Talk:Azawad

Merge

Should this be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaouad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.145.84 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit to lead

From the opening sentence of the article: "Northern Mali, refers to the most remote area of Mali, and also takes in parts of Niger, Mauritania and a small part of the south of Algeria." Obviously "Northern Mali" cannot be said to include parts of other countries, so I'm editing accordingly. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Independence

I won't revert again, but I'm a bit skeptical of the infobox that the MNLA has already declared its independence as of January. This [1] is the source for that claim. And generally, I'd like to wait until I see the independence claim in some world media before we make it on their behalf here. I'm uncomfortable calling this even a declared nation until we have solid and explicit confirmation from reliable sources. Other people's thoughts? Khazar2 (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I may only have used Google Translate for reading this, since I don't speak French, but it sure does seem to me as if it can be considered declared. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'm skeptical of the January claim, and perhaps it's made me too finicky. But why hasn't this claim shown up in world media yet? Is there a reason to be skeptical of this website that we're not seeing? Again, for a claim this big, I feel like we ought to wait for a reliable source, rather than a primary source. Khazar2 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the rebels are in full control of northern Mali, I suppose it will come quick, as media turn their attention from the fighting itself. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely worth keeping an eye on over the next 48 hours or so. I believe negotiations with Mali are ongoing as well, and it would seem to me the junta is really out of options for dealing with the north. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep an eye on it for a couple more days before making any big decisions. Evzob (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No source declares independence just saying the towns ae "liberated" and the 17 jan source one was even more dubious. But lets wait...in the meantime this potential country needs a better article (while Azawad is also beyond Mali, technically...meaning we need the seperate article. Perhaps Azawad region?) a la South Sudan

As it stands this is hideously PVO per this edit. Whats the unilateral move to one representing the region and this the state? the page is not running away and based on news today we dont need to preemptively decarea state on WP. " unrecognised self-declared de facto sovereign state " is backed by NOTHING. ANd half the lead is about the MNLA fight from 3 months. A country's history is not instituted in 3 months regardless of a civil war. It should be in the article with a BRIEF mention (as before) of the fight. Further we need to discuss the region and the "state" article titles.Lihaas (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that someone keeps introducing this infobox in violation of WP:BRD. I have twice reverted it, expressing my doubts that this infobox is appropriate given the unstable and unclear situation. Khazar2 has removed it again. So obviously, there is more than one user objecting and we cannot speak of a consensus for having this infobox. Given the scrappy information we have, the infobox is widely incomplete and does not hold much informative content. (Yeah, they drive on the right. But that's only because Mali drives on the right and they assumably haven't changed it. It's not like there were an "Azawad road traffic act" yet...) I don't think that it's acceptable that one or two users keep adding the box without consensus for doing so, without discussing (per BRD), and without citing sources properly. In the source cited there is nothing about a declaration of independence. I won't engage in an edit war, but I will defend Wikipedia's principles as an encyclopedia based on verifiability, that is not a place for speculation or fantasy. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is full of speculation, original research and information from misrepresented (possibly not even reliable) sources. The best thing would be to remove it altogether and wait until we have real and reliable information to fill it. But I won't break the 3RR. --RJFF (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've only done one revert myself. Given that others obviously share my concerns, I've pulled it again for now. I'd be interested to hear from editors who support this infobox, however, as to what sources support its insertion; my mind's by no means made up. Khazar2 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should take a wait-and-see approach. Personally, I expect a declaration of independence imminently, but there's no need to jump the gun on it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I thinj consensus is qauite CLEARLY against the infobox (and with reasosn too)...removign it should not be warring as it would be vandalism to insert it without consensus 9AND as per the other article, a consensus discussion is NOT appropriae inside a month)Lihaas (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, but not with your argumentation. You should know that the term "vandalism" has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia (WP:VAND & WP:NOTVAND). Having the infobox or not is a content dispute and not a question of vandalism. Repeatedly introducing it without consensus and without discussing is a very uncivil act, though. --RJFF (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When a rebel army takes essentially full control of a region and declares it a separate entity from the country claiming it, why should it be treated any differently from other unrecognised countries like Somaliland. Just because Azawad has not yet organised a government does not make its independence invalid. I can understand why 17 January could be considered dubious as an independence date, though it was the start of the insurrection whose goal was the creation of an independent Azawad. Still, it is effectively independent as of yesterday, given that the Malian army has withdrawn. I first put up the country infobox given that independence was a fait accompli. It was taken down because of a lack of sources, so I put it back up and asked for opinions. I don't see anything wrong with that - it's a legitimate topic for discussion. 67.249.16.169 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with you that independence appears to be a fait accompli here, and I wholly agree that your edits were legitimate and not vandalism (even if I disagreed with them). Nor will your work go to waste--it's just a question of waiting to see how reliable sources for international news describe the status of Azawad, and then some form of your infobox is very likely to be introduced. So I apologize if it seems like we've been too hard on you! Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Right now the area is defacto independent without being dejure independent. In other words it acts like an independent entity but does not condsider it self to be one (like Tamil Elam did, or the current Hamas administered Gaza). The current convention used on wikipedia is that the state itself must declare independence before we consider it to be a independent state. There isn't even enough information to create a infobox for current situation in Azawad, since the MNLA haven't even declared a capital or any other type of administration yet.XavierGreen (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad/Azawagh/Azaouad

One issue that ought to be addressed soon is to what degree the terms Azawad/Azawagh/Azaouad are interchangeable. Right now, our article on "Azaouad" veers between calling it wholly distinct from "Azawad" and synonymous with it (as in the See Also). My limited French suggests to me that Azaouad is indeed an alternate spelling of Azawad (indeed, the French wiki treats them as identical [2]). Azawagh may be a different thing, as proposed at the Talk:Azaouad, but no one seems to have much luck finding these sources yet.

Given the traffic these articles are getting, this would be a good question to start talking about. Thoughts? Khazar2 (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the French wiki (which unhelpfully provides no sources) defines both "Azawad" and "Azaouad" as including nonMalian territory as well. Khazar2 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One more article to take into account in this discussion: Azawagh and Ayr region. Khazar2 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• p. 1922 here [3] appears to indicate that "Azawad" includes non-Malian territory as well. Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• [4] This 1896 work treats "Azaouad" and "Azawad" as the same, noting that they are both corruptions of "Azawagh" Khazar2 (talk)
• [5] This source appears to describe the Azawad as defined by Malian national borders. Khazar2 (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• [6] This does the same. Khazar2 (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• [7] Bradt travel guide just has "Azawad" as "desert north of Timbuktu". Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• [8] Al Jazeera includes northern Niger and southern Algeria in Azawad. The BBC, in contrast, states that "Azawad is the rebels' term for the entire north of Mali." [9] Khazar2 (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So, clearly, the sources are extremely confused on this. One provisional solution would be to note that the Azawad's range has been variously defined. If the rebels declare set national borders in a few days, obviously, we can adjust, but it might still be worth mentioning in the article that this has a geographical meaning as well as a national meaning (much as "Sudan" has changed over the course of the century).

I also suggest that we change Azaouad as a redirect to here. I'm not sure what to do about Azawagh yet--I just can't seem to find good sources. Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Azaouad be merged into Azawad. I am unable to find sources that treat these names as distinct; rather, it appears to me that Azaouad is simply an archaic French transliteration of the same Tifinagh word as Azawad. The French [10] and Italian [11] wikipedias treat these two words as synonymous, though unhelpfully, neither appears to source this. A few news sources also appear to treat the spellings as interchangeable.[12][13]

A complicated side issue is where the related term "Azawagh" fits into this. I have no good answer, but would be glad to see other comment.-- Khazar2 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC) This issue has been resolved by RJFF's move of "Azaouad" to "Azawagh". I do not believe "Azawagh" and "Azawad" should be merged in their new forms. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. Azawagh I'm not clear on, but Azaouad/Azawad seems cut-and-dried to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support. The French and Italian Wikipedias probably don't source it because it's so obvious to speakers of those languages that it never occurred to them that it needed a source. French "ou" makes the same sound as "w" does in English, IPA, etc. Evzob (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Support per Evzob. They are obviously just variations in the way French and English (or Romance v Germanic) writers transcribe Arabic to Latin alphabet. Roger (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawagh, a natural and cultural region, spread over Malian, Nigerien and Algerian territory.

Azawad, a political entity = northern Mali, claimed by the MNLA.

Oppose, actually the article Azaouad should be at Azawagh and describes the natural and cultural region that transcends national borders, while this article should describe the political region, i.e. the territory in northern Mali claimed by the MNLA, that has fix borders. The other article always speaks of "Azawagh", but is placed as Azaouad, because Azawagh has a short editing history and the move can only be performed by an admin. I will request a technical move, that might take some hours. Then we'll have one article on Azawagh (natural/cultural region = the basin of the dried-out Azawagh River, roughly bordered by the Hoggar Mountains, the Aïr Mountains, the Adrar des Ifoghas and the bank of Niger River), and one on Azawad (political entity, consisting of the northern Malian regions of Timbuktou, Kidal, Gao, and the northeastern part of Mopti, and claimed by the MNLA). Please consider that Azawad, as claimed by the MNLA, is exclusively in Mali. They don't claim Nigerien or Algerian territories. Both territories (Azawagh and Azawad) are overlapping, but not conguent, not identical. And I think that I have given a practicable way of defining the two subjects. The only confusing thing is that the article on Azawagh is at Azaouad, but I will request to change this. --RJFF (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. fr.wiki does have a separate article on the Azawagh basin, see fr:Azawagh. --RJFF (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been moved on my request. I am afraid that we have to start a new discussion, as your arguments rather reflected on the title of the Azaouad article than its content. Do you want to merge Azawagh into this article? --RJFF (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The definition you propose seems reasonable, but my main concern is that the "Azawagh" article now lacks even a single reliable source that uses its name. (The closest is a private survey using "Azaoua", which is probably an alt. spelling of Azawagh, but I'm not sure would be a reliable source in WP terms in any case.) That's the reason I wanted to salvage what we could from that article to here; I'm not sure how much of that article is salvageable at all. My initial attempts to find a definition in JSTOR suggested what you do (that Azawagh is more commonly used for the basin) but I failed to turn up a simple definition. We also need to figure out how Azawagh and Ayr region fits into this--another merge? Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction to the above--the cited book is partly available in Google books, and appears to define Azawagh as being a region solely of Niger. So we've got one source, anyway. Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to properly delimit the subjects of the two articles. Azawad/Azaouad has two meanings (or definitions). But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. If one word has two meanings, it has one entry in a dictionary (explaining both meanings), but two articles in an encyclopedia. If there are two words for the same concept, there are two articles in the dictionary, but only one in the encyclopedia. Some sources use Azawad/Azaouad to refer to the northeastern part of Mali, that is claimed by the MNLA. And some refer to the natural/geographic/cultural region that stretches over the borders to Niger and Algeria. If we have sources suggesting that Azawad includes parts of Algeria and Niger, then the other Azawad/Azawagh is meant (the geographic/cultural one, not the MNLA concept). I suggest to drop the mentions of Algeria and Niger from this article, because this article should be on MNLA-Azawad. We have the other article for the cultural/geographic/cross-border Azawad. --RJFF (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Al Jazeera, for example, says that the Tuareg rebels (they're speaking generally here) are seeking an Azawad that crosses national borders.[14] So the political concept is also unstable. Obviously, this will be clarified if the MNLA declares a "nation" with de facto borders. But even these groups appear to vary their definitions of Azawad. Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

TGhe nom changed after the first 3 votes.

Durther the 2 are different entities altogher as seen by the map (for those bbothered to before "voting"). One is the region within Mali declared as such, the other is the parts that cross in Algeria, Burkna Faso, etc. In that vein support RJFF's intention of 2 different articles for each intention...whatever the names of those articles are is another issue and just transliterationLihaas (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As the merger proposal seems to be stale and the nominator has withdrawn it, can we remove the tag from the lead section? With three maintenance tags and a hatnote it looks really confusing. By the way, what's the POV dispute about? Where's the corresponding discussion? --RJFF (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Whole situation changed, merger proposal withdrawn. Let's close this thing. --bender235 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

MNLA has declared Azawadien independence

I've restored the old disputed infobox, with a couple of tweaks. I figure the Kosovo and Somaliland articles might provide a good template here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Khazar2 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Somaliland especially - it's political situation by far most resembles the new Azawad's. Good work. Evzob (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit POV at the moment with the glaf as that is claimed by the MNLA, woh declared independece yet not supported by others. Apparently they dont hold much sway with Iyad ag Ghaly beign kignmaker and calling the shots.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, more of the sources I've seen have suggested that Ansar Dine (led by Iyad ag Ghaly) is the less powerful of the the pair, and with only 1/10 the forces of the MNLA. For example, this source [15] cited in the Ansar Dine article, which quotes a London professor (probably pretty neutral) saying that Ghaly's forces' "contribution on the military front is small". The source you cited is quoting a Malian official - not a neutral source, as the government of Mali has been repeatedly accused of exaggerating the role of Islamists in the Tuareg rebellion in order to gain support from the U.S. and others. Evzob (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The NYT appears to have thrown up its hands and said there's no way of knowing who's in charge for now.[16] Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, be thee formally warned that I have copied text to this article from Timbuktu [17]; please see that article's history for attribution. Khazar2 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but thats limited to the history of Timbuktu and the immediate region. Bit povish no?Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Capital

It seems that the de facto capital of Azawad is Gao. The Azawadien Declaration of Independence was signed in Gao. Link to independence declaration - http://www.mnlamov.net/component/content/article/169-declaration-dindependance-de-lazawad.html --Tocino 08:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm,,, dodgy this. We cant presume de facto unil sourced somewhere. Gap was also the administrative centre with the lage military outpost of the region. (Actuall, wasnt Kidal the admin centre?)Lihaas (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In eu:Azawad we have used Gao not as the capital but as the biggest city. -Theklan (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot create countries - stop playing games

This article is about a part of Mali. Even the area under control of the militias is probably less than described - main towns are held ... the rest is desert. In any case, until there is international recognition - even locally - an encyclopedia can only describe a region, or occupied area as part of the recognised sovereign state that it is part of. We don't have the right to describe it as a sovereign state just because some armed men have declared it. Wikipedia describes political realities - it doesn't help to shape them ... it's not a pressure group. Francis Hannaway 12:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The article talks about the state of Azawad, which is a new state formed and a new political entity. International recognition is not necessary to acknowledge that a new political entity has been created.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so

This is not the first instance in which wikipedia has published a lengthy article on a nation or asserted national territory without an internationally recognized state. See also, Kurdistan, the articles on Uigurstan/Singkiang, Palestine ....Dogru144 (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See also: Nagorno-Karabakh, pre-war South Ossetia, Transnistria, etc. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes the de facto situation, not only the legal one. See also: Somaliland, List of states with limited recognition, historically Biafra. --RJFF (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this article makes it pretty clear that Azawad's independence lacks general recognition. I think moving some sections over from Tuareg rebellion (2012) would make it more apparent from this article that the MNLA isn't really in complete control, either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I was going to suggest that I could make a International recognition of Azawad article or similar name International recognition of Independent State of Azawad if it is something users here think is useful. As per International recognition of South Ossetia and similar articles it makes it easier to update any future recognitions of the "state". --BabbaQ (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Do enough sources exist to make a real article on this yet, or are you just looking to put the framework in place? If the former, it sounds like a good idea; if the latter, I'd say maybe just put a subsection into this article until more is written on the subject. I have trouble seeing how the Tuaregs would be dislodged any time soon, but the situation is still fluid and uncertain. Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary for a country with no recognition. If other states start recognizing it then that article might make more sense. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a Foreign relations of Azawad article would be more appropriate. Just like with the other non-recognized Foreign relations of Somaliland.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, though again I wonder if that might be better made into just a section of this article until there's enough information to justify breaking out for more thorough treatment. I just don't know what there is out there yet--but this is developing so rapidly that there might be far more available than I realize! Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I made a stub. Lets see what happens to it I think a separate article is needed as it is a legitimate attempt by Azawad leaders to declare independence. And if I had a crystal ball I would probably see some island nation or similar recognizing the state quite soon. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The new article Foreign relations of Azawad is completely redundant as it has no content whatsoever that is not already included in this article or Azawad Declaration of Independence. A separate article is fully unnecessary. This article is not too long, so the sparse information can all be incorporated in this article and there is no need at all for a necessary article. I understand that this is a very exciting news and situation, but please don't lose it and start dozens of new articles, speculating that they might be filled some time. Wikipedia is not a crystall ball! --RJFF (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; it also means that we have five articles to update with every new foreign relations development instead of the current four (the rebellion, Azawad, the declaration, and sometimes the coup). I feel like we're having a hard enough time keeping up already. Khazar2 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The state has no foreign relations as of yet, so there is no need for the article. Merge it either to Azawad or Azawad Declaration of Independence until such time as they have foreign relations to discuss. TDL (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous and brings Wikipedia into disrepute

There undoubtedly should be an article Azawad, but it should entirely be about its etymology and the claims made for it by National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. It is ludicrous to structure it as though it were a real state:history, geography, climate etc etc. Pull yourselves together: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. 86.185.155.253 (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a region, and therefore has a climate, geography, and a history. This was in the article before the state was even declared, I think. But thanks for this--it's been at least two weeks since I saw my last good "You have shamed the entire Wikipedia project" post, and I was concerned I was no longer doing so. Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)