Talk:Ambazonia

Flag

Does the current Ambazonian state (region) have a flag? What about the prior independent state? Or the movement for secession? If anyone knows could they add them to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.103.238 (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

On another and completely unrelated flag note their website uses a completely different flag than the one shown in the article. https://ambazonia.org/en/about/the-flag Flalf (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure that organization updated their website to republicofambazoniagov.org. That would most likely explain the outdated copyright. Kxeon (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed major overhaul

One thing that would help me: can you concisely explain, in a neutral way, your concerns about inaccuracy on the current page? I think part of the issue is that "Ambazonia" is used to refer to two different things, and it appears that you are supporting one of those interpretations and take objection to the other. Is this correct? Please briefly explain the dispute, and I'd be happy to help you. My reverts are not at all anything personal, it's just that we can't allow people to remove functional articles and replace them with unformatted text, but we editors are all certainly very interested in making sure each article is accurate, formatted, and tells "all sides of the story". MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, Thanks for the feedback. I am the Ambazonian Consul General and the information am presenting about Ambazonia (which is directly from Government of Ambazonia website) is the only correct information you will ever get about Ambazonia. First all, the current version says Ambazonia or AmbazAnia refers to two entities. This is complete falsehood as there is nothing like AmbaZania. AmbazAnia was just a ploy by the colonial gov't of Cameroun to confused our people and it has died a natural dead. Search for yourself. The author again went on to say the name was first used in 1984, which is total see lies. ( see google books: Imperialistic Politics in Cameroun: Resistance & the Inception of the Restoration of the Statehood of Southern Cameroons by Carlson Anyangwe page 60, third paragraph. Furthermore, Ambazonia is the name of a country once referred to as the United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, which has been annexed and colonized by Cameroun Republic. So Ambazonia is NOT a pressure group. The author also referred you the proclamation of independence of AmbazAnia Republic. If you ever find such a proclamation, you let me know. Meanwhile, you take look at the Proclamation formalizing the Independence of Ambazonia on my own version.Dejongt (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries; nothing personal was meant by the previous reversions, we just need to keep things running smoothly which requires proper formatting, a variety of references to show all sides of the story, and clear communication between all interested parties. Nobody "owns" any Wiki article, so it causes a hassle when people try to pull things in one direction without explaining why. I will look over the reference you mention on GoogleBooks (excellent method for wiki-debate, by the way, as a good clear citation is far better than just stating claims), and see what needs to be done. If I don't get back to you in, say, three days, please hit my Talk button and send me a reminder. Do bear in mind that even "false claims" do need to be documented on Wiki, so if the Cameroonian government says X and your group says Y, we need to report both of those, and the reader can assess all the facts in the article to come to their own conclusion. I agree the term "pressure group" appears biased; I will correct that to a more neutral "advocacy group" until I can ascertain the external academic/journalistic consensus as to the status of your group. Again, please do not interepret any of this as opposed to you; I can hardly find Cameroon on a map and have no dog in this fight, but instead understand it as editors working very hard to maintain neutrality and credibility. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not know how else to make you understand "Ambazonia" is NOT a group of whatever cardinality. Ambazonia is the name of a country currently annexed by Cameroun, just as Palestine is a country currently occupied by Israel. I think if you refer to Palestine as an Advocacy Group, then may be even Yasser Arafat will resurrect from the dead and come after you. So just as there groups in Palestine fighting to liberated that country from Israeli occupation, there also groups in Ambazonia fighting to liberate that country from Cameroun occupation. If you refer to Ambazonia Restoration Council as an advocacy group, then I don't have a problem with but to refer to a whole country as an advocacy group is treasonable.Dejongt (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Crafting a new intro paragraph

Suggestion: how about here on the Talk page you write up what you feel the introductory paragraph of the article should be. Again, you'll want to apply WP:Footnotes verifying each statement, and they have to be from reputable/neutral sources. "So says the Amabazonian counsel" is not a footnote, "VivaAmabazonia.blogspot.com" is not a footnote. What is a footnote is (fictional examples): "John Smith. Post Colonial Struggles in Western African. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Pg 13, 15" or "Sarah James. The Dark History of a Cameroonian Struggle. New York Times, 14 April 2002." If you post such a thing here on Talk, and the references are reliable and the summarisation thereof accurate, I will happily replace the current intro with that, and then we can proceed on the rest of the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ambazonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060620131703/http://ambazonia.indymedia.org/ to http://ambazonia.indymedia.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

To me, this article reads more like an advocacy piece than a neutral article. It is almost completely unsourced, which is a concern in itself. The content is very far from Neutral, presenting a single, and partisan, viewpoint on the issue. It's full of original research and synthesis. It has multiple, long-standing, tags that haven't been addressed. I note that our article is the top Google search hit for the topic [1] so it's important what we're presenting is respectable. I'd be interested in other editors' thoughts. I've also posted this query here, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Ambazonia. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I should have added; the, few, reports on this issue that I can find, e.g. this [2] indicate that it is obviously an ongoing, sensitive and controversial area which needs careful handling on here. All the more reason for needing a Neutral article. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@KJP1: The issue appears to be one of genuine political/historical interest, but unfortunately most of the page contributors are soapboxing rather than adding neutral, cited content. The page averages 170 views/day over the last year, so it's a page worth putting at least some effort into. I first dealt with this page back in 2010 or so, and its issues today are pretty much the same POV issues we had then. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fwiw I've posted a message soliciting input at WPAFRICA as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You have to sort through a bunch of non-RS sources, but GoogleNews does have some reputable coverage of the current flare-up mentioned in the article, so we can replace the allegations with cited content. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Controversy

I have followed the controversy over the Ambazonia subject with keen attention. First, I'd like to say that to find credible neutral sources on this matter will probably take us another year or more because he subject is quite a new one and very sensitive. Ambazonia is almost a "taboo" word for most Camerounians because of the repression that is likely to follow anyone who openly uses the term. This is mostly because the Republic of Cameroun, against whom the former British Southern Cameroonians (now self-styled Ambazonians) are fighting to restore their independence, reads the name Ambazonia as a threat to the former's territorial integrity. Among the Academia, the terms Anglophone Cameroon, Southern Cameroons or British Southern Cameroons have all been used to refer to the same entity now openly called Ambazonia (openly so because of the recent developments that I think were quite explained in the article). So it will be almost impossible to find any resources that expressly use the term Ambazonia from a perspective as neutral as this platform demands.

From a Camerounian perspective, Ambazonia does not exist. It is only a name claimed by so-called "terrorists" or "secessionists" to destabilize the "sovereignty" of Cameroun. The Republic of Cameroun believes that former British Cameroons/Southern Cameroons freely decided to become part of La Republique du Cameroon in a plebiscite in 1961. They do not see this event as a "unification" but a "reunification" given that the two territories were once governed by Germany as one territory of German Kamerun before 1916. It is important to note that most of this argument has been made in the commons and not mostly within academic spaces for the same reasons as I earlier stated. However, the following resources may be of help in addressing this conundrum: The Sinking Ship: A Critical Analysis of Multiculturalism in Postcolonial Cameroon by Blessed Ngoe, Political Evolution of Cameroon 1884-1961 by V.J Ngoh, History of Cameroon Since 1800 by V.J Ngoh, Cameroon Educational System from Godwin Gham, The Reunification Question in Cameroon History: Was the Bride an Enthusiastic or a Reluctant One? by Fru N Awasum, Whatever Happened to Cameroons Reunification? by J. Ndifor.

I hope these help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efilo (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

De facto existence

In addition to what the user KJP1 asked, do separatists control any piece of territory? If they do, then how many people reside there?

If the actual separatists’ control within the claimed territory extends to less than ∼ 100 people, then there is no state but a secessionist movement. In such case all geography, economy, (general) history etc. stuff should be moved out of here to legitimate places, and the article has to be trimmed/rewritten to describe a purely proposed state. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

They don't control anything but of course want to claim otherwise. It's definitely a secessionist movement (and from personal experience a dying one). 66.244.238.92 (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hanno the Carthaginian was European?

Carthaginians were North Africans of Phoenician descent, no? How does Hanno's voyage count as European contact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurlebatte (talk • contribs) 06:32, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I've looked at this and you seem to be correct, he was Carthaginian and yeah that's not european. I'll fix this now. On a side not I'm changing his title to "the Navigator" as everywhere else they referred to him as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The reference was a fake it only had the letter "a". This wouldn't have been very significant anyway because in the 5th century BCE there wasn't a very large technological difference between the Carthaginians and the natives.. Even more importantly, they called it contact, but there is no record of him going to shore or communicating with the locals. So I removed the section. Flalf (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Why should he be counted as European? I have no idea if and to which extend Phoenician intermarried with locals around Carthago, but if, he was Phoenician, who were people from what is now Syria / Lebanon. Their language was Phoenician, thus Semitic something close to early old Hebrew, heir religion was semitic, culture... Kipala (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Seal of Ambazonia.png

File:Seal of Ambazonia.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I've just read the lead to this article and it is one of the least neutrally worded I've seen, with a very clear bias towards the separatists. It seems similar concerns were raised in 2018 (see #Neutrality), so I've added the neutrality template. It's clear this is an ongoing dispute, and the notability of it is not in question, but it is important that such conflicts are covered from a neutral point of view. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, there’s definitely work to be done here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, might require a complete overhaul. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Written by the separatists, according to comments above. Secretlondon (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

August 2021 overhaul

Based on some of the comments above and my own review, over the past few days I have undertaken a fairly comprehensive overhaul this article, aiming to remove POV, uncited, and contradictory material and to streamline and add reliable citations where possible. Based on some prior authors' misuse of web sources, I was fairly skeptical of earlier book citations I could not verify but I did leave a number in where I at least found the book exists and the proposition it was supporting was not particularly POV or otherwise controversial based on my review of other sources.

Full disclosure, I am very far from a specialist in African history or politics and knew essentially nothing about this coming in (I came to this article to learn about it) but I do have some familiarity with colonial and independence-era topics. I hope the citations make clear but for the general narrative I mainly relied on the UN, HRW, Amnesty, and Crisis Group reports. For the rest, I tried to be transparent with the inline citations where I found news or scholarly sources on point. Additional reliable sources on the plebiscite and Foumban constitution were particularly challenging; a review of French-language sources could be another good next step for someone with the language skills as much of the published historical work in English has a pro-Anglophone slant. Thanks in advance for fixing anything I broke and please let me know if you have comments or criticisms you'd like to discuss or for whatever reason you don't want to change yourself. - InspectorTiger (talk) 01:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@InspectorTiger: Very well. Although I'm not sure that the Historical background and context is needed to summarize redundant information. Likely C-class or even B-class now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I initially did that as a stop-gap to incorporate information that was previously in the overlong lede while I reworked the rest of the article. I will take a stab at moving/removing that info. InspectorTiger (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Fix infobox?

I've been trying to fix the infobox so it displays and isnt just lines of text, but i can't figure out what's causing the issue, could someone solve this? Larkkyy (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Larkkyy: A user made an edit introducing a mismatched link bracket; this has been fixed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"Breakaway state"

The separatists barely control any actual territory- as far as I'm aware, the sole actual territory controlled by them is portions of Lebialem district. The article should be re-written to reflect that Ambazonia is more of a proposed state or secessionist movement then an actual nation, because it portrays Ambazonia as a legitimate breakaway state when it isn't. Presidentofyes12 (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made an effort to clarify in the first sentence so it's less misleading. -InspectorTiger (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Tagging

If anyone somehow has trouble understanding the justification for the tags, here goes:

First off, large chunks of the article are about the history of Cameroon generally, with little to no direct connection to the subject; in particular, one can hardly claim that an Anglophone separatist movement has any connection to the era (over a century ago now) before British rule of any part of the area.

Secondly, much of this article consists of speculative, unsourced assertions, and one can either accept a general tag over the whole article, or else the whole thing is liable to be citation bombed for each and every unsourced, questionable statement.

Thirdly, so much of it is just prolix and/or polemic. WP:UNDUE does not square with 300-word quotes from resignation letters. Nor does an unrecognized separatist movement merit a "Geography" section for territory it has never controlled nor is recognized as possessing.

Fourth, there's just plain speculation; again, an "Administrative structure" section for the "administration" that has never actually existed.

Finally, speaking of WP:UNDUE ... look. This is an article on a separatist movement that's fully half the size of the main article. There's an infobox as if it were a real country, claiming a "capital" it doesn't actually control. This is obviously a notable subject, but Wikipedia is not a webhost for the Ambazonian separatist movement, and using this article as a stalking horse for greater visibility and publicity violates Wikipedia policies. Ravenswing 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Good tags. I think I've resolved them successfully. Got any more ideas about how to improve the article? —Alalch E. 11:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly much improved; good work. Ravenswing 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think that qualified it for the {{Excessive examples}} tag, though, which requires some form of listing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambazonia is not a breakaway state

@Applodion: We can't say in wikivoice that Ambazonia is a breakaway state because the sources do not verify this claim. For example (Al Jazeera): "A spokesperson for the Anglophone separatists, who are trying to form a breakaway state called Ambazonia ...". The separatist want to form a breakaway state, but they (still) haven't succeeded. We can't then treat the subject of this article as if it is a breakaway state and mold the content to fit this formulation of the subject. I suggest that we thoroughly discuss this. Pinging @Ravenswing, LaundryPizza03, and Chad The Goatman: please share their thoughts. —Alalch E. 11:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please look carefully at my changes. I adhered to the issues of the initial tags:

1) I changed it to "Proclaimed breakaway state" and "self-proclaimed West African breakaway state". This is exactly what the sources describe it as, an attempt at state formation. A "political notion" suggests that there is not actual change on the ground, but the rebels do hold some territory and widely operate in the claimed areas.

2) The history section belongs here, not in the insurgency article. The latter is already too long, and should be cut, not furthered bloated. Furthermore, the history section is concerned with the development of the concept of Ambazonia, not how the rebellion started in detail. The latter is covered in the insurgency article.

3) I adjusted the "separatists" section to clarify which groups are involved in the entire Ambazonia issue, which should be one of the main things discussed here.

Also, @Mikrobølgeovn: is the editor who has written much of the articles related to the Anglophone Crisis, and is arguably the expert of the issue here on Wikipedia. Their input should have the greatest weight here.

Applodion (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to insert myself here a bit out of order: This is what Mikrobølgeovn wrote on my talk page While I appreciate the extensive clean-up work that you've done, I think you were a bit quick on the trigger with this one particular redirect (the redirect concerns the "government" content which I added, but they did not dispute the rest, i.e. what I had removed, quite the opposite). Pinging you here @Applodion: to see this comment; I forgot to mention this in the edit summary when mentioning how multiple editors are already involved. My substantive reply in this discussion is at the bottom. —Alalch E. 17:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I already saw this exchange before making my changes. However, Mikrobølgeovn had previously voiced concern about the length of the Anglophone Crisis article, where you moved much of the content you cut from this article. Just to clarify this issue on my part. Applodion (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree completely with Alalch. This isn't any kind of "state:" it's honestly more a convenient collective catchphrase for the dozens of anti-government militia bands in the Anglophone area of Cameroon, some of which I expect would have no intention of establishing "Ambazonia" or its mooted institutions and politicians should they succeed in becoming top dog, and many of which are likely just the equivalent of local street gangs. Frankly, when I first heard of Ambazonia, I thought it was a micronation, and there are a number of micronations that have been more successful at establishing state-like appurtenances such as currencies, stamps, officials and territory under their nominal control. I see no reason to parrot the term "breakaway state" -- "self-proclaimed" or otherwise -- just because some rebels do; since when do we enshrine a group's self-identification as objective fact? Ravenswing 12:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Wikipedia follows the sources, though, and those generally describe Ambazonia as a self-proclaimed separatist state - see Alalch E.'s own quote from above. Applodion (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Describe it as one, or quote spokesmen from these groups claiming it to be one? Ravenswing 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: So, I have looked into the sources:

• I couldn't find any describing Ambazonia as a "political notion" or just "notion".
• DW: "proclaimed a so-called independent state 'Ambazonia'" (here)
• France24: "self-proclaimed breakaway state of Ambazonia" + "separatists declared a breakaway state known as 'Ambazonia'" (here)
• VOA: "self-proclaimed Republic of Ambazonia" (here), "proclaimed an independent state they call Ambazonia" (here), "Anglophone separatists, who are trying to form a breakaway state called Ambazonia" (here), "resentment at perceived discrimination snowballed into the declaration of an independent state -- the "Federal Republic of Ambazonia," an entity that is not recognised internationally" (here)
• Nigerian Guardian: "internationally unrecognised proto-state of British Southern Cameroons, the Federal Republic of Ambazonia" (here)
• Crisis Group: "The Manyu division in the Southwest is currently the hotbed of the insurrection, because of its proximity to Nigeria’s Cross River state, home to some of the officials of the “Federal Republic of Ambazonia” (the name given by secessionists to their self-proclaimed state)" (here) - btw, this one confirms that "officials" of the separatists, not just militants, are active in the area.
• Human Rights Watch: "armed separatist groups seeking independence for their self-proclaimed state of Ambazonia" (here)
• Nigerian Daily Post: "neutralised leaders of Ambazonia" + "so-called Ambazonian fighters" (here)
• Reuters: "fighters from the two English-speaking regions began fighting the military with the aim of forming a breakaway state, which they call Ambazonia" (here)

These are just a few I found. Generally speaking, "self-proclaimed", "so-called", etc. appear rather popular choices when describing Ambazonia. The main issue with all of these, however, is the usage regardless of time; several seem to both regard "Ambazonia" as a current thing (to use a neutral term), but also treat it as an "attempt" or "process". Applodion (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the "poltical notion" part, as that is the one issue which appears to be most controversial. The other changes I made (as explained above), are unrelated to the previous concerns raised on this page. Applodion (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I won't discuss all of the changes in this comment, but I appreciate how you restored the content selectively, have not restored the infobox etc. There's significant common ground. So I find this statement of yours to encapsulate our different ways of seeing: ... those generally describe Ambazonia as a self-proclaimed separatist state ... The separatists did not proclaim a separatist state or a breakaway state, they proclaimed a state—an independent, sovereign, state. There's no independent, sovereign, Ambazonia, so this is not in dipute. The issue then of whether a separatist state or a breakaway state exists is not a matter of what the separatists proclaimed (since they, as any separatist movement, wold not identify themselves as people who lay a claim to separatism but who lay a claim to sovereignty), it is a question of whether there exists, on the ground, exactly a breakaway state! With that in mind, when we say "Ambazonia is a breakaway state" we are making, in wikivoice, a statement of fact that indeed there is such a breakaway state. We are not saying that there is such a sovereign state, of course, but we are still saying there is something of a state on a territory of an existing state, trying to become a sovereign, recognized, state.

Now, you have noticed how I quoted that Al Jazeera article ("A spokesperson for the Anglophone separatists, who are trying to form a breakaway state called Ambazonia") indicating that the sources do not verify the claim, but you quoted the same source with a mind that it does. This can be transposed to practically all of the subsequent sources you listed (and thanks for seeking them out and quoting them). Odd that we would look at the same source and come to different conclusions no? Here is the thing: "trying to form a breakaway state". You see? It is a yet-unformed breakaway state. It's a still-nonexistent breakaway state. It's an existent separatist movement. It's an existent claim to independence and sovereignty. But the in-between part, the facts on the ground part in relation to what it means to be a state is not existent. The breakaway state just isn't there. The separatists are purportedly trying to constitute themselves into a state and create the material basis for statehood, they are attempting, but they have not succeeded to the degree that reliable sources would describe their achievements up to this point as resembling a state. I'll stop for now, so as not to go overlong. Sincerely—Alalch E. 17:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Thanks for outlining your position. In general, I had no intention of stating, in Wikivoice, that "Ambazonia is a breakaway state" - in this regard, I agree with your view. I wanted to say, in Wikivoice, that "Ambazonia is a proclaimed breakaway state". Accordingly, I disagree with your viewpoint that no separatist state exists. Generally speaking, I have always taken a minimalist view of statehood; i.e., if people believe that a state exists, it does exist, as all states are imaginary on a fundamental level and dependant on the belief of their citizens. For Ambazonia, I argue that the sources support my position: You argue that the source say that the rebels are in the proccess of creating a state, thus, the state cannot yet exist. I argue that for the moment a state is in the process of emerging, it starts existing as a - in the sources' voice - "proclaimed", "so-called", "unrecognized" state. After all, there is no magical, universal line to cross to statehood (unless one takes the view of UN membership which has its own problems). However, I freely admit that one can actually see both of our views reflected in the quotes above; your view probably best mirrors Human Rights Watch and Reuters, whereas I align more closely with VOA and the Nigerian Guardian.
Either way, our personal interpretations should not matter here. The wikivoice should no follow your or my viewpoint, it should follow the sources. Thus, we should find a wording which best mirrors the majority of the sources. Consequently, I propose the following rewording of the first sentences:

• "Ambazonia, alternatively the "Federal Republic of Ambazonia" or "State of Ambazonia", is a political entity proclaimed by Anglophone separatists who are seeking independence from Cameroon. The separatists claim that Ambazonia should consist of the Northwest Region and Southwest Region of Cameroon. Since 2017, Ambazonian rebels are in an armed conflict with the Cameroonian military, the so-called Anglophone Crisis, setting up a government-in-exile and capturing some territory. No country has recognized Ambazonia's existence as of 2023."

I have used the term "entity" to describe Ambazonia, a term employed by VOA here. I think "entity" is a good word to describe whatever Ambazonia currently is, namely a rather nebulous thing which is more than a notion but less than a full state. The rest of the wording followed from this reasoning, trying to find a neutral balance and clearly attributing any claims to their respective origin. I invite you and the others to discuss this compromise and propose changes/alternatives. Applodion (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This could be a wonderful politico-philosophical debate between us, but I'll cut it short by agreeing to your proposed first paragraph. The most import thing, by far, is that we agree that saying in own voice that Ambazonia is a breakaway state (which is indeed what the article had been saying) is not optimal. "Political entity" is a good word to use here, and the rest of your wording is balanced as well, and performs adequately as a summary of the body. When I figure out how best to address other potential points of disagreement, such as how to treat the 'Origins' content, and whether the most detailed account should be here or in the Anglophone crisis article, keeping in mind that that article really is too long (which doesn't mean that an article which is not necessarily the best, i.e. the single most relevant, container of the most detailed version of particular passages should act as a "storage space" to alleviate length concerns of another article; WP:SUMMARYSTYLE needs to be considered; maybe some reshuffling of content or even splitting would be the best) I'll make a specific proposal to that effect. I agree that it's reasonable to include the 'Rebel groups' section here, however.

I have implemented the change (with a copyedit: "in what is known as the Anglophone Crisis" instead of "so-called ..."); shortdesc: "Political entity proclaimed by Cameroon's Anglophone separatists"—Alalch E. 22:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Applodion:@Alalch E.: I see that I'm a bit late to the party, and I hadn't realized the scope of changes that have been made. As this dispute seems to have been resolved already, I have little to add except to compliment you both for working it out so swiftly and so civily. These articles needed an overhaul, and as the author of big chunks here and there, I now recognize that some of my wordings had been unfortunate (such as describing Ambazonia in ways that makes it seem like a fact on the ground). Cheers to you both. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.:@Mikrobølgeovn: After thinking about it for a bit, I've also had an idea regarding the history which might satisfy everyone: We create a new article titled "Origins of the Anglophone Crisis". There, we move most of the background history, leaving both this article as well as the Anglophone Crisis one with summaries as well as a link to the split-off page. In the "origins" article, we could also collect academic discussion on the topic, i.e. the analyses of the grievances which fuelled the separatism. Applodion (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. I believe this to be the best way to address the length problem of the Anglophone Crisis article. —Alalch E. 09:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Applodion: That's a great idea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Alalch E.:@Mikrobølgeovn: Per our discussion, I have created Origins of the Anglophone Crisis. It currently consists to a large degree of the old history section, but I have also added a small "Discourse on root causes" section (to be expanded in the future). I invite anyone with an interest in the subject to adapt and expand the article. The intro especially needs attention - please change it if I worded it in an problematic way. Applodion (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up comments

Due to repeated readdition of the country infobox following the above discussion, I have added a hidden comment warning users to not add one to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have adjusted the hidden comment, as the previous wording was actually kinda incorrect / disputable. Applodion (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added the 'Consensus' template influenced by your idea to add invisible text. It serves the same purpose but is more useful.—Alalch E. 13:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert

@Ajohn77: Hello. It was discussed a while ago whether this article should use the country infobox, and the decision was made not to use it. —Alalch E. 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)