Talk:Pemon conflict/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 07:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, this needs some serious work to get close to GA. Two things are obviously missing here on an initial read through. Firstly, a brief background of the economic development of the area of conflict and the effects on the Pemon, and an examination of the causes of the conflict. Secondly, the reliance on Venezuelan sources, particularly those that are censored by the Venezuelan government like La Patilla or affected by the government's actions like Globovisión. For many of the sources, there is no Wikipedia article and, while they may not be on the GUNREL lists, it is very difficult to establish their reliability. This is of concern, as the reader is not informed about the censorship or reliability of these sources. It would probably be better if few if any Venezuelan news sources were used. As for alternatives, the International Crisis Group published a series of reports on the border conflict, here, and those linked here, one of which provides an excellent overview. Also Human Rights Watch [1] and the UN Human Rights Commissioner has reported here. In normal circumstances I would just quickfail this, but I'd like to help out with improving it to see if it can be got to an acceptable standard for GA. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi! I have further expanded the lead to include information about the Orinoco Mining Arc and the 2019 presidential crisis. It can be further developed if needed. As of the references, I'm looking forward to help and address any reliability concerns; however, I have to mention that I disagree with that Venezuelan sources should be discarded only because they are from Venezuela. Per WP:GLOBAL, Spanish and local sources are badly needed, specially in a place that can be underreported. WikiProject Venezuela has created an essay (WP:VENRS) detailing which sources are more and less reliable that can be consulted, and there have been several new and independent outlets that have been created in the last years and received awards, many of which haven't suffered the feared censorship or government actions; to name a few, El Pitazo won the 2019 Ortega y Gasset Award for Best Multimedia Coverage, and Efecto Cocuyo was awarded with a Journalism Gabo Award in 2018.

That being said, I'm confident that a good part of the content can be found covered in foreign outlets, and international bodies can be used for reference, such as the suggested International Crisis Group and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Again, I'd be happy to discuss and address any potential concerns regarding reliability. Best regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

G'day, they are great additions, and largely meet my first concern. My other concern is not with Spanish language sources per se, but Venezuelan sources. You have used some sources from Spain and neighboring countries without serious media issues, and they seem fine. Given the level of censorship in the country though, it is unclear how reliable much of the news media actually is in Venezuela. Given the nature of this conflict and the involvement of the government in it, where possible I would replace Venezuelan news sources unless they are impeccable, such as the Venezuelan branches of Reuters, the AFP and the AP. Of the local sources, Efecto Cocuyo and El Pitazo appear relatively unaffected, but there certainly seem to be questions about censorship of La Patilla and Globovisión. If you absolutely needed to use the latter two, I would suggest attributing them in-text and adding a note about the censorship issues they have been facing, eg According to La Patilla, ... and when you cite it, add a separate note along the lines of "Since June 2018, the La Patilla website has been blocked by the state-run internet provider CANTV and the organisation has been subjected to serious legal pressure from the government" or something like that. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Sounds good! If I'm allowed by the time limits of the review, I'll look forward to replace La Patilla's and Globovisión's references. I agree that these could currently be the most contested sources in the articles. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

In this case, I am not too fussed about the length of time. If you could get it done within a week or so, that would be fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All set and done! I'll watch out for any other changes needed :) --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll crack on shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Review proper

Lead and infobox

• Per MOS:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the body, and all facts mentioned in the lead should be fully cited in the body of the article. This means that citations are not needed in the lead, and in fact they are really undesirable, because they break up the flow for readers, most of whom only read the lead. Once I have gone right through the article and changes have been made, I suggest rewriting the lead to achieve what I have outlined. Don't do it yet though, wait until the body has been reviewed and any comments addressed. The rest of the comments about the lead should be borne in mind during the rewrite.
• suggest "The Pemon conflict involves ongoing violence between elements of the Venezuelan armed forces, rebels from the indigenous Pemon people, and organised crime groups – along the border between Venezuela and Brazil – part of the wider Crisis in Venezuela" - the idea is to answer the main questions of what, who, where and when in the MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The outstanding "why" should be handled in the next sentence, and I suggest "The conflict is centred on disputes over mining in the border areas – which are also home to the Pemon people."
• You need to then explain who the Pemon people are and where they live, then explain the Arco Mining Orinoco National Strategic Development Zone. I'm finding the scope of the article hard to follow, as while much of the material relates to the area in which I understand the Pemon people live (the Gran Sabana region in Bolivar state) some of the material in this article seems to relate to events far away from the Pemon people, for example the protests in San Antonio del Táchira and Ureña, which AFAIK aren't Pemon areas and are in Táchira state? My concern is that if the article scope isn't properly defined, it just becomes a grab bag for human rights violations related to mining right across the country. Can you respond to this before I continue? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Sure thing! I'll look forward to address the issues and respond to the question. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Sorry for taking long; I have added further details about the Pemon people and the Orinoco Mining Arc, as well as the suggestion of the causes of the conflict. Regarding the scope of the article, I have to admit that it is also one of my concerns that it is not properly explained, particularly because of how complex the situation is. However, I'm committed with continuing with the nomination due to its importance and its comprehensiveness, as well as to make the according improvements.

I'm also confident that there is a specific characteristic that prevents the scope from being too broad: armed violence against or involving the Pemon people during the current crisis in Venezuela. My idea is that other human rights violations related to mining in the southeast region or Bolívar is included only in the Background sectiion, because while Pemons can be affected, they are not the main target or participants, and its purpose is only to illustrate the climate of violence in the region, helping to understand why there is organized crime or violence related to mining in the area.

That being said, one of the possible changes would be to move a paragraph from the Pemon conflict section to Background ("On 22 November, at least nine people were killed in a mine in Ikabarú (...)). This definition should be sufficient to prevent sidetrack content. Speaking specifically of the Táchira state, they are events about 2019 shipping of humanitarian aid to Venezuela, in which the Pemon were part of; however, since it is a western state like you mention, its mention can be removed.

Please let me know if this answers the question and if there there's anything left with the last changes. I have also included an update on the release of Pemon detainess. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Background

This just isn't a proper background. As I said above, you need to explain who the Pemon people are and where they live (first subsection of Background), then explain the Arco Mining Orinoco National Strategic Development Zone (use the first two paras of the third subsection, the last para of that subsection belongs in the body at the appropriate chronological point). Then start the body at the point conflict erupted, which should then guide the reader through the developments in a chronological way up to today. Major issues with the Background include:

• the 2018 OVV report is without context and out of sequence. I would insert it at the appropriate point in the chronology of the body.
• the Tumeremo massacres are not placed into context and include events in both 2016 and 2018 ie are not background, they are part of the chronology of the actual conflict.

Body

• the body starts in 2018, but the infobox says the conflict started in late 2016?

These fundamental structural/content problems need to be addressed before I will do a detailed review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi! I have ordered the subsections in the Background section chronologically, as well as adding a subsection about the Pemon and changing potential original research in the infobox. The reason why the OVV report and the Tumeremo massacres are not including in the main section is because while the Pemon have been affected or victims to some extent to these situations, they have not been the main targets. Regardless, the content is relevant enough to the topic of the article; specifically, the first paragraph of the main section says that (...) the tribe has had to organize since 2015 to resist against the threats of mining groups and "syndicates" directed by pranes (gang leaders) that not only try to control several mines, but also expel them from their territory, where gold exploitation makes harder the survival of the tribe. I hope that this helps to clarify questions and that it isn't a significant obstacle to proceed with the review. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I haven't forgotten this, I've just been distracted. I'll have a look to see if it is close to the GA now then make a decision on whether I will do a full review or what. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, I've had a chance to look this over again in detail, and unfortunately it is still far short of several GA criteria, especially #1 (well written) and #3 (addresses the main aspects and is focussed). The article still jumps all over the place, geographical locations are unclear or apparently unrelated to Pemon people, the suspected perpetrators and victims of incidents are unclear, the Background is far short of what is needed, and there are significant gaps in coverage (for example there is nothing mentioned between February and November 2020). I'm afraid that a full review would essentially involve me recommending, in dozens of dot points, a complete rewrite of the article including many requests for more information to be found and added. I would be happy to provide additional guidance on the development of the article, but I don't think a GA pass is a live option at this point, it is too far from meeting at least two GA criteria, and it is unreasonable to expect a reviewer to commit the time necessary to effectively rewrite the article so that it meets the criteria. So, I'm failing it. I will keep it on my watchlist and hope to be able to provide some additional guidance via the talk page to continue the development of the article with the aim of getting it close to GA in time. I appreciate this is disappointing, but I have a lot of experience with reviewing at GAN, and this just isn't close at present. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While I'm saddened by this development, I'm still very thankful on all the advice offered, which allowed the article to improve. I want to thank you once again both for your time and for your attention in this nomination. Possibly and hopefully, someday the article will be in a better condition to be resubmitted. Best regards! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)