Wikipedia

Talk:Central African Republic Civil War/Archive 1

< Talk:Central African Republic Civil War
Latest comment: 5 years ago by JustBeCool in topic Requested move 3 October 2018

Merge with Central African Republic Bush War

Latest comment: 11 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a Merge Proposal and Redirect. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the target talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request for the Proposal to Merge Central African Republic Bush War to here was: No Consensus to Merge
– – – – – – – – – –

This resumption of combat is very clearly a direct continuation of the Central African Republic Bush War. It's the same groups with the same gripes fighting with the same guns on the same ground. Thus this WP article needs to be merged onto the end of the older article. Please respond with any reasonable objections, detailing how this is a separate conflict. Keitsist (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Central African Republic Bush War ended in 2007, 5 years ago and the rebels now are not exactly the same.Olegwiki (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oleg, what do you mean, the war "ended"? That article is simply incorrect. How did the war end in 2007 if the last peace agreement was only signed in Aug 2012, and fighting resumed only three weeks later? The 2007 agreement was a cease fire, which a mutual commitment to momentarily halt armed activity, not the end of a war. The combatants in this "rebellion" are the exact same: FACA vs a coalition of factions of CPJP, UFDR etc. Don't let the fact that they're using the local word for coalition to describe themselves, which they had not done previously, confuse you. Even the leader, Djotodia, is the same as earlier. Keitsist (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The war is not exactly the same, and it would do you some good to check on facts before you state them as such. The war ended because there was a peace agreement - so that's that. CPJP is, as a matter of fact, fighting on the side of the CAR forces this time - a fact you can easily check by a quick search. Not to mention we cannot simply merge this into the other article, since they are two separate events - I appreciate the idea, but I am personally against it. It makes no sense, and there's nothing to back it up - these are 2 separate conflicts, with different parties involved in them (CPJP, UN was there in 2007, not now, etc) and nothing points to 1 article, as far as I'm concerned. They are connected, yes, but that is as far as we can go I'm afraid... Skycycle (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Skycycle, I have carefully collected the facts, checked them, and put the most relevant ones in the section that I prepended to your timeline beginning Dec 18. I understand that there was no fighting that you were aware of between what you consider the end of the Bush War and the beginning of the "new" rebellion. Therefore I ask you to consider the following facts to determine the dates when one ended and the other began:
The list goes on and on. These events of war simply do not support any fantasy that there was a peace between 2007 and 2012 in the CAR. Allegiances changed and ineffectual agreements were signed, but the fighting never stopped for long. I trust that your new awareness of these events allows you to agree that these are, in fact, one and the same conflict, and you do not need me to explain why the falsehood currently presented by its separation into two articles needs to be corrected.
If you are skeptical about the continuity of causes for fighting, I believe that a brief review of the links above will quickly show that the same themes continue: access to diamonds and other resources, Rounga vs. Goula and other ethnic rivalries, Chadian and other foreign interference.
Thanks in advance for your support in improving this topic! Keitsist (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Correction, Jun 2010 should read "CPJP attacks FACA, later agrees to negotiate" - http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/crisiswatch/crisiswatch-database.aspx?CountryIDs={09F69924-3E63-461D-96FE-A0B25D54EFEB}
I do not necessarily agree to this overly long list, but anyway let's put it to a vote then. A few accidents do not account for a full-blown continuation of the war. How come you have never ever picked this up until now, and the old Bush War article was sitting around for ages, but all of a sudden it's such a huge deal? Once again, I must say the situation has changed significantly from the Bush War, and does NOT warrant a merge of articles - the UN is out of the picture, the CPJP has split in two with 1 part supporting Bozize, he himself has supposedly rigged an election leading to this new crisis, France is not helping this time around, and so on. I think these are well enough to warrant against the possible merge of the articles, but if you want to vote on it, then by all means let's do it. In my opinion though, you are wasting our time instead of focusing on actually improving the article by, oh well let's say, including all what you've written above in a 'background' section or 'lead-up to rebellion' or whatever you want to call it... Skycycle (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
First, please do not take my comments personally. I see that you have put a great deal of effort into this article, and that you seem to be working in good faith to learn about the real events on the ground. However, I see that you have written exclusively about events after Dec 15 2012 and for this reason, and because you make several unsupported claims directly contradicted by the sources that I link to above, I suspect that you have not read about earlier events, and thus take my proposal to merge as a personal attack on your contribution.
Do I understand correctly that you are fundamentally asking two questions a) why do I (suddenly) care, and b) why don't I just add my above research? The Bush War article is weak in depth, clarity and temporal continuity, considering that it covers a complex multi-year armed conflict that continues to cost many real human lives and displace many more. I was not aware of this article until I looked up Sekele, but I intend to improve that article. Initially I considered contributing to the articles separately, but then realized that this cannot be done without deceiving the reader or duplicating an inordinate amount of content. The events that I listed above are undeniably a part of the Bush War, which did not end in 2007 or '08. These are not accidents, and characterizing them as such is to misconstrue what "full blown war" in the context of the Bush War was. By all accounts, fighting in CAR has always been sporadic -- to quote US embassy in Bangui, "chaotic groupings and erratic low-scale warfare [...] has characterized northern CAR for the last five years" (www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09BANGUI9, referring to 2003-2008). The FDPC reversal cited above underscores this. If ones understanding of the Bush War is limited to that WP article, then this misunderstanding is very natural, and actually underscores my point. These also lead directly into the present rebellion, without any abrupt qualitative change in any relevant component of the conflict that I am aware of. The changes that you cite are all inconsequential or false:
  • UN presence: If you mean MINURCAT, UNAMIS or UNAMID, which were sent to help Sudanese refugees/IDPs and post-CPA stability, then this is irrelevant because it was only marginally related to internal conflict in CAR. If you mean FOMAC, then you should note that they are involved now (and are not UN). If you mean the UN relief agencies that are evacuating, then I don't understand at all what you mean, as they came to CAR to deal with the effects of the war. If I'm leaving out some other UN involvement. Please elaborate about the change in UN presence you refer to.
  • CPJP split All of these groups splinter and merge frequently. To quote the US intelligence services, "It is thought that the CPJP is a combination of former Rounga UFDR fighters and potentially former Presidential Guard members who helped President Bozize to power in 2003 but who then found themselves alienated from Bangui" (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09BANGUI273). The CPJP's re-splitting and re-joining the UFDR and FACA does not make this a new conflict. This complexity is actually part of the reason the present article is unintelligible standing alone.
  • Bozize re-election: The president's announcement Dec 7 that he is considering changing the constitution to allow himself to run again next year (http://www.jeuneafrique.com/Article/JA2708p008_009.xml4/) may have contributed to the urgency of rebel antagonism, but only came months after CPJP renewed combat operations. Even if it contributed to the UFDR's return to combat (which is conjecture), it is merely an expectation of the future continuation of a primary grievance that has been driving the conflict since 2003. Bozizi was also re-elected back in 2011, but this did not coincide with the end of the Bush War or the start of the 2012 Rebellion. Please explain how either of these can be characterized as a discontinuity.
  • French non-involvement: The late-stage French airborne and aviation support contributed to bringing some of the belligerents to the negotiations in 2007, but others kept fighting. French military presence did not begin or end at the 2007 ceasefire. The one claiming that one country's involvement signals the end of a war has the burden to explain why this is so, and you have not done this. I can only point to the analogy of the Somali Civil War, which no reasonable editor would consider ended simply because the US became involved and then left again. The solution of breaking a long-running war into a series of articles on individual periods, battles and campaigns is a good one. By analogy, a "2012 UFDR re-defection" article could very productively be subordinated to a main "CAR Civil War" article.
  • Time, or lulls in fighting: The period of peace, as I have amply substantiated above, is a chimera. The list of events is not for you or any other third-hand observer to agree or disagree with. They are facts reported by major global news services and government agencies. I hope that you read them, but get the sense that you have not. This illusion -- stemming from a lack of knowledge -- is exactly why the articles need to be merged, because thousands of readers will reach this article because the current offensive is in the news, and if this article stands alone, they will be left with the false understanding that this particular series of battles is somehow unique or separate from nine years of war preceding it.
The differences that you cite are arbitrary. There are as many changes in CAR's politics in any five-year period as there are between 2007 and 2012.
If our goal here is simply to record recent facts from news stories then yes, what I am doing can be seen as wasting time. However, if we value factual accuracy and contextual depth then we must resist the urge to oversimplify reality and hide unfinished work because it is unappealing. I intend to contribute to the effort of creating a full and accurate account of this topic when the other editors prioritize overall quality of the encyclopedia over the appearance of individual articles. Until that happens, the current misleading structure is undermining everyone's effort.
I hope this answers your questions, and I hope that you take the care to answer mine. Keitsist (talk) 09:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Still don't agree with a multitude of things you said above, but since it's the 31st and some of us have lives, I will answer later. Keep in mind that I definitely will not read all of this, so if you wanna make a point next time, try and make it shorter. I am a bit pissed off, yes, and not because you will 'ruin my contribution', I've been on WP long enough to not get phased by stuff like that. It just bothers me that you seem to have turned this into a 'cause celebre', and yet NOONE has ever even mentioned this. It seems to me you are the one citing various random websites, many of which, dare I say, strike me as not very responsible (however, I agree that news from the CAR is probably always not the truth, just because of its remoteness). Still, the US embassy was referring to the period 2003-2008 as containing 'low-scale warfare', which includes the so-called 'Bush War' - so if that fighting was low-scale, how does the 4 years of a few skirmishes (no more than 15-20, judging from your list above) warrant a merge of articles or anything else? What you are trying to propose, is in essence Iraq, but without most of the defeated Sunni groups or the disbanded Shiite militias, without the US forces, a lower-lever of conflict, but since the attacks never stopped, let's just merge it with the Iraq war (2003-11) article, right? Wrong, since we have a separate article there, and a separate article for a number of comparable insurgencies or conflicts. I am saying this again - LET US VOTE ON IT, and if the vote is a resounding (or majority) yes, then by all means go ahead with your madness. Obviously we need Template:Merging, and you need to pay Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure a visit. Skycycle (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is my point, in short: I have brought logic and facts to the table. You readily admit that you refuse to read that and instead repeatedly make numerous unsupported and incorrect claims. Your resulting misunderstanding of the situation causes you to erroneously cling to a separate article. You announce your own willful ignorance and yet claim a better understanding of the history and accuse me of madness.
The articles that I cite above mostly originate from AFP, Reuters, US Dept of State, and UNOCHA. These are not random websites, and if you had made the effort to read the above, you would have known that.
With regard to the "low scale warfare," this is exactly my argument: in the CAR 2003-present fighting has always been sporadic and allegiances chaotic. This was true before and after the 2008 peace agreement, and every other event that you allege distinguishes the periods. The period currently covered by the Bush War article was not characterized by more consistent high intensity conflict. If you were to actually read some of that material you would see that CPJP controlled territory during much of that period, which is fundamentally different from a mere scattering of terrorist attacks.
I wish you a happy new year. Keitsist (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Since Keitsist invited me, I'll say my 2 cents.
I don't see any major difference between calling these conflicts two separate wars in the same sense that the First and Second Congo Wars, or the First and Second Sudanese Wars, are put into separate articles, even though their intros clearly indicate that the second stage is a direct continuation of the first. Farolif (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That's similar the solution that I proposed in the context of the Somalia analogy. The distinction in the Sudan case is that there were regime changes, CPAs that actually ended fighting, and new states created in between them, none of which happened in CAR. The bright line between Congo wars number one and two is Kabila's overthrow of Mobutu. Again, Bozize is still in Bangui. The point here is that one conflict did no precipitate another, but rather the "first" CAR war did not end when some people here are erroneously claiming that it did. Keitsist (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Until I see some sources that directly state that this conflict is a continuation of the Bush War. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • IRIN says it clearly: A "complex peace process ... has been under way since 2007." "[T]wo groups have signed peace deals with the government and were supposed to have laid down their arms." "This sudden resurgence of hostilities in northern CAR could jeopardize the peace process." (http://allafrica.com/stories/201212191172.html?viewall=1) Keitsist (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess my phrasing wan't very clear. I was looking for sources that state that the current conflict is part of the Bush War. Right now, I'm getting the sense that this is a separate conflict.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to expect the phrase "part of the Bush War" or anything similar. The term "Bush War" in reference to the CAR is an artifact of imperfect WP editing. It is not used in the context of the CAR anywhere in JSTOR, Project Muse or NewsBank. Please consider the reasons that I've listed above for why the description of the Bush War as a discrete event that ended in 2007 or 2008 is false. So far no one has responded to these, only given their "sense" based on the incorrect information in the Bush War article. Keitsist (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A few african news outlets are not gonna cut the trick IMO - let's see some links where the UN\Security Council\African Union\FOMAC or all of them CLEARLY state that the two conflicts are to be considered one - cause so far I haven't seen any of that. News agencies, of course, acknowledge the connection between them and the fact that one follows the other, but they also recognize that they are not one and the same. Skycycle (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that AFP or IRIN are "a few African news outlets" is so fundamentally misguided that they shouldn't be writing for public consumption at all. Also, you're confusing idioms. It's "do the trick" or "cut the mustard," but never "cut the trick." You're clearly more emotionally invested than intellectually knowledgeable in this topic, so I will leave this discussion at "good day, good sir." Keitsist (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Before continuing the discussion, I think we should move the article to 2012–2013 Central African Republic rebellion.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Go ahead. Keitsist (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alternative to merge? - Even if this conflict is part of the other one, do we really need to merge? Can't we just add "part of..." in this article's infobox and a summary of events to the article? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This conflict is a continuation (part of) of the previous but we need both articles. NickSt (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose I did read the links that were posted above, and while I do agree that fighting never stopped completely, that is rarely the case with any conflict nowadays. I agree with what the people above have said - even if the 2 conflicts are so inseparable, we have other options and a merge is not what is needed. Still, I believe the two are separate conflicts with enough differences to warrant separate articles - and even though some people attempted to debunk them, I think they are quite obvious - lack of French interference, UN forces no longer on the ground, resumption of hostilities based on the heavily rigged 2011 election, splinter groups within the rebels. In any case, I am against any merge of the article. Skycycle (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
leaning/weak oppose though i believe there are seperate events, arguements can be made on it being a "follow up" (hence the background section context), however instead of our personal opinions IF a RS suggests its the same thing (which i havent read yet) then its more warranted to merge instead of synthesis calls thereof. Also the article needs more context into WHY the conflict happened.(Lihaas (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)).
  • UN withdrawal myth Just to quickly debunk one bit of misunderstanding in this discussion: The only "UN Troops" that were in the CAR in recent memory was MINURCAT, which was focused entirely on the Darfur crisis, and stationed only to a small extent in north-eastern CAR (Birao) for a short period. It had a somewhat stabilizing effect on Birao and the immediate surroundings, but it was not meant to stabilize CAR, secure the peace agreement, etc. The peacekeepers left CAR even before Chad ordered it to leave its territory in 2010.

The only stabilization mission similar to a peacekeeping mission was led by ECCAS, known as MICOPAX. This mission succeeded the earlier PK mission known as FOMUC in 2008. It is extremely small and very weak though. The support from Gabon, Chad, RoC, and Gabon is presumably under the umbrella of the MICOPAX (and thus is an increase in peacekeeping forces if you will). Tony7444 (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony, for actually engaging with the factual history. Everyone else here seems happy to ignore the main editors' glaring ignorance of the situation that you described. The vehemence with which some editors resist historical accuracy is offputting. Bon chance, Keitsist (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The UN presence in Bangui has only been growing in recent years, especially since the establishment of the UN political mission BINUCA (http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/activities_by_region/africa/central_african_republic). The DDR process that started in 2009 was drawn out and lacked political support in CAR, and suffered from the ongoing conflict with CPJP and FPR, which were not signatories to the original peace accord. But this meant that UN engagement in the DDR process shifted from implementation back to political negotiation - not a lower level of engagement as such.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 08:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
A copy of this template can be found here

Rename

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I think a better nane for this article would be the Séléka Rebellion. Just like how the recent conflict in Congo-Kinshasa was named the M23 rebellion. Charles Essie (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

but then your proposal doesn't take into account the first 2-3 months of violent rebellion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.225.200.93 (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
You mean the first decade of violent civil war? These groups have been violently rebelling against Bozize since he took power in his own coup.Keitsist (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes but they didn't unite as "Séléka" until January of this year. Charles Essie (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? January? Did you even read this article? Keitsist (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Honest mistake, my arguement still stands though, a good title would be Séléka Rebellion or Séléka Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I support a move to "2013 Central African Republic coup d'état" or "2013 Central African coup d'état". A coup is what essentially all news sources are calling this. [1] [2] [3] [4] --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This not a coup d'état, as it was not the military that overthrew François Bozizé, it was a rebel group. Charles Essie (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ONE civilian casualty?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone update, or explain, this remarkable figure? The U.S. has all kinds of gee-whiz weapons of highly targeted destruction and we can't manage to attack a country without leaving a trail of innocent victims behind us. Can "3,000 heavily armed rebels" really fight their way into a town against a presumably nearly as dangerous opposition and really there aren't civilians dead by the hundreds or thousands? Wnt (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That count comes from the one reported death in the Nov 13 ambush. After that point it turned from banditry to rebellion and people stopped counting collateral damage. BTW, I hope you realize that "heavily armed" in this context means anything heavier than assault rifles and pangas. Comparing that to any kind of indirect fire, gee whiz or not, is not particularly instructive.Keitsist (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ended?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

As far as I can see, with the recognition of Djotodia as president by top military and police officers, the fall of Bozizé and the withdrawal of the SANDF, this conflict is practically over. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt there will be some kind of foreign intervention.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree. By November 2013 it was clear from many newspaper reports that the country had broken down into almost complete anarchy. It joined the list of "failed states" in the world. Probably foreign intervention is the only hope for vast numbers of the poor people in the CAR.SylviaStanley (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Tthere is another article for that. (like Egypt)(Lihaas (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).
Agree with Sylvia, the conflict has only entered a new phase but has most certainly not ended. And your example for Egypt is incorrect Lihaas. You have the overall conflict article in that case called the Egypt 2012-2013 protests, while the coup article you are referring to was a sub-article of that conflict, that is, only a phase of it. EkoGraf (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I don't agree with the rename. Normally a coup is understood as a sudden seizure of power, and a rebellion that ends with the capture of the capital ought to be simply classified as a rebellion, not a coup. I'm moving it back to the former title. Everyking (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Its being called coup all over the place. You cant name it per your likingLihaas (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Everyking. This article should be about the overall conflict in the CAR. The March event is called a coup Lihaas. Not the whole conflict. The March coup was only one phase in the overall conflict. If you want create an article dedicated solely to the March coup. But please don't make it look like the coup developed and lasted for a year when it happened only within a few days back in March. The conflict as a whole never ended, only entered into a new phase. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Split?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since the continuation of the conflict after Bozizé's fall has its own article, I suggest we move most content that relates to the post-Bozizé phase of the war to the main article and leave a briefer explanation of the following events in an aftermath section. The title says this article describes a phase of the conflict within a certain time phrame, and the article is already far longer than it optimally should be. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also propose an expansion of the conflict after Djotodia.(Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).
On second thoughts, lets wait to see how severe it gets. Its only been less than a week so far. If a month forom now i conitinued then we can create.(Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).
Removing the tag.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Christian-Muslim conflict

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 05:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Central_African_Republic_conflict_under_the_Djotodia_administration#Christian-Muslim_conflict(Lihaas (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)).

Rename as Conflict has continued past 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Apparently speedily moved. I didn't do it. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Central African Republic conflict (2012–13) → Central African Republic conflict (2012–present) – Discussion below. Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article needs to be renamed as it has continued beyond 2013. Either to Central African Republic conflict (2012–14), or to something like Central African Republic conflict (2012–??). But I'm not quite sure which is best, nor what is the correct procedure for renaming.Tlhslobus (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that should be obvious, its clearly gone into 2014. Dont know why you cant move the page to the above. Its not contested to move it.(Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).
  • Support Red Slash 01:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Support immediate move, ignoring the 7 days delay, as per WP:IAR, as move will clearly improve the encyclopedia, and nobody serious seems likely to oppose it. Does anybody know is there a proper technical way of doing it, or do we simply manually copy the article and Talk texts from the old article to the new one, and then replace the old article with a redirect to the new one? Maybe I should just read up on it. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've now checked and done what's necessary - because the redirect page which it's replacing had more than one line in its edit history, I had to add in a request for speedy deletion as instructed (manual copying is not an option, as that would mess up the edit history). Presumably it should now be quickly acted upon. Once that's done, we should check and if necessary amend the links from the Conflict under Djotodia article to the Post-djotodia section, but that should be easily done. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

>> Germany sees bigger military role in Africa (Lihaas (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)).

Casualties and losses

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The number of casualties for the government sounds ridiculous. They lost the country and only 20 soldiers was killed? Better to just write unknown if we have no good number.Reko (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename to "Central African Republic conflict (2012–15)"

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I propose that we rename this article since the war has kind of ended. It does say that it ended in 2015 on the infobox. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could agree with that too. If this ends up being a long break in the fighting and it starts all over again, we can discuss that when it happens. However, right now there is no fighting like there used to be. But I would also say that a better date for the end of the conflict is the ceasefire on 24 July, 2014, rather than 2015. JustBeCool (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Seconded, if anyone has any reason why it shouldn't be edited to ending on 24 July 2014 I'd urge them to share it now - we're two years on and nothing else has come up in talk about conflict restarting since then. I say it be edited in a week's time if nobody makes a convincing case to the contrary. --Eralam (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I've switched out the infobox dates but am unsure as to how to do the title - if anyone else knows how please do! Eralam (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Coup d'état chapter

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently I removed references with dead links, as well as toned down a few claims I found boastful and/or biased. If User:Keitsist wants to save those references, that's fine. But the section definitely needs an overhaul. Why exactly do you want to keep those dead links and clearly boastful formulations? (The SANDF forces of about 200 soldiers faced 3000 experienced armed rebels, by the time the rebels proposed a cease-fire they had lost 500 men to the 13 killed and 27 wounded of the SANDF vs. The SANDF claimed its force of about 200 soldiers faced 3000 experienced armed rebels, who by the time they proposed a cease-fire had lost 500 men to the 13 killed and 27 wounded of the SANDF.) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 13:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. User:HereAndSometimesThere has been inactive since her message here a week ago, and the other editors involved appear to be content with creation of a new article to resolve the issue, although of course the split cannot be mandated by this close. Dekimasuよ! 23:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


Central African Republic Civil War (2012–2014) → Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present) – Well, this has been discussed, and the article has been movedaround and returned to the same name However, now we are in 2018, the war continues, and the article has a section on what happened after 2015. We can not have an article on an ongoing war which has (2012–2014) in the title. I only see two options: (i) move to the new name showing that the war in ongoing; (ii) split the article, taking this section to a nwew article, smth like Central African Republic Civil War (2015–present). Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a good response to this at this moment, but I could in a few days (currently doing some research into the current conflict). I'm new to researching CAR but may be doing much more in future months. It's an enormously complex set of conflict involving several groups, and it's understandable that it's hard to determine where one conflict ends and another begins. It says this will close in a day or so, and I would hate to drag this out. If I find more information in the next week which offers some solid advice on whether to split this article or keep it united, would it be appropriate to re-open this request? rachel (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I guess unless the participation here magically increases overnight, the decision is unlikely to be taken until the end of next week.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur with the nominator that the article should either be moved or split as s/he describes above. I marginally prefer a split. —  AjaxSmack  00:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename article

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

There was a discussion earlier about what to do with the fact that there is still a conflict and the heading says '(2012-2014)'. There was not an enthusiastic response but it was decided to split the article. However, nothing in sources call for a conflict that ended on the rather arbitrary date of 2014 and a new one beginning in 2015. I think what is most supported by the sources right now is to change the title of this article to '(2012-present)'. JustBeCool (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I already split the article after the above RM failed.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
The new one is here: Central African Republic Civil War (2015–present)--Ymblanter (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I already know the article was split. The point being made is that nothing in the sources call for a conflict that ended on the rather arbitrary date of 2014 and for a new one to begin in 2015. What is most supported by the sources as of now is to change the article's name to 2012-present rather than split the article. JustBeCool (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The RM above failed, and I could not do anything else other than split the article. Sorry.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The RM above was asking to either move entire article or move it to two different articles. Only one user answered the request as supporting either option but 'marginally' supporting a split. That is hardly consensus, but you decided to split the article. I brought a new RM. JustBeCool (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Merges can't be mandated through move requests and a close of this type would force the editor closing the move request to handle the merge (see WP:DEMAND). If there is consensus for a merge and the merge takes place, please feel free to contact me to move the page to the more inclusive title or use WP:RMTR at that time. Dekimasuよ! 20:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Central African Republic Civil War (2012–2014) → Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present) – Nothing in sources call for a conflict starting on the rather arbitrary date of 2015 after the end of another. There was one ceasefire in the year 2014 but it ended up being one of many. What is most supported by the sources right now is to change the title of this article to '(2012-present)' as the sources refer to a single conflict, one dating back to 2012. JustBeCool (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 18:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a move to a new name. If there is a move, then there would also be a merge with the other article. JustBeCool (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It should be done in reverse order, though, shouldn't it? —  AjaxSmack  18:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - if this move occurs and "2012-present" becomes a page, maybe the "2012-2014" and "2015-present" pages should become Timeline pages (with a "Timeline" page that's split into the current year ranges)? Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Merge proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge JustBeCool (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

As discussed from above, it was advised that the articles need to be merged before this article can be moved to a new title. With the same reasoning as above, the sources do not call for a separate conflict that starts in 2015 and so this is a proposal that the article Central African Republic Civil War (2015–present) merge with this article, which can then be moved to "Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present)". JustBeCool (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. That article should be merged too. Charles Essie (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing appears to clearly support division into separate topics, except perhaps an optimism which was sadly disappointed. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 22:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Support agree entirely with Applodion as well. Events of 2014 could be far more easily interpreted as a mere stage in the conflict, rather than and end. BmickP (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2018 (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.


Requested move 3 October 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. JustBeCool (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Central African Republic Civil War (2012–2014) → Central African Republic Civil War (2012–present) – As per the discussions above, nothing in sources call for a conflict starting on the rather arbitrary date of 2015 after the end of another. There was one ceasefire in the year 2014 but it ended up being one of many. What is most supported by the sources right now is to change the title of this article to '(2012-present)' as the sources refer to a single conflict, one dating back to 2012. It was mentioned above that the merge should be done first before the move and the merge is now successful. JustBeCool (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Support, absolutely, it should have been done ages ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Support per reasoning above. Applodion (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Support, article title should accurately represent the nature of the topic. ▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_African_Republic_Civil_War/Archive_1&oldid=1145999001"