Talk:Anglophone Crisis

Article Bias
Looking in the month of October 2018 with the elections, the article claims all violence was perpetrated by the separatists when numerous news outlets would argue otherwise Guardian, NYT, and CNN. I added a small blurb already because this is laughable to say only one side has committed the violence (especially when the blamed side is the one being protected by several news medias). Bgrus22
 * I'm sorry, but after reading through your source a couple of times, I can't see anything that supports the claim that the government tried to suppress the voter turnout. I changed it to "the central government committed acts of violence of its own", to underline that the violence before and during the election was mutual. As the one who wrote that section (and most of this article), I did not intend for it to imply that the separatists alone were responsible for the violence, and I appreciate your effort to balance it. I am doing my best to keep the article as neutral as possible, and I appreciate any help in that regard. An unbiased article is my honest aim. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You know what, you are right that calling it voter suppression is wrong; but there are numerous sources that detail violence from the government during the lead up to the campaign. To give you To that I think would be worth adding in addition to the one I tried previously CNN and NYT would be more than ample to talk about violence leading up to elections. Also in terms of the hospital fire mentioned in the California Review article the rebel statement should be added explaining how the security force presence makes attribution to them a stretch at best. Thanks for the feedback, I hope that this will help the section in some way! Bgrus22(talk) 3/16/2019
 * The paragraph about the elections starts off by mentioning that the conflict had escalated, which includes violence from the government. I'm not sure what to add there. Regarding the Kumba hospital incident, it's mentioned at Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2019). I made a small alteration to include the separatists' claim:  In Kumba, unidentified arsonists put a hospital on fire, leading to the death of at least four people. The Cameroonian Army blamed separatists,[24] while separatists[25] and some eye witnesses claimed the army burned down the hospital after learning that separatist fighters were being treated there.[26] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the line "separatists moved to prevent what they considered a foreign election to take place in Ambazonia" is where I see the most trouble with that paragraph. It is an allegation from the Biya government to be sure that should be included (I believe mentioned in the NYT article I use here). I hope the small alterations to the 2 sentences I just did work better than the previous addition I made, and that the additional citations are fine. Bgrus22(talk) 3/17/2019
 * Are you saying that the separatists did not try to boycott the election? Because that's not merely a claim by the Cameroonian government. Either way, I'm glad that the paragraph now clearly reflects that both sides blamed each other for the violence. Perhaps the election time violence could warrant a separate article some day, when more has been written about it (preferably by scholars). Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that violence appeared to be the cause of low voter turnout, not an organized boycott via civil society. The source of this violence is up for debate and I would not want either side being unheard; both for the sake of unbiased articles and so that factions are accountable when revaluations are made regarding the source of said violence. Glad I could be of some small amount of help though! Bgrus22(talk) 3/18/2019

Name
I realize this article probably needs a more NPOV name. Suggestions, anyone? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * G'day Mikrobølgeovn some medias called the conflict "Anglophone Crisis" ,,, , , , , and more. Maybe that is more neutral name. CPA-5 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I also saw "Coffin Revolution" somewhere, though I can't figure out where. I just hope we can avoid a made-up name like "Insurgency in Southern Cameroons (2017-present)". I'm fine with Anglophone Crisis, although this is moving in the direction of a full-blown war of independence. By the way, I very much doubt that my writing is neutral, and I hope others will get involved with this article. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, we indeed could make a made-up name like "Insurgency in Southern Cameroons (2017-present)". However the media call the conflict the "Anglophone Crisis" so it have already a name now. Plus about the "Coffin Revolution" i think they mean about the protests way before the conflict start in 2016 and 2017 which became violent and armed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! :) --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anglophone Crisis seems fine for now, since that is what several English language sources are calling it.XavierGreen (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

War crimes section
I'm skeptical of this section in its current form as it is heavily biased. A complete list of attrocities would be one thing, but as of right now it's just cherry-picking a couple of incident out of many. I think we need more information before we can write that chapter, and when we do, it should focus on both sides. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I strongly disagree, on the basis that this article is about the military conflict, while 2016–2017 Cameroonian protests is - as the name states - about the preceding protests. We can have a chapter about the protests in the "background" section, but the articles address two distinct subjects and should be kept separate. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article on the protests states that the event is "ongoing" and this article on the crisis does not mention background and causes. I think it would be better if both were fused. Lord Mota (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, both were categorized as "civil wars" (see categories of 2016–2017 Cameroonian protests). Lord Mota (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the protest article can deal with events that happened before this became a military conflict? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 06:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Libyan Civil War (2011) and the Syrian Civil War began with protests that evolved into a military conflict, but we did not have articles for the protests.


 * This article is very incomplete, does not mention the causes and background, if there is a merger we would have a more complete article. Additionally, this article has the title "Anglophone Crisis", so the protests are part of this crisis.--Lord Mota (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about a military conflict. I'm not against having a chapter about the protests (in fact, I would welcome it), but we should definitely keep an article about the military conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio details
See the copyvio report here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=846695688&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I imported that chapter from the Southern Cameroons article, shortening it down a little bit in the process. As the edit history shows, that article has been around since 2006. I am almost 100% positive that those websites copied Wikipedia, not the other way around. By all means, simply delete the chapter from both articles if I am wrong. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes on closer examination I think you are right, those pages copied wikipedia. So I've removed the copyvio tags. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

POV
I think it is great when users with different opinion get involved, as we can mutually highlight each other's biases and together make this article as neutral as possible. However, we must all strive to be neutral to the best of our ability. While I am doubtlessly guilty of unconsciously letting my biases affect my writing, you may note that I previously removed a section about war crimes because it focused solely on war crimes committed by the Cameroonian side. Regardless of whatever personal sympathies I may have, I want a neutral article. Your recent editing history speaks of a different attitude: Please consider this an olive branch. I can't write a neutral article alone, and I definitely need someone to check my biases. Let's work together with neutrality as a common goal. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You changed the name "Federal Republic of Ambazonia" to "Virtual Republic of Ambazonia".
 * You have several times added information that is not supported by the sources (on this article and on the Ambazonia article), such as "On May 24, 30 secessionists were killed when Cameroonian forces stormed a hotel in the town of Pinyin were secessionists plan attacks", and "There is also reported violence on children, rape and murder on civil population just because they are french-speaker or suspected to not support secession". While the claims may be true, they must be supported by reliable sources.
 * EDIT: For the record, I agree with your edits on Anglophone Cameroonian and (for the most part) History of Cameroon. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Renaming
"Anglophone Crisis" is the most commonly used name of this conflict, i.e. a proper name. "Anglophone crisis" can refer to the concept of an Anglophone crisis, i.e. any crisis involving Anglophones. Military conflicts are commonly capitalized (see Suez Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Syrian Civil War, etc.) I think the page should be moved back to the capitalized title. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Troop Strength
The 1,000 figure for the number of Amazonian estimates is from a reliable source, as such it should remain in the article. If there are other estimates out there from reliable sources feel free to post them as well. Exact information regarding troop numbers is not always available, and it is often the case that multiple estimates or a range is placed in the article and infobox rather than one specific number. See for example Battle_of_Thermopylae, Battle of Karbala, Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My objection is that there is so much uncertainty in the air. The ADF claims to have 3,500 fighters under their command. The Tigers alone claim to have 2,000. Are the Tigers considered loyal to the ADF? To what extent are the rebels united under a single political leadership? How many are fighting for themselves, without being part of the ADF? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * EDIT: By the way, thanks for contributing - this article has not exactly been a center of attention since its creation, and I really appreciate your involvement. I didn't mean to be a dick by removing your edits. How about a chapter about Ambazonian troop strength, and a see bellow link in the infobox? Would that be acceptable to you? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A section on the troop strength would be fine, but i think it would also be appropriate to list all three numbers in the infobox with a notation stating where each figure is coming from. Its fairly common for rebel groups to give inflated estimates of their troops strength, but given the growing strength and rapid expansion of the insurgency its likely that the 1,000 figure is currently an underestimate. Regardless of how its presented, all of the available information should be included somehow in the article so that the reader can see all "sides of the story" and follow the NPOV guidelines.XavierGreen (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictures, anyone?
This article definitely needs pictures. I've been looking online, and there are plenty of photos in newspaper articles, but I can't find anything marked with a creative commons license. If anyone can dig up something, it would be most appreciated. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Change name to 'Ambazonia War'?
I won't move the article without support from other users, and I concede it may be a bit early still, but I thought I'd raise a suggestion anyway. "Ambazonia War" gives more than 5,000 hits on Google, which is admittedly far less than the 628k hits for "Anglophone Crisis", but this has long ceased to be merely a "crisis" - this is a full-blown separatist war. "Crisis" usually refers to conflicts that threatened to explode into something far worse, but were solved before it spiralled out of control (such as the Suez Crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Cypriot S-300 crisis). By now, it's clear that this did not happen in the case of Cameroon. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think for it to count as war, not as insurgency or crisis, the rebels have to hold substantial territory. Is that the case? The situation on the ground seems rather confused, with claims and counter-claims by rebel and government forces. Applodion (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. From what I understand, the rebels move around and don't control the same territory over time. However, they have occasionally seized some towns (they briefly held Belo and Balikumbat), and a journalist who spent time with the rebels claimed that they controlled a "surprisingly large amount of land" around the base he visited (and this was back in June.) (Link) Although there is a lot of contradictory information out there, I think we can say for sure that this looks like a typical guerilla war. One more thing: While I obviously can't prove it, I do suspect that journalists tend to name the conflict whatever it's been named on Wikipedia. If we rename it, I dare guess that we'd see "Ambazonia War" replace "Anglophone Crisis" in some future news stories. While "Anglophone Crisis" being the most common name in the media does hold some merit as an argument, I don't think it matters that much. (Then again, I don't trust myself to be unbiased, which is why I asked for opinions.) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well, I think "Ambazonia Rebellion/Insurgency" would be better, but that would have no grounding in the sources. We should take a name the newspapers and co. usually use, regardless whether they are inspired by Wikipedia or not - it is simply policy. I have to say that I consider "war" still a bit extreme, but crisis does indeed seem no longer fitting. I would thus lean toward supporting your proposal to move it to "Ambazonia War". I am still unsure, however, so perhaps you should wait a bit for other editors to also give their opinions. Applodion (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's wait a bit. Thanks for your input! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Long-term plan for this article
The timeline model is flawed for many reasons, and is only meant to be temporary. Over time, I hope to move the timelines to separate articles for each year (such as Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2017), Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2018), and so on) and replace them with summaries. However, this will have to wait until there are more in-depth sources to rely on, which unfortunately there is not a lot of as of right now. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Mikrobølgeovn I think the timeline isn't necessary because it takes too much room in the article. The current size is 193 kb which is too much and should be spilt. In WP:TOOBIG says that an article above 100 kb is "almost certainly should be divided". Which is good enough to split in timeline(s). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. I've created timelines for 2017 and 2018, and I'll start writing summaries to replace the timelines in this article. I'll keep them in a Word document until they are ready, and leave the article as it is until then. This might take a while, but hopefully the article will soon look presentable. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Mikrobølgeovn happy to hear about that. Take your time we've here all the time we need. Also about the article, I think we can make it a B-class, but there are some little issues if you want to make it a B-class. Like there is some work with the citations like in the background there are here and there gaps without refs. There are also some English usage differences. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the heck out of the article, and created five new articles in the process (Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis, Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2017), Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2018), Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2019) and International reactions to the Anglophone Crisis) . The article is still 85,599 bytes large, which IMO is still way too big. The 2018 section definitely still needs some trimming, and at the current rate the 2019 section will end up just as large. Unfortunately, it is really hard to decide what should be kept and what can be left to the timelines. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good question. Maybe we can remove the background a little bit. Why? Because if we have the Ambazonia § History's link, then I don't think it is necessary to have a background if the people can open the link and read it in the link's article. But if we do that then I suggest to not remove the events which are not included in the Ambazonia § History's link, like the 2007 raid of the Ambazonian rebels. This can be a solution to this problem. What do you think this is just an opinion of mine? Then the prelude can be the background. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried trimming the "Background" section a little bit. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any more sections that can simply be moved to a sub-article; I considered making a separate article for the "Strategy" section, but ended up not doing it. I'll hover over the article some time, and try to remove something here and there. Anyway, do you think the article is anywhere near B-class material now? I would of course love to see it classified as such. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article is fine for now. Maybe in the future if it has major expansions then it should split again but for now I think we are okay. Yes I think it is a C-class and almost a B-class. Only problem we have here is the citations at every end of a sentence or paragraph should have a citation with the supported claim in it. In the background it has a lot of gaps without citation the note has also no citation. In a B-class review is this important because without this it is WP:OR further more there are not really a lot of major problems. There are some little issues like English grammer differences or overlinks or even in the references has some smaller issues but those issues are not needed for B-class. They are needed if you are making this article to at least a GA-class. I also hope it would stay B-class because most ongoing conflicts get baraly B-class because they get a lot of attention from the people. The people also put claims without citation or vandals are vandalising with the article or even false propoganda news get in the conflict's article which is not our goal. But it supprised me that they're not here even this conflict get so much attention in the media. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of the citations link to short online newspaper articles - if I add quotes to every citation, the article would grow tenfold :P I'll try to reinforce the "Background" section with additional sources. I'm also thinking about writing an article about the arrest and trial of the Ambazonian leadership, we'll see what comes of that. Cheers! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Former Prime Ministers of Southern Cameroons.png

Web archive
I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policy regarding links to the web archive in the footnotes - specifically, whether they are mandatory or not. While they may be practical in some cases, the vast majority of footnotes in this article are links to online newspaper articles. This article is about recent events, rendering it impossible to rely on a few books as sources and forcing us to use heaps of newspaper articles. Conscious of the fact that this takes up a lot of space, I have used a quite minimalistic format for the references (Article name, newspaper, publication date, access date). Your edit added 27,654 bytes to the article, increasing its size to 120k, well above the 100k "limit". Would it be okay is we limit inclusion of links to the web article to sources containing dead links? From what I can see, there is only one dead link in the references section. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Feel entirely free to undo my edit, and thank you for checking. Wiki-policy strongly recommends "backing up" all web links by archiving them, but it is not mandatory - see WP:LR. And the last thing I want to do is to leave another editor feeling that I have messed around with an article which they have committed a lot of time to. Note that the 100k "limit" is for "Readable prose is the main body of the text, excluding material such as footnotes and reference sections ("see also", "external links", bibliography, etc.), diagrams and images, tables and lists, Wikilinks and external URLs, and formatting and mark-up." See WP:AS. On this basis the article is currently at 35K, well under even the 40k suggestion.


 * FWIW I consider this to be a fine article; have you considered submitting it to WP:MHAR for a B-class review? Or even a GAN? If you do nominate it for GA, feel free to give me a ping and I will probably, but not certainly, assess it. To close, feel free to undo, but maybe have a look at the two Wiki-pages above first? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I should have checked WP:LR before starting this thread. If the references don't count on the advisory "limit" on article length, I see no reason to undo your edit.


 * I have followed your advice and submitted it to WP:MHAR for a review. I guess we shall see whether you are right or too generous :) Thanks again. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * See? Get it in for GAN! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Just did! Let's see how this goes. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Bakassi
What is the relation of the above conflict to that on this page? Thanks. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Apart of ambazonia Brek1234567 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:COMMONNAME (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Anglophone Crisis → ? – The title of the article is quite outdated. This has long ceased to be just a "crisis", it has become a complete separatist war. The title needs to reflect the reality of the situation: Ambazonia War or Cameroonian Civil War are more appropriate names. Fontaine347 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have raised this previously for the exact same reasons. However, the proposal is likely to get scuttled by WP:COMMONNAME (a norm that has metamorphosed into a rigid Holy Law that triumphs WP:COMMONSENSE). Until Google search results for "Ambazonia War" has caught up with "Anglophone Crisis", we can probably forget about it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To call what is happening in Cameroon a "crisis" is an understatement: battles, military operations, massacres, etc. this is definitely a civil war. "Crisis" is something that hasn't turned into a war yet. --Fontaine347 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I agree that "Anglophone Crisis" is not the greatest name, we should not forget that such naming has long precedents; for example, the "Malayan Emergency" and "Suez Crisis" are still called "emergency" and "crisis" despite being large-scale wars. Applodion (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Anglophone Crisis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Anglophone Crisis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "theguardianjan122022": From Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis (2022):  From Operation Bamenda Clean:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Split into several articles?
This article is already way too long, and I wonder if separate articles could replace the timeline section (they could be named Anglophone Crisis in 2017, 2018, 2019, and so on). Although these would largely overlap with Timeline of the Anglophone Crisis, I believe their existence would be juswtified; while these new articles would be articles, the timelines are mostly databases. Comments, anyone? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the mass transfer of content from the Ambazonia article to this one. As Mikrobølgeovn stated, this page is already too long, and should not suffer from further bloat; additionally, the recently moved content is largely concerned with the development of the idea of Ambazonia - which should be discussed in the Ambazonia article, and only be summarized in the insurgency article. Applodion (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Anthropology of Violence
— Assignment last updated by RiverScullerPDX (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Additions to the article
 * section on the human dimension of the conflict: human dimension of Anglophones and human dimension of Anglophones
 * Possible outcomes of the crisis (killing of all separatists/ethnic cleansing, crisis turning into a full on genocide, war between all parties involving outside countries supporters)
 * Possible solutions: federalization, separation of both parties (very unlikely), peaceful mediation via religious entities to meet the needs of both parties- here add in details the previous failed attempts of peacemaking and how to improve them.
 * Dtalla (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

"Emotionality" WP:SYNTH
Just removed a whole weird thicket of fairly obvious WP:SYNTH concerning "emotionality". Here is the difference. The sources linked don't seem to have anything specific to do with the Anglophone crisis whatsoever, but rather seem to be articles about emotions in general from a psychological standpoint which are employed as a springboard to accuse one side or the other of being more emotional. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dtalla PLEASE stop adding WP:SYNTH to this article. Tdmurlock (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)