Wikipedia

Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive 7

< Talk:Ivory Coast
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 91.42.63.35 in topic Pre-European modern period
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Debate over the name change and protocol

Latest comment: 8 years ago32 comments19 people in discussion

It's curious to me that (according to the summary above) Wikipedia users debated dropping "Côte d'Ivoire" in favor of "Ivory Coast" fíve times and never did, before having yet another debate and finally agreeing on the sixth time. What made that sixth argument more compelling than the previous five? Shouldn't there be some sort of precedent established by the first few debates? Otherwise issues like this will never die. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It was the biggest fuckup and insult to a sovereign nation on the project to this date, actually. Piss-poor reading of sources, use of unacceptable sources all to support a decision that had zero basis in reality. It was unacceptable to say the least the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe because Ivory Coast doesn't have the right to make this demand? --Khajidha (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The argument that it is somehow disrespectful for an English speaker to speak English is nonsense. I can't help noticing that it is fairly patronising, too. Apparently the Germans are not to be offended by "Germany", or the Italians by "Florence" but those Africans, they might well take offence...... Avalon (talk) 08:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course. It is offensive, colonial, imperalist and racist to call the country by its colonial name instead of its indigenous name. Oh, wait ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really, there's a similar debate at Lyon/Lyons and Marseille/Marseilles (the debate there made considerably easier by the phonetic pointlessless of the different spelling). There were also a couple of sad old buggers trying to argue for the resurrection of Leghorn in place of the now-standard Livorno. Jemimallah (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
If Côte d'Ivoire is officially used internationally then why the move? There are plently foreign cities that we do not translate to English. This is a step-back IMO. The above archieved argument does make some sense. Savvyjack23 (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that we don't call Puerto Rico "Rich Port", Costa Rica "Rich Coast", or El Salvador "The Savior". The name of the country is Côte d'Ivoire. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
And the name of the state in which I live is "North Carolina", not "Caroline du Nord" but you don't see me telling French speakers that they can't call it that. --Khajidha (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The State of North Carolina has not explicitly requested that it be referred to as "North Carolina" in all languages as Côte d'Ivoire has. It is also officially registered in the United Nations as Côte d'Ivoire. 216.165.95.66 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And you don't find that insistence on controlling the speech of people who use other languages highly insulting? What other English words do I have to run by their government before I can use them? --Khajidha (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a bit pretentious and silly, particularly as Côte d'Ivoire just means "Ivory Coast", but I think I might lean toward using the official name. They do have some right over what people call them. If we simply use common name we should revive the debate on Aluminium as Aluminum is the more common name in English and even if it's not it's at Aluminium because of official preference not usage.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
We do "simply use common name" for article titles. See WP:COMMONNAME. As far as Aluminium is concerned, you should take that issue to that article's talk page. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
For awhile I did, but then I got tired of it. It's a lot "England essentially owns the English language" and "Aluminium is the preferred IUPAC name."--T. Anthony (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
"They do have some right over what people call them." Says who? It's not their language, it's not their business. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody owns the English language, not even the people who speak it, as there is no centralised authority on it, comparable to what German or French or Spanish languages have. Moreover, it certainly isn't owned by people who don't even speak it, as is the case here. Whether a toponym gets translated or treated as a proper name in its original form in other languages is purely those languages' business and varies on a case by case basis. If Ivorians don't like what a compound name such as "Cote d'Ivoire" actually means, then they should have changed the name altogether. But I guess they are fond enough of the colonial placename to keep it, but not fond enough to let others translate it into their own languages. Well it simply does not work that way. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Official Republic of Côte d'Ivoire means that the name must be Côte d'Ivoire. Please rename the article!!! Altaveron (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Says who? And who gives them that authority? --Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They do. And I think international bodies have agreed. It is their nation. I think they're being silly but why can't they ask their nation be called by whatever language they want it to be called in?--T. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
They can name their country whatever they like in their own language. Whether that name is accepted as is, simply translated or entirely replaced when speakers of another language are referring to them is beyond their purview. --Khajidha (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
They can ask to be called whatever they want and it will be respected diplomatically, and it is. But demanding that English-speakers refer to your country in French, when that region has been known by the English version of the same name for centuries is ridiculous. No one's going to honor that. If the United States suddenly announced that its name could only be rendered in English, do you think the 400 million Spanish-speakers of the world would stop calling it "Estados Unidos" just because we demanded that they do? Of course not, and it would be stupid to try. "Ivory Coast" is nothing "Côte d'Ivoire" rendered in English. What's next, do we need to call Russia "Росси́я"? Jsc1973 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Jsc1973 's example of Russia in Russian("Росси́я") does not seem to be a valid point, because Russian is written in Cyrillic script, which it is safe to say most English speakers are not likely to read Cyrillic script, whereas "Cote d'Ivoire" is written in the same Latin/Roman script that English uses. And besides the nation's government had officially requested the world community to call them by that name, then we should respect their wishes. It's like a Spanish speaker's name is "Juan" and asks you to call him that, but you insist on translating it into English and call him "John"! Get the point? Mistakefinder (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Jsc1973. This seems much like the Burma or Myanmar debate. MB298 (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mistakefinder: In many languages monarchs' names are nearly always translated per tradition. So what you are describing is exactly why we use Pope John Paul II (as opposed to Ioannes Paulus II or Karol) or Pope Francis (as opposed to Franciscus, Francesco or Jorge Mario). So if Francis wakes up one day and decides to order English-speaking people to start referring to him as "Francesco" - should or would they comply? I don't think so. Because such a request would go against established conventions that formed over centuries. This is exactly what Ivorian government is trying to do. If your name is a compound phrase, you can't forbid others to translate it literally; and you can't force others into pretending it is really just a proper noun like "John". It is not. This is not like Costa Brava or Côte d'Azur, the translations of which ("Wild Coast" and "Blue Coast" respectively) are pretty meaningless to an English speaker. The phrase "Ivory Coast" is not. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Even if we admit the principle that a person's name should not be translated (which principle I don't actually agree with, I would PREFER that a French speaker call me Guillaume or a German speaker call me Wilhelm if that made it easier for them) a country is not a person. --Khajidha (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The State Department's list of recognized independent nations officially lists Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire. For other countries where there is doubt about the officia name, the page has clear footnotes indicating the discrepancies. There is no such footnote for Côte d'Ivoire. Computer Guru (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My name actually IS John, believe it or not. I have no problem if a non-English speaker chose to render my name as Juan, Jean, João, Ivan, Johann, whatever, if it made it easier for them. It's still the same name, with the same meaning, just like Ivory Coast and Côte d'Ivoire mean exactly the same thing, but one is much easier to understand than the other if your native language is English. Jsc1973 (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
And? No one is disputing what the country's official name is. The question is whether that has any bearing on the title of this page. --Khajidha (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Ivorians can officially call their country whatever they choose but Wikipedia needs to title its articles using terms its readers are most likely going to use when looking up the topic. And English speaking people reading the English speaking Wikipedia are always going to prefer "Ivory Coast". The U.S. State Department is by definition concerned with diplomatic relations with Ivorians. Wikipedia is concerned with being useful to readers. These are two very different things. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
English speakers will have no problem finding the article since Ivory Coast would redirect to Côte d'Ivoire anyway and "Ivory Coast" would appear in bold in the lead. Perhaps it's not relevant how Ivorians call their country, but it's relevant how reliable sources call it, and previous RFC have shown Côte d'Ivoire is as common if not more common than Ivory Coast. Major English language encyclopedia also all use Côte d'Ivoire. Wikipedia is the exception here as it's been shown many times, and the fact that one admin unilaterally decided to rename the article doesn't change that. Laurent (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
And the previous RFC also showed that Major newspapers and press, plus CMoS and Websters all prefer Ivory Coast, so the encyclopedia usage gets nixed out by other sources. Australian State dept I believe also uses Ivory Coast. Oxford dictionary uses Côte d'Ivoire and google ngrams seem inconclusive. That's why the RfC's go nowhere... for every scrap you find on one side of the coin you can find an equal portion on the flip side. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This was an enormous issue on the Burma page, with the major difference being that both names were entirely different. "Ivory Coast" is the literal translation of "Cote d'Ivoire". If there are two words with the same meaning and the English version is equally valid, the English version is always preferred. "Ivory Coast" is perfectly valid. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivory Coast. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Maximepaul555 (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Name inconsistency, tone etc...

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion

First of all, the tone of some of our editors pertaining to: Debate over the name change and protocol section, is absolutely appalling and reeks of WP:BIAS that is unfit for a discussion.

"Doesn't have the right to make this demand?" (rhetoric)
"but those Africans, they might well take offence......"
"Says who? It's not their language, it's not their business."
"Moreover, it certainly isn't owned by people who don't even speak it, as is the case here. If Ivorians don't like what a compound name such as "Cote d'Ivoire" actually means, then they should have changed the name altogether."
"They can name their country whatever they like in their own language."

These are a few examples that were just utterly disgusting. This is not a forum. You know who you are.

1. According to the 2014 La langue français dans le monde 34% of Ivorians speak French, which is better than 29% of Canadians whose co-official language is French. In Paraguay and Bolivia, 57% [dead link in article] and 58% [1] speak Spanish respectively, with Bolivia having 33 different languages. Who are we to say, that Spanish is not their language when those countries stand economically with the ability to speak Spanish in the international community? No, we are not to say, as we are not to say whether or not French is Côte d’Ivoire's language. (For the record, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has more speakers of French than France, Mexico of Spanish speakers than Spain or any Latin American country, and more English speakers in the United States that England.) Education also plays a big part. If the government is strapped for cash, I wonder what area they might stop funding. It's impossible to master French without proper schooling, the same could be said about English, as you can see in the rural south of the United States. We pay teachers meager salaries, and even more so when we are blowing stuff up (my opinion). But nonetheless, Côte d'Ivoire is continuing its efforts towards "Francization," like it or not.
2. Côte d’Ivoire does have a right as to what people call them, and naturally the international communities are rendering that "official name" as such. CIA - Cote d’Ivoire | U.S. Department of State - Côte d'Ivoire / Republic of Côte d'Ivoire / CI / CIV | United Nations - Côte d’Ivoire | Human Rights Watch - Cote d’Ivoire | FIFA - Côte d’Ivoire | Olympic Games - Côte d’Ivoire etc. (as per T. Anthony, and Computer Guru) and not to mention recent WP:COMMONNAMEs in English-related sources. (Also see: WP:OFFICIALNAME) Also, we are also focusing on Latin script. Even if it was written in Cyrillic script as per above mention, it would still translate to Côte d’Ivoire (also Ivory Coast) as per Mistakefinder.
3. A point made by IP User, 216.165.95.66 makes more sense than a few registered users with an handful of edits. "Not to mention that we don't call Puerto Rico "Rich Port", Costa Rica "Rich Coast", or El Salvador "The Savior". The name of the country is Côte d'Ivoire". –Yes.
4. The Académie française aims to preserve the French language, not to claim ownership, hence "À l'immortalité" (To immortality). Nobody is saying French did not originate from France.
5. InflatableSupertrooper, you absolutely make no sense with your Costa Brava or Côte d'Azur example. In fact, you are contradicting yourself entirely.
6. Personally, I think it would be wrong to translate John Paul II's name in many different languages, if only it was his REAL name. But it isn't. He was a world leader, for a worldly religion so it is more or less a title and so that reasoning really has no basis here either.
7. All personal opinions aside, who cares what your name can translate to in other languages and what you may or may not wish to be called (See WP:POV); that is not the topic here. See Wikipedia guidelines.
Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Côte d’Ivoire does have a right as to what people call them, and naturally the international communities are rendering that "official name" as such." Again, says who? A country name is a WORD and words in each language are determined by the native speakers of that language. The Ivorians are native French speakers so how can they say what the English word is? The names of some countries are used unchanged in multiple languages, others are minimally changed, and still others are COMPLETELY different. I really don't care what other languages call my country, as I understand that it is none of my business. --Khajidha (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Says the country themselves and recognition by these international organizations. I am not sure what you are arguing. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm arguing that they have no power over other languages. --Khajidha (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And I am completely confused over why they (much less you) care whether the country name is translated. --Khajidha (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
From little of what I am able to understand from what you are saying, then why is it that English-media outlets alike are using the "Côte d’Ivoire" spelling. Plus do not lecture us with "The Ivorians are native French speakers so how can they say what the English word is? The names of some countries are used unchanged in multiple languages, others are minimally changed, and still others are COMPLETELY different. I really don't care what other languages call my country, as I understand that it is none of my business." Different country, different topic, which may apply different guidelines. This whole discussion has been a mess and I aim to clean it up. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
What you are saying is WP:POV. Obviously they do have some power otherwise others would not take notice! Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
We take notice when they attempt to enforce something they have no power to enforce. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
No Sir, it seems like you care more, citing no guidelines whatsoever but your own personal opinion. Please reread my points. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I cited the basic principles of language. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Tell me how many French articles you see here [Google News: Cote d'Ivoire] -- Quick answer: Not one. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
To anyone of interest, may I also add that the last move was in 2012 and in online years that is an eternity in terms of "English-media outlets" rendering the name, Cote d'Ivoire in their articles. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Savvyjack, do us a favour and spare us the social justice demagoguery. "Who cares what your name can translate to in other languages and what you may or may not wish to be called... that is not the topic here." - That is exactly the topic here, just replace the pronoun "you" with "Ivory Coast government" in the preceding sentence. FYI in my native language (Serbo-Croatian) some foreign toponyms are commonly translated, while others never are, and it's that way in all maps, lexicons and enyclopedias (for example, "New Mexico" is translated always, but "New York" never). This is because the reasons to do so have to do with historic use of the toponym in any given language. The historic use usually is basis for the present-day common name for the term, and - as examples such as Burma, Bombay or Peking can show - it takes a long time for an established convention to be replaced by a "politically correct" version (e.g. every article referring to Myanmar in the mass media has to begin by explaining that it is "also known as Burma" even in 2016, some 27 years after the country had opted to change its official name). And just last month Czech politicians decided to impose the strange "Czechia" moniker as the new English-language name for their country. It will take a long long long time before anyone speaking English actually adopts it. North Korea isn't even called "North Korea" officially in any language on Earth and yet that's what English speakers tend to call it. You want us to go with the guidelines? How about WP:COMMONNAME? InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh and as for the "2012 was an eternity ago" argument - Reuters used "Ivory Coast" in an article title published today (June 3, 2016), the BBC used it yesterday, Bloomberg used it four days ago, Voice of America used it less than a month ago. Hilariously, the French state-owned news agency AFP also uses "Ivory Coast" in their English-language news articles even though I'm pretty sure people working there are pretty good at speaking French. There are also Al Jazeera, Daily Mail, UEFA.com, Radio Vatican, The Economist, The Guardian, CNN, Associated Press, all of which used the term within the last couple of months. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, your search string (Google News: Cote d'Ivoire) yields results of media items published by international organisations who are obliged to use official country names at all times (such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch or the United Nations) or obscure English-language outlets not exactly known as benchmarks for English language style (like GhanaWeb, AllAfrica.com, The Patriotic Vanguard, etc.). InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Spare who? Have you not noticed the invalid arguments in this discussion? (See a few paragraphs above). Furthermore, can you prove that Ivory Coast is WP:COMMONNAME. Are you going to mention number of google hits? That is not a surefire way to tell what is common name, plus we are not exclusively bounded by this one guideline either. Ivory Coast, FAILS WP:OFFICIALNAME and it is debatable whether it is still WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps you should spare us with the WP:BIAS as per "Moreover, it certainly isn't owned by people who don't even speak it, as is the case here." For the record, your argument is a bit more compelling this time around than previously, but what I do not see with your examples is the official recognition. Savvyjack23 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not counting "Google hits", I'm counting "major English-media outlets". And there are plenty who used the term this very week. Whether "Ivory Coast" is the most commonly used name is hardly debatable here - it simply is. As for official recognition - it is irrelevant per the very same WP:COMMONNAME. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Again with the bias remarks. So are you saying countries like Ghana do not speak English? It is their official language is it not? So basically any African speaking a European language is not authentic enough for you is it not? Think about what you are saying before you say it, this type of inference exactly what is unfit for discussion as I was pointing out above. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Plus, I did not say "major" outlets, that would imply that the major outlets hold greater weight which is also a bias. So unless it is an undeveloped blog etc. they should both hold the same weight. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
You are very much wrong on both counts above - yes, Ghanaians speak English (actually there's a world of difference between a language being official and the proportion of people natively speaking it, but that's an entire different can of worms). So what if English is the language used in Ghana? It is also the official language in Malta (although most people there are even better at speaking Maltese), but we don't use the Times of Malta as any sort of benchmark for the use of English language. Nobody sane does. And yeah - major outlets actually do hold more weight, you are completely mistaken in the belief that anything published anywhere should hold the same weight as long as it is in English. It shouldn't and it doesn't. In fact that's the exact logic that leads to simply counting Google hits to make up arguments. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
However, to satisfy your "major" media outlets here are the following:
BBC News - "Cote d'Ivoire", Bloomberg "Cote D'Ivoire" Yahoo! "Cote d'Ivoire" "Cote d'Ivoire UEFA "Cote D'Ivoire Radio Vatican (not in English usage but in Romanian as "Cote d'Ivoire") Economist "Cote d'Ivoire (33 minutes ago) The Guardian "Cote d'Ivoire" CNN "Cote d'Ivoire"
Some more: UN News Center Business Wire CCTV America Shanghai Daily Washington Times Twin City Daily Planet (Minnesota) Hudson Star Observer Washington Diplomat The Fader Philippine Star Economic Times World Politics Review NBC Sports Sun Journal Huffington Post The Japan Times Fox News Foreign Affairs The News Hub Jamaica Observer Morocco World News IHB
These are all recent articles of 2016. Plus all the organizations mentioned above and CIA.gov which we use religiously on Wikipedia. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
JSTOR: Elites, Ethnicity, and 'Home Town' Associations in the Côte d'Ivoire: An Historical Analysis of State. Society Links, Elections and Ethnic Violence in Côte d'Ivoire: The Unfinished Business of Succession and Democratic Transition, The Lebanese Communities of Côte d'Ivoire, The State and Maritime Nationalism in Côte d'Ivoire, Culture, Politics, and National Identity in Côte d'lvoire, The Cultural Diffusion of Rice Cropping in Cote d'Ivoire, Child Health and Conflict in Côte d'Ivoire, goes on...
Google books (where I suppose "hits" are concerned; NAME, MINUS or "-", CHALLENGING NAME; to avoid Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) in text vice versa): Ivory Coast -Cote d'Ivoire Cote d'Ivoire -Ivory Coast 42,700 - 55,600 Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Google scholar (same formula as Google Books) Ivory Coast -Cote d'Ivoire, Cote d'Ivoire -Ivory Coast 15,400 - 20,300 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyjack23 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 3 June 2016
The BBC story in the first link you've posted uses both "Ivory Coast" (in the part of the article actually written by BBC's reporters) and "Cote d'Ivoire" (when quoting the International Organization for Migration - an international organisation). The second link to Bloomberg story mentions "Cote d'Ivoire" when quoting World Bank's index - again, an international organisation. The third link to Yahoo also uses both renderings - hilariously, in the transcript of the video interview it puts "Cote d'Ivoire" in parenthesis behind the term "Ivory Coast", which is the term actually used by the man they spoke to. The fourth link to Daily Mail also uses both forms, the fifth link to UEFA is not an article at all, it is a list of territories which also includes "Malvinas" and "Republica Domenicana". The sixth link is in Romanian (?). I don't have time for this - you obviously want to devolve this into counting Google hits, trying to force us to pretend that quality of sources is irrelevant. It isn't. Stuff like Shanghai Daily, Washington Times or the Twin City Daily Planet is great but these are not major English language outlets, they are not renowned for their fact checking, their style is not really representative of any general trend and they are marginally influential in shaping the vocabulary of the vast majority of English speakers. Fact of the matter is that the three biggest global news agencies on the planet which supply foreign news items to 90% of outlets in the English speaking world (Reuters, AP and AFP) all use "Ivory Coast" per their style guides. "Cote d'Ivoire" is consistently used mostly by international organisations, who as a matter of policy always refer to countries by their official names - which directly contradicts WP:COMMONNAME used on Wikipedia. InflatableSupertrooper (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but all of these sources above are WP:RELIABLE and you are ignoring the countless books on JSTOR. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME says "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations", so I am not sure how international organizations contradict. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Reuters "Cote d'Ivoire
The fact is, they are both obviously used, but it can easily be as common name as "Ivory Coast" but is also "official name". To deny that is a fallacy. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
No one is denying that it is the official name, just pointing out that it is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It should be relevant though. It may not be their language, but it is their country. It's the usage they want and that other nations have agreed to. I understand the "anti-elitism" "common usage" thing, but there should be some sensible limits. Otherwise we might have to say move Abdomen to Belly or, more directly, Lech Wałęsa to Lech Walesa as we don't have those letters in English.--T. Anthony (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Your first counter example is absurd, no one would use "belly" in formal encyclopedic contexts. Your second is something that many English sources actually do. The relevant question is, would the Francophone population of the world be willing to switch to using the untranslated English names of countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, or would they continue to use their own forms for those? --Khajidha (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If the United States insisted it not be called "Estados Unidos" et alia they might be expected to abide by that yes. And it's not like "Cote D'Ivoire" is impossible to pronounce in English. And the first was a bit absurd, but if you want to go by what Encyclopedias do typing in "Ivory Coast" at Britannica got me (as I expected) This.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
"If the United States insisted it not be called "Estados Unidos" et alia they might be expected to abide by that yes." That brings two questions to my mind 1) why would a country make such a request and 2) why would it be honored any more than the request to stop using the words "happy", "mountain", "blue", etc in favor of the other language's words for them? --Khajidha (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
1) I don't know. I actually think their request is odd, but it's their country. 2) Because you call places or people what they want to be called. Because they have a right over their own name. That we may think it's dumb that they prefer we use the French to English for their name is kind of immaterial to me. It's what they prefer. The main exception coming to mind is if it's clear the nation itself is divided on the matter. If there's evidence "Cote D'Ivoire" is something a regime pressed on the people I could see debating it, but no one seems to be saying that.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Places aren't people, why follow the same customs for that?--Khajidha (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Religion in opening paragraph

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Although it's at most a nitpick, shouldn't the major religions in the opening section be listed in numerical order? That is, since the graph further down shows Christianity being (albeit slightly) larger than Islam, it feels slightly misleading to list Islam first in the opening section. The wording of the "Religion" section, as well, looks to have been written by two different people each trying to subtly argue that one or the other religion is more important or prominent. Again, this is just a nitpick, but it feels like a bit of objectivity is being lost here. 68.49.47.134 (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ivory Coast. 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) 06:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"Official" name

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Hello Danlaycock, as you may have gathered I'm not to impressed by what is or is not official. My interest is what the English translation is, and when that is contentious it is best to name both versions, since the English language, and the words used therein cannot really be changed by legislation in any country that wants to revert some words in it. Even if that word is the name of said country. We have already had exchanges about this matter elsewhere. I would be a fan of naming both names in whatever order and not to fuss about what if official. In this case the French name is obviously official. The English name may be used officially but it doesn't make it official or even English. Official is not a concept we should be too worried about on the English language Wikipedia. We are not the slaves of the institutions that purportedly get to decide what official exactly is. That would take away our independence as an encyclopedia! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether you are impressed by the official name or not I can't comment on, but that does not make it any less official or notable. The name officially used in English is clearly notable and should be included. The translation of the French official name is quite uncontentious, but non-notable.
Côte d’Ivoire is indeed English. You can tell because it is listed in highly reputable english language encyclopedias and dictionaries, such as Encyclopedia Britanica and Oxford dictionary. It is of course of French origin (like about half of all English words), but has long since entered English vocabulary. Whether it is more common than Ivory Coast is a valid question, but there can be no doubt that it is used in English.
At the moment there are two common names and one official name, all mentioned in the first sentence. I see no benefit to adding a unofficial and highly uncommon name to the first sentence and cluttering it further for no good reason. TDL (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
If I understand the text in the article correctly it is the entire phrase "Republique de Côte d'Ivoire" that remains untranslated by the Ivorian government for diplomatic purposes. Which indeed begs the question what is "official". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As the name of the state remains untranslated into any language for diplomatic purposes, I've removed both "English" translation from the lead, just leaving the official name in French. The whole thing is explained in the body of the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the English name includes "Republic". See for example World Factbook ("conventional long form: Republic of Cote d'Ivoire") or UNGEGN ("Formal name - English - Côte d’Ivoire Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (the) "). This is the English language wiki so we should provide the official English language name to readers. TDL (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On the French page: "In October 1985, the Ivorian government demanded from all the countries they use, to officially name the country, the name in French of Côte d'Ivoire (similar to the names of some countries which do not are not translated as Costa Rica, Sierra Leone, etc.). "

Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must help correct mistakes made by other sources. It would even be appropriate to correct the title of this article in all language versions so that readers know what the real name of that state is.83.153.208.46 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC) 83.153.208.46 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Alsete

Except the point is that no state has the power to dictate whether its name is translated or not in other languages. The Ivorian government is delusional and should get over itself and deal with the fact that English calls it "Ivory Coast". --Khajidha (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Heck, looking at the French wikipedia page again, it even says: "Hors des pays francophones, dont le français n’est pas langue nationale, le nom de « Côte d’Ivoire » en français reste d’usage purement diplomatique, les média et les populations continuant à s'exprimer usuellement dans leurs propres langues : « Elfenbeinküste » en allemand, « Costa do Marfim » en portugais, Бе́рег Слоно́вой Ко́сти-« Béreg Slonovoï Kosti » en russe (où Кот д’Ивуа́р-« Kot d'Ivouar » est une transcription phonétique du nom français) ou 象牙海岸 en chinois (où, de même, 科特迪瓦 est un rendu phonétique du nom français) "Costa de marfil" en espagnol. Depuis 1985, le pays a donc, dans les pays non-francophones, deux noms : le nom officiel en français sans trait d’union, et un nom vernaculaire selon la langue et les règles de chaque pays. La Côte d’Ivoire est communément appelée la « terre d’Éburnie »7." OR, translated to English by Google: "Outside the French-speaking countries, of which French is not a national language, the name "Côte d'Ivoire" in French remains purely diplomatic, with the media and populations continuing to express themselves usually in their own languages: " Elfenbeinküste "in German," Costa do Marfim "in Portuguese, Берег Слоновой Кости-" Béreg Slonovoï Kosti "in Russian (where Кот д'Ивуар-" Kot of Ivouar "is a phonetic transcription of the French name) or 象牙海岸 in Chinese (where, likewise, 科特迪瓦 is a phonetic rendering of the French noun) "Costa de marfil" in Spanish. Since 1985, the country has, in non-French speaking countries, two names: the official name in French without hyphen, and a vernacular name according to the language and rules of each country. Côte d'Ivoire is commonly referred to as "Eburnie's Land" 7." Even the Francophones admit that general (non-diplomatic usage) is still in the translated form. So WHY do people keep coming here and expecting us to change? --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In the early 1980s, the world recession and a local drought sent shock waves through the Ivoirian economy.

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

this phrase exists in many other venues; need to check for copyvio Elinruby (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

see https://books.google.com/books?id=ghVF7yRvMA0C&pg=PA30

Ivory Coast

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the section sub-titled "Establishment of French rule", we read a passage that says "Ivory coast though practising slavery". Would a comma help to clarify the meaning here? 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


@Khajidha: What's your particular objection to noting "endonym"? I haven't received an explanation other than "unnecessary". You stated something about French which I never insinuated to begin with, so that wasn't much of a rebuttal. I don't see what the problem with it is, when the article has far bigger issues with uncited historical facts in the History section. DA1 (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Section needing rewrite

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

===Potential Initiatives for progression=== A country should aim to develop an appreciation for how scholars, policy makers and civilians in various regions of the nation understand the impacts of political, social and economic borders.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|title=Crossing Borders 3rd Edition International Studies for the 21st Century|last=Chernotsky H. I.|first=& Hobbs, H. H.|publisher=SAGE Publications|year=2018|isbn=9781544309989|location=Thousand Oaks|pages=19–20}}</ref> Understanding such impacts will guide citizens into making nationally recognized reasonable decisions.<ref name=":3" /> https://platform.virdocs.com/r/s/0/doc/424531/sp/18010142/mi/60056040?fi=such view and principles brought forward multinational/ global organizations, such as the IMF who have conducted various reports on distinctive subjects. Recent reports by the IMF have determined that Ivory Coast is still perceived to be highly corrupt and to lack overall governance.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last=International Monetary Fund|date=2016|title=Côte d'Ivoire: Selected Issues|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5089/9781475574562.002|journal=IMF Staff Country Reports|volume=16|issue=148|pages=1|doi=10.5089/9781475574562.002|issn=1934-7685}}</ref> Furthermore, recent reports have also demonstrated that Ivory Coast has exhibited as the largest degree of governance improvement in Africa's within the past half decade.<ref name=":4" /> Despite all this turmoil, Ivory Coast remains as one of the leading improved countries in most categories covered by IMF reports.<ref name=":4" /> https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/IMF002/23423-9781475574562/23423-9781475574562/23423-9781475574562.xml?redirect=true {{anchor|Administrative divisions|Administrative subdivisions|Regions and departments}}

"A country should"? Really? Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to be making pronouncements on what countries "should" do? This whole section needs editing for encyclopedic voice, formal tone, and grammar before it can be readded. --Khajidha (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Page name

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion

Since the country's official name is Côte d'Ivoire and not Ivory Coast should not the Ivory Coast be redirected to Côte d'Ivoire and not the other way round? Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The logic is whether the name change has been adopted by the majority of new English language sources, "official names" are not automatically preferred. My quick, preliminary check of Google Trends shows more usage for Ivory Coast and Eswatini than for Cote d'Ivoire or Swaziland. You are free to make a move request, but I do not expect the results to come out in its favor. --Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

See the box with a purple border near the top of this talk page. Proteus (Talk) 10:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The English-language WP:COMMONNAME is Ivory Coast. El_C 03:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
But it is wrong. We need to respect each country's country name written in its constitution: http://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Cote%20D'Ivoire%20Constitution.pdf (official English version). 2001:8003:9008:1301:A07C:1994:2222:F102 (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Your post is total POV. Why shouldn't these countries respect the right of speakers of other languages to decide how to translate words into those languages? Why should we treat the word for a particular chunk of dirt (which is what all countries are, essentially) any different from the word for dirt in general? --Khajidha (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think people should pay more respect to other people. If I cannot pronounce your name easily, would you be happy for me to call you Kagia without your consent? Even if you are, I am sure someone else aren't. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
And when the chunk of ground known as Ivory Coast becomes a person that MIGHT be relevant. But since it's just a bit of ground you have no argument.--Khajidha (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe you are a globalist, in your opinion, a country is merely a chunk of dirt, but for a nationalist, a country represents the identity, culture and history of a nation, its name might be more important than his/her own name. 144.130.162.86 (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Support Kyiv can serve as a precedent. 120.17.208.103 (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not even close which name has more common usage in English. I did a quick search in Lexis for newspaper articles written since 01/01/2010 in English and we get 103,410 for Ivory Coast and 27,066 for Côte d'Ivoire. You can also look at search trends on Google: Google Trends. Bob247 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand this Common Name > Official Name thing. It is like saying we know something is wrong, but we need to stick to it because a lot of people prefers it to be wrong. The CIA World Factbook used to write Cape Verde instead of Cabo Verde, but the Government of Cabo Verde made a request asking the CIA to change their country name to Cabo Verde, the CIA changed it immediately. Even a tough organization like the CIA can chose to adapt, why shouldn't we do the same?120.16.152.86 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Why should we? Cape Verde is a Portuguese speaking country. What words the English language uses for ANYTHING are none of their business. --Khajidha (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It is not about the words we use, we can use any words we like to describe a country informally. However, if for some reasons, the Government of Japan decided to change their name to Nippon in all their official documents in English and informed the UN as well as all other national governments that from now on, they no longer wish other countries to use Japan to describe them, then everyone should start to adapt, as in the case of Cabo Verde or Kyiv. As for Côte d'Ivoire, they have probably never wished other countries to use Ivory Coast to describe their country, but nobody cared about what a poor third world African country thinks. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
"However, if for some reasons, the Government of Japan decided to change their name to Nippon in all their official documents in English and informed the UN as well as all other national governments that from now on, they no longer wish other countries to use Japan to describe them, then everyone should start to adapt" Why? You have yet to answer my question. Why should we change. And why should they care what other languages do? I find these attempts to control other languages to be highly offensive. It seems rather imperialistic on their part. --Khajidha (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is offensive at all. A country should have the right to name itself. For example, my name is Hardy Jones, but I hate my name, I can lodge a name change application to the local Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and change my name to Albert Jones. I will then start to inform everyone that starting from today, please call me Albert and stop calling me Hardy. If someone still calls me Hardy despite I had repeatedly told him/her not to, then I would find this person to be extremly unpleasant and annoying, and I could feel offended. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
A country is not a person. A country is a chunk of ground. Nothing to offend. --Khajidha (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Disagree. If you offend a person, you are making one person angry. If you offend a country, you would make a lot of people angry. Example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin1__rpcqs 120.16.152.86 (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
And, as I said, it is impossible to offend a country. The ground has no feelings. And people being offended by words for that ground is as irrational as their being offended by any other ordinary word in English. --Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It is simultaneously amazing and hilarious that this same argument on this same editing talk page has been ongoing for an incredible 20 years!! Since the birth of Wikipedia in 2001 waves of users have come here to bicker and fight and demand that their viewpoint is correct. Wow. Twenty years later the same worn out argument is still ongoing. I am fatigued just thinking about the combined time and energy to fight over this point. Wow.

Pre-European modern period

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Having a map labelled entirely in French doesn't seem very useful in an English language encyclopedia article. --Khajidha (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind pictures containing other languages as long as it offers new and valuable information. 2001:8003:9008:1301:E1A1:133C:C051:F400 (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
If your audience can't read the language, it doesn't give them any information. It's just letters, no more useful to them than rdytfyugh would be. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Most of the names of the people/kingdom are the same in English and French. Someone searching Wikipedia for Kabadougou will find the relevant article. If you have the opportunity to redo the map in English, that would be great, but I think the value of showing the pre-European political divisions is worth it despite being in French. Carter (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
So will the English language recognise that the correct word in English for Germany is actually Deutschland when the German government says so? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes. If the German government changed all its official documents in English accordingly, then Germany is no longer an appropriate word to describe Deutschland. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
When did the German government gain control over the English language? The governments of English speaking countries do not even have that power. --Khajidha (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Germany would be the last country on Earth to demand that. Germany is infamous to be called many different names by our neighbours. German is generic term for many tribes. The French call us Allemands. The Finnish call us SAXONS, which is one tribe of modern Germany, so the rest, especially people who have their own identiy, like Bavaria could really complain. It is just natural for countries to have different names. In Slavic languages we are called Germania, but our language is always something like Nemyetzki which is related to the word for MUTE. This is the a second reason why I don't give a damn about Belarussians complaining about us calling their country Whiterussia, which is a literal translation. 91.42.63.35 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential references

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the following works from the bibliography that were not used anywhere in the footnotes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Amin, Samir; Bernard Nantet (1999), "Côte-d'Ivoire", Encyclopædia Universalis (in French), Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis
  • Amondji, Marcel (1986), Côte-d'Ivoire. Le P.D.C.I. et la vie politique de 1945 à 1985 (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-85802-631-9
  • Asselain, Jean Charles; Mougel, François; Delfaud, Pierre; Guillaume, Pierre; Guillaume, Sylvie; Kinta, Jean Pierre (2000), Précis d'histoire européenne: XIXe–XXe siècle (in French), Paris: Armand Colin, ISBN 978-2-200-26086-6, OCLC 35145674
  • Baulin, Jacques (1982), La Politique intérieure d'Houphouet-Boigny (in French), Paris: Eurafor Press, OCLC 9982529
  • Bédié, Henri Konan; Laurent, Éric (1999), Les chemins de ma vie: entretiens avec Éric Laurent (in French), Paris: Plon, ISBN 978-2-259-19060-2, OCLC 43895424
  • Boahen, A. Adu (1989), Histoire générale de l'Afrique: Volume 7, l'Afrique sous domination coloniale 1880–1935 (in French), Paris: Présence Africaine, UNESCO, ISBN 978-2-7087-0519-7
  • Borremans, Raymond (1986–2004), Le grand dictionnaire encyclopédique de la Côte d'Ivoire (in French), vol. VI, Abidjan: Nouvelles Editions africaines, ISBN 978-2-7236-0733-9
  • Diabaté, Henriette; Kodjo, Léonard; Bamba, Sékou (1991), Les chemins de ma vie: entretiens avec Éric Laurent (in French), Abidjan: Ivoire Média, OCLC 29185113
  • Dégni-Ségui, René (2002), Droit administratif général: l'organisation administrative (in French) (3rd ed.), Abidjan: CEDA, ISBN 978-2-86394-475-2, OCLC 53482423
  • Désalmand, Paul; Konan-Dauré, N'Guessan (2005), Histoire de l'éducation en Côte d'Ivoire: de la Conférence de Brazzaville à 1984 (in French), Abidjan: CERAP, ISBN 978-2-915352-01-6, OCLC 10724568
  • Diégou, Bailly (2000), La Réinstauration du multipartisme en Côte d'Ivoire: ou la double mort d'Houphouët-Boigny (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-7384-2349-8
  • Ekanza, Simon Pierre (2005), L'Afrique au temps des Blancs (1880–1935) (in French), Abidjan: CERAP, ISBN 978-2-915352-09-2
  • Ekanza, Simon Pierre (2006), Côte d'Ivoire: Terre de convergence et d'accueil (XVe–XIXe siècles) (in French), Abidjan: Éditions CERAP, ISBN 978-2-915352-22-1, OCLC 70242387
  • Ellenbogen, Alice (2002), La succession d'Houphouët-Boigny: entre tribalisme et démocratie (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-7475-2950-1, OCLC 62407712
  • Garrier, Claude (2006), Forêt et institutions ivoiriennes: la forêt miroir des politiques (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-296-02655-1, OCLC 85336182
  • Garrier, Claude (2006), L'exploitation coloniale des forêts de Côte d'Ivoire: une spoliation institutionnalisée (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-7475-9866-8
  • Garrier, Claude (2007), Côte d'Ivoire et zone OHADA: gestion immobilière et droit foncier urbain (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-296-04169-1, OCLC 191732681
  • Garrier, Claude (2005), Le millefeuille ivoirien: un héritage de contraintes (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-7475-9866-8, OCLC 62895346

m* Gbagbo, Laurent (1983), Côte-d'Ivoire: pour une alternative démocratique (in French), Paris: Harmattan, ISBN 978-2-85802-303-5, OCLC 11345813

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MRivera17. Peer reviewers: Lopck12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahojukwu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago44 comments23 people in discussion
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: NOT MOVED: Consensus is to not move this article. (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire – Ivory Coast changed officially its name in 1985 to Côte d'Ivoire [2]. By decree dated on October 14, 1985, the Ivoirian government decided to name the country "Côte d’Ivoire" and to no longer accept translations of this French name [3]. Isn't it time to put this official name in the wikipedia pages concerning this country ? [4] [5] A similar example is that of Costa Rica. Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Lennart97 (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Faycal.09: This request is obviously not uncontroversial, so I've converted it into a proper WP:RM. Lennart97 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Lennart97: Thank you much. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We go by actual English usage, not by the decrees of the governments of countries that are not even primarily English speaking. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. We generally follow common name usage when naming the country, and in case of English Wikipedia, we must using English name, unlike Japanese Wikipedia that always using the official name. 36.68.198.49 (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ivory Coast is clearly the common name. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Neutral US State department uses Cote d'Ivoire (without accents) on its web pages the UK Foreign Office uses Côte d'Ivoire. Britannica uses Côte d'Ivoire. English language newspapers tend to use a mix with Ivory Coast more common. A google trends comparison shows Ivory Coast seems to be more common. A search on academic sites seems to prefer Côte d'Ivoire. Strongly stated preference of the country's government against translated versions of the name. One possible suggestion is to change the opening phrase "Ivory Coast, also known as Côte d'Ivoire" to "Côte d'Ivoire, usually known as Ivory Coast" and to expand the note currently on pronunciation to explain that there is a controversy (e.g., don't write a letter addressed to the Ivory Coast Embassy and expect as good a reply as one addressed to the Côte d'Ivoire embassy). --Erp (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I see a number of !votes correctly noting that we do not simply go by official names, but rather the common name in English language sources. It certainly makes sense to lean towards the official name when usage is mixed, but we don't base it on that alone. However, it looks like the proposed title actually is the common name. It has surpassed Ivory Coast in ngrams, which coupled with the unambiguous question of what the "official" name is feels convincing. While there may certainly be arguments that the current name remains the common one, !voters should express at least some sort of argument why that is the case. I'd also note that !votes that simply say we use English translations are incorrect -- per WP:USEENGLISH, we use the name common in English language sources, which in some cases is English (Eiffel Tower) and in some not (Arc de Triomphe).--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Ngrams, Google News, and Google Scholar all suggest that the common name is now "Côte d'Ivoire". BilledMammal (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Neutral; having reviewed the evidence presented at the previous RM, it still applies, with global news sources continuing to prefer "Ivory Coast". I may reconsider in either direction later. BilledMammal (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The previous RM on this topic did a very good job demonstrating that "Ivory Coast" is the most common name used in English-language news sources. Ivory Coast is the most common name for this subject in English. I understand that government sources as well as some more academic sources prefer the "official" name as dictated by the country's government, but in mainstream English-language news sources, "Ivory Coast" is the predominant name, as well as being what is most recognizable to and used by most English speakers and readers. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Whenever I read about this country in English-language news articles or hear this country referenced in news broadcasts, it is always called "Ivory Coast". Is it "unfair" that English speakers call this country "Ivory Coast" while calling Costa Rica "Costa Rica" rather than "Rich Coast"? Maybe, but that's just the way it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Doing the same site searches that were mentioned in the previous requested move, all of the ones that actually loaded were still in favor of Ivory Coast. The only one that had been in favor of Cote d'Ivoire had actually reversed itself. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the above comments, and the English language-speaking media seem to refer to the country as "Ivory Coast" more than "Côte d'Ivoire" in the parlance of their writing. CitizenKang414 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support As noted above, "common" usage depends on the forum being considered, and the mass media hardly have a monopoly on what constitutes the correct form of anything in their respective language. Indeed, because commercial media is primarily concerned with maximizing its listener/viewer/subscriber base, it often adopts incorrect stylistic practices of the general population. One example: the prolific--and entirely incorrect--usage of "begs the question" as synonymous with "raises the question." The fact that most English speakers--at least native English speakers in North America--are ignorant as to the difference between the two does not eliminate it. Indeed, academic sources consistently get that distinction right. The situation with the appropriate name for this country is analogous: academic and other relatively better-informed sources use Côte d'Ivoire. Our duty as a community is to protect and share the truth with readers, not to pander to their ignorances. Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a very elitist argument, that most English speakers are too dumb to know what the "correct" name of this country is in English. Wikipedia is a general-use encyclopedia, not an academic publication, and English speakers do not have to use the name of a country in that country's native language, even if that country may want us to. English speakers get to determine what they will call a country. If the Italian government demanded that the official name of the country we call Italy in English be changed to "Italia" in English, we would not move the article. Nor would be do the same for Germany to Deutschland, nor Greece to Hellenic Republic. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I did not say and do not believe that "most English speakers are too dumb." Intelligence and knowledge are two different things, at least I think so. That said, thank you for your reply--it prompted me to dig through a broader range of sources, and once I figure out how to do so within the confines of voting procedure, I am changing my vote.Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Neutral. Having spent more time in search of usage of each variant by general-use sources, and after being swayed by some of the 'oppose' arguments in this discussion, I feel I no longer have a decisive preference. Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that proposed title is a mess no matter if you agree or not with Ivory Coast. I still feel that most times I see the name in print in English I see Ivory Coast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia does not use the official name it uses the common English name (see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH). Although the government doesn’t accept translations, non-French language Wikipedias use their own common language name; German Wikipedia uses ‘Elfenbeinküste’, Spanish Wikipedia uses ‘Costa de Marfil’, Italian Wikipedia uses ‘Costa d'Avorio’ and Portugese Wikipedia uses ‘ Costa do Marfim’. Proof that ‘Ivory Coast’ is the common English name can be found in major English language news sources such as the BBC[1], The Guardian[2], The Times[3], The Washington Post[4], the Associated Press[5], The New York Times[6] and Reuters[7] and no, Costa Rica is not a similar example; no English speaker ever calls that country ‘Rich Coast’. Ale3353 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Costa Rica was always called like that, because this we don't found nominations in other languages. Côté d'Ivoire is called like that from only 1985. I think we must respect the Côte d'Ivoire government decision, he don't accept nomination of other languages. Thanks. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    For example Swazilland changed the name to Eswatini. If we refere to internet, we will founds many nomination of Swazilland and not many Eswatini. So we does change the name to Swazilland ? I think important is the official name of each country because there are a proper names. Thank you. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    I specifically remember when we moved Swaziland to Eswatini. That name change caught on very quickly in news sources and I actually supported that move when it happened, but I still oppose this one because most news sources continue to use "Ivory Coast". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    However official institutions use Côte d'Ivoire, as the exemples below (US Embassy in CI, CI Embassy in UK). --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes but Wikipedia does not use the official name, it uses the common name. More reasonable comparisons would be East Timor, Cape Verde and Turkey; although the official names are ‘Timor-Leste’, ‘Cabo Verde’ and ‘Türkiye’. Wikipedia uses the former because those are the common names. Ale3353 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. FIFA] uses Côte d'Ivoire in its English language list of associations, but uses Italy not Italia, Sweden not Sverige, etc. So does the IOC. I think the English-language world is ok with that. Facts707 (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Google Trends shows that the use of "Ivory Coast" has been in decline since at least 2004, with a major shift occurring after the 2014 Fifa World cup. Right now, "Côte d'Ivoire" is more common in literally every country (with Kenya being the exception). M.Bitton (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You mixed search terms with topics, with the two being counted differently. Here's the search with both as search terms: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Ivory%20Coast,C%C3%B4te%20d%27Ivoire --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Why wouldn't I? As a matter of fact, Google Trends doesn't even suggest "Ivory Coast" as a country (what the article is about) and comparing a term to specific topic should should in theory favour the generic term. Also, the result that you presented makes no sense as French speaking countries use "Côte d'Ivoire". M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
You have clearly not understood the problem. The issue is that your search for "Côte d'Ivoire" includes searches for, or including, anything that Google has parsed as referring to the country. Examples of things that might include are Ivory Coast, Cities in Ivory Coast, Ivory Coast football team, Ivorian food, Elfenbeinküste, Elfenbenskystens sprog and 코트디부아르 여행. It is surely obvious that a search for the specific phrase Ivory Coast plus many other things will see more hits than a search for the specific phrase Ivory Coast alone.
And as to it not making sense because of French-speaking countries? If you check this search, you'll see that it's because they tend to search for Cote d'Ivoire with no accent. Kahastok talk 18:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
The same logic applies to "Ivory Coast" as a search term (clearly explained here), except that it includes everything that is remotely connected to either "Ivory" or "Coast" (which in theory should offer higher results). A simple question: why doesn't Google suggest "Ivory Coast" as a topic? M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually no, everything that is remotely connected to either "Ivory" or "Coast" is not how it works, and how you managed to get that from your source is something we'll probably never know.
Google (as a corporation) are allowed to make their own determination as to what name to use to refer to a given place, possibly influenced by a request from the Ivorian government. The fact that Google uses a given name does not and never has meant that we have to use the same name, if it is not the WP:COMMONNAME or otherwise breaks Wikipedia naming conventions. Kahastok talk 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Read the article again and this time replace "Banana sandwich" with "Ivory Coast". What you wrote about Google (especially the part about being influenced by a the Ivorian Government) is totally baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ale3353 and Rreagan007. Different languages have different names for the country, and just because the Ivorian government says that it should be called Côte d'Ivoire in every language does not make it a reality. Ivory Coast is the most common English name. Just like there are many translations in Spanish, German, Zulu, etc. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. "Official" groups like diplomatic communiques or FIFA are a bit weak sources, since they are likely to do whatever is polite in organization-to-government matters. See "Ivory Coast President Wins Third Term in Disputed Vote" for an example of a recent 2020 use of "Ivory Coast" by media, which is closer to the usage Wikipedia models itself after. SnowFire (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I haven't seen anything here that persuades me that the situation has substantially changed since the last RM in 2012. It seems to me that the description of the situation in the close of that RM still applies. That is not to say that there is no case for Côte d'Ivoire here, but I don't think the case that has been made is enough. Kahastok talk 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, many sources still call the nation "Ivory Coast" as seen from, for example, this BBC report. Most other country articles have the English equivalent on English Wikipedia such as Wales and Spain instead of Cymru and España respectively. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Other major encyclopedias, such as Encyclopædia Britannica and the CIA World Factbook have already changed to Côte d'Ivoire, and i think that Wikipedia should follow along for the sake of consistency if nothing else. Lortep (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It always surprises me how many people seem to think that the US Central Intelligence Agency is somehow an inherently neutral organisation, with no influence from any government. Usage in CIA World Factbook falls into exactly the same bucket as other US government usages, and is not an indicator of common usage. Usage by Britannica is more relevant, but there is no requirement that we be consistent with them if their chosen name does not follow our naming conventions. Kahastok talk 18:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Germany is Deutschland, Mauritania is Mūrītānīyah and Mauritanie, and Guinea is Guinée by that logic, does not change the anglophone names of those countries. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cywd23g0gpgt/ivory-coast
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/ivory-coast
  3. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/amad-diallo-the-african-messi-trafficked-from-ivory-coast-qzl07ppz8
  4. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/28/is-africa-losing-ground-battle-water-sanitation/
  5. ^ https://apnews.com/39a83c0c1c5e51311f941e6a05bd6277
  6. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/opinion/civil-war-america.html
  7. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/lack-rain-ivory-coast-raises-concerns-cocoa-mid-crop-2022-01-24/
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.

Requested move 26 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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: Speedy close: This RM is the exact same as the one held earlier this month. It provides no additional information or argument that wasn't discussed previously. The only mentioned argument in the RM is WP:OFFICIALNAME which is not sufficient to reopen the exact same request a little more than 20 days after the previous request reached consensus.(non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Ivory Coast → Côte d'Ivoire – it's the official name. I think it's now time to have an admin move this. Jishiboka1 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Strong Support - Côte d'Ivoire is the official name of the country in English. It is the name used in media and all official sources. This argument will just repeat forever if we don't change it to the actual name. Côte d'Ivoire doesn't plan on changing its name back to Ivory Coast anytime soon. Desertambition (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Quick close, the same RM was closed literally within this month. CMD (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Speedy close there would need to be a significant change in facts to justify a new discussion less than a month after there was a consensus against the move in question and nothing had been provided. I would recommend at least 6 months after the previous discussion closed.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 06:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivory_Coast/Archive_7&oldid=1239569562"