Talk:Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Untitled

 * 'While the previous discussion, 5-13 February, was closed with the proposal to merge Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo into a parent article, a new discussion was opened here on 15 Feb. to retain this article as is'', following a suggestion on 14 Feb. from the administrator.

Re-opened debate: Proposal to reverse merge of Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (CMDRC) into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MIDRC)
I propose that the debate be re-opened on the status of this article, following the response given by administrator King of Hearts for his decision to close it: "I felt there was substantial consensus at the AfD to merge rather than keep. However, if you disagree, you can start a discussion on the talk page of the article, and if you get consensus there to not merge, then you can reverse the decision. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)". Essentially, I contend that the article now meets Wikipedia criteria and warrants retention as a separate page, based on new information added since most of the previous debate ended.

By way of summary, the previous debate received ten "votes" over the Feb 5-13. debate period, the raw results of which were:
 * two recommendations to "Delete" (Bearcat 00:47, 5 Feb); Robofish 14:19, 9 Feb)
 * one "Delete or Merge" (Nomader 06:08, 7 Feb),
 * three "Merge" (Ravendrop 04:12, 5 Feb.; Mû&#312;&#312;â&#312;û&#312;â&#312;û (17:35, 7 Feb); SanchiTachi 22:05, 7 Feb.) and
 * four "Keep" (Zachlipton 01:45, 5 Feb.; Ret.Prof 02:26, 5 Feb; 86.132.54.90 14:59, 5 Feb.; victor falk 01:35, 13 Feb).

However, there were an additional two "votes" prior to this discussion being initiated:
 * my recommendation in my message directly to Bearcat's Talk page on Feb 4
 * an anonymous "keep" recommendation via Edit 14:32, 4 February 2011 78.124.56.42 (talk) who wrote: "This reader does not agree that this extract be deleted. It is a useful and factual addition to knowledge about mining in the DRC and the companies thta are present there, whether they be restricted to canadian companies or not. It is a very valuable source of knowledge about the role of Canadian companies and institiutions in the DRC. add other companies." This comment remains in the History tab for that date.

So, in raw voting terms, it was "Keep": 6, "Merge": 3, "Merge or delete": 1, and "Delete": 2.

However, according to a Wikipedia page, a "consensus" by count of raw votes isn't necessarily the deciding factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."

Accordingly, I will try to summarise accurately the substance of the arguments in the closed debate. The two "Delete" votes cited "fail[ure to] constitut[e] a uniquely encyclopedic class" (made by the deletion proposer, Bearcat 00:47, 5 Feb) and "original research" (Bearcat; Robofish 14:19, 9 Feb), both points which were countered with supporting evidence by "keep" voter Zachlipton (01:45, 5 Feb;  04:48, 5 Feb) and seconded, citing Zachlipton's arguments, by "keep" voter (Ret.Prof 02:26, 5 Feb). The third "keep" voter, identifying themselves as a "mining correspondent" also countered the "original research" argument (86.132.54.90 14:59, 5 Feb). Merge proposer Ravendrop (04:12, 5 Feb) cited failure to establish uniqueness and the neutrality arguments. That it was a directory, and lacks of neutrality and encyclopedic value were cited by "delete or merge" proposer, Nomader (06:08, 7 Feb), and lack of Canadian uniqueness was cited by merge proposer Mû&#312;&#312;â&#312;û&#312;â&#312;û (17:35, 7 Feb). The third "merge" proposer, SanchiTachi (22:05, 7 Feb) offered no reasons for their decision.

On Feb 8, to address the lack of uniqueness criticisms, I added to the article's introduction section four reasons why Canada's DRC presence is unique (the number of Canadian mines and their production volumes exceed all other countries' by a significant margin; numerous controversies & Canadian/DRC legislation; Canadian Paul Fortin's management of Gécamines). The fourth "keep" argument in the debate appeared following these changes, showing there to be 212 articles (as of 15 Feb) in |%22canadian+mine%22%29&btnG=Search+Archives&num=100&hl=en&scoring=a|Google Google News about Canadian mining in the Congo (victor falk 01:35, 13 Feb). On Feb 15, I added a fifth uniqueness reason: employment of a former Canadian head of government, Joe Clark, by First Quantum Minerals from 1997 to 1998, during which time Clark served as an advisor to DRC's president, Laurent Kabila. Since its creation date, other edits have been made by LDJr. on information pertaining to Kinross Gold, and several minor spelling corrections have been made by others.

In terms of the "original research" arguments, I concur with Zachlipton: "What it prohibits is research not backed by reliable sources and synthesizing sources to make a point. I don't see either happening here" (Zachlipton 01:45, 5 Feb). There is a potential precedent for this discussion. In 2009, I created the page Canada–Mali relations, one-third of which is devoted to mining issues. In 2010, an editor added a tag suggesting the article was too long to be easily read, and recommended sub-division into component articles. If this issue were to be addressed, and it has not so far, a logical outcome might be a sub-article entitled "Canadian mining in Mali". Which leads us back to the present discussion!

So, I appreciate all constructive criticism contributed to date, as this has certainly helped improve the quality of the article. I acknowledge there is no precedent for a Wikipedia article of the class "(Country X) mining in (Country Y)" and therefore an administrative decision to raise this discussion is justified. Of the ten comments recorded in the Feb 5-13 debate, eight were made prior to the substantial article modifications made on Feb 8, and therefore the new information warrants a discussion renewal. I assert that the justification for article uniqueness issue has now been addressed by the revised introductory paragraph, and by the supporting Natural Resources Canada data on country-level and company-level assets in Section 3. And I assert there is no "original research". Allegations that the article is only a directory can be refuted by the sections on social, environmental, political and legal aspects; the tables, previously lacking text, have had commentaries added. Finally, I share Zachlipton's concern that a merger of the present article into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo may compromise the former's integrity in order to conform to the latter's balance.

I welcome suggestions, particularly from those conversant with this subject, for where specifically the article lacks a neutral point of view, as I have tried to represent the published record in direct proportion to each viewpoint. For example, I have listed the three extant books I'm aware on this subject, all of which happen to be critical; if there are any other books, they should certainly be included. At the article's end, the cautiously optimistic quotations by Garrett, Bafilemba, Shelwa, Stratos and Smith are counterbalanced by five others, more pessimistic. However, I do concede that the article at present relies largely on English-language, Canadian-based sources, and requires more French-language, and DRC-based sources. I agree that there should be a brief summary section on Canada added to Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while the main article should stand alone owing to its length and complexity. Similarly, if ever in the future an article "Canada-Democratic Republic of the Congo relations" is created, it need only summarise mining aspects and point to the present page under discussion.

I would particularly encourage Wikipedia mining subject specialists to contribute to this discussion. I mention this because, half a month following the article's creation date, this discussion page's quality and ratings from WikiProject Mining, along with WikiProject Canada, and WikiProject Africa, remain pending.

Thanks! IVX8O8XVI (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The result of the AfD was merge, notwithstanding the IP address whose only edit ever on wikipedia was to vote keep (whilst claiming to be an expert on the subject). I do not see that the original problem has been resolved at all. I am sorry that you do not agree with the consensus, but adding more large volumes of text will not change that. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel this article is better split and merged with the relevant existing articles on the Congo, as was the consensus in the AFD discussion. The strongest (not loudest) arguments have been for this option.  Remember, AFD discussions are not votes.  The merit and source of the arguement are more important than raw numbers, which are easy to artifically inflate.  In my opinion, some sections, such as pension plan contibutions, etc, are not needed at all in an encyclopedia article.  I decline to rate this article on behalf of WP:Mining pending a merger.  Turgan Talk 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment
I rated this article "C" class on the quality scale today; because although it has an admirable amount of referencing, the article structure is a mess. I would also recommend changing dollar figures in the tables to $millions so as to make them more readable.  PK T (alk)  15:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)