Talk:Cameroon/Archive 1

Cameroon is a POOR COUNTRY

Who says Cameroon is poor when the Swiss Bank and many other Foreign Financial institutions have piled million of Dollars belonging to Ministers, Directors and even the president Mr Biya. Can you imagine less than 5% of the population have more than 95% of the country's resources. What do you really think we can do about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takupaboy (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 October 2005‎ (UTC)

April 2006

edited the sentence "Originally a German colony, it was split after World War I among the French and British." because it gives the impression that germans had a long rule over it.Bharatveer 11:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

32 years (1884–1916) isn't long? French rule was only six years longer (1922–1960). Still, it reads okay the way you changed it. — Amcaja 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the U.S. State Dept

Just to clarify, it appears that a lot of this was copied from the U.S. State Dept. This is fine as US Govt works are public domain, but we should at least make a note of this. See http://web.archive.org/web/20020223000759/http://www.state.gov/r/pa/bgn/2822.htm

Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

Actually, in English we say that Cameroon is divided into Divisions, and not into departments. (Hint: each Division is administered by a Senior Divisional Officer or SDO.) For example, there is the Lebialem Division (Département de Lebialem in French) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotang (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 June 2006‎

Feel free to make changes if necessary, Fotang. You are correct about the Anglophones saying "divisions" but the Francophones using "départements". (And don't forget to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ after them.) — Amcaja 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of the anthem

The anthem of Cameroon is currently given as "Chant de Ralliement." I wonder if we can change that to what is stated in constitution of Cameroon, Article 1.(6): Its national anthem shall be «O Cameroon, Cradle of our Forefathers».

Would it be ok to have that in place of Chant de Ralliement?

--Fotang 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As there are two official languages in Cameroon, perhaps it should be given as both? Or does the French version of the constitution give the name as "O Cameroon, Crade of Our Forefathers" as well? -- Amcaja 14:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the name in french is different:Art. 1.(6) L’hymne national est : «Ô Cameroun, Berceau de nos Ancêtres».

Just to dot an i, I'll put mdash;es in the motto, replacing the commas (§1.(4)) --Fotang 09:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion among sources as to the proper titles. For example, according to the English-language constitution, the English title is "O Cameroon, Cradle of our Forefathers". In their Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon, DeLancey and DeLancey give its title as "O Cameroon, Cradle of Our Fathers". From what I know, this matches up with the actual lyrics. The French title is given as "Chant de Ralliement" in National Anthems of the World by Shaw and Bristow (they do not mention the English version). However, the French-language constitution gives the name as "Ô Cameroun, Berceau de nos Ancêtres". The only official site I could find with the hymn does not give a title!

At this time, it would seem that the constitutions are our best guide. Thus, per Wikipedia:Use English, the page "Chant de Ralliement" should be moved to either "O Cameroon, Cradle of our Forefathers" or "O Cameroon, Cradle of Our Forefathers". I'm not sure what conventions of capitalization we should follow — the constitution's or those of Wikipedia . . . . — Amcaja 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

HIV origin

I do not particularly like the tone of the phrase saying that HIV might have jumped from chimps to humans through cameroonian hunters. This statement is only speculative and can only be added here if proven. It gives an impression that Cameroonians should be blamed for AIDS which is not fair since the statement is based on speculcation. What is factual is that the reserviour of HIV-1 has been traced to chimps in cameroon but how it jumped to humans is absolutely disputable.

eyallow 23:19, July 19, 2006

Whether you like it or not, bushmeat hunting is the leading candidate for how the virus made the jump from chimp to human. I don't find the article accusatory at all; no one is to "blame" for the spread of HIV. I've reverted to the previous version but reworded slightly. Burying this information is not the best way to handle this situation, in my opinion. If you know of sources that theorize other possible vectors for transmission from chimp to human, feel free to add them. -- Amcaja 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Amcaja 23:04, 19 July 2006

As a principle i believe only accurate information should be presented here and not speculations. That is my point! The statement that bushmeat is the leading candidate for how SIV jumped from humans to chimps is very disputable. A recent report states that HIV jumped from humans to chimps during the colonial era because the virus mutates at a fixed rate. Back calculating from the mutation rates of the HIV-1 to the SIV found in chimps in Cameroon it shows that, mutation to HIV-1 occurred during the colonial era. Therefore one theory is that HIV came as a result of colonial practices. Humans have been eating bush meat hundreds of years before then. However i dont deem that information worthy of being added here just because the idea sounds good. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubts in my opinion! If you read on the HIV page here in wikipedia, the authors of that article are very cautious about making too strong statements like the one present on the cameroon page. Maybe that section should be edited accordingly as well! Maybe it should also be added that some theorize that the virus jumped from chimps to humans through mass administration of the oral polio vaccines produced in the kidneys of chimps in congo kinshasha! These are all feasible possibilities right?

Again, if you can find credible sources to support these alternate theories, they are fair game for the article. Something does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be in Wikipedia; it's enough to label it a theory or to say that it is speculative information. The alternatives you present should be in there too if you have sources to back them up. -- Amcaja 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Brain: Google it and you find enough sources to cite. Is that good enough? Listen to this interview on how colonial practices lead to spread of HIV http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5450391

I'm not disputing your information, but I'm not going to do the work for you. Feel free to find sources and edit the article. Thanks for the link, by the way; interesting story. -- Amcaja 22:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the NPR story you linked to does not dispute that SIV probably jumped to people through a person butchering a chimp. It blames colonial practices for helping to cause the pandemic, not the intitial transfer. So maybe you should add a note to the article about the Jim Moore's theory about colonial work gangs, vaccinations, etc. (Actually, the primate specialist, Jim Moore, claims that the initial contact might have been from a man fleeing colonials and forced to eat a chimp, but that sounds really far-fetched to me. People in Cameroon eat chimpanzees to this day; why try to blame the colonials for the initial contact? I have not problem buying that the colonials helped spread it, though.) -- Amcaja 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess the point that is brought up in the link is that, the virus jumped to humans only during the colonial era indicating that colonial practices might have been the leading cause for the initial jump and mutation of the virus due to a debilitated immune system. Else why did it not happen earlier on since humans in Cameroon had been eating bushmeat for eons? However, that some one came in contact with a chimp and contracted SIV that later mutated to HIV is obvious, but just how that happened is not known and open to all sorts of speculations. Therefore no theory is apparently strong enough to be the leading one. However, i find this topic quite interesting though!

I've edited the section to reflect the information from the NPR story. Do you think it's a bit more balanced now? -- Amcaja 14:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good i think. Much more open and gives free room to thinking and mind probing as well.

I question whether the country's main article page is the place to discuss theories as to the origin of HIV. Granted that AIDS is one of the major diseases that threaten the world, but I doubt there is a section in India or Egypt discussing the origins of tuberculosis, or a section on measles in the Persia article, or a discussion on the origins of cholera in the India, or even the Ganges River article... all diseases threatening the world's prosperity according to the World Health Organisation. I believe this article should conform to the items listed at the Countries Project and let the editors at HIV and AIDS origin discuss the different theories. --Spaceriqui 04:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

You're probably rght. I won't oppose you if you remove the section. Amcaja 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. --Spaceriqui 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Corruption

"Cameroon's police and judiciary are among the most corrupt institutions in the world, according to Berlin-based corruption watch Transparency International." Source CNN News: " Cameroon's 'jungle justice' replaces corrupt cops". If this were added to the article it would be immediately reverted. --Wetman 04:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. What do you mean? -- Amcaja 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Violence against women and young girls section removed

I removed the section on "violence against women and young girls" as inappropriate for a broad country overview article. There is no such section in any other country article; why should Cameroon be singled out? I could just as easily add a "violence against foreigners" section, but, again, it doesn't belong here. Furthermore, the section that was here was completely unsourced. — Amcaja 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Amcaja is correct, the topic is too specific for its own section. However, this practice is specific to Cameroon. Sources: Breast ironing has been recognized by the BBC and Reuters as a practice that occurs extensively in Cameroon -- see References. GTZ surveyed some 5,700 Cameroonian girls and women aged from 10 to 82, and found that 25% had had their breasts ironed. 4 million young Cameroonian girls have undergone this torturous practice. It has only been found to occur in Cameroon, and a mention of it has been placed in the Culture section. — Joie de Vivre 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough question: How much of this sort of thing belongs in a general country overview before it becomes a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy? There should arguably be a human rights section that discusses not only breast ironing but also private jails run by various lamibe, girls forced to marry on the onset of puberty, "village justice" against perceived thieves, deplorable conditions and overcrowding in government jails, etc., etc. But how much of this can we add before overpowering the article and slanting it too negatively? That said, I think your recent inclusions are fine. -- Amcaja 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted expansions to history section

The additions to the history section, while sourced, were in violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. They made the Germans sound like the saviors of the poor savages, when in reality, the German occupation was quite brutal in places. Cameroonian women were taken as concubines or granted to conscripted soldiers for such, Cameroonians were forced to do backbreaking labor, and native power structures were toppled as puppet chiefs were propped up. Period documents may be interesting and add color, but they are hardly reliable sources for any impact positive or negative the Germans may have had. — Amcaja 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

It is important that you said "your opinion" here. Are you a historian? It appears user Christchurch is. I suspect that most ex-colonies talk of "brutal occupation" with lots of accompanyign stories. But are you disputing the purely historical and properly sourced facts whch were entered? Are you saying they were untrue? The sources seem to be very credible. If you're anti-European/anti-German maybe you should keep off these articles. 213.122.73.141 12:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this inserted text, with some edits that I hope will be generally acceptable, to the main History of Cameroon article. Kahuzi 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To anwer the anonymous user's question, no, I am not an historian. But there is not a single Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that only historians can edit articles or sections about history. And I am not anti-German or anti-European. The fact of the matter is that if you present one side of the story, as Christchurch did, you are in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. That is why I reverted. Now the History of Cameroon article is skewed.

At any rate, I have checked a number of Featured Articles on countries, and it seems best practice is to have a "History" section about two or three times the size of this one for country articles. Christchurch's edits probably have a place here, but they need to be tempered with information on the downside of colonialism. Jesko von Puttkamer was recalled to Germany for abuses against the Cameroonian populace, for example, but to judge by Christchurch's edits, the German colonial period was all roses and sunshine. — Amcaja 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Naturally I cannot agree with your remarks. If you are to have an article about the history of a country it should be just that. I mentioned some fundamental developments in the history of that colony which were entirely factual. You had no right to remove them just because you did not like them or thought they presented an "all roses and sunshine" story. Either this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia or it is not. If you have properly sourced information which you feel should be added by all means add it. But you should not be deleting other editor's properly sourced and factually correct additions just because you don't want them in the article. It does not belong to you. I am considering making a complaint. Christchurch 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just being sourced does not make an article meet the neutral point of view policy. Besides, your information on German infrastructure improvements is still there, but for a general overview article on the country as a whole, there's just not room for the long quotations from colonial administrators that you provided. Make your complaint, by all means. I did nothing wrong. — Amcaja 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is either an ecyclopaedia or it is not. And there is pl;enty of room. The information I added was neutral and factual and properly sourced. You may not like it, but so what? It gave some substance to bland statements such as 'made substantial invesments'. It helps the reader to know just what the colonial powers did in these colonies. Some (possibly yourself) think that everything done was bad. Balance is therefore important. Christchurch 13:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because we're an encyclopedia doesn't mean that anything with a source citation gets to stay. As an encyclopedia, we must choose the most pertinent information to give a broad overview of the topic at hand. For this article, the topic is Cameroon, the nation as a whole, and not just its history. Adding long quotations from colonial administrators (and none from actual Cameroonians, incidentally) means that some other information must go, which, in a broad overview of 1,500 years of history or more, is a shame. Accordingly, your quotations were moved to History of Cameroon, where we do have room to add period "flavor" and the like. You misquoted the text, by the way. It says, "They made substantial investments in the colony's infrastructure, including the building of railways, roads, and hospitals." The preceding line talks about the building of plantations. All having a quote there would do is add color. And, again, in a broad country overview, we need to be more selective of how detailed we get on any one aspect of the topic. — Amcaja 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Middle Africa at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Middle Africa whose scope would include Cameroon. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Social issues" section

There are certainly a lot of social issues that could be discussed in this article. In addition to breast ironing that Joie de Vivre wrote about, there's female genital mutilation, horrible prison conditions, "village justice", even allegations of continued slavery among some northern populations. However, it's my understanding that sections outlining such abuses are against the best practices of Wikipedia's broad country overview articles, as they tend to violate the neutral point of view policy. As such, I've removed the "Social issues" section for now. I could be wrong; if Joie de Vivre wishes to challenge me on this, I'll ask for the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries folks and defer to their judgment. But I wanted to explain why I removed the section. — Amcaja (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and requested feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Our Featured Articles on Libya and the People's Republic of China have "human rights" sections, but I can't tell whether they were there when the artiles became featured or have since been added. I'm certainly not opposed to such a section in this article, but I just want to make sure that we adhere to established consensus. — Amcaja (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a brochure for tourism in Cameroon, this is an encyclopedia article about Cameroon. I find it markedly POV to sanitize all mention of a human rights abuse occurring exclusively in Cameroon. Breast ironing deserves some mention in this article. Joie de Vivre 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was a tourism brochure, and I don't think it reads as one even without discussing breast ironing. My problem is how do we determine what social issues merit mentioning and which ones don't? If we talk about breast ironing, do we also mention genital mutilation, increasing rates of violent crime, domestic violence, allegations of slavery, horrid prison conditions, violence against and incarceration of homosexuals, etc., etc.? So far, some folks at WPCountries seem to agree that such issues do merit discussion, so I'll try to get more guidance on the best way to present the information without violating NPOV. In the meantime, feel free to reinstate your additions. — — Amcaja (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound accusatory, I apologize if it sounded that way. I'm just surprised that this article focuses so heavily on the pleasant-sounding aspects of this country (the sports, cuisine, arts, etc.) while ignoring not only breast ironing, but the myriad other less sanguine issues you mentioned above. I don't understand why there isn't even a cursory mention of these realities in this article. I think that all the things you listed should be mentioned in some form, if only briefly. At the very least, breast ironing, specific to Cameroon, should certainly be mentioned. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I was under the impression that including to much of this sort of thing was considered NPOV violation. However, you're right; keeping it buried is even more of a NPOV violation. I spent yesterday afternoon finding information on these issues, and I intend to add the information to the article. The big question now is whether to do so as a new section (labeled "Health and social conditions" or "Human rights", perhaps) or rather to pepper the rest of the article (discussing prison conditions under "Politics and government" and ethnic conflict under "Demographics", for example). Or, the solution may be to combine both of these approaches. I've never tackled a subject this massive before on Wikipedia, so I'm more than open to suggestions. — Amcaja (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section again, instead integrating the human rights issues into the rest of the article wherever appropriate. Breast ironing is now covered under "Demographics" in a paragraph discussing marriange and gender roles. — — Amcaja (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Federal or unitary?

The introduction says cameroon is an unitary republic, but the article politics of Cameroon says it's federal... which one is right?24.37.182.109 21:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's unitary. Brian might want to chime in and confirm this. Picaroon 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the current constitution, the country is federal (or at least, the "regions" have a high degree of autonomy), but in practice, the federal system is not in place, and the country is still a unitary republic with provinces (instead of regions) governed by presidential appointees. So the politics of Cameroon article should probably be changed. — Amcaja (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Republica?

It is written "Republica of Cameroon" in the national coat of arms. Why? Aaker 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Typo? :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"138th most corrupt"

The article currently says that "in 2006, Transparency International ranked Cameroon as the 138th most corrupt of 163 countries." This is extremely confusing, and implies that Cameroon's ranking is the opposite of what it really is. The rankings are organized from least to most corrupt, and Cameroon is 138 on the list. So Cameroon is 138th least corrupt, or 26th most corrupt. If you said "Brazil is the fifth most populous country," that means that four countries are more populous than Brazil, and all other countries are less populous. Similarly, if you say "Cameroon is the 138th most corrupt of 163 countries," that means that 137 countries are more corrupt than Cameroon, and only 25 are less corrupt. For now I will change the article to say "in 2006, Transparency International placed Cameroon at 138 on a list of 163 countries ranked from least to most corrupt," but maybe someone can think of a more concise but accurate way to put it. PubliusFL 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the issue is with the listing itself, not the article; we can't invert the list for our own ease, tempting as it may be. I think your revised wording is good. Picaroon (Talk) 20:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. Good catch, PubliusFL. — Amcaja (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cameroon building5.jpg

Image:Cameroon building5.jpg 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This and several other photos were added to the article by User:Bayee and an anonymous contributor, presumably also Bayee. I've gone ahead and removed all of them, as they all seem to be shots of the Yaoundé and Douala areas (with one random Limbe shot thrown in). This overrepresents those areas in the article and upsets the balance of photos that is there now, with all regions more ore less equally represented in the article. Bayee also changed several captions, which I have reverted. I'm not sure why obscuring the fact that the bush taxi is trying to pass a stalled logging vehicle is a good idea, and the Northwest is certainly better off than places like the Adamawa, South, and East.

I'm certainly open to arguments as to why Bayee's photos (or one or two of them) should be kept in the article or replace photos in the article, of course. In the meantime, Bayee might consider placing them on subpages instead, such as the articles for the Centre Province, Littoral Province, Douala, or Yaoundé. That is assuming the copyright issues can be dealt with first. — Amcaja (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Prawn photo

Prawn from Limbe. Portuguese explorers named the area Rio dos Camarões ("River of Prawns"), the name from which Cameroon derives.

I've removed the photo of the prawn/crawfish twice now. Yes, the name Cameroon derives from the Portuguese word for prawn, but I don't think that necessitates us showing a big picture of a prawn to emphasize the point. That picture is probably more appropriate for animals of Cameroon or for an article on fishing in Cameroon. The broad, country-wide article can only support so many photos, and I think it's at its saturation point as it is now. — Amcaja (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add the photo in question to this talk page. — Amcaja (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree to the removal. Refernce to prawn seems to be quite important for the identity of cameroon. So a small thumbnail of a prawn from wouri estuary is sigificant here. Tatoute 11:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I dispute the fact that prawns are really all that important to the history of Cameroon. Yes, the name Cameroon derives form the Portuguese word for prawn, but that's about it. The area was not colonized because of the prawns, and the earliest Europeans to trade with the Cameroonians did not come for prawns. It's really an accident of history that the name is what it is today.

That being said, the problem is that the article already has a lot of photos. If we add another one, it would be best to remove one of the ones that is there now. When I rewrote the article to its present state, I carefully selected photos to represent all of Cameroon's regions relatively equally. If we add the prawn photo, which is from the Littoral/Southwest region, we should remove one of the existing Littoral/Southwest photos. That would mean our options for removal would be Image:Merrick at Isubu funeral.jpg, Image:Tole-tea-back.jpg, or Image:Woman weaving baskets near Lake Ossa.jpg. Which one would you propose we remove to make room for the prawn photo? — Amcaja (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Merrick at Isubu funeral.jpg is the one i will choose to remove... if we choose to remove one. hum. Another point is that fresh prawns have few to do in history chapter... Nevertheless i selected this picture carefully (and negociate the licence for wikimedia) just for the purpose of illustrating this topic, so i am frustrated not to use it. Maybe introducing a chapter about toponymy, with details about names of kingdoms pre-colonialism? ... But i can't wrote such a chapter for sure: my english is too bad. I recognize that the prawn story may be seen as anecdotic but it is the type of info that everyone notice & expect to read. Do you have a suggestion? Tatoute 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we replace Image:Tole-tea-back.jpg with the prawn image? The tea bag design may in fact be copyrighted anyway. The prawn image would illustrate the text that says, " Fishing employs some 5,000 people and provides 20,000 tons of seafood each year." We could then include a note about the name Cameroon deriving from the Portuguese word for prawn. In fact, I'll go ahead and make this change. Tell me what you think. — Amcaja (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

perfect from my point of view.Tatoute 09:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear! You may try to sneak the image into Southwest Province too if you can find a place for it. — Amcaja (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted changes to the article by User:Istanbuljohnm twice now because I feel they are detrimental to the article and its structure. Here is the difference: [1]. First of all, John is breaking up the lead section of the article, making it violate WP:LEAD. The lead should be a summary of the article. By moving information about history to its own section labeled "Etymology", the lead no longer serves as a summary, and the body of the article repeats itself. John's changes are also adding breaks to the History section. However, this is a broad country overview, and such fine-toothed history is not necessary here. Rather, it should be reserved for History of Cameroon. No section in a broad country overview should be significantly more overwhelming or longer than any other. In short, the version I have reverted back to is by and large the version that was passed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. — Amcaja (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I definitely prefer your version for the points you made, and reject that user's charge of vandalism. If he wants to make this major change, he should propose it for discussion here. Picaroon (t) 03:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - it's your country. You should be aware though that the lead section of this article contains specific information about the way the country's name has changed over the years, information that would be clearer and easier to read under a separate heading, with some of it incorporated into the history section. I mean if the lead section is intended to be a quick introduction to the country then do we really need to know that it was once called "Republic of Cameroun, then in 1961 the Federal Republic of Cameroon then the United Republic of Cameroon in 1972 and the Republic of Cameroon in 1984." Boring Istanbuljohnm (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do need to know that information. It's an encyclopedia, not a pulp novel. The lead is meant to be a summary, and that's what this one is. The information on the name changes is incorported throughout the "History" section where appropriate, but there is no need that I see to include a separate section just to talk about changes in the official name. — Amcaja (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying delete the information - in my revision i deleted nothing - but it would be an easier read if you thinned out the intro to two paragraphs max and put all those names in a separate section. the history part is also quite long and would be easier to read with sub-headings.Istanbuljohnm (talk) 06:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are conflicting etymologies for the word "Cameroon" in the first few paragraphs of the article. The derivation from "camarones" seems more realistic, but the other is sourced. Perhaps there should be an Etymology heading, like many other articles have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.29.47 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see a contradiction? — Amcaja (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Human rights" section

I removed a section on human rights in Cameroon because it repeated information that is currently interspersed through the article. This seems to have been an issue in the past, too, as can be seen under "social issues" above. It seems that including "human rights" sections in country articles should be avoided, as it ends up being nothing but negative information and thus violates our guidelines on criticism against the topic of an article. There's plenty of information about Cameroon's poor human rights situation in the article already; I don't see the advantage of putting it all together under a single heading. — Dulcem (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed from "History" section

I removed these paragraphs from the "History section:

The North West Province of Cameroon( with its headquatres in Bamenda) is one of the major anglophone provinces of Cameroon.The other one is the South West Province (with its headquatres in Buea). These two anglophone provinces are the remnants of the former British Southern Cameroons.Britain administered these two provinces from the Eastern House of assembly Enugu Nigeria, untl 1961, when it granted these two provinces the opportunity for independence by choosing to join the French

Cameroon(La republic) which had already had its independence from France in 1960, or to stay with Nigeria which had also gained its independence in 1960.Following the plebiscite of 1961 the Southern Cameroons was coerced into taking one of two options: To obtain independence by joining the Federated Republic of Nigeria or to obtain independence by joining the French Cameroons. Having gone through a bitter experience at the time operating in the Eastern House of Assembly in Nigeria and the bitter experience of Nigerian domination into Southern Cameroon's affairs especially of how Nigerian traders overwhelmed the local markets and tortured local reidents, the Southern Cameroons chose the second option, which was to join the independent La Republic du Cameroon. The results of the plebescite of February 11, 1961, sealed that fate ad created a federal system for Cameroon. Under the agreement, the former British Southern Cameroons was to have its own prime minister and its own regional house of assembly in Buea, the then capital of West Cameroon.

Followng the referandum of 1972, the federation was scrapped off, and a unitary state was born.Cameroon became a United Republic, with Ahidjo retainng the title of president.The unitary state survived untlil 1984, when President Paul Biya passed a presidential decree, nullifying the union, and recreated the Republic of cameroon. Many people in the two anglophone provinces have condemned this act as signifying that the Republic of Cameroon has seceeded from the union of 1972. This agruement was the source of anglophone furor, who began to complain of marginalization. That led to the rise of pressure groups demanding for a return to the unitary system or total independence for the anglphone part of Cameroon. The Southern Cameroon's National Council (SCNC), one of the major pressure groups calling for the restoration of the former Southern Cameroons has taken its case to the United Nations, and has been calling on foreign governments to recognize the independence of the Southern Cameroons.

This was for two reasons. The first is that the paragraphs do not cite their sources. The second is that this is a broad overview of Cameroon, so we can't make the "History" section any longer than it already is without making the article as a whole too long (see Wikipedia:Article size). This information should probably go into a daughter article, such as History of Cameroon or Southern Cameroons instead. It might also belong at Anglophone Cameroonian. I hope User:Goddymbuh will add footnotes and restore this information to one of these daughter articles! — Dulcem (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

what sort of 'discussion' page is this?

It seems that the entire contents of this discussion page consist of an editor explaining his/her version of various decisions. Many of those decisions consist of eliminating materials from the page that concern institutionalized violations of human rights in Cameroon, which the editor contends have already been sufficiently discussed.

At a minimum, those decisions have been controversial. But it seems that the deleted authors' own voice in the controversy over the decisions has been over-written or otherwise lost from the discussion page. That leaves new readers not with 'discussion,' but with decisions from a faceless and remote editor that actually cannot be discussed, still less challenged.

How exactly does this fit with Wikipedia's claims about its ethos? Or have I missed something that makes this practice on the Cameroon discussion page something other than what it appears to be?

147.9.124.244 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)paperswamp

Copy edit, partial restoration

I have had this article on my watchlist for quite some time, but I've been busy in real life and unable to monitor changes to it for a few months. I recently gave things a look, and I've made a some changes based on what I saw. Basically, this is what I did:

1. Removed poverty statistics from the bottom of the introduction. Poverty (and this statistic) are repeated in the body, but the lead section of the article is rarely the place for such granularity.
2. Restored the note that the Portuguese were the first Europeans to visit, not the vague "Europeans." If someone has evidence to the contrary, this is of course able to be changed.
3. Removed information on battles from World War I. This is a broad country overview article, and such details are better reserved for more focused articles, such as History of Cameroon, in my opinion.
4. Restored some images that had been cut. The images add a lot to the article, in my opinion, but I admit there may be some clutter now that needs to be cleaned up. :)
5. Removed the note that Mbida was the first Prime Minister. It's not really relevant to a broad country overview, in my opinion (especially since this was still in the colonial period and Mbida had little real power), but I'm open to other viewpoints.
6. Restored the chief statue over the Manga Bell image; the latter seemed out of place in a discussion about the power of current chiefs and their acceptance by the government, since Manga Bell lived so long ago and was at odds with the government.
7. Reverted some information about the school system. Someone changed this but did not cite new sources, instead leaving the citations to Njeuma. I have access to Njeuma, and the article does not support the version that I have reverted.
8. Changed "provinces" to "regions" throughout and cited the change (a recent presidential decree).
9. Integrated a newly added "Religion" section into "Demographics". As it was, the article had two sections describing religion; the new version should be far less redundant, I hope.
10. Removed some unsourced information about the English accent of Cameroonians. I believe this is too fine a point for a broad article like this, but even more importantly, the information was unsourced.
11. Restored information on cuisine.

I wanted to make sure my alterations were clearly spelled out here on the talk page so that they can be challenged if need be. Please let me know if you dislike something I did, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you! — Dulcem (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cannabis Legal in Cameroon?

• this should be mentioned on the wikipedia page if this is true. Was just on alibaba.com (international business network) and there is cannabis being sold on there from Cameroon ONLY and no other country on the planet. This is a pretty stand-out fact - that this place is that open! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.2.116 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox problem

Someone needs to fix the infobox. It's extremely wide, and it is apparently due to the fact that the following error message is in it:

• Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"

It would be appreciated if someone went and fixed it as I can't find the source of the error itself. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

now the 54th largest country

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_countries Cameroon is no longer the 53rd largest country since the split of Sudan. Cant find a direct reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.44.13.254 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done, World Factbook is a good area reference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians in Residence wanted in Cameroon and South Africa

WikiAfrica is seeking Wikipedians in Residence! One to work in Cameroon and one in South Africa. Please visit their blog to learn more. SarahStierch (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations

Foreign relations gets just a single paragraph. Is this really sufficient for a featured article about a country? Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs more citations

This article is lacking citations in a lot of places. The citation needed tags should be dealt with. If not, this article might need to undergo a WP:FAR.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)