Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This appears to be a paper which has been pasted here from another source, written for another purpose. It's potentially useful but needs to be edited and revised to integrate it properly into Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the writing of the article per se, but it is in the style of an academic paper or essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Several sections set context and background which should be replaced by links to that material already on Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
These paras of general info duplicate other wiki articles and should be integrated there:
For future evaluation
The following discussion, up to Turgan (05:47, 28 Feb) has been copied from the original article's Discussion. According to administrator Bearcat (19:00 26 Feb 11), the {{ mergeto}} tag by administrator King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 16 Feb 11 was incorrectly altered.
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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 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:
However, there were an additional two "votes" prior to this discussion being initiated:
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 Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (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
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)
I support this Wikipedia article on Canadian mining companies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it confirms to Wikipedia's standards: no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. I vote for the article to be kept and the decision to merge to be overturned.
Blizzard87 (
talk)
01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
According to Snoecks 2007, a miner (creuseur) attains 60$/ton and a comptoir attains 54000$/ton, so if the comptoirs were targeted by organisations, the industry could be vastly improved/regulated. 91.182.110.88 ( talk) 17:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.miga.org/projects/index_sv.cfm?pid=634When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful to add that the Congo river is the world's second largest river by Water Volume.
Jhood82 ( talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The article states that Congo sits on 24 trillion of untapped resources. While this number is widely circulated on the internet and indeed mentioned in the two citations, I can't find any real source for it. It's always, economists estimate that, etc. I would drop the number. Also the claim that Congo DR has the largest reserves of Coltan seems unsubstantiated. According to this https://aei.pitt.edu/58455/1/beep23.pdf the TIC says it is Australia and Brazil. Can't find a primary source though DOsinga ( talk) 15:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This appears to be a paper which has been pasted here from another source, written for another purpose. It's potentially useful but needs to be edited and revised to integrate it properly into Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the writing of the article per se, but it is in the style of an academic paper or essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Several sections set context and background which should be replaced by links to that material already on Wikipedia. Rexparry sydney 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
These paras of general info duplicate other wiki articles and should be integrated there:
For future evaluation
The following discussion, up to Turgan (05:47, 28 Feb) has been copied from the original article's Discussion. According to administrator Bearcat (19:00 26 Feb 11), the {{ mergeto}} tag by administrator King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 16 Feb 11 was incorrectly altered.
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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 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:
However, there were an additional two "votes" prior to this discussion being initiated:
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 Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (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
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)
I support this Wikipedia article on Canadian mining companies in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as it confirms to Wikipedia's standards: no original research, neutral point of view, and verifiability. I vote for the article to be kept and the decision to merge to be overturned.
Blizzard87 (
talk)
01:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
According to Snoecks 2007, a miner (creuseur) attains 60$/ton and a comptoir attains 54000$/ton, so if the comptoirs were targeted by organisations, the industry could be vastly improved/regulated. 91.182.110.88 ( talk) 17:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mining industry of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.miga.org/projects/index_sv.cfm?pid=634When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I think it might be helpful to add that the Congo river is the world's second largest river by Water Volume.
Jhood82 ( talk) 14:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The article states that Congo sits on 24 trillion of untapped resources. While this number is widely circulated on the internet and indeed mentioned in the two citations, I can't find any real source for it. It's always, economists estimate that, etc. I would drop the number. Also the claim that Congo DR has the largest reserves of Coltan seems unsubstantiated. According to this https://aei.pitt.edu/58455/1/beep23.pdf the TIC says it is Australia and Brazil. Can't find a primary source though DOsinga ( talk) 15:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)