Jump to content

Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

top

[edit]

The Ivorian presidential election, 2010 article is very long, and discusses the lead-up to the election, and the first and second round ballot. I think the post-election discussion could be moved here. Wizzy…☎ 06:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the international segment, there's no need to point each UN country's support for Ouattara as it's acknowledge he's generally the internationally recognized president of Ivory Coast. Many countries, and the UN, EU etc has come forward to his support. Analyzer99 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments

[edit]

The article urgently needs updating! In particular, the refugees should be mentioned: "Separately, the UN's refugee agency says the number of civilians fleeing west to Liberia has surged. "Until mid-week we were seeing around 100 people crossing the border daily. But over the past 24 hours alone, the numbers coming across have swollen to 5,000 people," the agency said in a statement."[1]

The situation is becoming serious and not enough attention is paid to this crisis! It should be on the main page of Wikipedia (news)! Olegwiki (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

[edit]

For 4 months and the media says that it is still "heading towards civil war".--78.3.223.193 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move/Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) The result of this discussion was no consensus (6/5/0/1), with no prejudice against proposing another merge with a notice on WP:WPAFRICA for more wider community input. – AJLtalk 20:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See below for explanation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The way that this has been developing that last week or so, this is turning into a civil war. If forces loyal to Ouattara are starting to besiege Abidjan, this is no longer a crisis. It's an armed uprising, a civil war. Juiposa (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed Juiposa's original title proposal "Ivorian Civil War" to "2010–2011 Ivorian civil war", since Ivorian Civil War already exists. --bender235 (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been superseded: I've just posted Second Ivorian Civil War, which I think should resolve this issue. Prioryman (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I know one should be bold on Wikipedia, but given the brouhaha caused by the renaming of the Libyan uprising/conflict/civil war, your move might have been too bold. I think we should've discussed this first. --bender235 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a spinout article. The crisis is the overarching event; the military conflict is a specific phase of that crisis. Apologies for not discussing it first, but the story is sufficiently complex and fast-moving that it really needs its own article. I should add that this is not like the Libyan uprising article, where the dispute was over what it should be called. There is no need to rename this article. Prioryman (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there are supposed to be two separate articles? Why? --bender235 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is long enough as it is. The military conflict is a complex story in its own right that is certainly going to last for some time, and the crisis is likely to continue after the fighting is over as the Ouattara government tries to get things back to normal. We can provide a detailed description of the military conflict in the new article, while retaining the crisis article as an overview of the entire situation, of which the military conflict is just one element. Prioryman (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But these aren't two separate events. With two articles, there will be numerous redundancies. I'd support a merger, regardless of the name of the article. If anything, split this articles content between Second Ivorian Civil War and Ivorian presidential election, 2010. --bender235 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying they are separate events. The idea is that the conflict can be dealt with in summary form in the crisis article, so that it doesn't swamp the rest of the article, and is dealt with in detail in the civil war article. There is no need for redundancy. I've already revised this article so that it summarises the military conflict. As I said in my first edit summary on the civil war article, there is much more that needs to be done on it (which I will be doing) - it's going to get much bigger. Why not just let things develop for a few days and then see what needs to be re-organised? I've set it up this way specifically so that we have the flexibility to cover the military conflict in detail without swamping the parent crisis article. Prioryman (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate article for this conflict still makes no sense. If too much info is the problem, we should create a separate for the Iraq War and call it "Iraqi Crisis." That doesn't make sense and your actions don't make sense. Remove the article now or merge it into this article. B-Machine (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --bender235 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the merge. B-Machine (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. A merge makes no sense at all - the spinout article is already substantial, and will only get longer as the conflict continues. It's too much to merge. Prioryman (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't specify that a new article should have been created. I just suggested that this article be renamed to suggest that this is now a civil war. Maybe I should have made that more clear. Juiposa (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any sort of combining the two articles; they cover completely different things. This refers basically to the entire period of unrest between the elections and now, which cannot be called any sort of war. The other refers to a specific armed conflict between the two rival factions, which is a civil war, a different matter entirely. C628 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, these aren't two "completely different things". Both cover the post-election unrest, and split the events arbitrarily. Just as if we had split the Libyan article in one before and one after the UN resolution (which we did not). Instead of three articles—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, and Second Ivorian Civil War—I think there should be only two—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, and Second Ivorian Civil War—one covering the election and its non-violent (not-so-much violent) aftermath, and one covering the recent escalation into a civil war. --bender235 (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, there are three sequential events: 1) the election; 2) the political crisis which followed the election; and 3) the civil war with which the political crisis has culminated. Each of those is a distinct topic in its own right. The political crisis was a consequence of the election but was not part of the election itself, while the civil war is a consequence of the political crisis but goes far beyond the diplomatic, economic and political events of the crisis. Prioryman (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much how I look at it too. There are multiple issues here. There's the election, obviously the instigator of all this. Then there's the crisis in general, which until a few days ago was not a civil war. It was more of a political mess with occasional armed spats between the two sides. Now it's a full-out war, which is another progression. Each of those are separate, though related, events. C628 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section you propose already exists - see Second Ivorian Civil War#Background. Prioryman (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a current event with a lot of recent activity. It's too early to determine the final outcome and some sources are beginning to call it a revolution [2]. USchick (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge the aritcle to call the overall situation the second Ivorian civil war. There are two side each with a significant amount of supporters, both clashing with each other in the same country, a civil war. Zenithfel (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. There is no substantive difference or sharp line between events earlier and the heavier fighting now, except the scale of the fighting. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not the case at all. The violence previously appears to have largely consisted of occasional attacks by Gbagbo's forces and militias on Ouattara supporters, mostly in Abidjan. That is very substantially different from what is happening now, i.e. a coordinated country-wide military offensive with the systematic use of military force and heavy weapons. Sporadic civil unrest and full-scale civil war are two quite different things. Prioryman (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Merge 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis into Second Ivorian Civil War. Having two articles on the same subject is stupid. And this whole thing started in Nov. 28, 2010. B-Machine (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not the same subject at all. There was a political crisis from December 2010 to March 2011 - not a full-scale civil war at that point. The political crisis led to a full-scale military conflict, which is what this article covers. And from a practical perspective, this article is already substantial and is getting longer all the time - there's too much to merge. See WP:SPINOUT. Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're both wrong. B-Machine (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really an argument. Keep in mind that consensus is based on weighing arguments. Cenarium (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the reason for this civil war was a political crisis. However, this has been directly connected to the 2010 presidential election. So instead of having three articles—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, and Second Ivorian Civil War—I think there should be only two—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, and Second Ivorian Civil War. --bender235 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the merge was discussed in two separate discussions and my comment above concerned only that discussion, which has now been 'merged' here. Cenarium (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the discussions have become hopelessly confused and the discussion from that page should not have been merged here. The issue has been discussed on two separate talk pages and two separate proposals have been advanced - (1) that this article should be retitled (Juiposa's original proposal) and that (2) Second Ivorian Civil War should be merged into this article (Bender235's proposal). It is now unclear who is supporting or opposing what. Since Bender235 clearly wants to go ahead with the proposal to merge the two articles, I've closed the previous confused merger/retitle discussion above and posted a clarified proposal below. I will be contacting the editors who commented in the previous discussions to ask them to state their preferences. Prioryman (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified requested move / merger proposal

[edit]

It has been proposed that this article, 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis, be merged into Second Ivorian Civil War. The rationale of the proponent, User:Bender235, is that "instead of having three articles—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis, and Second Ivorian Civil War—there should be only two—Ivorian presidential election, 2010, and Second Ivorian Civil War." Please state below whether you support this proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prioryman (talk • contribs)

The original proposal, by Juiposa (talk · contribs), was to rename 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis to Second Ivorian Civil War. I supported this, but before the discussion got started Prioryman (talk · contribs) created a separate article full of redundance. And that led to this merger proposal. And for the record, I still support it. --bender235 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge for four reasons. First, there has been a sequence of three events here - a presidential election, which led to a political and diplomatic crisis, which led to a civil war. Each of those is a distinct event and is dealt with in distinct articles. Second, from a practical point of view, there is far too much content in Second Ivorian Civil War - which is getting longer by the day - to merge into the crisis article. Third, it's simply wrong - the December-March 2011 crisis was not a civil war. There were occasional outbreaks of violence but nothing like what has been seen over the last week. Calling the pre-war crisis a "civil war" is completely misleading. And fourth, contra Bender235, there is no redundancy whatsoever - there is a single summary paragraph in this article (2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Outbreak of second civil war) which links to the civil war article. The premise of Bender235's proposal is completely wrong. This is no basis for a merger. Prioryman (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge First off, saying "merge" or "don't merge" helps to avoid confusion in these kinds of discussions. Anyways, the crisis and civil war are part of the same event. If the civil war lasts a long time, I'd be for a split, but that doesn't seem likely. As an aside, do we have reliable sources calling this a civil war? I've read lots of news articles about this and none of them that I remember have used the term. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge In agreement with Prioryman. Three separate events each need different articles. Juiposa (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge, per my reasoning in the now-hatted discussion and Prioryman's logic. C628 (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. These events are one and the same. The conflict will be short-lived. The articles are bloated and will be trimmed with the passage of time. The conflict does not match the definition of a civil war. An alternative would be to have an article strictly on the election, and another on the subsequent event. Jesus, there already is an article on the election, another on the aftermath, and another on the flying lead. Whoever created the third article should be ashamed of themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 22:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of us have a crystal ball. Whatever happens in the future, let's talk about it then. USchick (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after the merge. Right now there is not enough for three pages. Abductive (reasoning) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CBS was calling it a civil war in December [4]. The following sources call it a civil war now: The NY Times [5], BBC News [6], MSNBC [7], FOX News [8], Islamic sources [9], African sources [10] and prime minister of the country's internationally recognized leader [11]. USchick (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It makes no sense to have two different articles on the same subject.--RM (Be my friend) 03:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hi, I was actually in Ivory Coast last year leading up to the elections. There are several issues here. First of all, the Ivorian presidential election, 2010 needs to stay as its own article. Working with those who were trying to get the election to happen, I know firsthand that that has been an ongoing process since 2005 which ended once the election happened last year once it came to a head with Gbagbo dissolving the government last year and the ONUCI "basket countries" threatening to pull funding if the election didn't happen. The issue of 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis and Second Ivorian Civil War is a different one as while people are citing examples of "civil war" being used, that is a tricky phrase. Of all the news sources cited above, only the BBC actually had journalists in the country and the link citing Andrew Harding using the term is an opinion piece on his BBC blog. For all official articles, they use the term "crisis" or "conflict". So officially, this is a crisis and the phrase Second Ivorian Civil War should never be used currently as it is not classified as such by any official body. Glorified headlines from newspapers wishing to sell copies should not be taken as "fact" in this context. Even the country officials are questionable in this regard as the Gbagbo diplomats were erroneously tossing around the phrase "genocide" to try and sell the conflict. It was a crisis and Second Ivorian Civil War needs to be merged in to 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis. If at some point in the future this terminology changes, this can be changed. Viva la web. Primecoordinator (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Discussion; 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis into Second Ivorian Civil War

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) The result of this discussion was no consensus (3/2/0). It's been two weeks since the last comment was made. If anyone has an issue with this close, take it up at the admin's noticeboard. – AJLtalk 01:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

I'm listing this on behalf of User:B-Machine. The proposal is that 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis be merged into Second Ivorian Civil War, although a move discussion could take place after this one finishes. The previous discussion was closed as a No Consensus, largely because the discussion appears to have split into a number of different proposals over different venues. Hopefully a consensus can be reached here. I abstain. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, it is not the case that it was "split into different proposals over different venues". The centralised discussion you refer to occurred above after an earlier discussion did splinter across several venues. This is just B-Machine trying to re-open a recently closed discussion after the previous one closed with a result that he didn't like. Note that he hasn't presented any further arguments - endless re-litigation of this sort is not helpful. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted Prioryman's revert (as he was involved in the last discussion, I don't think that he should have done that) of Bob House 884's re-opening this merger/move discussion on the behalf of B-Machine. If nothing surfaces in a week, I will re-close this. – AJLtalk 00:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]
WITHDRAWN
Per this request, this proposal has been closed as Withdrawn. – AJLtalk 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please sign below and comment in the appropriate sections. Thank you. – AJLtalk 00:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion


Support
  1. I support the merge because both articles are about the conflcit. There's a separate article about the actual presidential election. This and the Second Ivorian Civil War article are about the same conflict that occured afterwards. Also, Prioryman, for some unknown reason, just started the Second Ivorian Civil War article without any discussion or vote. B-Machine (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Having this discussion so soon after the last one is frankly stupid, particularly as no new arguments have been put forward. As I said last time, don't merge, for four reasons. First, there has been a sequence of three events here - a presidential election, which led to a political and diplomatic crisis, which led to a civil war. Each of those is a distinct event and is dealt with in distinct articles. Second, from a practical point of view, there is far too much content in 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis to merge into the civil war article. Third, the basis of the merge is simply wrong - the December-March 2011 crisis was not a civil war. There were occasional outbreaks of violence but not a major armed conflict. Calling the pre-war crisis a "civil war" is completely wrong - it's like claiming the events of March-August 1939 as being part of the Second World War. And fourth, there is no redundancy whatsoever - there is a single summary paragraph in this article (2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Outbreak of violent conflict) which links to the civil war article. This merge proposal is completely misconceived and unnecessary. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Enough of this. I oppose this. I support merging the "civil war" in to the Ivorian Crisis article. Simply put, this was not a civil war no matter what press links people put above. You will find that all the BBC official articles refer to it as a crisis as well as any UN materials. And again, as someone was actually in-country last year and has a spouse that was there in an official capacity, I was actually on the ground to see what was happening and how it was officially called. And why is it not a "civil war"? For the same reason that cops breaking in to a compound of some nut with a pile of guns isn't a civil war. There were no battles in the vast majority of the country. Those that happened, were extremely focused, finite points. Officially, this was a crisis and the fact that the Ivorian Second Civil War article exists is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, especially as other language sites have now picked it up from the English version. Primecoordinator (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal 2

[edit]

Please sign and comment in the appropriate sections below. Thank you. – AJLtalk 19:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. I support this new merge proposal because of Primecoordinator's comment. B-Machine (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this new merge proposal as not only had I suggested it, but it's the only thing that makes sense and follows along with the actual facts of the events. If at some point the conflict gets renamed an actual "civil war" then it is quite easy to address that. Primecoordinator (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support the merge. Prioryman's argument doesn't sound good. The conflict began after Gbagbo did not step down from the office of presidency after he lost the election. I also wouldn't describe this as a civil war because the fighting took place in specific areas like the capital. Just because some media outlet says something doesn't really mean it's true. Media outlets can be untrustworthy. Sorry for registering an account. Jason Schneider. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As the map in the Second Ivorian Civil War shows, the fighting took place at numerous locations around the country, and your "media outlets are untrustworthy" argument flies in the face of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Sorry, but as I said to Primecoordinator, we're guided by reliable sources, not editors' personal opinions. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. This is getting silly. As I've said many times before, don't merge, for four reasons. First, there has been a sequence of three events here - a presidential election, which led to a political and diplomatic crisis, which led to a civil war. Each of those is a distinct event and is dealt with in distinct articles. Second, from a practical point of view, there is far too much content in Second Ivorian Civil War to merge into 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis. Third, the basis of the merge is simply wrong - the December-March 2011 crisis was not a civil war. There were occasional outbreaks of violence but not a major armed conflict. The events of March-April 2011 were clearly a civil war, and are referred to as such by numerous sources [12]. And fourth, there is no redundancy whatsoever - there is a single summary paragraph in this article (2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Outbreak of violent conflict) which links to the civil war article. Finally, Primecoordinator's comment is a perfect example of original research - he says "Simply put, this was not a civil war no matter what press links people put above". Wikipedia is based on sources - editors don't get to ignore sources in favour of their own personal viewpoints. When referring to the affair as a civil war, we're doing so on the basis of the sources. This merge proposal is even more completely misconceived and unnecessary than the last one. Prioryman (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is silly, in that you continue to insist on calling this a Civil War. I'm not basing this on original research, but international governing bodies. By your logic, "Second Civil War" shouldn't even be used and it should be called, "The Ivorian 2011 Genocide" as that's what Gbagbo's cronies started calling it before armed conflict truly broke out and the international press was was parroting this. In other words, popular press can't be used as a source this close to an event. They're calling it what they will in order to sell papers and again, if you really want to rely on press as a source for the name, then the BBC (who I respect a great deal more than any American-based media) was calling it "conflict. If you're of the opinion that this material is too long to have in 2010-2011 Ivorian crisis, then fine, call it the "2011 Conflict" as a separate article or something else along those lines. The UN and other official bodies simply do not call it a "civil war" and your insisting on such is unfortunate and belies a touch of racism in regards to the general line of thinking that Africa = all the worst crimes against humanity. Primecoordinator (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict is commonly referred to as a civil war, as you would see if you bothered to look at the sources. [13] We don't outsource the names of conflicts to international governing bodies but use English-language reliable sources in general. But that is a side issue. You are merely advancing a case for the renaming of Second Ivorian Civil War, which is an entirely separate issue from whether that article should be merged into this one. Since you've conceded that there is too much to merge and you've not addressed my point about the election, crisis and war being discrete events, I don't think there's anything further to discuss. Prioryman (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Primecoordinator did address those issues. You need to read a bit more carefully. B-Machine (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Prioryman's reasoning is compelling. HughesJohn (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's time to merge these two

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was No Consensus. The fact that this is the third time this merge was proposed in less than six months, combined with the proposer's comment "I won't stop until these articles are merged or one gets deleted" strongly suggest that he is trying to steamroll over the process of civil discussion and consensus rather than work with it, making the proposal essentially pointless. In any case, posts both here and in the previous two discussions clearly indicate that there is significant opposition to a merge. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Ivorian Civil War and 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis are the same conflict. Having two articles about the same conflict is absurd. Merge both articles now.B-Machine (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again? The objections I raised earlier haven't gone away. In short, no. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fourth time. What possible reason is there to think that the result will be any different than the previous three? Per my previous reasoning, I oppose a merge. C628 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You two are ridiculous. Both articles are describing the same event with the same citations. You know they're the same. I won't stop until these articles are merged or one gets deleted. B-Machine (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support merge: I agree with B-Machine, these two articles are about the exact same conflict, the only difference is that one article talks about it as a political crisis, while the other talks about it as a civil war. I think the latter is more accurate, so when these two are merged the title should be Second Ivorian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with cautions: I support the merge but maintaining the Second Ivorian Civil War infobox, wich is clearly far more accurate and neutral than the 2010-11 Ivorian crisis one.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the consensus here is in favor of merging, so let's do it. Charles Essie (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

[edit]

User:TaalVerbeteraar claims that France wasn't a neutral force, that it backed Ouatara. This is arguable, but exactly the same argument can be made for the United Nations. France was clearly not a co-beligerent. I've undone this edit. Perhaps the problem is the heading "Neutral forces". Maybe something like "International Forces" would be better. HughesJohn (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that UN or French forces are neutral is ridiculous, do I had to remember that these forces align themselves with the Outtara forces. I add the NPOV & unbalanced tasg until this issue is resolved.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar point on forces involved. I would argue that having Belarus and Romania as supporting the Gbango is perhaps a bit far. Selling weapons to a side is not indicative of support. Indeed countries have sold weapons to both sides in conflicts before[1], it's all just about money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.214.217 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donating or selling at a reduced price would show support

References

  1. ^ Berry, Lynn. "Russia defends selling arms to both Azerbaijan and Armenia". Associated Press. Associated Press. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
[edit]

>> Ivory Coast to send ex-youth leader to ICC (Lihaas (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2010–11 Ivorian crisis. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2010–11 Ivorian crisis. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2010–11 Ivorian crisis. 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, 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010–2011_Ivorian_crisis&oldid=1213064786"