Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Requested move

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)

I'm late, but I support Côte d'Ivoire. El_C 23:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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) ^{Wiki me up}

What exactly is the point of using the French name, I thought this was some country I had never herd of until i came to this page. Ajuk 17:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Late as well, but being a native speaker of English and one who says Paris and not Paree, and Turin and not Torino, I would've voted for Ivory Coast but, apparantly, the English Wikipedia is the only one that is always dominated by non-native speakers. God forbid I should go to the Frog Wikipedia and demand that they say England instead of Angleterre!

Non-notable addition

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)

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)

It should be Ivory Coast. All other countries have their names in their mothertounges but this is an ENGLISH encyclopedia so we should have an ENGLISH name here, which is indeed Ivory Coast. Just like we have Germany instead of Deutschland and so on. --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The name is "Ivory Coast", end the stupidity!

Please do not support our oppresive goverment! Rename decision to "Côte d'Ivoire" significantly lowered real estate prices in my country. I want my house and address to be in "Ivory Coast", i want that beautifull and inspiring name BACK!. Makes me feel I am living in some kind of fairy tale country. "Ivory Coast" is the sexiest state name in Africa. I want my land its true name back!

This above anonymous user is right (?).

I just got finished reading today's news over at Google News about the unrest in Ivory Coast. Of the 200+ articles not one even mentions "Côte d'Ivoire" (or "Elfenbeinküste" or "Pobřeží slonoviny") let alone uses it for the name of a country.

Since when did Wikipedia become a shill for governments or a manual of diplomatic protocol? It's 2006; change the title to the English name.

LuiKhuntek 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

...its 2006 and therefore time to see, that there are opinions and countries besides the english-speaking ones. The USA also want to be known by their name, not any translation, be it a sexy or beautful name (I can think of some really sexy ones). This after all is an encyclopaedia, based on facts and official sources, not an aestetical art project... so Côte d'Ivoire and United States of America, not Ivory Coast and Vereinigte Staaten/Estados Unidos (although there is definitely a minority which would approve)/Etas Unis (I think the french name is really sexy).

"...there are opinions and countries besides the english-speaking ones."

Yes, that's why there are other language Wikipedias

"The USA also want to be known by their name."

I'm not sure this is true and even if the US demanded it, I don't think other language Wikipedias should bow down and obey. And right now, of the 50+ different language Wikipedia articles on the United States, no other language uses the form "United States" (except Simple English).

"This after all is an encyclopaedia, based on facts..."

Yes it is and the English name of the country is factually Ivory Coast.

User:LuiKhuntek 04:29, ~~28 January 2006~~ (UTC) Oops, sorry. That would be 28 Türkmenbaşy 2006 since the months have officially been renamed.

An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge. Oh yes. So if any country renames itself, this knowledge is not worth a reaction in the article and redirects leading to the country article?! Dangerous way of thinking... and the explanations of terms are in english, that is what the little en. is all about, not the translation of the terms explained... (how would you find them?!)

Please see the lengthy discussion at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1. Wizzy…☎ 08:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiWeakness #4788 - whoever screams the loudest gets to dictate what is presented on any given WikiPage

What has created the belief among many English speakers that Ivory Coast is no longer the accepted name and now we are required to use the French translation Côte d'Ivoire ? There are scores of nations that have a different spelling or different name in the local language, yet in English we opt to use our own name when referring to that place. What is it about the Ivory Coast that is different from other nations?

We are allowed to use the name Albania when the locals use “Shqipërisë.” We are allowed to use the name Bhutan while the locals use “Druk Yul.” We are allowed to use Cambodia when we speak English, but the local people use “Srok Khmae.” We use Greece in English, but the Greeks say, “Ellinikí Dhimokratía.” Why the lemmingesque tendency to fall in to lock-step obedience with the herd? What is wrong with using the English name on the English Wikipage?

In addition... what yahoo came up with the idea of listing the nation on this page as "The Republic of Côte d'Ivoire" Why the need to jump back and forth between two languages?

The difference is that the government of Côte d'Ivoire has expressed its explicit wish to be referred to as "Côte d'Ivoire" in all languages, and that the UN and similar organisations comply. —Nightst a llion (?) 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

... thus the term "lemmingesque."

I do not think it matters what the government of Côte d'Ivoire wants. If you are interested in this issue, please read the (10 pages) of discussion at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1 before rehashing everything here. Wizzy…☎ 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading the ten pages… then are we allowed to discuss the issue?

Hmm - I thought that the archived page would be on my watchlist (with everyone else's). I think I unwatched, and then watched again. I was going to suggest discussing it on that page. Move (Copy ??) Archive1 to Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/naming, refactor (basically sort the arguments into pro and con, somehow cut out the dross) and then point to it from here ? I do not want to prevent discussion, I just think it is useless to discuss without the previous context. How should this be done ? Ideas, anybody ? Wizzy…☎ 12:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling this article Côte d'Ivoire remains a mindbogglingly stupid act that ignores world usage, google evidence, academic evidence, and all sources. But then, as the vote here showed, accuracy did not enter into the process for many people. Instead people voted a whole series of laughably ridiculous explanations — why we should use the French version because people wanted it to become common (ie, it isn't now, but lets help push it, a blatent breach of NPOV and most common name, not name we would like to be the most common name but isn't), the name that the government wants to have used (even though that is NEVER EVER a criteria used alone in encyclopaedias and contradicts WP's own Manual of Style requirements). The whole thing was a farce that simply showed how far in some areas WP is from being a credible encyclopaedia and how far it has become an agenda-driven, POV joke in some areas. This page embodies ignorant naming that threw academic and encylopaediac standards to the wind for POV-pushing. When the history of Wikipedia is written, the farce that happened here will be referred to as embodying gaming, POVing and contempt of WP rules on Wikipedia. It stands out a classic example of how WP needs to have proper standards based on verifiable evidence, and decisions made on that basis, not POV voting based on what reason or claim, however unverifiable, they feel like at that moment. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)}

Alternately: lots of people disagreed with you, and one or two might (gasp!) have actually had rational reasons. Please don't portray this as the end of civilisation. Shimgray | talk | 20:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The factual evidence demonstates unambiguously that Côte d'Ivoire is rarely used by English speakers. The only English speaking nation that uses it in any major way is the US, and even there it is used in a tiny fraction of cases. In most English-speaking countries it is 100% unused and 100% unrecognised. No verifiable evidence was produced that it was used outside French speakers and outside Africa. But the reasons used to justify the farce of keeping an unused, unrecognised name and dumping the name recognised worldwide was peppered with lazy arguments not based on objective analysis but on wild claims without verification ("everyone uses it"), POV votes based not on objective criteria on usage, which is what the MoS specifies, but on what people themselves wanted, such as how we should push to get it more widely used, etc. Tell the editors of Brittanica or any other major English language encyclopaedia that the encyclopaedia must use a name because the government insists it and you get the sack. Independent encyclopaedias never do what governments want. No professional encylopaedia would base its naming of a page on unverified claims and the personal opinions of its editors, any editors (including me), much less decide that some pages don't have to follow the encyclopaedia's own Manual of Style.

In encyclopaedias facts require evidence and evidence in sacrosanct. In Wikipedia as shown here, facts can be made without evidence, evidence doesn't matter, and all that matters is a lot of personal opinions. BTW the farce here has already been quoted three times internationally as an example of Wikipedia shoddyness and amateurism. One academic, Jean Coty, told a group of academics I met with recently that this page's naming embodied Wikipedia "at its disorganised, ruleless, worst" and raised serious doubts as to the credibility of the project. He said "It highlighted a notable lack of concern for standards and a worrying disregard for the sort of objectivity, accuracy and evidence one expects from a major sourcebook. While Wikipedia has its strengths, its tendency towards accepting personal opinions over encyclopaediac accuracy raises serious doubts as to its ability to be a trusted sourcebook. I tell my students to doublecheck each "fact" on Wikipedia and do not trust it until a verifiable source confirms it. The preponderance of personal opinion — of an agenda-pushing nature — remains its greatest failing, as its articles on Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Kerry, the JFK assassination and the questionable naming of the Ivory Coast clearly show." Trusted Source?: The internet and academic research (Paper delivered in January 2006). FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 20:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)}

"whoever screams the loudest gets to dictate what is presented on any given WikiPage "

-- Not true. If it were, this page would be at "Ivory Coast." 70.105.49.215 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Added a bit more fuel, after seeing in the article that the Encyclopedia Brittainca uses "Côte d'Ivoire". Added that the Millenium edition of the Rand McNally atlas uses that term too. --Dumarest 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Do you seriously, seriously think someone would be put off Wikipedia because its article is entitled Côte d'Ivoire?" - Sam Korn on wikien-l, some time ago...

I'm sorry, but continually screaming your head off does not a) even remotely help to sway anyone to your side or b) magically make what you claim true.

Plenty of native English-speakers - myself among them - disagree with you over the matter of "100% unused" or "only in the US". Any evidence which supported the use of CdI over IC was shouted down by you for being American, for being "diplomatic", for being a "myth", for coming from Africans...

You disagree with this decision, fine. But this decision was not made just to piss you off, it was not made by people on some weird power trip, it was not made by people drunk and incapable. There was a discussion, consensus did not agree with your interpretation of matters, and you are not always guaranteed to be right. Please will you realise this? Shimgray | talk | 22:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No evidence was produced to support your claim. The placing of the page here breaches the Manual of Style. It breaches all evidence, all sources, and was voted through by POV unsourced claims. You may think that a professional way for a professional encyclopaedia to behave. Professional encyclopaedia contributors who base judgments on evidence regard the vote here as as a professional embarrassment which reduces Wikipedia's credibility on this page to the level of a comic. Just because you don't regard evidence, academic standards and the Manual of Style as important doesn't mean that everyone else sinks to that level. This page is a joke, and will remain as a joke under its current name, and professional encylopaedia contributors will continue to say it here, where you like it or not. This page is a joke. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 22:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)}

This is an English language article. The English name for Côte d'Ivoire is Ivory Coast. When one reads an article in English, it is good to know the country's name in both English and its native or official language too if that name is different. Calling Ivory Coast Côte d'Ivoire in this article would be the same as saying New Zealand instead of Nueva Zelanda in a Spanish language article. Enzedbrit 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If we're going to call Ivory Coast "Côte d'Ivoire," then we should also change the Austria article to Ōsterreich, the Germany article to Deutschland, the Russia article to Россия and the South Africa article to Suid-Afrika. There is no defensible reason for Ivory Coast being treated differently. Even the German Wikipedia refers to the country of France as "Frankreich," using the country's name in their own language. By the same token, if the Spanish Wikipedia calls us "Estados Unidos," so what? End of rant... user:Jsc1973

I find it curious that for so many apparently intelligent people it's so *fucking* difficult to accept that Côte d'Ivoire and Timor-Leste have *requested* to be referred to as such officially in all languages, whereas no other country has done this. Full stop, case closed. —Nightst a llion (?) 14:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nightstallion here, Côte d'Ivoire is the requested name of the country. No other country requests what we call them. Côte d'Ivoire has been taken up by most organisations (apart from the arrogant US dominated media) and google searches prove that it is just as common. We should go by the official name of the country and there is no evidence to suggest that "Ivory Coast" is more commonly used. I think a couple of xenophobic wikipedian's can't stand the thought of a foreign name being the title of an article. This issue has been discussed and voted on before, I maintain for the status quo. Kyle sb 07:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"No other country requests what we call them." That's not quite correct -- the same is true for Timor-Leste, which really should not be at East Timor but at its official English name... —Nightst a llion (?) 18:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Utterly bizarre. Wikipedia requires the use of most common name. That is Ivory Coast and East Timor. Wikipedia, like all other encyclopaedias and sources, does not take diktats from governments on language use. It is perfectly simple. Under WP rules the articles have to be at East Timor and Ivory Coast and nowhere else. It doesn't matter a tuppeny damn what governments say. They can decide what names they want used, but they do not, and never have, decided on international language usage. If they did, then two thirds of the countries on Wikipedia would have to be renamed. This farce over Ivory Coast just makes a mockery of WP standards. BTW ABC yesterday referred to the "Ivory Coast", as did the BBC World Service today and the US Secretary of State spoke about "Ivory Coast". And all the media in the English speaking world is covering disorder in what they universally called "East Timor". Having WP as the odd one out, simply because of the illinformed theories of a handful of users, just makes WP a laughing stock. The issue could not be more clearcut. Case closed. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)}

In my experience Côte d'Ivoire is just as common as "Ivory Coast". Searching the comparisons on English language google comes up with similar hits. In the last few days some newspapers I read used Côte d'Ivoire as the name of the team entering the 2006 Soccer World Cup, others used Ivory Coast. Maps often use Côte d'Ivoire and as a result people unfamiliar with the country will be looking it up. As for Timor-Leste well I would say "East Timor" remains far more popular, but I agree the article should be relocated and I don't have a problem with Timor-Leste. However reading arguments over there I doubt it will happened. Kyle sb 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

-Here are some google search results for the name comparison. (Although google searches are not always a reliable way of showing how common a title is). (included East Timor)

Results 1 - 10 of about 103,000,000 English pages for Côte d'Ivoire

Results 1 - 10 of about 57,200,000 English pages for Ivory Coast

Results 1 - 10 of about 105,000,000 English pages for Cote d'Ivoire

Results 1 - 10 of about 115,000,000 English pages for East Timor

Results 1 - 10 of about 13,500,000 English pages for Timor Leste

Results 1 - 10 of about 13,400,000 English pages for Timor-Leste

The problem is that when searching for "Côte d'Ivoire", you get heaps of French pages. Even when going to Advanced Search and restricting language to English, I still got most French pages in my search results. If you want correct results as applicable to English Wikipedia, the search has to be restricted to English-language pages somehow. -- int19h 13:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

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).

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).

WikiWeakness

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)

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)

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)

Reisio's Suggestion

(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” [1]

Japanese/日本語 – “コートジボワール” [2]

Chinese/中文 – “科特迪瓦”[3]

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” [4]
Aragonese/ Aragonés – “Costa de Bori” [5]
Bosnian/Bosanski – “Obala Slonovače” [6]
Catalan/Català – “Costa d'Ivori” [7]
Croatian/Hrvatski – “Bjelokosna Obala” [8]
Czech /Česky – “Pobřeží slonoviny”[9]
Danish/Dansk – “Elfenbenskysten” [10]
Dutch/Nederlands – “Ivoorkust” [11]
Esperanto – “Ebur-Bordo” [12]
Finnish/Suomi – ”Norsunluurannikko” [13]
Galician /Galego – “Costa do Marfil”[14]
German/Deutsch – “Elfenbeinküste” [15]
German (Alemannic ) /alemannische - “Elfenbeinküste”
German (Low) /Plattdüütsch – “Elfenbeenküst”[16]
Greek/ Ελληνικά – “Ακτή του Ελεφαντοστού”
Hungarian/Magyar – “Elefántcsontpart” [17]
Icelandic/ĺslenska – “Fílabeinsströndin” [18]
Indonesian/Bahasa Indonesia – “Pantai Gading” [19]
Irish/Gaeilge – “An Cósta Eabhair” [20]
Italian/Italiano – “Costa d'Avorio” [21]
Lithuanian /Lietuvių - “Dramblio Kaulo Krantas” [22]
Naura/Ekakairũ Naoero – “Ivory Coast” [23]
Norwegian(book)/Norsk(bokmå) - “Elfenbenskysten” [24]
Norwegian (new)/Norsk (nynorsk ) – “Elfenbenskysten” [25]
Polish/Polski – “Wybrzeże Kości Słoniowej” [26]
Portugese/Português – “Costa do Marfim” [27]
Romanian/Română – “Coasta de Fildeş” [28]
Russian/ русский – “Берега Слоновои Кости”
Slovak/Slovenčina – "Pobrežie Slonoviny“ [29]
Slovene/Slovenščina – “Slonokoščena obala” [30]
Spanish/ español - "Costa de Marfil" [31]
Swedish/ Svenska – “Elfenbenskusten” [32]
Turkish/Türkçe – “Fildişi Sahilleri” [33]

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)}

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)

Yet Another Anti-French thing on the English wikipedia

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)

Background information?

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)

After some search in French sources I think it has very do little do with English. I you strictly follow French rule this should be Côte-d'Ivoire like Côte-d'Or, Alpes-Maritimes or Haute-Loire. However some French linguists wrote that the rule applies to "French administrative divisions" its a bit embarrassing for an independant country. Ericd 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bono?

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)

WTF?

This is the English Wikipedia. Get the fucken English name up there!Cameron Nedland 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Gekk

Cote d'Ivoire vs Ivory Coast

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)

Aye, that explanation hits home. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad it makes sense to at least one other person. --Alan 07:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Côte d'Ivoire

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)

I agree 100%! Are we supposed to say "Roma" for Rome and "Magyar" for Hungary now?? NO WAY!! This is a perfect example of political INcorrectness gone awry... [User:773 312|773 312]