Talk:Cameroon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Cameroon, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.
This article is supported by the Africa-related regional notice board project, for collaborating on and improving Africa-related articles on Wikipedia. Please participate by improving this article, or visit the project page for details.
Wikipedia CD Selection Cameroon is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Cameroon is not 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?

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. — BrianSmithson 14:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


The issue of corruption in Cameroon can only be solve if the problem is been viewed from above(the 5% Population).It is the duty of international organisations like the UN to look into this matter. The 1972 constitution of Cameroon postulated freedom of Speech but this exist only on papers. Dictatorship, i think is one of the greatest cause of corruption and since international organisation like the UN claim to fight against dictatorship, this is another arena for them to prove their words.Or do they go only where they have something to benefit(like in Iraq).

The situation is Cameroon is not what you know but who you know? This has cause braindrainage cuz young talented people live the country on a daily basis to seek for greener pasture in western world in the name of "falling bush"

We still have lots and lots of unexploited natural resource which make us rich:Foreign direct investment is the fastest route to economic development but foreign investment are not showing interest cuz there is no trust, security of property rights.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fotang (talk • contribs) .

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.) — BrianSmithson 16:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? -- BrianSmithson 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 . . . . — BrianSmithson 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. -- BrianSmithson 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BrianSmithson 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. -- BrianSmithson 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. -- BrianSmithson 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.) -- BrianSmithson 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? -- BrianSmithson 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. BrianSmithson 08:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. --Spaceriqui 23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? -- BrianSmithson 14:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. — BrianSmithson 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

BrianSmithson 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. -- BrianSmithson 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. — BrianSmithson 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. — BrianSmithson 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. — BrianSmithson 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. — BrianSmithson 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/m/Talk%7ECameroon_0787.html"