![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
[1]
[2]
>> France to send troops to Central African Republic as violence spreads
>> Central African Republic: UN peacekeeping mission needed
>> Central African Republic: Better Late Than Never
>> Living in fear, Central African Republic awaits foreign intervention
>> Inaction on Central African Republic conflict 'shameful'
>> French army buildup in CAR unlikely to quell bloodshed
>> Determined Katie receives peace award
>> Central African Republic: UN must tackle the looming human catastrophe
>> Central African Republic: Whose Responsibility to Protect?
>> UN considers Central African Republic arms embargo
>> Brave teachers reopen schools in Central African Republic, AIDS sufferers face stigma in Iran, and more
>> Central African Republic: UN Rights Chief Warns Cycle of Violence May 'Spin Out of Control'
>> UNICEF Warns of Crisis of Child Soldiers in Central African Republic
>> Violence Increases Between Christians, Muslims in Central African Republic
>> Central African Republic: President Michel Djotodia and the good little putschist’s tool box
>> Senior LRA commander killed, says Uganda
[3]
>> Central African Republic: Dissolving the Seleka Rebel Group Could Be a Recipe for Disaster in the Car
>> Ever darker
>> New Rebel Groups Deepen Security Crisis in Central African Republic
>> CAR: warning bells as state collapses and fears of genocide mount
>> UN envoy says CAR in 'state of anarchy'
>> Flawed Peace Process Leads to Greater Unrest in the Central African Republic
>> Central African Republic is descending into anarchy
>> Civilians killed as tensions rise in CAR
>> Uncovering a massacre in CAR
>> Several dead in gun battles in CAR capital
>> U.N. to debate Central African Republic peacekeeping force as violence escalates
>> Why Central African Republic is slipping close to catastrophe
>> Fears of genocide: 10 things to know about the Central African Republic
>> CAR key players
>> UN backs action amid fresh violence
>> UN passes resolution on CAR military action
>> French army kills fighters in CAR
>> Central African Republic: Security Council approves new peacekeeping force
>> Hospital attacked in Central African Republic
>> Africans closer to forming intervention force
>> Central African Republic: Abandoned and burnt villages
>> CAR president 'not in complete control'
>> Inside Bangui, a deserted city
>> Hyped-up contact group meeting on CAR
>> French troops push further into CAR
>> French troops begin disarming CAR fighters
>> French president to visit C. African Republic
>> US orders airlift for African troops to CAR
>> vObama calls for peace as Hagel orders US support in Central African Republic mission
The Bozize militia aren't event mentioned in the article, and neither other the other Christian militias. We cant have stuff in the infoboxx without being in the article.( Lihaas ( talk) 06:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).
The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent. Fotoriety ( talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
41.77.3.244 posted this comment on 10 December 2013 ( view all feedback).
a little more detail would go a long way in satisfying the reader's appetite in-depth news
Well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.-- Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains undefined acronyms - suggest adding the French title "Communauté Économique des États de l'Afrique Centrale (CEEAC)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogbus ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether accidentally or otherwise, all our articles on the CAR conflict currently seem almost designed to make it as hard as possible for the casual reader to learn about the Christian-Muslim dimension of the present conflict, thus seemingly doing a major disservice to such readers. Before I added changes to the lead paragraph, there was no mention of this aspect for several paragraphs except under the non-specific phrase 'religious confict'. Perhaps editors could try to bear this in mind before deleting passages which attempt to undo this disservice. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Lihaas, I would ask you to please accept my good faith, as in WP:AGF, when I say that I am not trying to "PUSH any agenda" other than that of trying to improve the encyclopedia by giving our readers the information to which they are entitled. And it was not my intention to imply that we are here "to correct the perceptions of the Western media", or of any other media - obviously we cannot amend Western media or any other media, and consequently we cannot correct their perceptions. I merely gave them as examples of how readers can get misinformed through being deprived of relevant background information. But we ARE here to provide our readers, including our Muslim readers, as well as our non-Muslim readers, with relevant background information ("the context behind the news", to use the exact expression found in the opening paragraph of WP:ITN). And it IS part of our business if our readers get inconvenienced and/or misled and/or misinformed because of the inadequacies of our article, including those inadequacies that help to cause and/or prolong misconceptions. Both Muslim and non-Muslim readers are entitled to know that in this case, despite his apparently Christian name, Michel is not a Christian but a Muslim, as this is a significant part of "the context behind the news" (or behind the history, as it now is). Readers should not have to link to some other article to find this out, partly because this is an unnecessary inconvenience for them, but mainly because readers are in danger of remaining misinformed through being deprived of this "context behind the news" if they don't guess that they need to link to another article because for some mysterious reason unmentioned relevant information is being kept out of the current article but for some equally mysterious reason is not being kept our of some other linked article.
It is NOT OL. WP:OL refers to articles that are Lists, and the two words "a Muslim" are neither an article nor a List. As WP:OL is described as the Overcategorization guideline applied to lists, let me add that it has nothing to do with Overcategorization either, as that is about grouping articles into categories, and the two words "a Muslim" are not grouping any articles into any categories. Instead it is simply 2 words spelling out a fact apparently seen as a relevant part of the context (which we are told to supply, as already mentioned) by a very wide number of sources. For example, this Africa Review article dated March 31,2013, and also repeated on April 1, 2013 here at Chinapost.com, has Patrick Fort of AFP writing:
“The Central African Republic is a secular state,” Djotodia said on Friday. “It is true that I am Muslim, but I must serve my country, all Central Africans.”
However he said that “some people with bad intentions want to lead the country into inter-religious conflict.”
Since Djotodia and his Seleka rebel coalition began an offensive in December, Bozize's regime often accused them of “preaching Wahhabism” — an ultra-conservative Islam often followed by fundamentalists — or of being “Muslim terrorists.”
In other words Djotodia, Bozize, and Fort all seem to see his religion, as well as that of his followers, as part of the context (if it isn't part of the context, why do they all mention it?). I would have included this source in the article (indeed I originally did include it), except that, as mentioned earlier in these discussions, I have omitted the sources because you have a problem with the ones I had.
Some other sources mentioning he's Muslim include:
In other words we seem to have sources from right across the spectrum (including Djotodia, his opponents, Muslim sources, non-Muslim sources, and sources which are a bit of both) who appear to think it relevant to mention that he's a Muslim, since they do in fact mention it. Incidentally, I could probably add many other sources as this seems to be a popular query (perhaps precisely because people are understandably confused about this, and I note that so far we in Wikipedia haven't been particularly helpful in clearing up this confusion) - when I type in "michel djotodia m", Google suggests "michel djotodia muslim" and returns "about 413000" results.
I should perhaps mention that one can explicitly say that he is Muslim while only using the word Muslim once, such as by adding "(as is Djotodia himself)" to give the following wording:
I honestly think such a change will improve the article for the benefit of our readers, and would thus be justified under WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, even if it violated some other rule, though I don't actually think it does (as already mentioned, it clearly doesn't violate the OL rule). However, in the hope of avoiding further disagreement, I will not make the change myself, and will leave it up to you to decide whether on reflection you think the change should be made, and if so whether you want to make the change yourself or ask me to make it. You may also choose whether or not to include some of the above references, or any other references you might prefer, and whether you or I should include them. Regards, Tlhslobus ( talk) 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Djotodia administration has ended but this conflict is ongoing. The article should be renamed. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is not ongoing, it cant be ongoing because there is NO Djotodia administration. As explained, there is the page for the Central African Republic conflict (2012–13), that is the general conflict, that is still ongoing. Akin to the pages on the Egyptian turmoil, other events have split off pages. The new conflict can be added there or split off again. Please explain how the Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is still ongoing? iNCIDENTS that occurred after Djotodia are part of that conflict. The link is provided in the background section. (and now the infobox and lead)( Lihaas ( talk) 11:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).
The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent. Fotoriety ( talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with BRD, when a BOLD change is reverted one needs consensus to readd ot and [prevernt edit wars. Please gain that consensus. Lihaas ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration → Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) – Per WP:CONCISE. The title it should be changed to a more standard naming style, it should be WP:CONSISTENT with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There is no other article using a title with the "under the administration", all use dates to distinguish the phases of the conflicts, examples: Afghan Civil War (1996–2001), Somali Civil War (2009–present), etc. Fontaine347 ( talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
[1]
[2]
>> France to send troops to Central African Republic as violence spreads
>> Central African Republic: UN peacekeeping mission needed
>> Central African Republic: Better Late Than Never
>> Living in fear, Central African Republic awaits foreign intervention
>> Inaction on Central African Republic conflict 'shameful'
>> French army buildup in CAR unlikely to quell bloodshed
>> Determined Katie receives peace award
>> Central African Republic: UN must tackle the looming human catastrophe
>> Central African Republic: Whose Responsibility to Protect?
>> UN considers Central African Republic arms embargo
>> Brave teachers reopen schools in Central African Republic, AIDS sufferers face stigma in Iran, and more
>> Central African Republic: UN Rights Chief Warns Cycle of Violence May 'Spin Out of Control'
>> UNICEF Warns of Crisis of Child Soldiers in Central African Republic
>> Violence Increases Between Christians, Muslims in Central African Republic
>> Central African Republic: President Michel Djotodia and the good little putschist’s tool box
>> Senior LRA commander killed, says Uganda
[3]
>> Central African Republic: Dissolving the Seleka Rebel Group Could Be a Recipe for Disaster in the Car
>> Ever darker
>> New Rebel Groups Deepen Security Crisis in Central African Republic
>> CAR: warning bells as state collapses and fears of genocide mount
>> UN envoy says CAR in 'state of anarchy'
>> Flawed Peace Process Leads to Greater Unrest in the Central African Republic
>> Central African Republic is descending into anarchy
>> Civilians killed as tensions rise in CAR
>> Uncovering a massacre in CAR
>> Several dead in gun battles in CAR capital
>> U.N. to debate Central African Republic peacekeeping force as violence escalates
>> Why Central African Republic is slipping close to catastrophe
>> Fears of genocide: 10 things to know about the Central African Republic
>> CAR key players
>> UN backs action amid fresh violence
>> UN passes resolution on CAR military action
>> French army kills fighters in CAR
>> Central African Republic: Security Council approves new peacekeeping force
>> Hospital attacked in Central African Republic
>> Africans closer to forming intervention force
>> Central African Republic: Abandoned and burnt villages
>> CAR president 'not in complete control'
>> Inside Bangui, a deserted city
>> Hyped-up contact group meeting on CAR
>> French troops push further into CAR
>> French troops begin disarming CAR fighters
>> French president to visit C. African Republic
>> US orders airlift for African troops to CAR
>> vObama calls for peace as Hagel orders US support in Central African Republic mission
The Bozize militia aren't event mentioned in the article, and neither other the other Christian militias. We cant have stuff in the infoboxx without being in the article.( Lihaas ( talk) 06:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).
The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent. Fotoriety ( talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
41.77.3.244 posted this comment on 10 December 2013 ( view all feedback).
a little more detail would go a long way in satisfying the reader's appetite in-depth news
Well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper.-- Jetstreamer Talk 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The first paragraph contains undefined acronyms - suggest adding the French title "Communauté Économique des États de l'Afrique Centrale (CEEAC)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogbus ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether accidentally or otherwise, all our articles on the CAR conflict currently seem almost designed to make it as hard as possible for the casual reader to learn about the Christian-Muslim dimension of the present conflict, thus seemingly doing a major disservice to such readers. Before I added changes to the lead paragraph, there was no mention of this aspect for several paragraphs except under the non-specific phrase 'religious confict'. Perhaps editors could try to bear this in mind before deleting passages which attempt to undo this disservice. Tlhslobus ( talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Lihaas, I would ask you to please accept my good faith, as in WP:AGF, when I say that I am not trying to "PUSH any agenda" other than that of trying to improve the encyclopedia by giving our readers the information to which they are entitled. And it was not my intention to imply that we are here "to correct the perceptions of the Western media", or of any other media - obviously we cannot amend Western media or any other media, and consequently we cannot correct their perceptions. I merely gave them as examples of how readers can get misinformed through being deprived of relevant background information. But we ARE here to provide our readers, including our Muslim readers, as well as our non-Muslim readers, with relevant background information ("the context behind the news", to use the exact expression found in the opening paragraph of WP:ITN). And it IS part of our business if our readers get inconvenienced and/or misled and/or misinformed because of the inadequacies of our article, including those inadequacies that help to cause and/or prolong misconceptions. Both Muslim and non-Muslim readers are entitled to know that in this case, despite his apparently Christian name, Michel is not a Christian but a Muslim, as this is a significant part of "the context behind the news" (or behind the history, as it now is). Readers should not have to link to some other article to find this out, partly because this is an unnecessary inconvenience for them, but mainly because readers are in danger of remaining misinformed through being deprived of this "context behind the news" if they don't guess that they need to link to another article because for some mysterious reason unmentioned relevant information is being kept out of the current article but for some equally mysterious reason is not being kept our of some other linked article.
It is NOT OL. WP:OL refers to articles that are Lists, and the two words "a Muslim" are neither an article nor a List. As WP:OL is described as the Overcategorization guideline applied to lists, let me add that it has nothing to do with Overcategorization either, as that is about grouping articles into categories, and the two words "a Muslim" are not grouping any articles into any categories. Instead it is simply 2 words spelling out a fact apparently seen as a relevant part of the context (which we are told to supply, as already mentioned) by a very wide number of sources. For example, this Africa Review article dated March 31,2013, and also repeated on April 1, 2013 here at Chinapost.com, has Patrick Fort of AFP writing:
“The Central African Republic is a secular state,” Djotodia said on Friday. “It is true that I am Muslim, but I must serve my country, all Central Africans.”
However he said that “some people with bad intentions want to lead the country into inter-religious conflict.”
Since Djotodia and his Seleka rebel coalition began an offensive in December, Bozize's regime often accused them of “preaching Wahhabism” — an ultra-conservative Islam often followed by fundamentalists — or of being “Muslim terrorists.”
In other words Djotodia, Bozize, and Fort all seem to see his religion, as well as that of his followers, as part of the context (if it isn't part of the context, why do they all mention it?). I would have included this source in the article (indeed I originally did include it), except that, as mentioned earlier in these discussions, I have omitted the sources because you have a problem with the ones I had.
Some other sources mentioning he's Muslim include:
In other words we seem to have sources from right across the spectrum (including Djotodia, his opponents, Muslim sources, non-Muslim sources, and sources which are a bit of both) who appear to think it relevant to mention that he's a Muslim, since they do in fact mention it. Incidentally, I could probably add many other sources as this seems to be a popular query (perhaps precisely because people are understandably confused about this, and I note that so far we in Wikipedia haven't been particularly helpful in clearing up this confusion) - when I type in "michel djotodia m", Google suggests "michel djotodia muslim" and returns "about 413000" results.
I should perhaps mention that one can explicitly say that he is Muslim while only using the word Muslim once, such as by adding "(as is Djotodia himself)" to give the following wording:
I honestly think such a change will improve the article for the benefit of our readers, and would thus be justified under WP:IAR, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, even if it violated some other rule, though I don't actually think it does (as already mentioned, it clearly doesn't violate the OL rule). However, in the hope of avoiding further disagreement, I will not make the change myself, and will leave it up to you to decide whether on reflection you think the change should be made, and if so whether you want to make the change yourself or ask me to make it. You may also choose whether or not to include some of the above references, or any other references you might prefer, and whether you or I should include them. Regards, Tlhslobus ( talk) 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Djotodia administration has ended but this conflict is ongoing. The article should be renamed. XavierGreen ( talk) 22:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is not ongoing, it cant be ongoing because there is NO Djotodia administration. As explained, there is the page for the Central African Republic conflict (2012–13), that is the general conflict, that is still ongoing. Akin to the pages on the Egyptian turmoil, other events have split off pages. The new conflict can be added there or split off again. Please explain how the Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration is still ongoing? iNCIDENTS that occurred after Djotodia are part of that conflict. The link is provided in the background section. (and now the infobox and lead)( Lihaas ( talk) 11:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).
The name of this article is simply ridiculous. It should be changed to a more standard naming style e.g. Central African Republic conflict or Central African Republic civil war e.t.c. I mean we don't see the Syrian Civil War called the Syrian conflict under the Assad administration?! It is simply astonishing that this article name is still existent. Fotoriety ( talk) 23:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with BRD, when a BOLD change is reverted one needs consensus to readd ot and [prevernt edit wars. Please gain that consensus. Lihaas ( talk) 11:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa ( talk) 18:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place here that affects this page. Charles Essie ( talk) 23:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration → Central African Republic conflict (2013–2014) – Per WP:CONCISE. The title it should be changed to a more standard naming style, it should be WP:CONSISTENT with the pattern of similar articles' titles. There is no other article using a title with the "under the administration", all use dates to distinguish the phases of the conflicts, examples: Afghan Civil War (1996–2001), Somali Civil War (2009–present), etc. Fontaine347 ( talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)