Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive2

message: November 2005 it was suggested 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)
replies: text: I'm late, but I support Côte d'Ivoire. El_C 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If if happens next time, El C and myself would be the first to vote keep Côte d'Ivoire. Cheers -- Svest 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Côte d'Ivoire is the official name in all languages.  The CIA World Factbook lists the country by that name as well as FIFA amongst others. Argentina means "silver" in English, and yet no one calls it that in English. Similiarly, the "Rio Grande" isn't called the "Great River". Seems perfectly logical to me to extend the same courtesy to Côte d'Ivoire -- Exitmoose 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: This doesn't strike me as notable enough to add to the country article, but might be appropriate in an article on the ICA if there is one.  Of course, this also needs to be verified via WP:CITE.
:Located in Bouake, a town located near the center of the country, there is a compound that once housed what was known locally as l'Ecole Baptiste, or to the missionary kids that lived there, International Christian Academy, formerly known as Ivory Coast Academy (ICA for short). During the September 19, 2002 evacuation, the staff and students, of whom most were missionary kids from various denominations and various country, though, primarily Canadian and American, were assisted in evacuation to Yamoussoukro, then on to Abidjan to return to their parents.  
  
:The students who boarded there lived there for three months at a time with vacations home to their parents periodically throughout the school year and summer. This was their home and school at the same time. The exacuation caused them to be uprooted and though returned home to their families scattered friends far and wide. Living in boarding schools develops tight knit friendships and second families where home really is where the heart is. These children were greatly affected by the coup. 
 
:Some of the students resumed boarding school at Dakar Academy in Dakar, Senegal. Some are homeschooled in their parents home of mission. Some families returned to their native countries. Information about the international students who did not board or were not missionary kids is currently unknown. 
--Dvyost 08:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is an article on "ICA" International Christian Academy, Côte d'Ivoire, and, being an alumnus and former staff member, I'll vouch for the accuracy of what you noted there. I will work on including that in the article, as it is nicely written.  Alan J Shea 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-notable addition 

message: How do you change the title of an article? This one seems to be in French. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.81.226 (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't the United States do what they did, then on spanish maps they'll stop writing 'estadios unidad' or whatever —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.81.226 (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ivory Coast 

message: *WikiWeakness #1 – the promotion of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia.
The difference between an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is that an encyclopedia ultimately has a publisher taking responsibility for content.  The responsibility for accuracy, truth, consistency, and neutrality are all assumed by the publisher. The publisher might assign that job to an editor or an editorial board, but ultimately the publisher is responsible and can be held liable.  
Wikipedia requires nobody to assume ultimate responsibility. The content presented here is the result of a number of factors, but there are primarily three scenarios in which Wikipages are compiled; 
*An obscure topic is selected and few (if any) readers ever view the content, therefore the original author can write anything – factual or non-factual – and it remains on the page
*A more common topic, or controversial topic, is selected and numerous readers observe what is discussed and what editing changes take place. Within this band of readers emerges WikiPolice who tend to be strident, and unyielding in their interpretation and enforcement of the rules of engagement. Frequently this is in the guise of reminding everyone of the stated WikiRules, but it regularly smacks of an agenda.
* A more common topic, or controversial topic, is selected and numerous readers observe what is discussed and what editing changes take place. Within this band of readers emerges WikiThugs who lurk in the shadows and vigilantly maintain a watch to ensure their agreed agenda is presented, promoted, and preserved. Opposition to their view, or attempts to present additional or contrary information on a page is squelched and removed.
Wikipedia, this page, and more specifically this discussion page, can not be called encyclopedic. In an encyclopedia there would be an ultimate authority to make a decision and establish an internal standard. For example, a decision would be made about the name of this nation and no more discussion would be necessary. Wikipedia is promoted as an encyclopedia anyone can edit – but that suggestion contains two blatant fallacies; Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, and not just anyone can edit the contents. (try going to the main page and altering the name of the nation)
Wikipedia is akin to a chalk board bolted to the back of a stall door in a public toilet. Anyone can scrawl words on the chalk board. Subsequent visitors can add, delete, or alter. The content might be factual – or it might not. WikiThugs are the individuals who loiter near the sink. When a contributor exits the stall they rush in to examine what has been done to the chalk board and will make changes according to their agenda as soon as the contributor is gone. WikiPolice are the individuals who come in to the toilet frequently to make sure everyone is playing nicely together and obeying Jimmy Wales' ten commandments (but often their private agenda is enforced too, in fact, WikiPolice regularly promote their own agenda behind the guise of Jimmy Wales' ten commandments).
In the end I find this discussion extremely interesting. The topic is obscure, yet those contributing do so with passion and (mostly) restrained emotion. The arguments are entertaining and engaging and even though I don’t really care what the stance is, this particular page is a prime example of the glaring fallacy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is a free-for-all with bands of WikiThugs protecting their turf and promoting their agenda. This is not an encyclopedia.
202.79.62.12 02:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Name-calling ? Its a conspiracy theory as well ? Where is the cabal ? I am sorry - you come across as an anonymous whiner throwing your toys out of the cot. If you feel so strongly about this (BTW: Ivory Coast redirects here) why don't you take my suggestion and refactor the arguments on a fresh page? Have you visited Ghana - and English-speaking country right next door? It is their wikipedia too. wizzy 06:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too sure what visiting Ghana has to do with the topic... they got a French name too? Looks to me like some thuggery might be emerging again. So someone wants to discuss something related to the topic, then somebody else makes the observation that “WikiThugs” appear to be operating in consort on this page. Then someone who is apparently one of the accused suggests taking the topic elsewhere….  Doesn’t that kind of illustrate the point that was being made?  If Wikipedia is “open” then doesn’t that suggest that no matter how frequent a contributor contributes, and no matter how passionate their input… they can’t dictate to others what does or doesn’t transpire (especially on the discussion page where discussing is suppose to be going on). I reckon the “conspiracy theory” above ain’t so much a conspiracy theory as it is a slightly painful accusation that is painful because at least in part it might could be true!  I came here to raise the issue of the Chinese and their use of the name  科特迪瓦  for said country and to discuss how it is that they are allowed to use that name while there are folk out there dictating to English speakers what they can and can’t do… but at this point I reckon I’ll drop that issue and watch this here conspiracy theory for a while.  Maybe some of them thugs will erase what I just wrote!Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. 07:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiWeakness 

message: (Resisio's suggestion was to move this information off the List of Countries Discussion Page and place it here.)
Several languages follow the instructions of the government Ivory Coast and have dutifully altered the name, such as:
*Korean/ 한국어 / 조선어 –   “코트디부아르”   
*Japanese/日本語 –     “コートジボワール” 
*Chinese/中文  –    “科特迪瓦”
All three examples render a close approximation of the French words.
Interestingly several Wikipages in various languages (Turkish, Tagalog, etc) list the Francophone name but in parentheses state that the name in English is “Ivory Coast.” A quick scan of other languages suggests that the insistence by the government of the Ivory Coast that we all use the French name is being ignored. 
I suggest that, in regards to the English language, caving in to the dictates of a non-English speaking nation’s government is silly. As native speakers this is our language. Looks like the native speakers of the languages below decided to defy the government of the Ivory Coast: 
*Afrikaans/Afrikaans –    “Ivoorkus” 
*Aragonese/ Aragonés –    “Costa de Bori” 
*Bosnian/Bosanski –    “Obala Slonovače” 
*Catalan/Català –    “Costa d'Ivori” 
*Croatian/Hrvatski –    “Bjelokosna Obala” 
*Czech /Česky –    “Pobřeží slonoviny”
*Danish/Dansk –    “Elfenbenskysten” 
*Dutch/Nederlands –    “Ivoorkust” 
*Esperanto –    “Ebur-Bordo” 
*Finnish/Suomi –    ”Norsunluurannikko” 
*Galician /Galego –    “Costa do Marfil”
*German/Deutsch –    “Elfenbeinküste” 
*German (Alemannic ) /alemannische -    “Elfenbeinküste”
*German (Low) /Plattdüütsch –    “Elfenbeenküst”
*Greek/ Ελληνικά –    “Ακτή του Ελεφαντοστού”
*Hungarian/Magyar –    “Elefántcsontpart” 
*Icelandic/ĺslenska –    “Fílabeinsströndin” 
*Indonesian/Bahasa Indonesia –    “Pantai Gading” 
*Irish/Gaeilge –    “An Cósta Eabhair” 
*Italian/Italiano –    “Costa d'Avorio” 
*Lithuanian /Lietuvių -   “Dramblio Kaulo Krantas” 
*Naura/Ekakairũ Naoero –    “Ivory Coast” 
*Norwegian(book)/Norsk(bokmå) -    “Elfenbenskysten” 
*Norwegian (new)/Norsk (nynorsk ) –    “Elfenbenskysten” 
*Polish/Polski –    “Wybrzeże Kości Słoniowej” 
*Portugese/Português –    “Costa do Marfim” 
*Romanian/Română –    “Coasta de Fildeş” 
*Russian/ русский – “Берега Слоновои Кости”
*Slovak/Slovenčina –    "Pobrežie Slonoviny“ 
*Slovene/Slovenščina –    “Slonokoščena obala” 
*Spanish/ español -     "Costa de Marfil" 
*Swedish/ Svenska –     “Elfenbenskusten” 
*Turkish/Türkçe –     “Fildişi Sahilleri” 
So obviously there are great numbers of people on the planet ignoring the dictates of the government of the Ivory Coast. Why should native English speakers obey their commend and substitute a pair of French words for a pair of English words? I fail to understand the logic and certainly do not see consensus.
(Esperanto... couldn't resist including it... )
Obviously the other Wiki Language pages are relevant. The issue is that the government if Ivory Coast has apparently made an announcement to the world that nobody is allowed to name their nation in any language other than French. I don’t speak French and have no intention of investing any time to learn that language, so I have no aim to comply with their laws. Additionally, I do not think the laws of Ivory Coast extend to where I live and they lack extradition treaties with most nations… so I am safe. What native speakers opt to do in each individual language has a clear impact on the universal situation. If only native English speakers were resisting the commandment of the Ivory Coast government, then obviously English speakers would represent an anomaly. However, this is not the case. There is ample evidence of a critical mass of native speakers of various languages ignoring or defying the government of the Ivory Coast and making a decision independent of their orders.  This is an English language WikiPage yet on this page the nation is listed in French while other Francophone locations are listed in English on their respective pages.
:The point you make is totally correct. It is not standard for any academic publication to base the form of name used on the dictat of any government. Nor is it done on Wikipedia (except on this page!!!). Wikipedia's own manual of style makes it clear that the only criteria applicable is to use the most common name used by users of the relevant wikipedia language, in this case English. That does not mean the English language version, just the version used by English speakers, which in some cases may be a native word (Kaiser, Taoiseach, etc rather than the English translation. 
:The overwhelming evidence (actually, the universal evidence) is that the form of name that the Government of the Ivory Coast insists be used is not actually used by any linguistic group other than French speakers. All evidence (books, magazines, academic sources, internet searches, international broadcasters, newspapers, etc) shows that Ivory Coast is used not merely by a majority of cases, but in all cases, in all sources, by everyone. Even though the French version of the name is the official name used in diplomatic dispatches, outside formal diplomatic dispatches (which are never used as the basis of a name here or elsewhere. If they were, we'd never write France but the French Republic, Germany would always be the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom would always be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, etc) the French name is rarely used. One of the few English-speaking countries to use the French name at all is the United States, yet even there the President, Congressional leaders, all the media, even the State Department, use Ivory Coast. In most of the English-speaking world, the French version of the name is not merely used as a minority name. It is simply never ever ever used. Most English speakers have never heard of a place called Cote d'Ivorie.
:What happened on this page was simple. A small group decided, despite all the overwhelming evidence, despite standard encyclopaediac usage, despite Wikipedia's own rules on the matter and despite how Wikipedia names hundreds of countries, to use a largely unknown name in preference to most common name based on personal whims, a bizarre insistance that people must write what a government tells them to write, and preposterous arguments that we should push a form of name  because it "should" (ie, isn't right now) be used by everyone. No professional communication organisation on the planet adopts an ad-hoc process to naming. All agree a set of specified criteria and then uses those criteria to choose names, with the basic requirement: everything follows the same rule. Nothing can deviate from it. That is how Brittanica does it. That is how World Book does it. That is how Encarta does it. That is how the BBC does it. That is now CBS does it. That is how Time Magazine does it. That is how the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times, the Irish Times, the Guardian, and every other newspaper in existence do it. That is how the State Department, the Foreign Office and every foreign ministry on the planet does it. The French media uses Cote d'Ivoire not because the Ivory Coast government wants them to, but because that is how French speakers refer to the country. (The French media was using that form long before the Government decreed that that was to be the name. Can you imagine that if tomorrow the government said 'you must call us the Ivory Coast and nothing else' that the French media would stop using Cote d'Ivoire? Of course not.)
:If WP was a professionally run, credible sourcebook, then its own Manual of Style would be mandatory and its rules followed without exception. We wouldn't have votes to decide issues — they'd be objectively assessed to see what the evidence suggests, and the evidence, in this case most common name would automatically be followed. Of if we did have votes, they would be strictly limited to following the MoS criteria, with votes that stray from the mandatory MoS criteria being null and void, as they would be in any other walk of life. The Manual of Style does not say Use Most Common Name except in the case of Ivory Coast where you can make up any excuse you want to use less common name. 
:What happened here shows just how far from encyclopaedic standards of objective assessment of evidence WP is. The decision here embodies WP's main flaw; an attitude where you can make up any old excuse to justify any old claim, and can ignore both the evidence and even WP's own Manual of Style. No publication that treats objective factual evidence as irrelevant and instead allows a "make it up as you go along" level of standards qualifies to be called an encyclopaedia. A number of users, who were already annoyed at falling standards elsewhere, were so sickened by the farce here that they simply gave up on the whole project. Until WP takes seriously objective criteria and its own MoS the project will be a failure, and it will continued to be nothing more than a flawed attempt to build a credible encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Why is this article under this weird name? As said above, English Wikipedia is (virtually) the ONLY non-French institution in the world that uses the term Côte d'Ivoire. Why is that? Wikipedia is not original research, there's only one place where this article "should be", and that is at the most common name in English, Ivory Coast. Which is also stated in the first sentence of the article... /Grillo 18:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reisio's Suggestion 

message: You would think that arguing that we should ignore the  official name  of a country, which happens to be in French, is bad. (The wikipedia can accept the Congo instead of Zaire, and can accept Myanmar instaed of Burma - and both these name differences are far more substantial and controversial.) But it does not end there.
Putting a link to a video of French peacekeeping soldiers "firing on civilians" in the Ivory Coast on the  main page of the Ivory Coast country article AND doing so without any explanation or commentary on the incident  can hardly be interpreted as anything other an anti-French statment.
How many links to videos of arguable US or UK atrocities on the main pages of a country article? I haven't found one yet.
In reality, the French role in the Ivory Coast bears a close analogy not to the US Iraq War, but to the US's unsatisfying role in attempting to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians - and then having both sides blame them for trying to keep some semblance of peace. Don't believe me? Try this BCC link (the BCC is anything if slanted against the French and some other non-British Europeans on a number of issues):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3993265.stm
Why is it that almost every reference made to any person, organization, or thing remoted related to France (or even some Canadian) on the wikipedia must portray something about it in a negative light? 
We really have to get our licks in against those pesky French, right? 
Enough already.
- joseph
-----------------------______________________________________________
*The opposite POV doesn't lead to NPOV. This should be Ivory Coast, because that is what it clearly most often referred to as. The article on France isn't Republique francaise, Germany isn't Bundesrepublik Deutschland, etc. The Ivorian government may have made a request, but it is not common usage, which is supposedly the naming convention at WP, isn't it? --65.25.217.79 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Anti-French thing on the English wikipedia 

message: Does anybody have background information why the law exists that makes other names than Cote d'Ivoire illegal within the country? --134.130.243.41 11:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background information? 

message: On the unity government section it states that "According to Bono, the qualification to the World Cup created temporary peace in the government." This treats Bono as if he is some scholar. I could not find a statement released by Bono regarding the Ivory Coast, and only thing I know is he took part in a commercial stating that to promote the World Cup. This does not belong in this section of the article, let alone the way it is worded. Im going to delete it until somone can find a better spot to stick it. --PlasticMan 22:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bono? 

message: This is the English Wikipedia.  Get the fucken English name up there!Cameron Nedland 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Above question makes it more than obvious that the current name of the article is simply stupid. This is not frwiki. /Grillo 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: The confusion about the confusion on the official name of Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast exists solely because of the fact that "Cote d'Ivoire" and "Ivory Coast" mean the same thing in two common languages. If CI had changed their name from "Ivory Coast" to something in a native language, there would be no issue. But because they requested that the name of their country be known as "Cote d'Ivoire", which is the French version of "Ivory Coast", people make a big deal about this being an English-version encyclopedia so it should be "Ivory Coast". 
The Republic of Upper Volta ("Haute Volta" in French) changed their name to "Burkina Faso", which means "land of upright men", but we don't insist on calling it "Republic of the Land of Upright Men". In requesting they be known as "Cote d'Ivoire", the CI government was stating something which is not always clearly evident: a name, whether of a country or a person, is an invariant: You don't see references to "Nouvelle York" in French magazines or literature, you see "New York". Admittedly, this principle is inconsistently applied, but that is no reason for it not to apply in this case. 
:That's a matter of personal preference for the French, nothing more. The city is most commonly referred to as "Nueva York" in Spanish-speaking nations.
For what its worth, as a former resident of both Cote d'Ivoire and Liberia, the English-speaking people in neighboring Liberia and Ghana both refer to "Cote d'Ivoire" in preference to "Ivory Coast". Alan 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, that explanation hits home. —Nightstallion (?) 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, glad it makes sense to at least one other person. --Alan 07:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few of the other Wikipedias have Cote d'Ivoir or whatever the hell, they have it in their own language.Cameron Nedland 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cote d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast 

message: This is the name used by those from the region or country, just like the Spanish call their country Espana(Spain). You don't hear English speakers calling Espana "Espana." They call it Spain. The same goes fo the Ivory Coast which is why the English Wikipedia should use the name Ivory Coast in all articles. XYZ CrVo 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Côte d'Ivoire