From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Africa / Mali (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Mali (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Azawad (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azawad, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azawad on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Unrecognized countries    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This article was within the scope of WikiProject Unrecognized countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject Berbers (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This talk page has been mentioned by a media organisation:
This wikipedia process, talk page, revision history has been mentioned by a media organisation:
  • Liu, Jonathan (24 April 2012). "Wikipedia, Azawad, and the Art of Internet Statecraft". Vice Magazine. Retrieved 6 April 2012. If Wikipedia cannot send an embassy, it can bestow an infobox. The contents of a geopolitical infobox can be even more deadly dull than the passages on Pleistocene geology and predominant shrubbery in the main text: Alongside the basics (capital, head of state, languages), it offers a state flag and motto (if either exist), a color-keyed map, time zone, international calling code, and whether the place drives on the right or left. But with the rise and rise of Wikipedia, its infobox may have also become a novel rung of public diplomacy: international recognition, not of the legitimacy, but the facticity of a de facto situation.  (details)

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

FLAG and status[edit]

The flag is listed as "flag of MNLA" with the caption "flag of Azawad;" that is blatantly deceptive. It never represented the entire entity but merely 1 faction/party. Further, this says that "For the very short time it existed, Azawad's administrative functions..." There is no RS source that mentions its dissolution by either the declarers or by Mali's annexation (which may happen in some 6 months). To say it doesn t exist is pure OR/Synthesis. Admin functions are still carried out and wholly seperated from Bamako.Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the self-proclaimed state. The geographic region is at Azawagh. The MNLA was the only faction which claimed independence, and this was their proclaimed flag for the state. Azawad hasn't been retaken by Mali, but it's been taken by Ansar Dine which opposes independence. This has all been discused previously above. TDL (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually its also been said that AD did work with the MNLA at first. Hence they were part of the state before the factionalism and so the flag is ONLY that of the MNLA. Were not putting the AD flag.Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Ansar Dine nor other Islamist groups did not figure into the declaration of independence or the proposed governing structure of Azawad. This article is about the diplomatically unrecognized state that the MNLA unilaterally declared before the Islamists ran them out of the cities and imposed their own laws, while largely disavowing Azawad and certainly spurning the MNLA's espoused vision of it as a secular, democratic republic. Azawad as a de facto matter no longer exists. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Azawad was declared by MNLA, using their flag. Ansar Dine and MUJAO don't claim an independent state. AD fought alongside MNLA, but never successfully became part of the MNLA's claimed Azawad government. Evzob (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"State of Azawad"[edit]

Would this addition be useful? For most of the period it was independent, it was usually called the "State of Azawad". Since the MNLA is basically the Azawadi government, they call it the "State of Azawad"–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 16:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
If nobody responds to this in a week, I am making the changes (at least so the discussion can possibly be started). The last time I asked this in maybe the summer of 2012, nobody answered, and the discussion went dry. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources? Also, it would need to be in past tense. CMD (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a source with the usage of the term "State of Azawad" (minus the all areas where all words are in caps).

Barducci, Anna. "The Fight For A Secular State Of Azawad – Part II: Fighting Terror In The Sahel". Memri. Retrieved 15 January 2013. 

Far more preferable would be some sort of official statement naming the state. "State of Azawad" sounds like a simple default. CMD (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The section "Name" of the article already states which "official" names the country had throughout its existence. They changed from time to time: "Independent State of Azawad", "State of Azawad" and "Islamic State of Azawad". No need to decide for one of them or to add it to the introductory line. --RJFF (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If Azawad ever does become "liberated" and retakes control of the area, and functions like a normal sovereign state without a declaration of independence, would it be as if they are currently a government-in-exile? And if that is the case, then the heading in my sandbox should be added. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
That is sheer speculation. And Wikipedia is not the place for it. --RJFF (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfounded speculation too. The MNLA have given up independence, and are gunning for autonomy instead. CMD (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
If the time were to come, I would put the issue in the talk page as a suggestion, rather, excuse my wording.–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The MNLA now controls various areas around Kidal.XavierGreen (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The gave up the independence claim officially in February. They are holding the area, and waiting for negotiations for autonomy. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Population charts -- as most of this project, clearly misleading[edit]

Note those population charts that "Baby foot" created (note his history, a single topic editor)? Wonder why they're dated from 1950? Odd isn't it. That's because "Baby foot" found a single publication with colonial Cercle population figures from 1950 which radically over-estimate "Tuareg" population figures by including dependent sedentary communities, something that would be obvious if placed beside any other national or colonial census, or any history of the area. Note how Bellah are only counted in Goundam Cercle? Same sources estimate as much as %90 of population it what was then northern French Soudan were enslaved in the 20th century, with 50,000 enslaved Bella in the Tombouctou-Gao area alone at the time this chart pretends to represent. See Martin A. Klein's work on slavery in the AOF (1998). The sedentary bonded populations, here marked as "Tuareg" identify as Bellah now (and likely did then, and were likely so counted in other assessments of colonial population). Consequently, using this to generate new charts that show "Tuareg Majorities" in most of these areas is misleading -- and so obviously to anyone who has ever been to Tombouctou that it can only be intentionally misleading. Note also that the Cercle boundaries in 1950 have changed a great deal from modern (or even previous) administrative subdivisions and so these comparisons are misleading (especially for the now much smaller Gao Cercle).

It is but one more element of this embarrassment of an article. T L Miles (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There are certain aspects of this article that seem a bit partial. This would definitely benefit from input and research by separate editors at least to add a counter-argument and a balanced set of statistics from varied sources with differing methodologies. unak1978 08:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Azawad is still independent[edit]

The MNLA completely controls Kidal the North's third largest city, shared with coalition forces. The MNLA also controls dozens of other towns across the north and virtually has full control over the Kidal Region itself. The Malian government and army has zero control over the Northern cities the MNLA currently occupies, so it's like the state of Azawad just shrunk from it's original area of the entire Northern region. The farthest control over the north, Mali has is Gao everything to the North of that is MNLA or French held. Also the MNLA is still active and fights against Islamists rebels in the North alongside French and Chadian forces. In Kidal the MNLA has it's own appointed governor and minister. So, the country of Azawad is still in place but they control less territory than they did a year ago.EthanKP (talk · contribs)

The MNLA has dropped its bid for independence and now wishes to enter negotiations for autonomy, so although the MNLA have retaken territory, they haven't brought Azawad back. CMD (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
True, but the MNLA said that they don't want Malian army rule over them and their territory that they currently control because of crimes committed by their soldiers against Tuareg or Azawadi civilians. That is why today the Malian government and army just have control over really central Mali, the far north is controlled by the MNLA and foreign troops from France and African countries. The MNLA did drop their independence goal but now they want self-determination, and the Malian government doesn't agree with them. Far N. Mali doesn't really have any sort of government but the MNLA appointed ministers in Kidal. I would think Azawad does "currently" still exist because the MNLA runs most of the North.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 7 April 2013
It doesn't matter if the MNLA run the north if they don't consider themselves an independent state. There are many similar cases of rebels controlling territory, but not considering themselves an independent state, such as the FARC. The MNLA has always wanted self-determination, and it's under this that they claimed independence, and that they desire autonomy. Azawad doesn't exist because there is no political body claiming it does. CMD (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand why you think Azawad doesn't exist anymore but it's says in a article MNLA fighters handing out stamps with the name Azawad and motto "Unity, Freedom, Security" this is an example of fighters wanting independence or so greater autonomy. Also, like I said the MNLA threatened to fight back and defend it's people if the Malian army comes to their controlled areas of the north, cause the Malian army commits crimes on Tuareg, Berber, and Arab people. This is not the drug cartel FARC, the MNLA has a flag and an army, the MNLA spokesmen who dropped the independence claim was pressured by French forces who want to bring back Mali's sovereignty over the North, for their own personal gains. EthanKP (talk · contribs)
ALL former states were pressured to drop their independence claims. That's how wars work. It's not our job to try to guess whether they really meant it or not. If they change their mind and reassert their claims in the future, then we should report that. But since the MNLA currently claims that Azawad no longer exists, that's what the article should say. TDL (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Then what do you call all the territory the MNLA has control over which includes one of the North's biggest city, Kidal. What I'm trying to say is the MNLA still supports the creation of Azawad like they did a year ago until it was taken over by Islamists. Azawad is not gone nor is it an existing state but the MNLA is still optimistic about retaking the land they lost to the Islamists.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013 4:38 (UTC)
It's just rebel controlled territory, compare it to Al-Shabaab if you disagree with the FARC comparison. The MNLA no longer supports the creation of Azawad, which did go when the MNLA was kicked out by the Islamists and then rescinded its claim for independence. Even if the MNLA retakes all its former land, if it doesn't declare independence, they haven't brought back the independent Azawad state. CMD (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Change wording for the map[edit]

The map of Malis is described as, "Azawad consists of the entire regions of Gao, Kidal, and Timbuktu, as well as the north-east half of the Mopti Region, which are claimed by and internationally recognised as part of Mali." Since the region is internationally recognised as part of Mali and is part of Mali, we do not need the description, "claimed by [Mali]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politis (talkcontribs)

The original wording emerged during the period when Mali had no control over the territory, hence the claimed distinction. Is there any opinions on how to write this past tense? CMD (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Since, according to the article, those areas are a legitimate part of Mali, I would simply edit out the words "claimed by". If no other editor who is more involved than myself in this occasionally heated article does not delete them, I will eventually take the initiative since, IMO, they do not add anything specific to the article. Politis (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded it into past tense, and taken out that whole bit as unnecessary, as it's fairly clear from the map that it's parts of Mali that are under discussion. CMD (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)