Jump to content

Talk:Anglophone Crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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 [1], NYT[2], and CNN[3]. 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

@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)
@Mikrobølgeovn: 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[4] and NYT[5] 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
@Bgrus22: 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)#February. 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)
@Mikrobølgeovn: 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
@Bgrus22: 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)
@Mikrobølgeovn: 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)

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

@Kamerunwiki: 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:

  • 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.

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)

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

@CentreLeftRight: "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)

@GeneralAdmiralAladeen: 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)

@Mikrobølgeovn: 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)
@Applodion: 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)
@Mikrobølgeovn: 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)
@Applodion: 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)
@CPA-5: 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)
@CPA-5: 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)
  • @Mikrobølgeovn: 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)
@CPA-5: 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)
  • @Mikrobølgeovn: 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)
@CPA-5: 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)

Web archive

@Gog the Mild: 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)

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Anglophone Crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 05:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


I'll take this one. Might be a few days. As an initial comment, the lead could be expanded to give a better summary of the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • "UN Resolution 1608" has no introduction, so we do not know to what it refers, and the current link involves a resolution dealing with China, not Cameroon. Was this a Security Council resolution?
Good point. This part was imported from a different article, and I should have done some more thorough research. I've removed any mention of said resolution for now, and might revisit this topic at a later occassion. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In a memorandum dated 20 March 1985, Anglophone lawyer and President of the Cameroon Bar Association Fon Gorji Dinka wrote that the Biya government This is the first mention of Biya, and it needs to be stated that he is President, his name needs to be given in full, and he needs to be linked. No need to repeat Paul Biya's full name after its first mention. Aslo, seeing as Biya has been around for such a long time, if his particular style of governance, especially concerning the legitimacy of elections, has been driving some of the grievances this should be made explicit.
Link fixed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • On March 23, 1997, about ten people were killed in a raid on a gendarme camp in Bamenda. The police arrested between 200 and 300 people, mostly SCNC supporters, but also members of the SDF. SDF should be mentioned in full the first time it is mentioned.
Done. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a page number for ref 32, Carlson Anyangwe's Betrayal of Too Trusting a People: The UN, the UK, and the Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons?
Not that I can find. Might look for a less biased source too. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Any progress on that? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: I forgot to monitor this page, my apologies. I just replaced the book source with an article from The New Humanitarian that states that the SCNC was banned in 2001 following clashes with the police. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • They saw this as threatening the common law system in the Anglophone regions Link common law.
Done. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • On September 9, 2017, the Ambazonia Governing Council formally deployed the Ambazonia Defence Forces (ADF) in Southern Cameroons. The governing council needs an introduction, such as when it was established and for what purpose.
Done; Kept it a bit short, might revisit. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Interim Government of Ambazonia also needs an introduction
Done, same as above. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The separatists had also spread out, and by the end of the year, they were active in five divisions. As in, there were five military divisions? Or administrative areas?
Good point. Clarified with link. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 2018 started off with a major setback for the separatists. MOS generally advises against starting a sentence with numerals.
Fixed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • September 9, 50 or more separatists successfully carried out three coordinated attacks on multiple targets in Oku, burning down the police station, destroying the Assistant DO's belongings District Officer?
Fixed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Interim Government of Ambazonia demanded that the Cameroonian government account for the missing inmates, threatening to impose a lockdown if it failed to do so. A lockdown in Southern Cameroons?
Clarified. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The government has fired and replaced local administrators who fled from the region, despite their valid fears of kidnappings. "Valid" here... make sure not to make judgement in Wikipedia voice.
Fixed - thanks for pointing this one out. This is why it's always great to have several editors working actively on an article - even with the most sincere effort, biases are sometimes inevitable. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May saw the Anglophone Crisis get unprecedented international attention. This isn't really stated in the sources, seems like WP:Synth.
Fixed, same as above. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In June, the separatists announced that they had started producing their own weapons on ground zero. What is ground zero referring to in this sense? In the warzone?
Changed. Sources have mostly referred to it as ground zero rather than the warzone, but the latter is probably a better term. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is photographic evidence that shows a consistent policy of burning down villages. Who's policy? The government? Also more of a "strategy" than a "policy".
Good point; fixed. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to repeat peoples names in full once they've been introduced, and make sure not to overlink people or organisations.
Given the length of the article, this can be a tricky one. I will keep an eye out for this one, although I do feel that overlinking is better than underlinking (for the sake of convenience for the reader). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Smaller paragraphs could use some consolidation.
    • Conclusion: The article was comprehensive at the time it was submitted for GAn, but this is an ongoing conflict with breaking news every few weeks (I just did a search and found more news about things like new US trade restrictions which haven't been included here), and thus I don't think it's possible to nail down a satisfactory overview of the situation without it being overtaken by new events. The fact that most of this topic's sources are news articles also present another issue, in that information is presented in fragments and must be woven together without WP:SYTNH. Comments like "The separatists suffered a major setback at the beginning of 2018" which, although likely true, but not explicitly stated in the sources demonstrate how difficult this is. And because it is hard for us to determine which events are most significant on our own without the guidance of a scholarly book or journal article, we end up with essentially proseline paras that describe every major and minor bombing, clash, raid, etc.. We also have only minimal information on things like government strategy or atrocities, since that often requires more longterm analyses from scholars and is not usually given adequate context in breaking news reports. The nom did their best but I think it's simply not possible to get a stable yet broadly comprehensive on an article about a country's ongoing internal conflict. Sadly, I'll have to fail this one. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Thank you for taking the time to assess the article, and thanks for your feedback. Your conclusion pretty much spelled out my own thoughts and concerns since I started working on this article. Relying almost solely on news stories has its limitations, and as you said, it's difficult to turn this into proper prose without resorting to some level of original research. Let's hope that scholarly literature on this war is not many years away; until then, I will do my best to keep this article balanced and updated. Thanks again and cheers! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

Material from this article has been copied to the Wikipedia page 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:38, 12 December 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglophone_Crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1253702174"