't imagine anyone giving the opinion of a Nobel prize in economy for a discussion on biology. When someone refers to the opinion of scholars when talking of a certain topic, it is very clear that scholars specialised in that topic are referred to, so in an article on a language as this one, I find a real nonsense to mention the opinion of scholars in fields totally unrelated to linguistics. I would make the change I did at the beginning: just to delete the statement saying that a minority of scholars support the RACV theses. This is an article about a language and the opinion of scholars with no relation to linguistics shouldn't be considered here, so if we stick to linguists, there is NO scholar who supports the RACV theses.