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