User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Review of "Falkland Islands"

Comments from MarshalN20

I haven't had the time to fully read the review, but I'd like to point that I have made further updates to the history's last part. I mainly took away the emphasis on land mines and refocused it on contemporary history. Thanks in advance for the evaluation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As I read through the statement, I do have to point out that I cited certain sources (such as Goebel) basing myself on WP:AGF of what was previously cited. I also do not have access to it, and my library does not have a copy available.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I also would like to state, and I think this is noticeable in the article, that I truly tried my best to avoid paraphrasing sources. In most instances, I used direct quotes from the sources (to avoid "interpretation disagreements"). My intention is to be as impartial as logically possible.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @MarshalN20:! Yes, I see those things and I appreciate your work. To be clear, I didn't intend to criticize your overall contribution to the article, but to point out that there are issues that need dealing with if you intend to propose it for WP:FA. I see that they were mostly inherited from previous edits. They are not just random issues but a general bias, which will become more evident as I bring in sources. As you probably agree, it frequently happens that quoting literally doesn't solve interpretation problems, because it implies meaningful subjective decisions. What is worthy of mention? Which source to cite? What portion to extract? Where do we say it?

Please let me know if you would like me to focus on a certain part, and sorry for my recent annoyance on your talk page, it wasn't against you, at all. I will check on your latest updates later, thanks!--Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you make good points that I can certainly address (and have already began to do so).

After reading in detail most of your recommendations (I'm not done yet), the primary worry I have is the conflict between detail and the WP:SUMMARY policy.

I also worry that you may be interpreting certain statements negatively, but it certainly is fair to acknowledge that improved wording can always be attempted and applied.

I thank you for the willingness to provide sources. I also ask that you please do not consider any questions I might make here as annoying or unfriendly.

Sincerely.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions and counter-arguments are great, don't worry. :) The reference to WP:SUMMARY brings up an issue, which is that the sub-articles are full of issues such as those addressed here. This page is not longer only because I'm reviewing a few paragraphs. It would be fantastic to be able to cleanup the other articles alongside the main one, but I guess it would require a lot of magic and patience. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Patience is key. We all have different perspectives on the matter at hand. What I find to be the biggest problem in Wikipedia is the general partisanship-driven editing of most users.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present all reliable information, subject to WP:WEIGHT. However, the partisanship-driven editors use Wikipedia to remove reliable material, censor POVs, and systematically promote ignorance in their view's favor. Recent events in Wikipedia have increased my disgust for these problems, but I genuinely believe (perhaps foolishly) that I can demonstrate my view through actions...and I hope this Falkland Islands article to serve as that evidence.

I think the primary problem here is that these partisan-driven users erroneously think that providing a complete story means that they must give up their position...but that's not the case. For example, in this Falklands case, I believe it is perfectly fine for users to firmly believe that the islands belong to the UK, Argentina, or that they should be self-determinant.

Users should keep their views, their own rationale, because they are entitled to such freedom.

However, when editing Wikipedia, these users should be open to other ideas and views. Acknowledging the existence of another view does not diminish what I believe to be true.

I get the sense that you understand what I mean, Andres. I'm sure we can make this article an FA, more with patience than magic. [:)]

I'll add that I will be diminishing my editing a bit due to personal reasons, so this process might take a little longer than expected. Regardless, I'm working with Kahastok on one end and with you on the other end...so the process was inevitably bound to take time.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @MarshalN20:! I think I see what you mean and I agree with much of it. But there is something else that is important too, which you probably have in mind but it is worth saying anyway. WP:WEIGHT requires that different views are presented in proportion to their significance, leaving out those that are irrelevant or too minoritarian. Such an editorial decision requires the application of rather-subjective criteria, which in WP is implemented through voting and thus affected by a systemic bias in cases like this. To make matters worse, WP:COMPETENCE is rarely fulfilled on subjects that stir passions (e.g., a systemic bias wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if it only involved scholars).

Under such conditions, I very much doubt that fairly-neutral material can be achieved on these kinds of subjects. I very much welcome cleaning-up efforts like yours, but, imho, after "completion" it will still be necessary to remind visitors that—as Jimbo Wales once said—the articles provide just a starting point and reliable coverage should be found elsewhere. Therefore, I think that featuring the article would be inconvenient, although I would love to see you prove me wrong. :)

Pretending to attain neutrality by simply presenting opposing views (with weights that mirror the editors' opinions) is a common informal fallacy (i.e., an "argument to moderation"). For example, this review was recently criticized for an alleged heavy "pro-Argentine" bias, but at the risk of appearing closed-minded I will say that I see no grounds to that claim. The editor was just saying so and I don't see why that opinion has to be considered accurate. A neutral reader may be inclined to attribute partial accuracy to it, but that would be a fallacy of moderation too (reminding of the Miente, miente, que algo quedará wrongly attributed to Goebbels). I think I can confidently say that presenting the views in this review with the same emphasis as one that contains dubious interpretations of cherry-picked statements will hardly produce an accurate text. Readers would be induced to believe that both sides were carefully studied, but they weren't. A middle-ground fallacy would be promoted. I don't mean to say that my opinion is perfectly neutral; you probably see what I mean.

By the way, at a scholarly level, this subject indeed has open questions and, depending on the preferred solution, rights can be awarded to one part or another. I agree with you on that. However, after much (frequently unpleasant) discussion on the web, I could hardly anytime come to those points. I don't think we're close to a fairly-balanced presentation of the interesting unresolved points here (see [1]). Based on public discussion elsewhere on the web, I doubt we will get there with the WP system. I wish I'm wrong. Regardless of that, your cleaning efforts are greatly appreciated. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on "Discovery"

The case made by Dunmore is good, and it can certainly be added to the paragraph. I sincerely apologize for having excluded these additional possible sightings. However, I want to avoid making that first paragraph chunky (big), because then the readers will not read it. I'll see what magic I can come up with.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on "Foundation of Port Egmont"

Andres, could you please provide me with sources (preferably quotation, source, and page number) that state that Port Egmont was not founded on 1765? Reading [Dunmore, p. 121], I notice it does not dispute that the port was founded in 1765. However, I don't have access to p. 139. Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi @MarshalN20:! Your questions are very welcome. After checking sources I realized that that the case is not that simple, because there isn't a categorical denial in literature of the pretension to date the foundation in 1765. I hope it doesn't bother you but I preferred to quote detailed, good sources, alongside a few shorter ones that date it in 1766. Perhaps you can work your magic on them. :) Sorry for the length.

I don't think this is among the troubling issues and I don't intend to get picky on it, but I wish a more-neutral summary could be attained, perhaps through the use of notes and avoiding unnecessary expressions.--Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I can probably add a footnote on the matter. Something along the lines of:

"and the other founded on West Falkland in 1765 (or 1766)[footnote explanation] by British captain John Byron".

The footnote would then explain the 1765 garden and 1766 events.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)