Talk:Illegal logging in Madagascar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll copyedit as I go (please revert any changes I make which inadvertently change the meaning). I will post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• First up, I have been thinking about the scope of the article - that is, whether it should have included all logging on madagascar and been called such, or..what. I will ask some others how they feel about the title and scope of the article. Don't worry, I do feel the information is valuable - it is a clear-cut World Heritage area and the crisis sounds much worse than in other places with the politics having gone awry in 2009. I had a brief look for any Environment or Conservation-type articles for madagascar and nothing suits as a potential parent aritcle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was probably the most challenging issue I faced with the article's creation, and it was a topic Rlendog and I discussed previously. As far as I can tell, there are no good parent topics, although a stand-alone article entitled Deforestation in Madagascar is much needed. I was going to call the page "Illegal rosewood logging in Madagascar", but ebony and other tropical hardwoods are included. I also couldn't base the title around the recent political crisis, since the logging has been happening for decades, even when the government was "stable" and they had a president who appeared to favor conservation. I tried to pull up everything I could about illegal logging (for the History section), but there is very little out there. Unless major conservation organizations team up to bring these activities to light, news remains in Malagasy and never makes it out of the country. I tried to keep the 2009/2010 crisis contained within its section, since the effects of this illegal selective logging are always the same (although exaggerated greatly with recent events). If more history or news of activities around the rest of the island begins to surface, it can be included in the article. But I completely agree—the title is imperfect and the scope is hard to define. In my opinion, it's the best title given the material covered in the article, although I'm open to your suggestions. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

here is what Eusebeus had to say. I suspect I agree with him, that a broader scope on - called 'Forestry in Madagascar' is a better bet. I will ask some others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: I have found this page with Outline_of_Madagascar#Environment_of_Madagascar to help us look at what to do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Casliber that this article has serious scope issues. The long and lengthy lead seems to be comprised of original research, which is in no way helpful in defining what this article is actually about. Whether or not there should be an article about "Forests in Madagascar" or "Forestry in Madagascar" should not concern us here, as they are entirely different topics. What concerns me is that the article title is not supported by reliable secondary sources that define its scope or provide any indication that the article title is the correct one. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How exactly does the lead contain "original research"? And in what way is it "long and lengthy"? I write leads based on what I have learned from several FACs, and I try to go off of WP:LEAD. Having reread WP:LEADCITE, I can see that I've grown complacent about using citations in the lead due to writing mostly biological articles. My other FAs, such as Ring-tailed Lemur, Ruffed lemur, and (hopefully soon) Gray Mouse Lemur, do not use citations in the lead because the information is only a summary of what is cited in the body. If the consensus is to add citations to the lead, then I will.

And for Casliber, I would have to disagree with Eusebeus about the WP:SOAPBOX comment. Yes, the article slants towards the controversy over recent events, given the title chosen for the article, but for me, that was mostly an issue with choosing a title... per my points above. (Should I change the title to "Logging in Malagasy national parks"?) I worked with Rlendog on his talk page specifically to avoid NPOV issues. My sources include eStandardsForum (from the financial sector); news straight from Marojejy National Park; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); news articles (NashvillePost.com); and National Geographic. Furthermore, sources in the article confirm that the World Bank and several Western governments publicly condemned the activities. I have combed the internet for sources on all sides and have given as much benefit of a doubt as my sources will allow. If it would help to standardize on the use of terms, such as "timber traffickers" (rather than the mix of names, such as "timber mafia", used in various sources) feel free to make the changes. I started the article with the intent of making it NPOV, and have emphasized this point with my sources, who include Erik Patel and Derek Schuurman. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. We've just had a couple of opinions so far. Still a couple to come. I just asked a few on scope before I digested it myself. I'll add some comments soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not wish to offend any contributor to the article. Even if the lead is not original research, its unsourced state is problematical. For as long as it is unsourced, it will be the subject of lots of abritrary changes that will result in it being eaten away by a process of editorial nibbling, or what I refer to as "goldfish editing", as each nibble is made without any memory of what came before.
The topic is important, but because it is controversial, it needs to provide context to the reader about the broader picture, otherwise it will be percieved as a platform for soapboxing. If I could offer some constructive criticism, then perhaps you will see where I am comming from:

1. Whilst illegal logging is clearly an issue, it is not a notable topic in itself. Illegal logging is only one facet of the more wider problem of deforestation;
2. "Deforesation in Madagascar" might make a good title for this article, but I don't think this addresses the specific issues raised by the sources cited in this article;
3. The underlying cause of illegal logging/deforestation in Madagascar is poor forest management, and this should be the primary focus of this article;

I propose this article be renamed Forest management in Madagascar based on this source[1] which is already cited extensively in the article, and I would draw your attention to page 6 of the report, which may be a useful source for the article's title and lead. The report suggests that poor forest management is the root cause of deforestation in general and illegal logging in particular. I think this report provides a clear rationale for article, and framework with which to structure it. This second paper[2] also suggest that Forest management in Madagascar is a notable topic in its own right. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Gavin's suggestion is a good one. I have been racking my brains for a broader concept and this now looks obvious. There is so much context to supply to a reader of this article, that it makes good sense to set the scope as "Forest management..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, but once you expand the scope even slightly, the article will have to grow significantly to fill it in. "Forest Management" and "Deforestation" in Madagascar are massive topics which may ultimately require splitting them up into summary pages, probably putting us right back to where we are now. ("Forest management" broadens the scope to include charcoal collection, firewood, construction wood, and slash-and-burn for agriculture and pasture. In fact, its scope may be indistinguishable from that of "Deforestation".) I would offer to do write such articles, but every time I step out of the realm of hard science, questions about NPOV and soapboxing start popping up like weeds. Consequently, this will be the last article I will write outside of the hard sciences, even for the topic of conservation (except for the "Lemur conservation" article I am preparing to write as part of a new "lemur topic"). Since I doubt anyone else will step up to fill this topic in anytime soon, we may be stuck with a large summary page and no parent page(s). It's either that, or we'll have a page with a gross over-representation of one part of the topic and little to no information about the other relevant topics.

Anyway, just for the sake of keeping the ball rolling, if I rename the article as Gavin suggests and rework the lead to accommodate the the expanded scope, plus sprinkle in citations from the body below for good measure, will that be sufficient (for now)? If not, what exactly is the expectation? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Once you have established the notability to the topic, its downhill all the way. Once the article provides context to the reader, I see no barriers to achieving good article status in the long run, as there are lots of good sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

@visionholder, it's only 72 kb - we can copyedit quite a bit I am sure. I am pretty good at making prose more succinct. Often when one writes these one doubles up in places. I'd rename it and move it now, and then we can go through and see what needs to be added as I copyedit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'm thinking ahead to FA and not the issue at hand: GA. Before I rename the article, I want a small point addressed from above: When you consider what lies under the scope of "Forest management" and compare that to the scope of "Deforestation", they are pretty much identical, especially in Madagascar's case. Therefore, should we just use "Deforestation in Madagascar" instead, since that article will need to be created anyway? (If so, an admin will have to do the move in order to over-write the existing redirect.) – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point - my etymological gut feeling is that "deforestation" has a negative connotation - the meaning of the word is literally the removal of forests and it is almost as if there is no reason attached to it (i.e. mindless removal). "Forest management" implies the use (and also the protection (and in this case violation thereof)) of forests as a resource. Even though it is a bad reason, everyone has a reason for removing forests and using the products. That'd be my take on it anyway. The latter term is firmly neutral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "forest management" sounds better for many reasons, but we'd be going against precedent—see: Category:Deforestation by region. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that's an interesting page. However I must go eat as it is lunchtime. It would be interesting to see if there has been any discussion on the topic, or did one or two editors just start it off a long time ago. Worth looking into. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the oldest articles in the groups seem to be Deforestation in Cambodia and Deforestation in Ethiopia, which were created in November 2007. Everything else seems to have been created in either 2008 or 2009, so all are relatively recent additions. Various members were involved, but the most frequent article creators include Dr. Blofeld and Alan Liefting, both of whom are very active. At a glance, I couldn't find any discussions about the naming of these pages, although it could probably be brought up at WT:FORESTRY since some of the pages are already marked as being a part of their (small) project. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny isn't it? Editing often ends up like opening a can of worms as you delve into something and the next thing we know we're talking about an overhaul of an important sent of environmental articles. Sorta gone beyond the scope of this page. I have to hope off the computer for a bit and will ruminate on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we plop the suggestion on WT:FORESTRY, rename the page currently under discussion to Deforestation in Madagascar (definitely retaining a redirect from the current name), adjust the lead as needed, and see where the discussion goes from there? – VisionHolder « talk » 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Forestry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment are more or less inactive currently. Other options are the Deforestation talk page, or Talk:Deforestation by region or even the category talk page. What I was then thinking is that whereever it is, we notify as many projects and people as possible, including the two editors above and wikiproject plants and wikiproject ecology as well, and set it up as a WP:RFC. Actually maybe the Talk:Deforestation by region isa better place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. I think starting a RfC centered at Talk:Deforestation by region sounds appropriate. Do you want me to get it started? If so, which categories should I use for the rfctag? – VisionHolder « talk » 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy for you to get it started. I have to go offline for a few hours. Wll check later tonight. I haven't done many of these myself...as long as the discussion is open and well-structured it should be okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started the RfC. Let's see how this goes. – VisionHolder « talk » 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... maybe it's too early yet to say, but to keep this GAC from going too stale, what should we do so far? Do we need to wait for the RfC to conclude? Based on what's been said so far, I think it's safe to say that moving this article to either "Deforestation in Madagascar" (which now has its own page that summarizes this article, thanks to the RfC) or "Forest management in Madagascar" just doesn't seem entirely appropriate. Both topics—however you define them—are very broad, and this article would only cover one of many aspects within the scope of those titles. However, we could move this article to "Logging in Madagascar", in which case only one topic (that I can think of) still needs to be addressed in the article: wood used for construction by the Malagasy people. I'm not sure how much there is on that subject in the literature (aside from maybe a few short mentions), but I can look if you feel I need it for the GAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Let me have a look at all the articles involved and I'll have a think about it can all fit together. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a little bit more detail and hidden some potential headings in the Deforestation in Madagascar article. Given that the topics of Forestry and Forest Management appear to be far above the scope of this article (and this GAC), I don't feel we should get tied up on it here. (Let's definitely remain active in the RfC, though!) Depending on what everyone decides, I see some sort of forestry/forest management/deforestation organization taking shape at a higher level, with distinct, thorough articles on situations in individual countries being split off from there. In the case of Madagascar, there would be (or is) an article entitled Deforestation in Madagascar that can and eventually will contain information on each of the topics I listed on that page. "Logging in Madagascar" would be one of those topics, which given its size, would merit its own page. Until someone updates the page, Deforestation in Madagascar will remain a stub. Meanwhile, I feel that the article under discussion here should be renamed to Logging in Madagascar and slightly expanded (if possible) to include timber used for construction (to match the scope of Logging). That way the forestry/forest management/deforestation discussion goes on at a higher level than this article, while we help fit it under two articles more within its scope: Deforestation in Madagascar and Logging. What do you guys think? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Logging sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And just to throw a kink in it all, I found that there is a page for Illegal logging... which raises the question of whether or not to rename the article after all. Here's why: As it stands, there is far more information about illegal logging in Madagascar than there is about general logging in Madagascar. Changing the name to Logging in Madagascar would create a very lopsided article. I'm almost wondering if the topic of logging in Madagascar should be left to the appropriate section of Deforestation in Madagascar with a "See also" link at the top of the section to the this article. That allows the general topic to be discussed without going into too much detail about the illegal precious wood logging, and then the gory details are separated out onto this specialized article. In my opinion, this creates an even more balanced representation and subdivision than what I mentioned above. Unfortunately, it's hard to demonstrate because we're talking about stub parent articles and empty headings. You just have to trust me—the material will come in time, but when it does eventually flesh out, this page may be better off standing alone as a summary page. – VisionHolder « talk » 07:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these opinions are all well and good, but they are not backed up by any sources. As it stands, there is not a single source that defines the scope of the article. What is needed is at least one, but preferably more, sources that address the subject of the article directly and in detail so that notability of the subject is clarly established.
I know that several editors rejected my suggestion at the Deforestation RfC, but it seems to me that Forest management in Madagascar is the only title that is supported in any meaningful way by reliable secondary sources. All the other titles are contain terms that are mentioned only in passing, and provide no definition that would provide the reader with context about the chosen subject matter. No disrespect intended to the the participants of the RFC, but if they are not able to back up their opinions with external sources, their opinions are of only marginal value.
It is not clear if this article is about illegal logging, deforestation, government corruption, timber barrons or the rosewood and ebony trees themsleves. What ever the final choice of article title and subject matter, it seems to me that the focus needs to be sharper and the title need to be nailed down with more robust sourcing, as this article relies too much on the rambling and unsourced lead to define the scope of this article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay then - looking at the sources - the first one talks of illegal logging. this one deforestation. Given the government is complicit and has legalised certain activities, then we can safely say that much of the problem is not technically 'illegal', so I'd take that out of the title. Deforestation + madagascar gets 79900 ghits, while logging + madagascar gets 410,000 (but might be more due to commonness of word 'logging' as (for instance) first page is 'Deforestation In Madagascar'. "forest management" + madagascar gets 13,500. Thus, if the madagascar government legalises and/or sanctions some logging, which the wider community perceives as wrong, is illegal a loaded term? A similar issue to Japanese 'scientific' whaling I suspect. Hmmm. Food for thought anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article (and its sources) point out, the "legalization" doesn't actually legalize the activities because a lowly interministerial order cannot override existing laws. It's a lot like how the current "president" of Madagascar can't legally be the president because he violated the constitution when he took power and he's too young to be president (again, according to the constitution). Basically, this becomes a legal issue where we'd have to rely on a corrupt interim government to tell us what is legal or illegal. (Also, a lack of law enforcement does not make something legal. If cyclone-damaged trees are permitted for export, but loggers pass off the majority of their illegally harvested timber as "cyclone-damaged" and no one polices it, that doesn't make it legal, regardless of the order.) Furthermore, the problem with notability via the sources is confounded by a lack of standards in naming. One of my sources labels the latest activities as the "Rosewood massacre". (The same goes for the naming of "timber barons" vs. "rosewood mafia", etc.) There's no definitive, authoritative source, likely because the events are relatively new and we haven't had a historian sit down and formalize the events on paper. That does not mean the events aren't happening or are notable.

I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing this scope problem. I will admit that more information needs to be added to the article as it stands, mostly because people also log illegal for locally used construction material. However, I don't think there are many detailed sources on this issue, so the most I might be able to add is a couple paragraphs total. I do appreciate the need for sources to confirm notability, but sometimes subjects won't have a standardized name from the literature. What's important is the meat of the subject, not its skin. Until the naming of these collective activities gets formalized, we can always use redirects and inter-wiki links to help readers locate the subject. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have cited two sources that suggest that "Forest management in Madagascar" is a notable topic, and Casliber's second source also mentions Forest Management, in addition to deforestation. I don't want to shove my views down your throat, but the way I see this panning out is that its up to you what you want to write. Where I come from, finding three good sources that address the same topic directly and in detail is as rare as gold dust. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that you're trying to shove anything down my throat, and I hope you don't feel the same about my approach. But Casliber also pointed out one source from eStandardForm that talks of illegal logging. And honestly, that would probably be seen as the least biased of all my sources, coming from the business/government perspective. (Most of my other sources come from the conservation community.) For the sake of NPOV, I suggest we go with the eStandardForm publication. However, I still won't abandon the argument that "deforestation" and "forest management" scopes are too large and will require splitting. Deforestation in Madagascar now exists and could be greatly expanded, even without plopping the text from this article into it. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to base an entire article on a tertiary source of which the author is not known, and which is, at best, a summary of secondary sources, and at worst, is not a reliable, nor formally published, source.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Joining the discussion late, my apologies if I restate the obvious or repeat things that have already been resolved. Some thoughts

Article content

I'm concerned about the tone of the article. While the content has merit, the tone just isn't encyclopaedic. It's a great essay, but it spends too much effort making an argument.

On the scope of the article

The article reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, and part of that problem stems from the fact that it sits a little bit alone. Illegal logging is only meaningful in contrast to legal logging. If there was a "Forestry in Madagascar" article or something of the sort, this would have more usable context. As it stands, this article is more about the political economy of timber production in Madagascar. Interesting, yes, but not really appropriate under this title.

On 'deforestation'

It's important to realise that "logging" is rarely a proximate cause of deforestation. Even clearcutting (which is rare in tropical forestry, outside of Japanese companies in Indonesia) doesn't usually lead to "deforestation", since the land is likely to remain forested unless either people move in, or the fire cycle converts it to grassland. Granted the construction of logging roads, edge-generated changes in hydrology and presence of logging slash created by logging can make logging an important step in the process that leads to deforestation. Guettarda (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was getting the impression from the RfC that "forestry" and "forest management" are very, very broad terms. As for the tone of the article... I tried from the start to make it NPOV and encyclopedic. It is a notable topic, although the "title" is difficult to pin down from the literature. In the article, I covered as much history as I could find, as well as documented the causes, effects, involved parties, and public reaction.

At this point, I don't ever plan to write an article outside of the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life. It seems like if I try to follow the usual procedures of stating facts and citing reliable sources, I get smacked for soapboxing or violating NPOV (particularly in articles that have even the slightest touch of a political slant, such as conservation), despite my open intentions of trying to avoid it. At this point, I might as well just withdraw the GAC nomination and leave the article for others to clean up. If you want to rename it, go for it. But so far, all the names suggested include very broad topics that will eventually need to be split once someone gets around to filling them in. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Visionholder, I am sorry it has been a frustrating experience for you. I can see where Guettarda is coming from re essay comment. I will have a look at this and see once we trim it down a bit, what we can do about the scope. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

2nd, 3rd or 4th opinion

So where are we? No comments since 5 March, today is 19 April. No edits to the article since 1 April. If the reviewer isn not happy with the state of the article then fail the nomination now. GAN reviews are not meant to take more than two months! The nominator can ask for a community re-assessment at WP:GAR, if they are not happy, or fix the issues and renominate at WP:GAN. The queue there is less than 20, probably a waiting time of two days max. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about renaming the page and the RfC about the topic in general never really resolved itself. I still contend that the suggested names inappropriately over-expand the scope of the article; and given that there is an "Illegal logging" page, I don't see why there can't be an "Illegal logging in Madagascar" page, especially when a few of the sources support the name. I also agree that some of the sources (mostly from WildMadagascar.org) do not look as credible as they could be. It's a problem, sometimes, in conservation biology that important numbers are withheld for political, financial, or personal reasons (such as threats of violence against informants), making it very hard to publish hard data in peer-reviewed sources. The page was written with the support of the experts (researchers in the field), so I did the best I could given what was available. I have come across new peer-reviewed sources for the article, but I'm now too tied up with other work on Wiki to see what it can replace. And since more than one person has complained that it sounds like soapboxing—something I explicitly tried to avoid when creating the article in my user space—then apparently the page will need a serious copy-edit by another party to resolve that issue. Since one of the reviewers and I apparently have irreconcilable differences, I guess I could withdraw the nomination. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

News videos have been released to confirm what my "questionable" sources say, as well as the notability of "illegal logging" as a title. If another reviewer wants to offer suggestions or feedback, they can also view these news videos, which come in two parts: Part 1 & Part 2 – VisionHolder « talk » 04:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should also note that I would prefer to not withdraw the nomination. Again, I feel the title has support and covers its scope sufficiently to meet GA standards. I also do not feel that the text demonstrates soapboxing, given that news reports are saying the exact same things. Furthermore, this article was written with the full support of Erik Patel, Derek Schuurman, Charlie Welch, and many others—all of whom are some of the foremost authorities on this issue, as well as established conservation researchers and writers. Given the recent criticism of Wiki's FAs for not having expert reviews, I think this article even excels in this regard. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have been musing about this -I'll take another look and try to see what we can do with the article. queries below. I do think it is admirable addressing something like this, just tricky to navigate.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Although other species of rosewood have traditionally been used for high-class musical instruments and furniture - meaning elsewhere on another continent/country?

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• These rare hardwoods are occasionally used by the local people - "occasionally" sounds funny here as it is somewhat ambiguous and can mean anything between rare and moderately common.

Given the last half of the sentence, I don't see the ambiguity. It's a relative statement. Anyway, I've tried to clarify, following the wording of the source a little more closely. Let me know whether or not you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Right, it's para 4 in the History section that I think needs rewording - reading this para on the legislation issues comes across as overdetailed and like it's labouring the point a little. It is this paragraph that makes it less like an encyclopedia entry and more like an essay. I do realise there is a lot of info to convey here and appreciate the effort. I am trying to think of a reword.

I was going to address this tonight, but I need a break. I'll try to work on it either Saturday morning or Sunday evening. Sorry for the delay. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the paragraph and I don't see anything wrong up until the 2nd-to-last sentence. Is that were the problem comes in? Should I just delete the last two sentences, or, if some of their facts are not mentioned explicitly anywhere else in the article, move the material somewhere else? – VisionHolder « talk » 14:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and took a stab at fixing it. Let me know what you think. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a read now. I took another look and got an idea what could be removed - do you think any meaning has been lost as such by my trimming of the section? It is tricky, on thinking about it, this sentence "If this interpretation is correct, then under Malagasy law all illicitly harvested wood should be confiscated" came across as the POV of the writer and didn't really add anything. Also this sentence, "Multiple memoranda and inter-ministerial orders concerning the logging and export of rosewood and ebony have been issued since, making these issues very complex" didn't add much either - mentioning the repeated amendments gets the point across I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine, although I would have preferred to keep the references to specific order numbers. (I felt they had encyclopedic value.) Otherwise, I think the changes look fine. Thanks for figuring out how to word it properly. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Do the references need to be rejigged to match the prose? Sorry - trying to make it flow. I kept the order numbers as such Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Once the logs have been delivered to a port, export authorization is needed from the government, which for decades has alternated between issuing bans (starting in 1975) and periodic exceptions - "exemptions"?

I went back to the source and it says "periodic exceptions". – VisionHolder « talk » 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, how about "issuing bans (starting in 1975) and periodically lifting them"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote is: "...the status of its export has oscillated between outright bans, the first of which dates back to 1975 (Ballet and Rahaga 2009), followed by periodic exceptions." – VisionHolder « talk » 03:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• The use of the word 'mafia' is tricky, as it is clearly value-laden. Is it widely used in the sources? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation #6, a peer-reviewed journal article entitled "The Madagascar rosewood massacre" uses the phrase "timber mafia". The 33rd citation (from National Geographic) also mentions the "local mafia." If the word needs to be replaced, it might be worth noting somewhere in the article that these groups are sometimes referred to in the press as a local mafia. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No no, that's good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraph starting Thousands of workers may be involved in... I am thinking may be over detailed - I am musing on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Cyclical exports and cyclone damage is better and more concise, however some of teh lower half of Effects of the 2009 political crisis might be overdetailed and repetitive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

With both of these, I may need some more direction. I guess I'm not seeing it. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this still on hold? The GA process shouldn't take so long. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right - I have asked Malleus so we can see what direction to take on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also still watching this review, and I'm still willing to do whatever it takes to get it to pass... as long as it's reasonable. If the task becomes hopeless, I will withdraw the nom or just let it fail. Honestly, I did not expect this to be so difficult... going through a RfC about a whole category of article names, dealing with NPOV issues (which I tried to avoid initially), etc., etc. I'm very sorry for all the stress I've created with this article, particularly to Cas. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I very much agree with the view expressed by several others above that there is a serious problem with this article's scope. As much of the "illegal" logging appears to be sanctioned by the government under one guise or another it's arguably not actually illegal at all. I realise that this a topic that many will feel deeply about, and I also have concerns about some of the judgements made in the article, and therefore its neutrality. One that particularly caught my eye was this unqualified statement in the Corruption and violence section: "At the national level, there seems to be only nominal resolve to halt illegal logging, especially since the Prime Minister appears to be easily bribed." What the source cited actually says is: "Even if the political will to put an end to illegal logging existed at the highest levels of government—and it does not ('The Prime Minister, at least, seems to be bought,' Tegtmeyer told me) ...", which is a fish of an entirely different colour. For one, our article states as a fact, without qualification, that the Prime Minister appears to be easily bribed, whereas the source attributes that opinion to one man, Reiner Tegtmeyer, a representative of Global Witness, whatever that is. One more example: the article talks about the people of Sambava demonstrating "vehemently" against the rosewood mafia, but the cited source actually says "angrily". "Vehement" is not a synonym of "angry", it suggests a much deeper strength of feeling, and one I suspect that the authors of this piece would have some sympathy with. Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  First of all, I now generally agree that the article has extensive flaws and should problem just be failed. To address your points:

1. The scope I'm still trying to wrestle with. I still see this article standing on its own just fine, although a slight rename might be in order: "Illegal logging of valuable hardwoods in Madagascar". It's a bit long, but it encapsulates the content. "Illegal logging" is established in multiple sources, including academic ones. Unfortunately, these events have know formal name in the media. Even the BBC simply refers to it as "illegal logging." Otherwise, the gross content of the article covers the events that led up to the current situation, what's driving it, the effects it has had, and current events. It seems like a complete package to me. The sources on the topic collectively cover the same general scope.
2. The term "illegal logging" or some equivalent is used in every journal article or news report I've seen. As the article explains, the logging itself is illegal because only wood taken down by cyclones may be harvested, yet logging has clearly been documented. The fact that the government doesn't police it properly doesn't make it legal either. The exports are what get occasional approval, though the legality of that is questionable since it's somewhat like writing a state law to overrule a federal law or having a senator write a memo to authorize an otherwise illegal action. I think these are the reasons why even the BBC and other major news organizations also refer to it as "illegal logging."
3. I apologize about the inaccuracy in the statement about the Prime Minister. I'll correct it now. For the record, though, it's hard to tell how some of these mistakes get introduced. As noted previously, the reports at WildMadagascar.org are not 100% reliable, and I have found that even reports that are 3 months old or older sometimes get changed by the author. Not only have I seen it happen by being included in emails directed to the authors by people in the field, but I have also gone back to sources for which I had direct quotes and found them either changed or deleted. This may be one of those cases, but I'm not sure. It simply may have been my error. I do hope to someday replace all questionable sources with better references, but for now most of what's out there is leaked by people who are willing to risk their lives to tell the story, and usually only conservation groups are willing to give it more than just a couple paragraphs of text in their publications. In time, the facts will be sorted out and credible sources will be published. Until then, this is all I have to work with. Again, I'm replacing references as alternatives become available.
4. Once again, I apologize for letting my bias enter the article. I truly intended to write in a neutral fashion, but in the process of paraphrasing I've been known to over- or under-state points due to poor word choice and bad phrasing. (Just ask Ucucha, who reviews all of my lemur articles.) If there were detailed sources giving a different view on this matter, I would have covered it in the same fashion. The slant of the article's text comes from its sources. Even flat facts, such as how much workers are paid or accounts of violent acts, are difficult if not impossible to summarize in a truly neutral fashion, IMO. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay - I am sad to say I have failed this one, but there is quite a bit of feedback to go on above. It is certainly a fascinating topic and in some ways requires quite a bit of thinknig about and discussion quite different to the host of species articles I usually write. Cheer up Visionholder, I don't think it is that far away but a rethink on approach might be better without a time-constraint hovering. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)