Talk:Azawad

Demographic piecharts misleading..

Tuareg devide themselves in several categories: religious people / poets, the slightly lower cast of warriors, the much lower cast of skilled workers (blacksmiths etc), and, far below that, manual workers. At least that was how some of them explained it to me. The same roughly counts for Moorish society.

The manual workers were in effect slaves until quite recently, and often higher cast Tuareg don't allow them much freedom. Many Tuareg households where I was a guest, have a black skinned maid that gets no salary, nor any other rights, except to work long days. Also the poorer quarters of Timbuctu are (were) populated with countless thousands of black skinned people, who were the slaves of Moors and Tuareg, but who were sent off during the droughts of the 1980's. Hefty economic discrimination against them by a dominant part of the feudally minded Tuareg elite continues till today.

Also the northern banks of the river Niger are farmed by people who are often taxed at will by feudally minded Tuareg, who claim that since they own the land under the farms, the crop and everything these farmers own, also belongs to them. Seen it myself on one occasion: a village gets robbed of 70 % of their yearly crop in trade for 'protection'.

Wow. And Volkswagen promote these people ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Tuareg from upper casts, when asked with how many they are, tend to include in their head count, the Tamasheq speaking dark skinned 'ex-slaves' and the riverine farmers on the land they 'own'. Because they assumed many positions in local governance, they have managed to get this vision of the Tuareg population into the statistics, used to make the pie charts. Most likely, these 'lower cast' Tuareg would strongly object to being included in any Tuareg head count. And most likely, many of them would object to a separation from Mali.

It would be good to at least include a paragraph about the cast system within Tuareg hemisphere, and the likelyhood that many in the lower casts would object to Azawad independence?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best if you did so yourself? -- Aflis (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Pure POV fiction

This is really inane. It is fiction, created to push a political POV.

As a writer and researcher who follows Sahelian affairs closely, I can assure neutral editors that there is no evidence the MNLA control more than a few spots in northern Mali, and do so only with the support of Ansar Eddine, Muajao, and local militias, none of whom support the MNLA's political goals. Their popular support in the country outside a few Ifoghas tribal fractions in Kidal Region is nil. Most --laregly independent -- MNLA units have political goals quite unlike those of the MNLA politburo, until a couple of weeks ago based in Nouakchott and Paris. A La Stampa report who sneaked in from Niger reported in April first "liberated town" of Menaka was actually controlled by an anti-MNLA local militia. They apparently control parts of Gao city with the help of Islamist groups and Arab militia from the Bourem area. This only came after the Malian coup which saw the army just walk away from everything north of Mopti, mostly from fear of being executed upon capture by the Islamist groups, as was the garrison in Aguelhoc. It also doesn't hurt that 350,000 civilians have fled the area.

The MNLA does have a Paris based press team and websites, as well as a few thousand enthusiastic Moroccan & Algerian Berber nationalist teenagers who -- while never having even set foot in Mali -- are pushing this as web "activism". Hence, you get a huge Wikipedia presence trying to create reality through editing Wikipedia articles. Jeune Afrique, for instance, today reported even generous estimates say the MNLA affiliated fighters number no more than 600. In an area twice the size of France, in a pre-war population of almost 900,000.

The reporting of a "state of Azawad" is counter-factual, and relies on a lack of foreign press in the war zone and a sympathetic French activist community. Entirely. Neutral editors involved in this are going to be very embarrassed in about six months, once reality sets in.

This is not the job of Wikipedia. I believe that there are longstanding POV policies, and the editors pushing this state creation via Wikipedia are activists, not neutral reporters. This is also organized. I have actually seen on the pro-MNLA message boards/facebook pages calls for people to edit Wikipedia entries.

If the word Azawad did not actually refer to several discrete but notable seasonal pasturage sites, I would nominate this topic be immediately deleted without prejudicing a recreation in a year or so.

That this has gotten so far is proof how entirely broken Wikipedia is when faced with a small core of POV-pushing editors on a topic Americans know nothing about. T L Miles (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedia editor (and one that I respect a lot--I've come across your quality work several times before), surely you know that the best way to improve the 'pedia is to make constructive suggestions, rather than rant against the system generally and attack the motives of editors. Could you be more specific about the changes you'd like to see here? As always, any information in the article that you don't think is verified by a reliable source can be removed. Khazar2 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and say that, as someone who has been watching this article from the beginning, its creation and maintenance has not been driven significantly by POV of the editors. There has been a clear and obvious effort to maintain neutral POV based on reliable sources. There could be mistakes, and there could be factual inaccuracies, but the editors are by and large trying their best here. Evzob (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the article myself, but I can try to find the relevant sources available to me in the next couple of days to see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Azawad No Longer Exists?

This AFP Article claims that the MNLA has been routed from all major cities. The MNLA now holds only a few small towns. Does this mean then that the Republic of Azawad has ceased to exist?Inkan1969 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Azawad exists about as much as it did last month--that is, as a self-proclaimed state recognized only by itself. I think it's worth updating this article, particularly the lead, to acknowledge this turn of events. I'll try to do some of this later myself. Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've found this article from Reuters for a different POV. Roger (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well no, it now exists much less than it did last month, because the gang which appeared to have effective actual control over it last month, clearly no longer does.Eregli bob (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The MNLA was in partnership with Ansar Dine, right? And if Ansar Dine is who routed them from the cities, then it's still Azawad, just a civil war within. I mean, if it wasn't Azawad, then what would it be? Mali? I think Ansar Dine would disagree with that, unless they've proclaimed themselves to be wanting to reunite the region with Mali. --Golbez (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As Roger just posted, Ansar Dine spokespeople still call the region "Mali". One of the Islamist groups flew Malian flags over Gao after the MNLA were driven out. I think Azawad was more of a Tuareg nationalist concept than an Islamist one. But we'll see how it shakes out. Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. That does complicate things, but then again, have they let Mali troops back in to the region? Or is it all just bluster? I think until we have some formal statement that either 1) the government of Mali is back in control, 2) has endorsed Ansar Dine as controlling an autonomous region of Mali, or 3) The MNLA has given up, then we should still consider this a civil war in an unrecognized but still de facto independent country. If 3 happens and the MNLA gives up, but the other two haven't happened, then we still have the question of, is it then a civil war within Mali instead of a separatist movement? Basically, there's too many questions at the moment and not enough information, and in that case we have to go with the status quo, which at last check was a declaration of independence and then in-fighting among those involved. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me! I said/posted nothing of the sort at all. I only provided a link to a WP:RS news article to which I have absolutely no connection. Please take more care in your writing not to hold the messenger responsible for the content of the message. Roger (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Khazar said you posted this. In that, they are exactly correct, you posted that link. They did not say you wrote it, nor that you endorsed it. I don't understand why this is something to get emotional about. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not being more clear, Roger. I simply meant in the link that you had posted. Khazar2 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I know that's what you meant. I'm just a bit of a PITA about precision in writing. Which is not a bad thing when writing WP articles where inaccurate attribution can sometimes create a mess. Roger (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ansar Dine has always rejected the declaration of independence by the MNLA. For example, Ansar Dine's military chief Omar Hamaha stated at the time "We are against independence". Other sources: "...insisting they wanted to maintain the territorial integrity of Mali", "Ansar Dine rejects partition", "Ansar Dine, which jointly controls the country's north, said Wednesday it was not interested in proclaiming an independent state", etc. They view it as a civil war within a united Mali. TDL (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think it's incredible that Ansar Dine and its allies may have routed the MNLA from major cities, this is still just one report, which cites no named sources at that. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we are definitely still in a "wait and see" situation until more sources appear that clarify the current status. Roger (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the MNLA still controls various minor towns and villages in the area it claims, Azawad still defacto exists. So long as a state maintains control over even a minor portion of territory it still exists defacto.XavierGreen (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Any sources confirm that MNLA still control any permanently populated territory? Because same said "Islamists declare full control of Mali's north". Furthermore Caucasus Emirate still control some territories but is not regarded as de facto state. So, if MNLA has lost control over all territories, as sources said, or still keep small unimportant pieces of land, as in case of Caucasus Emirate, that mind Azawad is not de facto state at the moment. Aotearoa (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to settle the de facto state question in any case, since we happily didn't use that language in the first place. I think the language of the article still holds--Azawad is a descriptor of a region as well as an unrecognized state declared by the MNLA. Khazar2 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is important question, depend of answer for it Azawd should be noted in the List of sovereign states and the List of states with limited recognition or not. Moreover in the head of article we have country infobox, so if Azawad not exist as a de facto state at the moment, this infobox shoud be deleted. Aotearoa (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The infobox clearly says Unrecognized. It is not listed in List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition also clearly marks it as having no recognition at all. Thus there is nothing that needs to be changed given the information that is currently available. Roger (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If country is not de facto state at the moment, and if article is about both region and self-proclaimed state, than infobox is not appropriate – see cases of Republic of Ambazonia, State of Anjouan. Moreover Azawad is under Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states, so propabely it should be moved to Category:Former unrecognized countries. And, as on most other cases, the best solution is to split article to two: Azawad about region in northern Mali and State of Azawad about MNLA proclamed state. Aotearoa (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion it seems like Azawad is very much still in the same political situation as before. But only that the leaders of the country has changed from MNLA to Ansar Dine. Ansar Dine has no intention as I understand it to merge back Azawad as a part of Mali.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There already is a separate article about the region - see the hatnote. As far as the status of Azawad as an unrecognized state is concerned, we simply do not have sufficient information at this stage to determine if any change to this article is justified. As I posted earlier - "wait and see". Roger (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The MNLA themselves state that they are in control of various minor towns and villages in northern mali, so long as they control at least one town or populated place Azawad still meets the critera for statehood defacto in the same manner that taiwan does.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The MNLA claims that they still control the borders and other territory, just not the major cities. CMD (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Aotearoa is right on the mark. There needs to be an article for the declared state either way, but whether it's listed elsewhere on Wikipedia as a de facto sovereign state depends on the criteria in the sovereign states list. Those criteria state that it must either (1) have at least some territory controlled by the party which declared its independence or (2) have received recognition of sovereign status from another state. We all agree that Number 2 is certainly not the case, and if the MNLA truly no longer controls any territory (as claimed here [1]), then Azawad can no longer be classified as a de facto sovereign state according to our criteria.

Ansar Dine considers the region to be part of Mali, and officially intends to re-unify - under strict Sharia law. This makes it no different from dozens of other armed groups which control territories but have not declared their parts of the country independent (for example, the rebels in Libya last year). As for the Caucasus Emirate, my understanding is that declaring an Islamic emirate alone does not meet the criteria (several of these emirates also existed in Yemen until recently), because they have not explicitly sought international recognition via use of the terms "independent" or "sovereign state". Failure to do this suggests that they are attempting to secede from the whole nation-state system altogether, rather than to form a separate state within the system. Evzob (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, for the lists of independent states defacto independence must also be followed by a declaration of independence to be included in the lists if there is recognition of independence by other states. A similar case would be Tamil Elam and Hamas controlled Gaza both have been defacto independent of any state and act like states but since neither declared independence they were not included on any of the lists since they did not consider themselves to be dejure independent. The various salafist emirates that have been declared in yemen and other places consider themselves to be part of an islamic calipate which does not yet exist, so in absence of a declaration of independence or recognition they are not included on the various lists of independent states.XavierGreen (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Former Country infobox?

Reuters says that the MNLA dropped its independence claim on July 15 [2] and France 24 says they were forced out of their last stronghold on July 12 [3]. At this point I don't think one could reasonably argue that the state of Azawad exists. Maybe a former country infobox is in order for this page? Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the MNLA has disputed the story that they have dropped their independence claims: [4]. TDL (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I think they've still lost control of the territory though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. TDL (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

By July 12th Azawad ceased to exist defacto, since it has no recognition if it still asserts independence it now is in a similar position to the Republic of Cabinda (which is not included in the various wikipedia lists of states) which has forces in the territory it claims yet controls none of the territory it claims outright. If the MNLA still claims independence and were to recapture and hold any populated place it would exist again defacto according to the criteria on the various lists of states Wikipedia maintains.XavierGreen (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You did the right by referring to it as a former state but it's now called Islamic Emirate of Azawad just like Afghanistan under Taliban and it's flag is the Black flag with the Shahada 3bdulelah (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Need for new map for Azawad

There was a certain map of Azawad which was deleted by Wikimedia, probably for valid reasons. However this doesn't absolve us from fact we do need a valid map. In fact we need two maps: One for Azawad the region that include far greater areas and a second for the present Azawad, the de facto state. Just for reference, there is a map for the de facto state used in a Wikipedia language page here: http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitxategi:Azawad_map-basque.jpg which I put as a specimen to indicate what probably needs to be done. werldwayd (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of map do you want? This article has a map of the state. The region article, Azawagh, has a couple of images, but we can only have a map if we can reliably source the region boundaries. CMD (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a de facto map for Azawad is probably impossible at this point anyway, given that they now only control a few small towns which haven't been identified. Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

True. I suppose all our maps are now historical, accurate immediately post-Tuareg declaration of victory. I guess we just wait and see for the moment. CMD (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually the Azawagh page some refer to contains a map of the Niger River basin and not Azawagh. See File:Niger river map.PNG This CAN'T be the Azawagh... It just vaguely explains that "The Azawagh forms the 'northeastern sections of the Niger River basin' ". This leaves the reader at a loss of where exactly the Azawagh region we are talking about is. It's up to anyone's imagination frankly to conclude. I think we still need a map of what is Azawagh for sure. About Azawad, well I tend to agree that we must wait a while for clarifications of the new situation emerging. werldwayd (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to create an exact map of something that does not have an exact definition/description. Roger (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So, if it impossible, why we have such map? Both maps used in article (File:Azawad (orthographic projection).svg & File:Azawad in context.JPG) show only MNLA point of view (i.e. area never controlled by MNLA, but only claimed by them), and they are not maps of the de facto State of Azawad. So, we need maps similar to maps used in article Transnistria (e.g. File:Transnistria-map.png, File:Naddniestrze.png) – i.e. with area de facto controlled by secessionists and area claimed by them. If we don’t know witch area (if any...) is de facto controlled by MNLA, we can’t use any map of Azawad in this article, especially in infobox. Aotearoa (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) PS Azawagh and Azawad (region) are two different entities (e.g. both are shown on IGN map of Mali 1:2,000,000 of 1993: Azawagh is in eastern corner of Mali (north-east of Ménaka town) and western Niger, Azawad (Azaouâd) lies north of Timbuktu).

Dodger67/Roger was referring to Azawagh, for which we don't really have a map, rather than the state. At the time the Azawad maps were created and implemented, the claim was the de facto State. The MNLA conquered all they claimed, and unilaterally declared an end to the war. This held for a short while. It is only recently, with the breakdown of the interim agreement and the upsurge of the Ansar Dine et al that the MNLA have lost their control. CMD (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we are clear what the map depicts (the claimed territory and not the controlled territory) there's nothing wrong with including it. The caption in the infobox explains this. Trying to create a sourced and up to date map of the controlled territory is likely an impossible task. TDL (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Has Ansar Dine et al. stated anything about their intentions since their kicking the MNLA out? Did they repeal their agreement for an Islamic Azawad and restart their Malian civil war, or something similar? CMD (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted some links in the section above about their position. They reject the independence of Azawad. See for example this quote "All we want is the implementation of sharia" in Mali, he said. "We are against independence." TDL (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: Someone here said that the MNLA never controlled their claimed territory, but in fact they very nearly did (unless we speculate that Ansar Dine was already the sole control in some of the area). Only a very small strip near the southern section was held by the Malian army. Evzob (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• According to [5] Islamists control all territory of Azawad. Aotearoa (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Mali map

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mali#Azawad on the map (Consesnsus Poll). CMD (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

I think the article has to be updated, considering the changed situation. The ones who claim Azawad's independence don't control its territory, and those who control the land don't want it to be independent. I think we should remove the country infobox altogether, as it does not apply here. We give the position of the MNLA (which is the only major group who wants Azawad's independence) too much weight, given that they don't even control the territory. The Islamist groups who in fact control the territory, don't recognize the idea of Azawad as an independent entity. The flag shown here isn't their flag. They don't recognize the borders shown on the map. We don't know the line where the control of the Malian government ends and the one of the Islamists begins in fact. The maps only shows the claim of the MNLA, who have lost the conflict. --RJFF (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Khazar2 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is about the political entity as declared by the MNLA, not the geographic region. The region is covered at Azawagh. If the MNLA has lost control of the territory, then Azawad has ceased to exist since the Islamists don't claim independence. In their eyes Azawad never existed. This article should continue to discuss the former country (including the circumstances of its demise) like the Republic of Texas, not the current status of the geographic region. TDL (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Azawagh" is different region than "Azawad". According to Azawagh article: The Azawagh (alias Azaouagh or Azawak) is a dry basin covering what is today northwestern Niger, as well as parts of northeastern Mali and southern Algeria. "Azawad" is the name for northern part of Mali. Name "Azawad" was used by MNLA, but today is used for this area of Mali not only by MNLA authorities. So, article entitled "Azawad" should be about region; perhaps we need separate article about former short-living State of Azawad. Aotearoa (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say Azawad is used to describe a region restricted to Mali? I assumed that Azawagh and Azawad were just different corruptions of the same word. Sources treat it as a synonym: [6], [7] TDL (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, if they are synonyms, then Azawad should be redir-page to Azawagh, and article about state should be different title. But now, in the article Azawagh is nothing about that Azawad is synonym for Azawagh (it’s quite the opposite – Azawad, a term used for the portion of northern Mali claimed by the Tuareg rebel movement National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, is believed to be an Arabic corruption of "Azawagh"). Aotearoa (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, if they're synonyms then we need to decide what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is for the term (the state or the region). Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so what it says at Azawagh isn't relevant. But it doesn't contradict what I said. It is also the term used for the territory claimed by the MNLA. That's why it was the name of the country. Just like Macedonia can refer to the territory of the Republic of Macedonia or the Region of Macedonia. TDL (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the Encyclopédie berbère, which is significantly older than the latest Touareg rebellion or the MNLA, has two distinct articles on Azawad and Azawagh. So they are not and have never been synonyms. Unfortunately, I cannot access this encyclopedia, so I cannot tell you how it defines the two territories. It might be a very valuable and helpful source for us. --RJFF (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be quite interested to see that. However, we need to go by English language usage here. Just because they have distinct meanings in French doesn't imply that this must be the case in English. TDL (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Aotearoa This is the "separate article about former short-living State of Azawad", Azawagh is the article about the geographic region which includes, but is not entirely identical to, the "former short-living State of Azawad". Roger (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are appropriate for all pages about states, whether those states are extinct, extant, in exile only, occupied, or in any other status. The State of Azawad page should have an infobox regardless of its current status. For example the Roman Empire has an infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether or not it ever was a real state. It never was one in the Western sense for sure, as there was never a functioning state authority that controlled all of its territory, it never had clearly defined borders. So the comparison with the Roman Empire (which steadily existed for some centuries) is very flawed. You could compare it to Biafra, but even Biafra existed for nearly three years, and not three months. I would favor to have an article about the region Azawad=Northern Mali, and mention that it was declared an independent state for some time, but I wouldn't focus too much on the statehood, as these three months of the history of this land shouldn't be over-emphasized. I still recommend to remove the country infobox, because for most of its history (if ever, which can be disputed) Azawad was not a sovereign country, but a geographical, cultural, and political (albeit not officially acknowledged) region. --RJFF (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's borders were what the MNLA claimed they were. The insurgency was so successful that they managed to not only conquer all they wanted but then unilaterally declare a ceasefire afterwards. It had a government that resided in a declared government building, with as much control over its territory as many other countries do. Like TDL and others, I've never seen any discussion of a region just including Northern Mali before. Even after the declaration of independence, many sources I saw still noted that the Tuareg region extended through neighbouring countries as well. Treating it as a region would content fork with Azawagh. CMD (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And how do you know where the borders were? Because the MNLA told you so or because you saw it with your own eyes? I haven't seen a single independent, reliable source verifying this. And how long did this government in Gao execute state authority over all of its claimed territories? Do you know that, too? --RJFF (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My eyes probably wouldn't be a reliable source, but basically because yes, the MNLA noted their boundaries, if only roughly. That's how boundaries work. With a few exceptions, political boundaries are invisible to someone standing right on them. Boundaries are declared by the governing body of the area, often in cooperation with neighbours, sometimes without. Some remain without proper demarcation, even if they're not noted to be disputed. In this case, the group which declared the boundaries were militarily completely superior.

As for the length of time, we know the start date, and we have plenty of sources which track the dispute with the Islamists, including the break of cooperation, the being forced out of the capital and other cities, and the being forced out of their last settlement. That's not bad. CMD (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if it never was a "real" state, the concept of a State of Azawad is still notable enough for an article. I don't think anyone really thinks the Principality of Sealand is a real state, but it certainly is notable enough that it needs an article. The only question is whether we need 3 articles (two for the regions [Azawagh and Azawad] and one for the state) or 2 (one for the region of Azawagh and one for the state). TDL (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@RJFF the geographical region is at Azawagh. This article is about the political entity claimed and briefly controlled by the MNLA. It is a perfectly legitimate article with a clearly distinct subject different from the subject of Azawagh. Roger (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I used to think so too. But the Encyclopédie berbère already had two distinct articles on Azawad and Azawagh in the 1980s, long before the MNLA or its predecessors were founded and long before anyone could predict the declaration of an independent state of Azawad in 2012. Apparently the historical-geographical region of Azawad (the Azawad basin) lies to the west of the Azawagh basin (with the former west and the latter east of the Adrar des Ifoghas massif). And the "state" Azawad again has different borders, comprising the region of Azawad, a part of Azawagh, the Adrar des Ifoghas that lies between them, and even some area south of the Niger river that neither belong to the one nor the other (and isn't populated by Touareg or Arabs, but Sub-Saharans) --RJFF (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can find RS which supports this then I'd support the creation of a third article on the region. But we need sources. TDL (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in previous discussions we saw lots of different definitions of "Azawad" and "Azawagh" in different sources. Some treated them as synonyms and others treated them as distinct terms. I came away from that feeling that the definitions were pretty murky. What's clear is that all these terms are somehow related to the same rough geographical area. We should have a single article for the entire concept of an Azawad/Azawagh region and note the differing definitions there, rather than forking based on the particular scheme adopted by one encyclopedia or another.

Also, if we're going to make this page about the short-lived state, then we should follow the example of pages like Biafra and make sure all the content is directly related to that state. This isn't the place for 14th century history. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is happening without referring to previous discussions

Why is there no link to Talk:Azawad/Archive 1 on this page?

Participants in this discussion should familiarise themselves with previous discussions and the established consensus about the scope of this article and the differentiation between it and the Azawagh article. Without access to the archived discussions we are simply trying to re-invent the wheel here.

Can someone who knows how, please add an "Archives" links box thing (probably some type of template) to this page. Roger (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done TDL (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Use from "The Prophet" SAW and PBUH are no neutral point of view

To use "The Prophet" as a synonimous from Mohammed, as if it was a personal name, and use from saw pbuh in his name are particular religious terms, no to be used in a secular site as wikipedia is.