Jump to content

Talk:Azawad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cornedrut13 (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 9 April 2012 (→‎Toward more constructive engagement/concrete proposals). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Differences in spelling do not correspond to differences in meaning. Whatever the spelling, the term originally applied to a region vaster than Northern Mali, and for many people this applies. For the time being, the MNLA uses it just as a synonym for Northern Mali, but thereis no guarantee that, once established and entrenched, an independent Azawad will not claim territories in Niger, Burkina Fase, even Algeria and/or Libya. Aflis (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azawad originally applied to the desert north of Timbuktu.(Roderick J. MacIntosh: Before Timbuktu — cities of the Elder World, Introduction to the Timbuktu Region) Azawagh originally refers to the basin between Hoggar, Air and Adrar des Ifoghas. Azawad is west of the Adrar des Ifoghas, Azawagh ist east of it. Both terms are sometimes (often?) confused or (wrongly) used interchangeably. --RJFF (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Khazar2 (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland especially - it's political situation by far most resembles the new Azawad's. Good work. Evzob (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The AlJaz document cited on the declaration page says AD has more writ, the london professor is an individual who wrote that in the early days of march before timbuktu and impositions of sharia, etc.
Also the flag is that of the MLNA not Azawad so we cant claim it as the state flag...that said im certianly not against using here, just with the caveat that it is the MNLA's proposed flag. And seeing as it doesnt exist in Gao/KIDAL or whereever the AD took it off its national character is dubiousLihaas (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Very clear indeed that in the article it is stated Azawad is a de-facto idependant state with currently no international recognition. I will add that Wikipedia's role is to document verifiable knowledge, not promote officialy recogniced states' position despite of facts. Correjon (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Merge with the section in the declaration, IF it grows to something then we can have the seperate page.
Also dont see why the coup, rebellion nd this page nees every upate. A summation here should do with a link to the single page.Lihaas (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Maybe that tells you something i.e. you should get a hobby that better suits your abilities. Btw, the article was nonsense even before the declaration on Friday) 86.185.155.253 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MNLA, which seems to control the region inasmuch as it is controlled (certainly to a greater extent than Mali does), has declared it independent. Wikipedia has to reflect that and contain that information. It's a de facto state, independence has been declared, Wikipedia isn't an organ of any state or governing body...it's not much different from Somaliland or the SADR, really. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More countries with debated independence status, but with full wikipedia articles

Earlier I stated that there are wikipedia precedents. There was the addressing of places without actual states. Here are further examples of asserted states, but in this case asserted independent entities with governmental structures. Note the examples of Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus. Each instance has very limited international recognition but detailed inforboxes nonetheless.Dogru144 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hannaway is right. The very fact that this article has been made and claims that Azawad is an actual state is unacceptable. There is no such thing as Azawad (it's not even a region, there has never been a region called Azawad in this area!) and Wikipedia has no right to side with the rebels and acknowledge this nonsense when no one else does. Azawad is a political construct, it doesn't exist as a state. The region is part of Mali. Point blank. This page should be removed, it is a slap in the face of the Malian nation. LG, Sat 7 apr 10:23 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.249.86 (talk)

Wikipedia does not exist for the dignity of the Malian nation. The region in question is part of Mali in the sense that other states recognize it as so, and in the sense that the government in Bamako claims it - but not really in any other sense. I think this article properly reflects that. Evzob (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of statehood by a sizable armed group is sufficient grounds. Moreover, to cite another case of an article on an asserted territory never recognized by geography students, see Deseret. This is the Church of Latter Day Saints territory in the western United States in the mid-19th Century. It was never recognized politically, yet a portion of the organized Mormon community at that time asserted that it was a political territory.Dogru144 (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. None of you have any authority to decide whether a temporary take-over by terrorists is sufficient ground or not. Does the population of Northern Mali accept Azawad as a state? No. Does the rest of the country? No. Does the international community? No. The only people who do are a group of armed terrorists and you people on Wikipedia. There is no such thing as a "state" of Azawad. It is a political construct made up by a bunch of rebels, with no historical nor geographical basis. There has never been a state of Azawad in the region, the region has never been called Azawad by anyone either, and there are many other ethnies than Touaregs living there. MNLA does NOT represent the population of the region. The Swedish region of Jämtland declared independence a few decades ago and some people there still think it doesn't belong to Sweden. Does the Wikipedia page for Jämtland describe it as a state? No. Because it isn't. So stop giving legitimacy to terrorists and stop describing Azawad as a country. It is NOT a country. LG, Sun 8 Apr, 07:40 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the infobox:country has no paramenter for the status of the country. Otherwise, we could mark it more noticeably as internationally unrecognized and illegitimate according to international law. This might appease the readers who take offence at this article looking like the one of a "real country". --RJFF (talk) 10:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RJFF, I like this suggestion a lot, and I've reposted it at Template:Infobox country. Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, Azawad is a state with a capital, a new governement and an army. Azwad is a state that has less than 2 days, so of course it not as recognized and organised than others states. Wikipedia has a page for South Ossetia, which is only recognized as a state by Russia. A state is not defined by recognition, but by the political control. There is not one single Malian soldier left on this territory and the Malian institutions have no control on it. The state of Azawad is currently existing, wether it is recognized or not.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have information from third parties, confirming that the "new government" actually has control over its territory, except the Governor's Palace in Gao? Who is in control of Timbuktu? Who is in control of northeastern Mopti Region which the map shows as part of Azawad? The MNLA claims it, but is there any confirmation by third parties that they control it in fact? We should maintain our core principles of verifiability and WP:NPOV and not break out in excitement over the new-born state. --RJFF (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let us be more sober about actual fact. The MNLA recognizes it is far from having, at this stage, full control over Azawad, but that there are several ("islamist") rival groups (which e.g. drobe the MNLA out of Timbuctu). Also, the non-Tuareg inhabitants of Azawad, who may be as numerous as the Tuareg, are not at all happy withe the perspective of being ruled by Tuareg. So, let us rather wait until the dust settles down, and until we have more reliable sources. -- Aflis (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what you're proposing--not having an infobox, not having an article, or do you just mean you want everyone to be careful with their edits? I'm not necessarily opposed to what you're saying, I just want to make sure I understand it; it seems like all the caveats you've mentioned here have already been included in detail in the article itself. Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AFP is pushing very very hard their story that Ansar Done pushed MNLA out of Timbuktu, and write it in all their articles, but it appears to be untrue. There have been no clashes reported yet bewteen the two groups. It seems Ansar Dine just walked in and started to try to rule.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never was a point so much missed by so many and read by so few

The absurdity of this article isn't about recognition and by whom. It's not comparable with Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara etc. Asawad "...is an unrecognised state that was unilaterally declared in 2012". No! it is an unrecognised state that was unilaterally declared last Friday afternoon!!! Get a grip. 86.185.155.253 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Azawad collapses next week, its existence will have been a historical fact. For example, the Bavarian Soviet Republic lasted about one month in the late 1910s, and it has its own full-length article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Historical fact" isn't why Bavarian Soviet Republic has an article despite its brief existence, It has notoriety for a number of reasons (intellectual history, context of Weimar Republic and the Nazi follow-on,first European non-USSR Soviet etc) as evidenced by cited sources from the last 90 years. If Azawad has that same notoriety then fair enough. But I think it risible that a handful of editors claim that degree of crystal-ball clarity for something that popped up on the newswires on friday. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuareg character of rebellion

Numerous media reports are reporting this as a Tuareg rebellion or independence movement. However, by many indications, such as the character of the MNLA, we are not getting the impression in this article or MNLA that this is a strictly Tuareg independence movement. Which is correct? Wikipedia or certain media reports?Dogru144 (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't rely on primary sources; in fact, it tends to give primary sources less credence than secondary sources, such as scholarly articles, reference books, and media reports. Secondary sources have reported the MNLA is predominantly Tuareg, though it has apparently formed alliances of one kind or another with both Malian Arabs (in the Timbuktu Region, particularly) and foreign Arab fighters allied with Islamist militancies like AQIM and the MOJWA (personally, I'd put the over/under on open warfare breaking out between the MNLA/secularists and the Islamists at about five days, but time will tell). The overwhelming characterization of this conflict has been that of a Tuareg rebellion against Mali, though I don't think it's clear that Azawad is intended as a Tuareg ethnic state at this point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media reports jsut parrot and senesationalise off each other. THe other 2 i agree.
Further the majority are overwhelmingly Tuareg, agreed, but not all are so we should parrot it one way to cater to the media spotlightLihaas (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of catering to the media - it's a matter of those media being the only acceptable sources under Wikipedia policy. Evzob (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not catering to the media. I am just raising the dichotomy and I am initiating a public discussion. It is an interesting question of discussion. That is all.Dogru144 (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the MNLA is mostly Tuareg, there are at least three "islamist" groups constituted by Moors and, probably, Fula. Aflis (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Ansar Dine is also mostly Tuareg - in any case, its leader is a Tuareg. Evzob (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources are sketchy on this, but given that it was considered worldwide news when a single eyewitness reported that he'd heard two Ansar Dine fighters speaking with "Mauritanian accents", it appears that the default assumption is that all the rest are Tuaregs. If you've got some more sources on your Moor and Fula claims, though, please add them in--we've been striving to resolve this issue and continually coming up short. Khazar2 (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Dine is mostly Tuaregs, with Iyad Ag Ghaly and his clan which founded its militia when MNLA refused him. But he has several foreign djihadists with him.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you there right now, in Timbuktu? You seem to know all this at first hand. Have you met with Ansar Dine? --RJFF (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I am just writing what I have read from good sources. Iyad tried to be leader of MNLA but was rejected and founded Ansar Dine. One of the leader of the group told that there were Nigerians and Somalis with them.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De facto state?

The reason we treat Azawad like a country, is that we assume that it is de facto independent and under control of the MNLA/Azawad provisional government. We show a map with Azawad as claimed by the MNLA in green, as we show maps of other sovereign countries. But do we know the actual situation? Sources report that Timbuktu is not under the control of MNLA, but Ansar Dine. A resident of Kidal told Reuters, that Kidal is also under control of Ansar Dine. So all what remains for MNLA is Gao. It's confirmed that the MNLA sit in the governor's palace of Gao and have their flag flying on top of it. So how can we allow ourselves to act as if the MNLA alias Azawad were actually in control of all the territory they claim, and write a nice article and show a nice map, if it is not confirmed by neutral sources that it actually reflects reality? --RJFF (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, same reason we do that for Somalia, Yemen, the DRC, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Sudan? Not really sure what your point is. We note the internal situation, as well as the external situation, in the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somalia, Yemen, the DRC, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and South Sudan are recongnized by other countries. Somaliland, Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria, Kosovo, Taiwan have de facto control over their territory. Azawad has neither. --RJFF (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azawad is a new state, not even one week and spread on a huge territory (bigger than France), so of course it is not recognized and the stability is not there. One thing is sure, The Azawad state has more control over this territory than the Malian state has.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be very-well informed. Curious that the sources that I read don't indicate so. Could you possibly cite your sources so that other editors can track you assessment? "Azawad is a new state, not even one week (...) and the stability is not there". Sounds like the stability would automatically come with the time. What if it won't come? We shouldn't speculate. We all have no crystal ball. Ansar Dine have said they don't want secession. If Ansar Dine is in control of the territory, then it isn't part of Azawad. --RJFF (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RJFF, I'd have no problem with you tweaking language here to state things like "MNLA claims de facto control." The situation is clearly fluid. I do think it's handy to have the map showing the contours and some basics of the proposed state, as long as it's clear it's a declared and unverified state. Could you be more specific about what else you might be interested in removing? It seems like most of this "nice article" is things like history, climate, etc. which would apply to the region regardless of the national entity in control; it shouldn't be too hard to tweak the MNLA specific parts to reflect the skeptics about their claim. Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Ansar Dine controls it, it isn't Azawad? That's blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based off something one Ansar Dine commander said in passing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Ansar Dine controls it, it is Azawad? That's blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based off something MNLA has declared. Azawad doesn't exist according to international law. All that it can be based on is the "normative power of the factual". But if it doesn't even have factual control, then it has nothing. If Timbuktu is held by Ansar Dine, then it's de jure Mali and de facto under control of a militia that wants to make all of Mali a theocracy, but not secede. So what's the base of saying that it's in the "Independent State of Azawad"? It's only a claim by the MNLA, without factual base. As soon as we have third party confirmation that the MNLA alias provisional government of Azawad controls all of it, I don't have a problem. But if Timbuktu and Kidal are neither de jure nor de facto under the control of MNLAzawad, who or what warrants us to include them here? How can we say Timbuktu and Kidal are amongst the most important towns of this country? How can we say it comprises the regions of Gao, Kidal, Timbuktu and a part of Mopti if we don't know who really controls these regions? It's not our task to be nice to Azawad because they're all new and having a tough time, so we don't have too be too strict and give them some territory. We have to stick to what's actually verifiable. --RJFF (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the airport in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia claims to be the biggest in the world. The reason for the claim is that there is a huge expanse of desert adjacent to the airport proper and so they just put a fence around it and claimed it to be a part of the airport. The same can be said for the so-called "new country". Azawad is a part of Mali which is mostly desert. Militias hold a few towns, but there is nothing to say they will hold them for long, or of what value holding them is. On top of this there is a huge expanse of desert - de facto belonging to no one. There is no new state and it is not the place of Wikipedians to describe it as such. Idi Amin claimed to be king of Scotland - nobody thought of taking him seriously. If Azawad were to be considered anything approaching a country, it would need to have been established for at least - let's say - a year. Certainly not just a week after a declaration. Francis Hannaway 18:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If Azawad is part of Mali, then why doesn't the Malian government control it? Why can't it send police to arrest the people it says have made an illegal declaration of independence? I've never been to West Africa and I have no skin in the game here, but the MNLA are at least as credible in claiming to control Azawad as Bamako is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there is not only two possibilities, Bamako controls it or MNLA controls it. Francis is right: most of the territory in question is desert and under the control of no one. And what if neither Bamako nor the MNLA, but Ansar Dine control it, or it's just anarchy? Then we can't just say: it looks nice, if we give it to Azawad. That's what the French made a century ago, and we see that it works out great! --RJFF (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The MNLA has declared the independence of a state it calls Azawad, and it has outlined the borders. This isn't some bored people on Wikipedia deciding willy-nilly what to include in Azawad. This article is based on reliably sourced information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kudzu1 that this is a real declared independence and not something that will be gone by tomorrow.. so lets not get into more meta-discussions about this.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes based on something that happened on Friday. "not something that will be gone by tomorrow". ctation please. 86.185.155.253 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azawad is recognized by one land: Wikipedialand. --13Peewit (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all of the anger over this article?

Is this a bunch of Malian nationalists trolling wikipedia? I don't understand how we can have articles on unrecognized countries like Bessarbia and fake countries like Cascadia but suddenly THIS is a problem....

Is there some giant political elephant in the room nobody is talking about? Why is this such a surprise? It's happened before in many other countries, there's always unrecognized countries and separatist groups.--98.193.43.114 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Azawad state has been proclaimed, temporary institutions have been created. The Azawad state at least relate to a reality. Of course MNLA is not controlling fully all this big territory, but they do control it much more than the Malian state do. We will see how the situation evolves. The Arabs have created the Front of Liberation of Azawad, a new independant militia, but the fact that Azawad is in the title show that the idea of it being a country is progressing.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toward more constructive engagement/concrete proposals

There seems to be a lot of heat and not much light in the above discussion topics, with a number of editors critiquing the article's current structure without many concrete suggestions coming forward for revision, and editors retorting to critique the former group. Since this debate has needlessly split over three threads above, I thought I'd open one more strictly limited to concrete proposals for all the article can be structured. Let me start by trying to find some common ground here. I think we can all agree that some form of article needs to exist here at least for the region--the use of "Azawad" to describe this region goes back as far as Leo Africanus. And obviously it's notable that a group that claims to control the region has now declared independence, and needs to be mentioned in the article in some form. After that, it's just a question of what weight these get.

The French wiki straddles this line well, I think, with its opening sentence of "est un territoire situé dans le nord du Mali et dont un mouvement indépendantiste touareg a proclamé l'indépendance le 6 avril 20122, qui est non-reconnue par la communauté internationale" ("... is a territory situated in northern Mali and which a Tuareg independence movement proclaimed the independence on 6 April 2012, though unrecognized by the international community.") I'd suggest revising our own lead section to more clearly indicate these multiple definitions. This then avoids the problem many are having with the rest of the article--climate, geography, history, etc. more clearly are for the region and not a tacit endorsement of Azawad's national status. Does this resolve the issue? Let me know your thoughts, but again, let's work to keep this more concrete--if you're not happy with the article, what would you like to see changed? Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your pragmatic approach and welcome this reasonable proposal. There has been a lot of spontaneous excitement over and enthusiasm for the "new-born state" in editing and commenting. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on this talk page. The problem is that we have very few information about the status quo and even less is verified by independent third-party sources. As long as we don't know for sure how much of the territory is actually controlled by the MNLA, it is rather bold to write of a "de-facto state". Because without factual control, it would not even be a de facto, but only a fictional state (with the exception of the Gao governor's palace and surroundings - the available sources agree that they are held by the MNLA). --RJFF (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what language would you propose? The phrase "de facto state" doesn't seem to appear anywhere on the page's current incarnation, but a fully accurate description is still stumping me... Khazar2 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could note that although Mali has no power in Azawad's claimed borders, the extent of the MNLA's control is unknown, with further expansion in the body. CMD (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've taken a pass at it. Essentially I tried to boil it down to "the MNLA claim they have de facto control, others claim they don't." Khazar2 (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the Azawad state, which is not a part of Mali, it is a political entity which separated itself from Mali. The Malian regions are Timbuktu, Kidal and Gao, but not the Azawad state.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azawad&oldid=486399379"