Talk:Tuareg rebellion (2012)

MOJWA and MNLA opposed

This article from cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/mali-revolt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) proves that MNLA and MOJWA (part of AQIM) are opposed. The MNLA now says their main goal is is to clear al-Qaeda from the area. They say Ansar Dine is still an ally of them though, and wants stability. Jacob102699 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to see this as proof when the article doesn't even mention MOJWA by name. My biggest take-away was this sentence: "Even seasoned observers of Mali and al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb admit that it's difficult to unravel the links between Islamist extremists and Tuareg factions." Let's keep an eye on further developments and see if this becomes clearer. Khazar2 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Azawad independence

Should this article be called Azawad War of Independence? Or too soon? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Too soon, unless there's been a major change in the way the media are naming this conflict. Let's keep an eye on the sources and see if this becomes the WP:COMMONNAME. Khazar2 (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing?

This article's infobox states that this conflict is still ongoing. Well, nothing has happened since the first half of April so perhaps the infobox should be updated to reflect this state. --93.142.36.166 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's ongoing in the sense that the rebels still hold contested territory; Mali's new President has sworn to launch an offensive, ECOWAS is considering military intervention, etc. It's also not clear if Ancar Dine and MNLA are continuing to fight one another within this territory. Let's wait until some sort of truce has been reached, or at least a few months pass without fighting, before calling this one "over". Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

About two months have passed without fighting against Malian army, would it be time to call this (phase of) conflict over? --93.139.37.128 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's tough to say. I agree that it appears to be over for now, but it also doesn't seem to right to me to call it over without reliable sources saying so. Does the media consensus seem to be that it's over? Let's see what we can dig up. Khazar2 (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single source that still discusses a Malian-Tuareg war. It seems that they accept it ended when the Tuareg's said it ended. News nowadays is about an Azwadi civil war. If a new phase of war is reopened by Mali or ECOWAS (or France?) then maybe media coverage will change, but the rebellion seems quite finished. CMD (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. What would be the usual phrase to use for that template parameter once a conflict's done? Khazar2 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I also think it's probably okay to mark it as done. I imagine that if ECOWAS or the AU goes in, that could just as easily be categorized as a separate conflict. Leaving this conflict ongoing because we're still waiting for that is coming a little bit close WP:CRYSTALBALL, IMO. We might as well mark it done like it looks now, and if that changes then we can change it back then. Evzob (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, what you say makes sense, but I'd be more comfortable if we could just find a reliable source that discusses the current state of the conflict. We appear to be changing this instead due to an absence of sources; there's still a certain kind of logic to that, but it doesn't seem in keeping with WP:V. Maybe the best solution would be to simply leave the parameter blank until someone finds a source that describes it one way or the other? Khazar2 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There could be no reliable source that discusses the current state of the conflict because the conflict is simply no longer in progress so there is nothing to report. We could mark the current status as unclear or write the date of the last reported fighting and note that there is no official end of the conflict or something else like this... --95.168.97.132 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Independance War

The name independance war would be more accurate. And this conflict is practically over since no counter offensive of the Malian Army came in two months. It may come later, but it would be a new conflict, between two states.--Remzone (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do a majority of reliable sources call it that? (An honest question.) That's the only criterion we can really go by. So far, I don't feel like I've seen BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. use the term. I may just not have seen it though; I'm up for seeing evidence to the contrary. Khazar2 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How are they calling this conflict?--Remzone (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Tuareg rebellion" was in very common use for a while. I'm not sure what they're using now. Khazar2 (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It evolved in something quite different. The previous Tuareg rebellions never achieved such a big breakout and never declared independance over a territory they controled. --Remzone (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It'll be interesting to see how this comes to be described.As soon as there's a clear consensus in the sources to describe this as an "independence war", I agree we should switch over. If you feel that's already happened, I'd be happy to look at your examples, Google searches, etc. on the topic. Khazar2 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tuareg who want independence likely are minority in the state they claim

Berber Tuareg, at least to me, claimed on several occasions that they own all the land north of the river Niger. Tuareg (again to me, but I red the same stuff several times) devide themselves in several categories: religious people / poets, warriors, skilled workers (blacksmiths etc), and manual workers. 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'.

Besides Tuareg, Northern Mali also has a quite sizable population of berber Moors (also with a background from nomadism and trade) and of Fulani. Tuareg, when asked with how many they are, tend to include the Tamasheq speaking dark skinned 'ex-slaves' and the riverine farmers on the land they 'own' in their head count. Although Berber Tuareg are highly visible and vocal, the true number of Berber upper cast Tuareg is probably much smaller then the millions now claimed. If Azawad would hold truly free and fair elections, then most likely Azawad independence would get a thumps down from most Moors and Fulani, most Soninke, most riverine farmers, and from the majority of 'ex-slaves'. Even many berber Tuareg would probably prefer a political solution, because stubbornly closing borders destroys trade, which is (directly or indirectly) the main source of income for a very large percentage of Tuareg.

Effectively, Tuareg who want an independent Azawad, most likely would form a small or very small minority in their own 'state'. Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly does this have to do with improving the article? --93.139.37.128 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it deals with the misconception that northern Mali is a territory where the Tuareg nomads are the local population, which is the basic presumption behind the whole uprising, and behind most of the reporting about it.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then, if you can find any reliable sources supporting your claims, go ahead and add this information to the article, there is no problem with that. --93.139.118.140 (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Boko Haram reports likely untrue

Reports of Boko Haram in Gao all trace back to unnamed citizens. It is very unlikely that Boko Haram has managed a 2000 km journey through three countries over open terrain, while in Nigeria itself they have never been spotted yet in any 4 wheel drive of their own. That is not the way they operate. They only have small motorbikes. Also, Boko Haram has a religious ideology, completely different from both Ansar Dine and MNLA. Very likely these were either ex-slaves from the Tuaregs (Iklan or Bella), being recruited into one of the Tuareg militia. Or they were Tuareg ex-slaves who were afraid of being re-enslaved, so they formed their own self-defence militia around defected army generals, exactly like it happened in the previous uprising (then called Ganda Koi and Bella awakening). As Boko Haram presence hasn't been confirmed or even re-rumoured in ten weeks now, I propose to throw them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)