Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive 1

message: :It was requested that this article be moved to Ivory Coast, for which 60 people voted: 24 supporting the move; 2 neutral; 34 opposing the move. This means 24 + 2 people = 26 people = 43% would not oppose the move. This is less than 60%, so no move was operated --Francis Schonken 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: (cur) (last) 06:16, Jun 17, 2002 Danny (redirected back to Cote d'Ivoire--see Talk)
 (cur) (last) 14:42, Mar 14, 2002 Eclecticology (*This is a perfectly valid English name for the country)
 (cur) (last) 14:30, Mar 14, 2002 Eclecticology
 (cur) (last) 15:51, Feb 25, 2002 Conversion script m (Automated conversion)
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 20:30, 2 December 2004  (UTC) (Archive of Page History)
:Where is the archive? --PBS 09:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive of Page History

message: :Because of the disorder this could allegedly produce in international fora, in October 1985 the government requested that the country be known as Côte d'Ivoire in every language.
This insinuates that the government's stated reason is the real reason. But another possibility is that they are feeling out their strength: let's see if we can MAKE everyone do what we say. 
I'd purely LOVE to see a Wikipedia article on national name changes. What motivates governments to rename their countries? I can understand changes from "Germany" to "Republic of Germany", but why change "Upper Volta" to "Burkina Faso" or "Rhodesia" to "Zimbabwe"?
Are they trying to assert their own identity and throw off the vestiges of colonialism? (Not that I'm against this, I'm just asking.) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
The country's present name is Côte d'Ivoire. Most people who say "Ivory Coast" do it out of sheer ignorance. There aren't many who know the name was changed and knowingly defy it by saying Ivory Coast. An encyclopaedia should enlighten the reader, not dumb down to his ignorance. Anyone looking for "Ivory Coast" will be redirected here without a problem. Gzornenplatz 22:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've come here through request for comments. To me it seems likely English speaking people will type and wikify "Ivory Coast". However, if Cote D'Ivore is the version preferred by its government, that's really the place it should be. I agree a redirect from Ivory Coast to this article is indeed the best solution. Mgm|(talk) 09:50, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I also agree. Folks in Ghana (next door to Côte d'Ivoire, anglophone) also call it by that name. Wizzy 10:02, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
RFC reply. Cote d'Ivoire (without circumflex) seems to gain usage in official documents and many news sources worldwide since the Ivorean government announcement. So maybe in a few years it will come to dominate; in the mean time there's the argument that the French is in some sense more correct. (But at least "Ivory Coast" is a direct translation; I just lost the argument that East Germany should be housed at the correct English version, German Democratic Republic, on the basis of Wiki always using the most common English term full stop. See Wikipedia:Requested_moves Dec 14.) Rd232 14:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The real reason?

message: The consensus of this talk page is that calling the country "Ivory Coast" is in accordance with English Wikipedia policy. I have moved the article to Ivory Coast twice, and someone has surreptitiously moved it back twice. I don't know how to find out who did this, but I wish they would discuss their plan with others instead of taking unilateral, secretive action. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:44, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Where do you see such a consensus? I see that Leif, Mgm, and Wizzy have agreed with me. Assuming a consensus is at least 80%, that would require 16 people agreeing with your view. Where are they? I'm also surprised that a veteran like you doesn't know how to find out who moved a page - just look at the page history of the redirect. Gzornenplatz 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:There is no consensus. And you arguments for moving the page to Ivory Coast make as much sense as moving United States to America. I wish I could say it was the first time your insularity has shown itself - Xed 22:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus and unilateral un-doing

message: :Current wikipedia policy: Geographic articles should be named after what most English speakers would call them, even if that is different than the official English spelling. The official English spelling should still be mentioned in the article.
This policy was recently reaffirmed in a poll. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
::Not if it's essentially a mistake, as opposed to a conscious decision. We also use diacritics, even though "most English speakers" tend to ignore them completely. Gzornenplatz 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
: There is no consensus on using diacritic marks. A lot of people want to avoid using them in cases where most English speakers would not use them. (The macrons in Japanese names are a perfect example for all the Europeans here - how many of you know how to write Junichiro Koizumi's name with them? I use this because it's a far fairer example than the diacritics in your own languages, which of course you know.) Noel (talk) 04:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Policy and Poll

message: #We are an English-language encyclopedia, so we should call everything by whatever most English-speakers call it.
#If this differs from something's "official name", we of course should discuss this difference as much as necessary to "enlighten" readers about it.
:The country's present name is Côte d'Ivoire. 
Not exactly. To be precise, the country's official English-language name is the French phrase Côte d'Ivoire. The article points out that the country wishes for its name NOT to be translated into English (or any other language).
::No, it's the official name in all languages. And it being originally French is as irrelevant  as the fact that Ecuador or El Salvador are originally Spanish phrases - they are the universal names of countries which you can't translate at will to "Equator" or "The Saviour". The only difference is that this universality of the name Côte d'Ivoire has only been introduced in 1985, and people are always slow to follow such changes. Gzornenplatz 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Most people who say "Ivory Coast" do it out of sheer ignorance. 
No need to be insulting. But if you would like to cite an authority who makes that point, please add it to the article: Prof. Vusette "Stu" Peed branded as "ignorant" anyone who would refer to "our beloved country" by anything other than its French name (source: Newsweek, August 4, 2003)
::That's not an insult, it's just obvious that most people who say "Ivory Coast" are ignorant about this specific fact (doesn't mean they are generally ignorant people). Gzornenplatz 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:There aren't many who know the name was changed and knowingly defy it by saying Ivory Coast. 
It's not a matter of defiance -- at least not on our part. Our policy is simply to go along with the majority of English speakers. Letting advocates (such as the US State Department, the United Nations, or even the country itself) tell us what to do is allowing THEM to dictate our policy. Well, Wikipedia is independent.
;An encyclopaedia should enlighten the reader, not dumb down to his ignorance. 
Sure, and that's why the 2nd paragraph refers readers to the naming issue in section 8. If you want, you can move the naming issue up to section 1 (right after the intro). If you think our readers are so dumb that they can't follow a link - or that they're in such dire need of enlightenment, then make a little more effort. But don't HIDE the fact that the country is STILL best known in the English-speaking world by the translated term "Ivory Coast" -- because that would PERPETUATE the kind of ignorance we're trying to eliminate.
:I don't want to hide anything. We may write something like "(still often called Ivory Coast in English)". Gzornenplatz 20:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:Anyone looking for "Ivory Coast" will be redirected here without a problem.
It's just as easy to send them directly to the Ivory Coast article, and they won't be confused by the redirect notice. Anyone who cares about the country's official name (and their policy that no one ought to translate it) can obtain that info from the article. If the politically correct name of the country is the most important thing about the country, then by all means put this in the first paragraph.
* Ivory Coast (official name: Côte d'Ivoire) is a country in West Africa. In the year #### the government issued an edict forbidding foreigners from translating the name into their local languages and specifying that its French name is also its official English name. The UN and the US state department have followed suit, but the majority of English speakers still call it Ivory Coast.
I don't think the name is the most important thing, so I'd prefer to see this info in the 1st or 2nd section FOLLOWING the intro. However, I'm easy-going. If it has to go in the intro paragraph, so be it. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I think it belongs in the intro - it is good where it is. I (personally) would prefer it at Côte d'Ivoire, but I do not care that much. It (somehow, and not just here) is an issue, and should be addressed early. Wizzy 19:46, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree that regardless of which name is first, the ambiguity needs to be addressed in the first sentence to let people looking for either name know they've found the right article. And I still think it makes more sense to use the country's official name first, but I won't revert it again without a clear consensus on this talk page. ~leif ☺ HELO 21:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Our duty as Encyclopedia writers

message: #FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support  - have the article at [[Ivory Coast]]

message: #Qero 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose - have the article at [[Côte d'Ivoire]]

message: I always think it's worthwhile to see what the common usage of encyclopedias is.  If all the other online encyclopedias stick with one usage, I see no reason why we should differ.  Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all use "Côte d'Ivoire."  That's really quite good enough for me. john k 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I mentioned that all encyclopedias use Côte d'Ivoire in the article, but it was removed by the same person who is campaigning for Ivory Coast. - Xed 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please stop telling lies. Users (not me, though you keep claiming it was me) put in a section explaining usage. You deleted it and plonked in a misleading summary. I returned it to the original accurate version, with links which you had deleted. Firstly Wikipedia does not put google searches into articles. Secondly putting one that doesn't distinguish between French pages that correcting use the French version of the name and English pages most of whom clearly don't, produces a misleading results. Putting it in like that is POV propagandisation of the article. 
As to encyclopædias, you are wrong. American encylopædias do for their own reasons. You may not have noticed it but Wikipedia is not American and does not slavishly follow American usage. Nor am I campaigning for Ivory Coast. I am applying the MoS and NC rules as is the standard way articles are written on WP. You however want to ignore how all other articles are written on WP, ignore mandatory rules on naming and as you did with the edit, tried to replace a carefully NPOV section with a blatently POV, bordering on propagandising edit while also went against WP in including google searches in the text as 'evidence', and a misleading search at that. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact that all encyclopedias use Côte d'Ivoire is still absent from the article after you removed it, so I think it's obvious where the "propaganda" is coming from.  - Xed 21:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Tell me when you find one that doesn't. Until then, perhaps you can re-insert the fact that all encyclopedias use Côte d'Ivoire, which you had previously removed. - Xed 05:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The two recent print reference works I have to hand are Whitaker's Almanack and Pears Cyclopedia; both use Côte d'Ivoire preferentially. Whitaker's doesn't even have a "See X" entry under Ivory Coast in the country lists or index, and as far as I can tell uses the term nowhere at all! Pears has a "see X" in its gazeteer, and bizzarely, the map plates use Ivory Coast whilst the text demotes that to an alternate name. Both of these publications are very much not American, and both are - whilst not encyclopedias per se - highly respectable reference sources of encyclopedic quality. Shimgray | talk | 18:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Jtd - all reference works which have been cited so far use Côte d'Ivoire.  It is up to you to find some that use Ivory Coast if you want to discredit this line of argument.  It is not up to Xed to prove that all encyclopedias use the French name. john k 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedic usage

message: Who says the government issued its "no translation" edict to prevent "disorder" that might come if people continued to use the old "Ivory Coast" name? Uncle Ed 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Politics of name change

message: Yes, our naming conventions tell us to use the most common name. But this useful convention is not followed naively or mechanically. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions itself says:
:It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules written in stone.
And Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names) says:
:[W]e need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people
There are thousands of Wikipedia articles which don't use the most common English name for their subject because Wikipedians have decided that in those particular instances other concerns are more important. In practice we pay a lot of attention to native names, official names, precise names, neutral names etc. And that's fine. 
As to what should be the most important concern in this instance I really don't know. But it seems clear to me that people can rationally disagree about this - within our rules. Wikipedia only has five solid rules and this isn't covered by any of them. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy 

message: I used to be an officer in Her Royal Highness's service. I know for a fact that she used to use the term Ivory Coast but changed to Cote d'Ivoire on the request of the Cote d'Ivoire's embassy in London. When she hosted a dinner party for the Ambassador and his wife, she used the French name in invitations and special dinner plates specially created for the event. ((unsigned))
of course it would be. That is diplomatic usage. But that is irrelevant to the issue here. Pages aren't named by diplomatic usage (if it was we'd have Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Denmark, Commonwealth of Australia Ireland (for the 26 counties as well as the island), etc., not Germany, Denmark, Australia, Republic of Ireland etc.) Pages are named after most common usage. The most common usage for this state in English (and each WP uses the most common usage in their language, not the name translated into their language) is Ivory Coast by a mile. So under MoS rules the page should be there. The diplomatic name is used in the article. User talk:Jtdirl 02:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess Royal

message: Since we've got sixty vote here now, but far less at the Timor-Leste talk page, I'd ask all of you to also consider the very similar case of East Timor/Timor-Leste and vote on its talk page. Thank you.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not similar cases. The argument to keep Cote d'Ivoire is not based solely on the wishes of the country (as seemed to be the case with East Timor). I (and others) argue that Cote d'Ivoire is now common usage. Wizzy…☎ 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrugs* Call them "vaguely related", if you don't like "similar". I just think that there should be a larger number of votes on the East Timor/Timor-Leste issue, since a margin of two of twenty hardly seems decisive to me. Just trying to get people to vote at all, not for a specific outcome.  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The cases are similar. An official designation as against Manual of Style requirements. Both East Timor and Ivory Coast are overwhelmingly used in English, so under MoS mandatory requirements they are the obliged name to use. User talk:Jtdirl 17:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivory Coast is not overwhelmingly used. You are making it up. All encyclopedias use Côte d'Ivoire - you removed this fact from the article.  Searching Google (ENGLISH PAGES ONLY) for Côte d'Ivoire (or Cote d'Ivoire) gives 32 million results. Searching (ENGLISH PAGES ONLY) for Ivory Coast gives less than 20 million. - Xed 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As I have requested several times on the mailing list, please don't state things in bald black and white.  Clearly enough people disagree with your enterpretation of the situation to necessitate this vote.  Kindly have enough respect for their opinions to moderate your language in recognition of this fact.  Sam Korn 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: It would seem to me that the major external interest in the country occurs every 4 years when the World Cup is taking place:
* about 343,000 English pages for "Ivory Coast" "World Cup" -wikipedia
* about 69,400 English pages for "Cote d'Ivoire" "World Cup" -Côte -wikipedia
* about 29,900 English pages for "Côte d'Ivoire" "World Cup" -Cote -wikipedia.
--PBS 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport

message: How does Jtdirl understand Manual of Style (MoS)? I understand it as "the policies & guidelines in :Category:Wikipedia style guidelines" - a subset of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
Article naming is however not the central topic of MoS in that sense: article naming is the central topic of another subset of wikipedia policies & guidelines, the ones contained in :Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. Of these,
* Wikipedia:Naming conventions is official policy, containing this sentence in the intro:Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.Note that the central principle is "most easily recognise", and not "most commonly used" - I think every wikipedian understanding enough English to contribute to en:wikipedia can decide for himself what he thinks most recognisable as a country's name, so there's no reason to cast doubt on the validity of a vote in this case.
* Wikipedia:Naming conflict is probably the most central guideline for guidance on this difficult topic. Contrary to Jtdirl's assertions this guideline (partly) takes self-identification and official name into account in article naming decisions, see the table in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns - it weighs these principles in together with common name and use English principles.
* Wikipedia:Requested moves of course applies too, regarding the voting procedure. Despite Jtdirl's very detailed explanations, I can't see any reasons why the regular WP:RM rules wouldn't apply in this case (as in any other WP:RM vote).
Thanking Jtdirl for the compliment of calling MoS Wikipedia's "bible" - I wrote some of it. But it is a treacherous compliment, while it minimises the fact that in Wikipedia the rules are agreed upon by consensus, which means that the rules change, if the consensus changes. Now I'm indifferent to the fact whether other wikipedians think "flexible" or "chiseled in stone" better, I can only say that Wikipedia guidelines have more flexibility than bible texts.
So, if a vote turns out this or that, and none of the major principles ("official policy") are in danger, it might be time to adjust some of the guidelines.
Now, would such adjustment of guidelines be necessary here? Maybe I would change the following sentence in wikipedia:naming conflict:Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), always use the common English version of the name.To:Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred.
Further, FYI, someone started yesterday a new naming conventions guideline proposal: wikipedia:naming conventions (countries) - I have no idea whether this proposal will effectively make it to guideline, but it might, summing up what we learnt from this (and other recent) votes. 
Further, I think Jtdirl's emotional "if we don't have stricter rules wikipedia will die" reasoning too subjective, too emotional, to have any scientific value. 
Further, I agree with Wizzy's comments above. --Francis Schonken 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS?

message: I have moved the article back to its previous location and unprotected.  The protection was completely unwarranted - the dispute had not proceeded beyond a lengthy vote on the talk page.  The move was completely inappropriate - there has been throughout the voting a majority in favor of leaving the page at the French name.  Using administrator powers to advance a position which you prefer, and which is clearly in the minority, is highly inappropriate.  I am sorry that I have done the same thing, but I only did so in response to Ed's highly inappropriate actions.  john k 06:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the voting header accordingly, since apparently that's how this move got started and locked in the first place.  Since the concerns with MoS are both disputed and detailed in tremendous length in all the entries below, I simply removed that from the header to avoid any editorializing.  Seem fair?  --Dvyost 06:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds about right. I really should have done that last night, but not only was I not thinking straight it might not have looked very good... apologies for kicking the move off again. Shimgray | talk | 12:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved back and unprotected 

message: Can someone verify that the motto is correct?  It seems fishy to me. 68.162.73.121 00:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This PDF seems to confirm that the motto is Union-Discipline-Travail which means "Unity" (or "Union"), "Discipline", "Labour" (or "work"). Chameleon 09:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: I don't think it's a good idea to to consider people from the north of Côte d'Ivoire as "Muslim". It's a fact that Alassane Ouattara and the rebellion leaders are Muslim. However, what I notice first is that they are of Burkinabé origins. To be accurate they are Mossis. Even if I have no statitistics the Mossis are well divided in Christian (mostly catholic but there's a significative protestan minority) and Muslim. There's no evidence of a conflict between religious communities in Burkina Faso. As of today it seems that there is a majority of people originating from Burkina Faso in northern Côte d'Ivoire and the majority of them are Mossis. I think they are many Christians among the supporters of the Rebels. IMO religion is not the key. The clash is between "Real Ivorian" vs "immigrants" and between very different political cultures. Burkina Faso balanced between Socialism/Marxism and occidental democracy while Houphouët-Boigny ruled Côte d'Ivoire with an iron hand and relying heavily on traditional chieftains. Even if Houphouët-Boigny was known in the West as the "Sage of Africa" it was perceveived as archaïc by most Burkinabé and people of Burkinabé origins.
Ericd 11:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims

message: Statoids and the CIA seem to think the 19 regions are the top-level administrative divisions; the page we have here claims the 58 departments are the top level ones. Which is it? --Golbez 07:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Régions are the top-level administrative division; each Région is composed of one to seven Départements. In reality the Départements tend to have more of an impact on daily life. The Régions are groupings of Départements for administrative convenience. This information from personal experience (five years in Bouaké) and from a map I purchased at the Librarie de France in Abidjan, published by "Saint-Paul France S.A." (1999), . Alan J Shea 01:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Departments