![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Current consensus (June 2023):
In this discussion editors agreed:
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
... 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)
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 ( d c̄) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Current consensus (June 2023):
In this discussion editors agreed:
|
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
... 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)
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 ( d c̄) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)