Talk:San Juan Bay

Stub for now
Would love to see other editors helping to expand and improve this stub article. You can also make suggestions and requests here. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Requests for collaboration

 * [On 23 September 2018 said HERE:] "I have reverted your edits because they were unfounded.  The size is clear, and the historical significance of the bay since 1508 is unquestionable. Please, check the sources first." Caballero / Historiador⎌ 15:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edits are POV. Provide the sources you are alleging. Mercy11 (talk) 23:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attention to the accuracy of the number of square miles, which, BTW, I fixed (here) after consulting broadly. It is understandable (WP:GF) you may want to move a conversation to the article’s Talk page, however, modifying another user’s edits without its permission as you did with mine (here) is not a good practice (see here, here or here).


 * Further, your POV labeling is, in my opinion, out of place (check WP:NPOVT). You changed the wording from “historically significant” to “history dates back”  There is no side to take in this matter (WP:CHERRYPICKING). However, while both are accurate, there is a difference between both phrasing: one is more descriptive than the other (WP:MNA). Guánica Bay’s history, for example, also dates back to 1508, but it cannot claim the same historical significance as the San Juan Bay (WP:BALANCE). In fact, no other bay in Puerto Rico can. And there is no partisanship, nationalism or subjectivity on this. It is just a fact (WP:IMPARTIAL).


 * So, the wording was not incorrect and shows no POV, but a reflection of reliable sources (WP:BESTSOURCES). Please, recheck (as I asked before here) the sources cited in the article to verify the claim that the bay has been “historically significant since 1508.” Look particularly to Marley 185-195; Negroni 51, 150, 187; Leduc 108, 110, 147. I would add Palmié and Scarano 177-189.


 * This is a request to investigate the issue and reach a consensus. I have no intention of following what could become an edit war (WP:WAR), in part because the change is not a big deal (WP:FACTIONS). There are plenty of other places we should invest our energies on. I already reverted your edit (here) which you justified on a POV complaint, and explained in your talked page the reasons for my actions. Often reverting a revert is already an invitation to conflict (WP:ROWN). Rather than reverting back, you should have let the conversation taken its course and seek consensus (WP:BPCA).


 * Your needless accusation of POV, however, matters (WP:EQ). Caballero / Historiador⎌ 06:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * , the acreage listed is incorrect. The cite you provided is referencing the 97 acres in the entire water system area they were focusing on studying (the "estuary"), not the acreage of the San Juan Bay. They are defining estuary as "the system of canals, lagoons and the bay ..." Clearly the Bay is only a fraction of the 97 acres and not its totality. This article is about the Bay, not about the estuary. As such, associating the 97 acres with the bay is misleading and I have removed it. Mercy11 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The "acreage listed is" Not "incorrect" because the text clearly says that the bay "is the largest body of water in an estuary of about 97 square miles..." The size given is for the estuary and not limited to the bay. The entire sentence you erased is meant to provide the context in which the bay is located (in part because the bay is commonly and rightly linked to the estaury, see here for example). Per my requests above, we should find a better way to collaborate. Caballero / Historiador⎌ 04:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried (see here) to address your  and interest for the bay's size as oppose to the estuary's. Btw, you could have done  it too on your own and would have helped improve the entry. You could have also found the same information in the sources already given there. Demanding more citations in an article already heavily referenced runs the risk of cluttering it with unnecessary sources. I kept the reference to the estuary because the reasons explained above. I still believe that there are better ways to communicate and find common ground. I am open for civil communication. Caballero / Historiador⎌ 05:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)