Talk:Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force

Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Central African Republic conflict (2012–present)#Post-Djotodia period|Continued sectarian conflict]] The anchor (#Post-Djotodia period) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Links

Also note the religious element is comples. Muslims allied with Seleka means Christian allies, but self-defense militias are Christians fighting the Muslims. + sexual violence reportedLihaas (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iissues

The Bozize militia aren't event mentioned in the article, and neither other the other Christian militias. We cant have stuff in the infoboxx without being in the article.(Lihaas (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Change article name Comment Suggestion

The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent.Fotoriety (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this first. "Simply ridiculous" is not a reason to move. (not to mention a subjective inter[retation)

Specifically, there is a conflict about the conflict prior to the escalation during hispresidency. This would conflict with that. Also as this stage is over, renewed conflict could very well merit its own page (a la the Egypt protests, etc) (Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

see French version --93.137.168.59 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French version calls this the "Third Central African Civil War" but there are no sources to back up that name. Either way, the current title must change because the conflict is continuing even without Djotodia. Ever since Djotodia took power the fighting has largely been unorganized fighting between the militias, ex-seleka and anti-balaka and that fighting has not stopped, even if it has eased in the capital.[4] I would suggest merging this with the original Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) as another phase of the same fighting. The sources do not call for this phase as a separate war. JustBeCool (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar I was going to say too. Like the Egypt protests, notable events can be split to a bigger article. And the next round of events can get another split with all being ultimately linked under the umbrella framework of the main article you suggested. (perhaps a template too, like Egypt, again). I think the article largely is merged as we now only have the focus of the conflict during the Djotodia months with a brief background section. Doesn't need more trimming here. Fully merging would make that other article too big. As you say this is only a phase in the wider conflict from 14-odd months ago.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: a little more detail would g...

41.77.3.244 posted this comment on 10 December 2013 (view all feedback).

a little more detail would go a long way in satisfying the reader's appetite in-depth news

Well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

The first paragraph contains undefined acronyms - suggest adding the French title "Communauté Économique des États de l'Afrique Centrale (CEEAC)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogbus (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done(Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Christian-Muslim conflict

Whether accidentally or otherwise, all our articles on the CAR conflict currently seem almost designed to make it as hard as possible for the casual reader to learn about the Christian-Muslim dimension of the present conflict, thus seemingly doing a major disservice to such readers. Before I added changes to the lead paragraph, there was no mention of this aspect for several paragraphs except under the non-specific phrase 'religious confict'. Perhaps editors could try to bear this in mind before deleting passages which attempt to undo this disservice. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is far too simplistic to define it religiously. No source attributes it this way. It is "mostly-Muslim" vs. the same for Cchristian. Akin to South Sudan the tribal nature vs. power politics is bigger. Its really POV-pushing to attribute blame.Lihaas (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Lihaas, but I have to disagree with you for the following reasons:

1) Your edit has left the opening paragraph an illegible mess.

2) It's not POV to mention that conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims is a major part of the problem. All serious sources that I've seen mention this, except Wikipedia, which systematically shoves it back to about 5 paragraphs down. The text that I have inserted does not attribute blame, nor does it state that religion is the only dimension to the conflict. It merely states facts, with attribution to sources, including the fact that the new President was a Muslim in what sources describe as a reportedly 'mainly Christian' country (I have no problem with Christian being changed to non-Muslim, as I'm only using Christian because that's what the quoted sources are saying - I'm not sure whether Christians are a majority as I've seen figures ranging from 40% to 80%, but all sources agree that Muslims are a 10 to 15% minority, with the disagreements being about how many traditional animists there are). The sources also all say he was a leader, or the leader, of the Seleka rebels, for whom there are 4 sources saying they are almost entirely Muslim (I haven't checked them, I simply took them from the lead paragraph of the Seleka article), and I have seen no sources disputing this. The only unsourced words I put in was adding 'between Muslims and non-Muslims' to a sentence that already read 'including religious conflict'. All sources mention that there is conflict between the Muslim Seleka and the Christian/non-Muslim anti-balaka. No source says that there is no confict between Muslims and non-Muslims. As such your deletion seems,at least to me, to be utterly unjustified, based on no sources, totally POV, and a major disservice to Wikipedia readers trying to understand what the hell is going on over there.

3) However I do not have time for an edit war with you. So if you want to insist on deleting all references to there being a conflict between Christians and Muslims anywhere near the opening paragraph where a reader might reasonably expect to be told about this, I can only protest as I have done here, but I can't stop you doing this major disservice to our readers.

4) However, the least you could do is tidy up the illegible mess your edits have made of the opening paragraph. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to waste any more time on changes that you will presumably delete as POV. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) Actually, on reflection, I hate to leave the lead paragraph in its current illegible mess. So I'm going to try to restore it to what I think it should be. That basically means undoing your edits. And then, to keep things consistent, also undoing your edit to the other article. After that, if what I've written above hasn't persuaded you, you can always delete my stuff, but please do so in such a way that you don't leave behind the kind of illegible mess you have left on this occasion. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per BRD, when you change was reverted you need consensus to get there and that is not there/. As for the @mess" that can be cleaned out with content changes./

Sources mention @mostly Muslim" and vice versa. You cannot frame it in sensational media form because this is not a news outlet. The Seleka have been disbanded for months now, btw. If you took something from the Seleka articel that is WP citing itself and we dont do that here.Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't Wikipedia quoting itself, this is Wikipedia quoting sources, which ironically you have now left in place while removing the sentence to which they refer, thus leaving the lead paragraph looking absurd. If you object to the expression 'almost entirely Muslim' you can easily change it to 'mainly Muslim'. If those sources were inaccurate, you could say so and others could easily be found to back it up. If you think the actual sources used (which of course you have left in the article) are too sensational, you can say so and other less sensational ones can easily be found (there is nothing sensational about the things I actually said in the article - that the Seleka are/were mainly Muslim, nor that Djotodia is Muslim, nor that the country is mainly non-Muslim, nor that there has been conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims - all of that is self-evident fact with masses of reliable source citations available for support). Meanwhile, regardless of what BRD says, as far as I am concerned the fact remains that a continuing disservice is being done to our readers by failing to let them know that there is a Muslim v. non-Muslim dimension to the conflict in the opening paragraph, which they are entitled to be told. But as I said before, I don't have time to fight this, so, unfortunately for our readers, you win. Congratulations. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I suspect I'm yet again just wasting my time pointing all this out, but regarding alleged sensationalism, I have taken a closer look at the sources that I copied from the Seleka article. The media quoted here are the BBC('"I want to become a rebel and kill members of Seleka. We suffered too much. Muslims are our enemies," one 20-year-old man said.'), The Economist('Though the Séléka forces came from the largely Muslim north, many of those who joined the group during its voyage south to oust the sitting president were opportunists, bandits and mercenaries.'), The Guardian ('Nearly all the Seleka are Muslim'), Africa Report('the Islamic Seleka militias.'). All of these are normally considered reliable sources. Some of them explicitly state that nearly all the Seleka are Muslim, and none of them contradict it, but if you prefer 'mainly Muslim' or 'mostly Muslim' is fine by me, and there is certainly no justification for eliminating all references to Muslims and non-Muslims from the opening paragraphs instead of just using 'mostly' instead of 'nearly all' or 'almost all'. Agence France Presse is also quoted (along with the Guardian) on Djotodia being a Muslim. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly Muslim and mainly Christian is fine. But both ways is NPOV. No blame game here. It is not a Muslim vs. everyone else conflict for sure. Even the UN has says there is the Christian opponents to the Muslim oppnents.

Iin sum, Ii am fine with saying mostly Muslim with the due caveat that the opposition is mostly Christian. If you agree then add that and we can be resolvedv.Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lihaas. It may take a few days for me to get around to doing that, and then we can see how it works out. Alternatively, you could perhaps make the changes yourself, and we can see how that works out. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, to save time, I've just changed it without looking for citations (as you have questioned the neutrality of my previous sources, and finding what you would probably see as more neutral sources such as Al Jazeera might take time, though I expect Al Jazeera says much the same thing as I've said). Please feel free to re-word it to your satisfaction, and, if necessary, to add citations which you regard as neutral. Once we've agreed on the changes to this article, we can then also make similar changes to the other article. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made minor tweaks. One was the double usage of Muslim, mainyl cause its redundant as weve already said Djotodia is from the Seleka which is mostly Muslim, doesnt seem wrothwhile adding he is too. Also removed from the "country's Muslim minority" as sources have said many are Chadians.(Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

I've no problem with your change to the "country's Muslim minority". But I'd prefer to say explicitly that Djotodia is a Muslim, because 1) it's true; 2) it seems relevant to an understanding of many local and international aspects of the conflict; 3) it's not obvious that he is Muslim - the name Michel (which is French for Michael) is usually seen as Christian (unlike a name such as Ahmed or Muammar) and misleadingly suggests to the reader that he is some kind of Christian frontman for a mainly but not entirely Muslim Seleka coalition. That has happened before in some other African conflicts, such as in the Nigerian Civil War in the 1960s, where President Yakubu ('Jack') Gowon of the mainly Christian and traditional animist Yoruba tribe was the Protestant Christian nominal ruler of mostly Muslim Nigeria (which was supported by mostly Protestant Christian or ex-Christian Britain) as it successfully fought to end the attempted secession of the mostly Christian (but seemingly mostly Catholic rather than Protestant) and traditional animist Igbo (also called Ibo) tribe in the breakaway 'Republic of Biafra' (which was led by the Catholic Colonel Ojukwu, and which was eventually unsuccessfully supported by mostly Catholic Christian or ex-Christian France, mostly Catholic Portugal, the Catholic Presidents Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Felix Houphouet-Boigny of Cote d'Ivoire, as well as Catholic Irish schoolchildren such as I was at the time). That was rather like today's conflict in Syria where Alawite President Assad is supported by Shia Iran and opposed by Sunni Turkey, Sunni Saudi Arabia, Sunni Qatar, etc. The main point is that knowing a leader's religion usually tends to help the reader to understand many aspects of a conflict, and not knowing it usually tends to make it harder for him or her to understand (which is why various media often suppress that kind of useful information when their masters don't want ordinary people to understand - for instance at present it's very rare for Western TV news (BBC, Sky, Euronews, etc) to mention that about half the population of Ukraine are native Russian-speakers and thus broadly support President Yanukovich's siding with Russia and against the EU). So to save time I will restore the description of Djotodia as a Muslim, but if you're not happy with that, please feel free to remove it again. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you've made a number of edits elsewhere several hours after I made the above change, I'm assuming that the current position is acceptable to you. So, to save time, I've made the equivalent changes to the main article. As usual please feel free to make changes if you're not happy. And thanks for your help and cooperation in getting the issue resolved, thereby improving both articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it implies or suggests is none of our business. We are not here to PUSH some agenda in suggesting otherwise. There is a wikilink and one can click on it. It is also OL in this instance. Neither are we here to correct the perceptions of western media.

One mention of Muslin in Seleka is enough I believe, and an accommodation there too. It says for posterity that he leads Muslim SelekaLihaas (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lihaas, I would ask you to please accept my good faith, as in WP:AGF, when I say that I am not trying to "PUSH any agenda" other than that of trying to improve the encyclopedia by giving our readers the information to which they are entitled. And it was not my intention to imply that we are here "to correct the perceptions of the Western media", or of any other media - obviously we cannot amend Western media or any other media, and consequently we cannot correct their perceptions. I merely gave them as examples of how readers can get misinformed through being deprived of relevant background information. But we ARE here to provide our readers, including our Muslim readers, as well as our non-Muslim readers, with relevant background information ("the context behind the news", to use the exact expression found in the opening paragraph of WP:ITN). And it IS part of our business if our readers get inconvenienced and/or misled and/or misinformed because of the inadequacies of our article, including those inadequacies that help to cause and/or prolong misconceptions. Both Muslim and non-Muslim readers are entitled to know that in this case, despite his apparently Christian name, Michel is not a Christian but a Muslim, as this is a significant part of "the context behind the news" (or behind the history, as it now is). Readers should not have to link to some other article to find this out, partly because this is an unnecessary inconvenience for them, but mainly because readers are in danger of remaining misinformed through being deprived of this "context behind the news" if they don't guess that they need to link to another article because for some mysterious reason unmentioned relevant information is being kept out of the current article but for some equally mysterious reason is not being kept our of some other linked article.

It is NOT OL. WP:OL refers to articles that are Lists, and the two words "a Muslim" are neither an article nor a List. As WP:OL is described as the Overcategorization guideline applied to lists, let me add that it has nothing to do with Overcategorization either, as that is about grouping articles into categories, and the two words "a Muslim" are not grouping any articles into any categories. Instead it is simply 2 words spelling out a fact apparently seen as a relevant part of the context (which we are told to supply, as already mentioned) by a very wide number of sources. For example, this Africa Review article dated March 31,2013, and also repeated on April 1, 2013 here at Chinapost.com, has Patrick Fort of AFP writing:

“The Central African Republic is a secular state,” Djotodia said on Friday. “It is true that I am Muslim, but I must serve my country, all Central Africans.”

However he said that “some people with bad intentions want to lead the country into inter-religious conflict.”

Since Djotodia and his Seleka rebel coalition began an offensive in December, Bozize's regime often accused them of “preaching Wahhabism” — an ultra-conservative Islam often followed by fundamentalists — or of being “Muslim terrorists.”

In other words Djotodia, Bozize, and Fort all seem to see his religion, as well as that of his followers, as part of the context (if it isn't part of the context, why do they all mention it?). I would have included this source in the article (indeed I originally did include it), except that, as mentioned earlier in these discussions, I have omitted the sources because you have a problem with the ones I had.

Some other sources mentioning he's Muslim include:

AlJazeera, a usually widely respected Muslim source: This background article from AlJazeera says:

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding - News, January 2014 - Editorial Note: The following news reports are summaries from original sources. They may also include corrections of Arabic names and political terminology. Comments are in parentheses. - January 12, 2014 - First Muslim President of Diamond-Rich Central African Republic, Michel Djotodia, Forced to Resign Under Pressure by France and its Puppets, Attacks on Muslims Continue ... (Caption to pictures):First Muslim President of Diamond-Rich Central African Republic, Michel Djotodia, Forced to Resign Under Pressure by France and its Puppets, While Attacks on Muslims Continue in the Country

This article then includes other articles presumably deemed relevant to cross-cultural understanding of the events, including the following one:

Celebrations in Bangui after CAR president’s resignation - AFP, by James ANDRE - Text by FRANCE 24, 2014-01-11 ... Djotodia, whose Seleka rebellion descended on Bangui from the Chadian border in late 2012, became the Christian majority nation's first Muslim president last year.

the BBC, a usually widely respected non-Muslim source: This article says "Mr Djotodia, CAR's first Muslim leader, seized power last year. Since then 20% of the population have fled fighting between Christian and Muslim militias."

'an article with seemingly a Muslim and a non-Muslim as co-authors:

This article from Britain's Independent newspaper, dated Thursday 09 January 2014, is attributed to both an apparent Muslim (ABUBAKAR MOHAMMED) and an apparent non-Muslim (KRISTA LARSON), so it would seem to be fairly balanced, and it says: (picture caption): Muslim leader’s exit risks creating greater power vacuum ... (article text): Michel Djotodia, the Muslim rebel leader who became the interim President of the Central African Republic before a bloody conflict pushed the country towards civil war, agreed to resign on Friday.

In other words we seem to have sources from right across the spectrum (including Djotodia, his opponents, Muslim sources, non-Muslim sources, and sources which are a bit of both) who appear to think it relevant to mention that he's a Muslim, since they do in fact mention it. Incidentally, I could probably add many other sources as this seems to be a popular query (perhaps precisely because people are understandably confused about this, and I note that so far we in Wikipedia haven't been particularly helpful in clearing up this confusion) - when I type in "michel djotodia m", Google suggests "michel djotodia muslim" and returns "about 413000" results.

I should perhaps mention that one can explicitly say that he is Muslim while only using the word Muslim once, such as by adding "(as is Djotodia himself)" to give the following wording:

The fighting was between the government of the Central African Republic's former Séléka coalition of rebel groups, who are mainly from the Muslim minority (as is Djotodia himself), and the mainly Christian anti-balaka coalition.

I honestly think such a change will improve the article for the benefit of our readers, and would thus be justified under WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, even if it violated some other rule, though I don't actually think it does (as already mentioned, it clearly doesn't violate the OL rule). However, in the hope of avoiding further disagreement, I will not make the change myself, and will leave it up to you to decide whether on reflection you think the change should be made, and if so whether you want to make the change yourself or ask me to make it. You may also choose whether or not to include some of the above references, or any other references you might prefer, and whether you or I should include them. Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You now quote ITN, but this is WP:NOTNEWS, it is an encyclopaedia. This is the text book case against posting news information. Further, as said the Muslim aspect is mentioned AND the wikilink provides that information. There is no reason to regurgitate information. "should would could" is not reason enough to change this. Wikilinks exist for a reason, and are also precedebt setting.

The sources don't matter here because it is not the case of questioning its veracity, the issue is rehashing the same thing on and on. We mentioned it once in accomadotion and were having a good fiscussion, so lets accommodate. As for your quote above from Djotodia, feel free to mention it on the page with sources. Though again your citation of "We appear to have sources that feel it necessary to mention his religion" is NOT relevant to the fact as we are NOT a media outlet.

As for OL , see your edit summary, same point being "linked to first instance"Lihaas (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've put that in. I hope it's OK by you.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ive moved it to the article space instead of the lead. That should suffice? THE CONTENT is all there(Lihaas (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

No, Lihaas, I'm afraid it doesn't suffice - the content is there, but it already was (and still is) there if you click on Djotodia (at least until somebody decides it is unencyclopaedic to have it there too, as seemingly was the case until recently). And as you've removed it from the lead, it is now once again effectively inaccessible except to a very dedicated reader, thus completely defeating the repeatedly stated purpose of all my exhausting efforts over the last couple of days or so - in other words what appeared to be a satisfactory accommodation is now once again no accommodation at all. (I see you've also removed Djotodia's exact words and the associated purported explanatory text out of the citation, but I'm happy enough with that, as I only put it in there because you said I could use his quotation if backed by a source, so I did; the removal of the purported explanatory text does now deprive the reader of the info that Bozize propaganda helped stoke the flames, but the reader can probably guess that (unlike the less guessable fact that Michel is not a Christian), and in any case at this stage I'm simply far too exhausted to care whether s/he can or not). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, well, we tried, in a civil manner, to gain compromise. But if thats not happening then we should go to WP:30.

I tried to accept the addition of the Muslim/Christian element in the lead, but I feel it is hard pushing a POV to keep reitetating this even though we mentioned already that Djotodia was the leader of the mostly Muslim Seleka.

Not sure what I did with the quotation in the source. Maybe the citation format was different from the rest? As we need consistent formatting to have it rated at GA status.Lihaas (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Lihaas. In theory, you're right that we should now go for a third opinion. But I no longer think it's worth the effort. Thinking back, it was really all a massive waste of my time (and yours, sorry about that), as that phase of the war was essentially already over (due to Djotodia's resignation) by the time I got involved, so it was presumably very foolish of me to fail to realize that all I could ever hope to do from my perspective was half-lock the stable door after the horse had bolted. The way I see it (which is presumably rather different from the way you see it), all those who went to Wikipedia looking for an explanation of the background to that phase of the conflict while it was still ongoing were seemingly deprived of important information, and got no benefit from my later efforts to provide it. And now that this Djotodia phase is basically over, hardly anybody will be going to look here, so I probably would have been far better off doing the sensible thing and not getting involved (which is why I've now abandoned any further efforts on these articles, even though in theory I think there are many improvements that could be made). Indeed, if anything, the changes I did get to make, while theoretically improving Wikipedia (at least in my view), actually help misinform the reader, not about the CAR conflict, but about Wikipedia itself, by concealing how bad it was (at least in my opinion) as a resource when it mattered most. Hopefully I'll learn from some of my mistakes, though I fear I'm probably basically far too foolish to do so :) Anyway all the best to you, and sorry for taking up so much of your time. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

The Djotodia administration has ended but this conflict is ongoing. The article should be renamed.XavierGreen (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, at most what's needed is a message saying that for subsequent events, see "Central African Republic conflict (2012–13)#post Djotodia period", an article which should presumably be renamed something like "Central African Republic conflict (2012–??)". Alternatively our message might say that for subsequent events, see "Central African Republic Bush War", except that article seems short on recent information. And most of what we have here related to the post-Djotodia period should be moved to whichever of the above two articles is chosen to hold the continuation, leaving at most a very brief summary here. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...Ive also now added the other link to the lead and infobox. Resolved?Lihaas (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing conflict

The Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is not ongoing, it cant be ongoing because there is NO Djotodia administration. As explained, there is the page for the Central African Republic conflict (2012–13), that is the general conflict, that is still ongoing. Akin to the pages on the Egyptian turmoil, other events have split off pages. The new conflict can be added there or split off again. Please explain how the Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is still ongoing? iNCIDENTS that occurred after Djotodia are part of that conflict. The link is provided in the background section. (and now the infobox and lead)(Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Change article name Comment Suggestion

The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent.Fotoriety (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this first. "Simply ridiculous" is not a reason to move. (not to mention a subjective inter[retation)

Specifically, there is a conflict about the conflict prior to the escalation during hispresidency. This would conflict with that. Also as this stage is over, renewed conflict could very well merit its own page (a la the Egypt protests, etc) (Lihaas (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

see French version --93.137.168.59 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French version calls this the "Third Central African Civil War" but there are no sources to back up that name. Either way, the current title must change because the conflict is continuing even without Djotodia. Ever since Djotodia took power the fighting has largely been unorganized fighting between the militias, ex-seleka and anti-balaka and that fighting has not stopped, even if it has eased in the capital.[5] I would suggest merging this with the original Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) as another phase of the same fighting. The sources do not call for this phase as a separate war. JustBeCool (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar I was going to say too. Like the Egypt protests, notable events can be split to a bigger article. And the next round of events can get another split with all being ultimately linked under the umbrella framework of the main article you suggested. (perhaps a template too, like Egypt, again). I think the article largely is merged as we now only have the focus of the conflict during the Djotodia months with a brief background section. Doesn't need more trimming here. Fully merging would make that other article too big. As you say this is only a phase in the wider conflict from 14-odd months ago.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly understand Lihaas' point. However, if we all can agree this is a phase of that wider conflict, then that article is wrong to claim in its infobox that the conflict ended when Seleka took power, even though the rest of the article treats these as phases. I hope I could get some help to edit out the infobox. Another issue is that Lihaas says the conflict is not ongoing because the "Djotodia administration" is not in power and that any info on continuing conflict should get a new article. Can we get suggestions for the name of the current phase then? JustBeCool (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the latest phase is simply called "post-Djotodia period" in the main article. It seems too early to give it any other name, and it seems to me that name will probably do for now. In any case the discussion of any new name doesn't really belong here but on the main article's Talk page. Similarly discussion of changes to that article's infobox is best conducted on that article's Talk Page Tlhslobus (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Tlhslobus. And even with JustBeCool tha theother is the main article and is ongoing and should be moved to indicate 2014/Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

In accordance with BRD, when a BOLD change is reverted one needs consensus to readd ot and [prevernt edit wars. Please gain that consensus.Lihaas (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talk page, the content that you have readded did not occur during the Djotodia administration, and has been added to Central African Republic conflict (2012–present), which is where it belongs. In the process of your revert you also removed content related to the conflict under the Djotodia administration. The content related to the conflict after the Djotodia administration was added to the Central African Republic conflict (2012–present) article, so no coverage of the conflict was lost when it was removed from this article. You still have not given one reason why you think events that did not occur during the Djotodia administration belongs in this article rather than the main article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227120834/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDaBqt-PZaqJ6IPUfGowi9_x95Ag to https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iDaBqt-PZaqJ6IPUfGowi9_x95Ag

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) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration → Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) – Per WP:CONCISE. The title it should be changed to a more standard naming style, it should be WP:CONSISTENT with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There is no other article using a title with the "under the administration", all use dates to distinguish the phases of the conflicts, examples: Afghan Civil War (1996–2001), Somali Civil War (2009–present), etc. Fontaine347 (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (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.