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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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 with 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", also "middle-ground fallacy"). 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 find 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, falling in a fallacy of moderation. Remember the Lie, lie, something will always remain attributed to Goebbels.

I think I can confidently say that an accurate text will hardly be produced by presenting the picture shown in this review with the same emphasis as one that was promoted by other editors, which—as I believe and I have argued before—contains dubious interpretations of cherry-picked statements and questionable weights. 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, but that there are no reasons to believe that every opposing view was documented and reasoned similarly well.

At a scholarly level this subject indeed has open questions and, depending on the preferred answers, 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 initial comments at [1]) and I doubt we will get there. I wish I'm wrong. Regardless of that, your cleaning efforts are greatly appreciated. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I conclude that what ultimately tires down editors is the complexity of the subject. It's easier to say "Byron settled the islands in 1765" than it is to fully analyze the matter (mention the garden, the opinion of primary sources, the opinion of secondary sources, etc.). I plan to fix this part during the weekend, so please check the edits I make during that time to see if they provide a good representation of the sources. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were lots of shameful things going on, I wish it was just a matter of complexity. Just notice that all of these doubtful points were entered to favour an extreme version and that I almost couldn't enter a word into the articles. Besides, I doubt this history is really that complex. All history has subtleties that we can't avoid if we want summarize effectively. But most of the long text in talk pages was not caused by the complexity of the subject but by opposition that was even absurd at times, not to mention frequent misrepresentation of sources, straw-man arguments, etc.

I would be happy if the articles simply summarized the best sources, work that has been written on the subject from Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, etc. That wouldn't be hard. We could even avoid Argentine authors if we must. But no, it seems that we must make far-fetched interpretations from dubious singular authors, write odd verbatim and then staunchly oppose any non-extremely-pro-British edits... For example, if the Arana-Southern Treaty is not mentioned by those authoritative authors, then it's most probably not important. Those guys are not incompetent. I'm caring to argue on why it is not important in an explanation that may be deemed complex, but it is actually redundant! The same can be said about Cawkell's stampings and other issues. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think a footnote is the way to go, but I see two imprecisions in that proposal. Firstly, it would look as if the undecided point is if Byron landed in 1765 or 1766. It would be better to state clearly that Byron did land and take formal possession in 1765, presenting it at the same level as the French ceremony (e.g., in a footnote, as it is now). Secondly, I see all of those detailed sources favouring 1766, thus McBride as the founder. I have underlined the key words that take me to that conclusion. I haven't picked those sources to suit my purposes, but simply chosen authoritative voices that looked into the issue. Even the FIG is dating the foundation in 1766.

I would thus be inclined to date, in the main text, the foundation in 1766 by McBride, explaining in the footnote that Byron took formal possession one year before, and that on the occasion one of his crewmen planted a small garden that was mentioned to be proof of possession. What do you think? -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's also what I had in mind.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarshalN20:. Thank you for entering these points. I think they can be explained more accurately, though. You wrote that Byron left the garden to prove possession, but what I understand from the sources is that the garden was later mentioned as proof of possession (when London wanted to enforce the idea of simultaneous settlement after learning of the French colony). According to some of the sources, the garden was actually planted simply for the benefit of passing ships. But please let me know if I'm missing some passages. Besides, if Byron wanted to prove possession, he would probably have done something more significant than plant a small garden.

One more thing. Again, please correct me if I'm missing a passage from Gustafson or the other sources, but I don't see them arguing that "Britain likely pretended to ignore the existence of France's colony". What they say is that Port Egmont was founded as a reaction to the existence (or probable existence) of the French colony, but at London they didn't know its name, where it was, how big it was, etc., and perhaps they weren't even sure if it was a proper settlement. I don't think the British government simulated knowing more or less of what it really knew, and the sources agree afaiu.

I don't think that the situation is well summarized by stating that the settlements "were set up possibly unaware of one another". Likely being ignorant of something is different from surely being knowledgeable of no more than a part. What the sources say (imo) is that there was partial knowledge, and that this partial knowledge motivated the creation of Port Egmont. If an accurate picture cannot be summarized for reasons of space, I think it is best not to say anything that would suggest ignorance. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]