Talk:Bakassi/Archive 1

History section
Partisans keep changing the "History" section completely to make it sound like either Cameroonians or Nigerians settled Bakassi first or that the British or Germans colonized it first. Until someone cites a source, I am removing the section. — BrianSmithson 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Errors
The author is this piece has offered no sources to the information sited and has characterized Nigeria's position in this matter as one of aggression, revealing a clear violation of the NPOV policy. He's even gone as far as suggesting Calabar, once the capital of modern Nigeria, is originally Cameroonian.

A cursory search using google will point out many of the flaws in his piece, such as Bakassi having no monarch. Though his lists the Efik names of Bakassi geagraphy, he nevertheless insits the aborigines of bakassi are Oroko. On so important an issue, the author of this article should get his information from more than 2 years of experience as a peace corper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obongg (talk • contribs).
 * What are you talking about? I'm assuming that I am the "peace corper" you are referring to, but if you check the article history, you will find that my only contributions to this article have been to revert vandalism, remove obviously biased comments, and to add the "Resolution" section (which I wrote today based on an allAfrica article). The main article was written on 28 April 2004 by User:ChrisO and has since been altered numerous times by various anonymous contributors. Please do not make widespread allegations of bias, as you have made against me. I have had very little to do with this article.
 * Secondly, if you feel the article is biased, put a template on it and explain your problems here. — BrianSmithson 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments, this "peace corper" went through the article's history and found many, many edits made by anonymous IPs that changed the article to be the "propaganda" against which you wrote. I have reverted to a much earlier version of the article (but one that still does not cite any sources) that seems much more balanced in my view. However, because I am an obviously biased "peace corper", you may very well disagree. You know, because I'm obviously biased and only a two-year "peace corper" and all. (All animosity aside, it seems this article's main problem was that no one was watching it. If articles don't have guardians who monitor them and check every little change, they can quickly degrade, as this one did.) — BrianSmithson 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

sovereignty
The article says that sovereignty was transferred to Cameroon, wouldnt it be more correct to say that it was a part of Cameroon that was occupied by Nigeria? (an unrecognised annexation by Nigeria?) Every map I can see shows it as part of Cameroon, even old ones --Astrokey 44 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BBC News article
This implies that the handover has now actually taken place. 86.143.51.27 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)