Talk:Second Ivorian Civil War

On the UN participation
While the UN participates to enforce UNSC resolutions and to protect foreign residents, I think we can say they maintained military neutrality, unlike in the Libya conflict. So I don't think we can include them as belligerents in the civil war, though they may be in the larger crisis. Cenarium (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There have already been attacks on both the UN and the French forces, who have suffered casualties, so like it or not, they are combatants. They were in the same situation in the first civil war and indeed, if you look at the infobox for Ivorian Civil War, you'll see that the UN and France are listed there. Prioryman (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added it back. What I objected to was to suggest that the UN militarily supported Ouattara, but it was the infobox on the crisis which suggested that, I've changed it. Cenarium (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ouattara is the lawful winner of election and recognized by UN. They are supporting him, just not want to make a military intervention for now.--Martianmister (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, what I meant is that they are supporting him only diplomatically, not militarily. Sorry for having been unclear. Cenarium (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The UN troops and French troops are directly fighting Gbagbo's troops. The rebel army has been escorted by UN forces. Some UN troops have objected to directly supplying the rebels with weapons and ammunition.

"I think we can say they maintained military neutrality." You can say that. If you only read the English press you can know little else. 208.124.78.154 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need to back your arguments with reliable sources (which can be of any language). Surely UN and French troops will defend themselves if attacked and protect civilians if they spot abuses, against any of the parties, and they may take position on strategical points for the protection of foreign residents, like the international airport. But that doesn't amount to taking sides, I doubt that they 'escorted' the rebels. Cenarium (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * UN and French forces have attacked a Gbagbo's camp to take out heavy weapons, NYT. However Ban Ki-moon says U.N. not party to I. Coast conflict, he considers that it was an act of self-defense and protection of civilians. I'll mention that he said that, while not making any definite statement. Cenarium (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

 * Moved to Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

I have re-listed Bender235's merger proposal at the link above. Please comment there. Prioryman (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Abidjan
There's absolutely no need to copy and paste the Battle of Abidjan section of this article into a separate article, as I noticed someone had done. It duplicates a large amount of content needlessly and in any case shouldn't be done from a copyright point of view, as it breaks a lot of the editing history. The battle is the key event of the civil war, which to have involved little fighting in most other places, so it can be dealt with quite satisfactorily within this article. Prioryman (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Civil war
According to the BBC News and to the NY Times this is a civil war. There are African sources that also call it a civil war. USchick (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Numbers
Does anyone know how many people are dead and wounded? Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Finished
Is it really finished, we do not know what is really happening outside the capital, and Gbagbo forces are still a force and not disarmed. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's time to merge
This article and the 2010-2011 Ivorian Crisis article needs to be merged. They are about the same conflict with the same information. Merge both articles now.B-Machine (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not this again? The objections I raised earlier haven't gone away. In short, no. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the fourth time. What possible reason is there to think that the result will be any different than the previous three? Per my previous reasoning, I oppose a merge. C628 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did you two type the same comments? Again, it's the same event. Nothing about them is different. I won't stop until both articles are merged or one is deleted. B-Machine (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the merge as the pages cover the same event.--93.137.178.88 (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I support a merge of 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis into Second Ivorian Civil War. Not the other way around. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support merge: I agree with B-Machine, these two articles are about the exact same conflict, the only difference is that one article talks about it as a political crisis, while the other talks about it as a civil war. I think the latter is more accurate, so when these two are merged the title should be Second Ivorian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One again, no. This article is about the military conflict, not the political crisis that preceded it. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The political crisis is inseparable from the military conflict, the former is simply the begining of the latter and should covered in the backround section of combined article. Charles Essie (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Charles Essie. That's exactly what I'm saying. The political crisis should be covered in the background section. B-Machine (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Charles Essie (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the consensus here is in favor of merging, so let's do it. Charles Essie (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: very often when articles merge, a lot is lost in the process as seemingly "insignificant." If there is a political crisis and a separate war, perhaps both articles are necessary for an in-depth understanding. USchick (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but I feel that an in-depth understanding can be reached with a single article, albeit an article with the proper background (the political crisis) and timeline of events (the civil war). Charles Essie (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus and there's not even been any discussion for 8 months (!). You can't possibly merge on that basis. If you try to merge without consensus, it'll be reverted. Prioryman (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been consensus, it's four against three, it's time to concede defeat. Charles Essie (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what consensus means (see Consensus). Four against three, in any discussion on Wikipedia, would be treated as "no consensus". You're also counting four against three over a period of three years - check the date of the first post in this thread - which is ridiculous. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 one external links on Second Ivorian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8895648/gbagbo-loyalists-killed-in-ivory-coast-ambush/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is Ukraine listed as a belligerent?
Ukraine sent its personnel as part of the UN peacekeeping force. It makes no sense to list it as a separate participant. The link that the specific reference redirects to is also broken. It should be removed, as should Ukraine as a belligerent. 2A00:23A8:4384:9401:59F7:9BA6:7FF8:8A42 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)