Talk:Azawad/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge

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

Edit to lead

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

Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azawad/Azawagh/Azaouad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

Merger Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TGhe nom changed after the first 3 votes.

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

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

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

MNLA has declared Azawadien independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Copying within Wikipedia

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

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

Capital

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

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

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

Wikipedia cannot create countries - stop playing games

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

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

Not so

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

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

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

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

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)

Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

It doesn't matter how much territory Azawad controls for it to be listed in the various wikipedia lists of countries so long as it controls at least some territory and has declared indepenedence (it meets both requirements). The assertion that Somaliland, Transnistria, Kosovo, and Taiwan have defacto control over their territory is false. Each of those states has only partial defacto control over the territory it claims. What they do posses is defacto control over a portion of their claimed territory, which in addition to their claim to independence makes them qualify as states for various lists here on wikipedia.XavierGreen (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct! -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It took years for several editors including myself to hash out the set of criteria that is used on the relevent wikipedia pages today, the case for Azawad's inclusion on wiki pages as a state is very clear cut. If anyone would like to know more i would suggest reading the archives of the talk page of List of Sovereign States to learn more about the reasoning behind what entities are considered independent soveriegn states and what are not.XavierGreen (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

It seems to me that it is more the case of Wikipedia editors trolling around and legitimising declarations no one else takes seriously when they have no authority nor sufficient knowledge of the situation to do so (the very fact that the editor above calls Tuaregs "arabs" proves it). Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. Until the international community recognises Azawad as a state - which btw it never will - it is NOT a state, just a concept. End of story. And yes, this type of unserious use of Wikipedia makes people angry since it is playing the game of a terrorist group who is currently raping, killing and looting a whole region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.1.172 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You accuse others of ignorance, but you have just proven your own. Unlike the MNLA, the "National Liberation Front of Azawad" (FNLA) indeed consists of Arabs, not Tuaregs. And this article doesn't play the game of anyone, neither of the MNLA, nor of Bamako, nor of the "international community". It presents the facts as they can be found in available reliable sources, in a way as neutral as possible. Ignoring the events and the factual situation, just because Mali and other countries don't like it, is not an option. Wikipedia is not a governmental organization and it is not bound by the standpoints of any country. --RJFF (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's a combination of (1) anti-separatist people from Mali (and my impression is that this is the vast majority of the country's people), who unsurprisingly are unhappy with anything they perceive as legitimizing the separatists; and (2) this article getting a lot more attention than other similar articles, since Azawad is currently in the news in a much bigger way than Somaliland or the Sahrawi Arab Republic have ever been. In any case, my proposed solution is simply "don't feed the trolls" - don't waste too much of our time on unsigned comments from people who have never heard of Wikipedia:Notability and don't understand Wikipedia policy and practice. Evzob (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, when I call some of these edits trolling, I'm definitely excluding signed dissenting opinions from users such as RJFF, who is clearly an experienced editor with knowledge of what Wikipedia is. Evzob (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How kind of you! ;) Thanks. --RJFF (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The problem, though, is that Azawad is defined as different things by different people. This article originally existed to define Azawad as a region. When independence was declared, an effort was made to re-write it strictly as a political entity--but even that entity exists on land still recognized as "Mali" by 99.8% of the world. For now, given the lack of information about that political entity, I suggest joining discussion of both entity and region in this article, as the French wikipedia has done. I'm open to alternative suggestions, though... Khazar2 (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be kept as the Azawad state while Malian administrative regions are Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu and are occupied by the Azawad state from Mali Point of view.--Cornedrut13 (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article. WP:NPOV is applicable to every single article. We don't write some articles from one POV, and others from another one. We write every single article from a neutral POV. --RJFF (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is that supposed to mean, in this concrete case? -- Aflis (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's supposed to mean that we should neither exclusively write "Azawad is an independent, sovereign state." nor "Azawad doesn't exist. It's a fiction of rebels and lawbreakers." I think the lead and structure as it is now, is pretty balanced and acceptable. I understood (maybe misunderstood) Cornedrut13 that he wanted to write this article from the MNLA POV (Azawad is a state) and the articles on the occupied regions from the Bamako POV (constituent parts of the Malian Republic, temporarily occupied by rebels). But that's not practicable. We don't write certain articles from a particular POV. I think, as it is now, the article is quite neutral and doesn't have a POV problem. --RJFF (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The page is much more balanced and objective now compared to a couple of days ago. At the time the POV was entirely MNLA's, which was unacceptable. There are still changes that need to be made to reach optimal objectivity, such as changing in the first section "It borders Mali to the south-west" to "It borders the southern part of the malian administrative region of Mopti on the south-west". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.1.172 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a point there. "It borders Mali" implies that it is not part of Mali, which would be POV. "It borders the southern part of Mopti Region" is neutral and true by any account. --RJFF (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I just see that it has already been changed to "with the remainder of Mali to its southwest." This should be acceptable and NPOV. --RJFF (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep, tried that out based on the above concern. --Golbez (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rough demarcation of main cultural spheres in Mali. Illustration added by User:RJFF

I suggest splitting this article into two separate pages: "Azawad (region)" for history prior to 2011, geography, etc., and "Independent State of Azawad" for facts related directly to the MNLA's rebellion and claims, international reaction, etc. This would deflect some of the more legitimate criticisms, and also match a format that has been used for other articles, such as Palestine vs. State of Palestine. Evzob (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that'd be a good solution. Creating two half-articles/one duplicate article won't solve the problem at all (the Azawad state article should still include information about its geography and history, that's quite vital). (A note that the Palestine split is different. The correct analogy would be Kosovo, which was split with great controversy). CMD (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm also hesitant about that idea. The "Independent State of Azawad" wouldn't have much information in it yet that wouldn't be a duplicate of what's found here, it seems to me. And we don't have much for the Azawad region that wouldn't overlap into a country article (geog, hist, climate, etc.). Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

CMD - if you prefer an analogy to Kosovo, check out the articles for that too - the same split has been done there, between "Kosovo" and "Republic of Kosovo". I would hazard to say that splitting the articles is in fact the emerging convention on Wikipedia for disputed states which share a name with a historical region. Evzob (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea. Especially given that the "political Azawad" (as claimed by the MNLA and shown in the map in the infobox) includes Sahelian areas across the Niger river, inhabited by sub-Saharan peoples, that neither belong to the geographical (Azawad proper is only the desert north of Timbuktu) nor the cultural definition of Azawad (i.e. the Arab/Berber-dominated part of northern Mali, pictured). As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, there should be one article per concept, not one article per (possibly ambiguous) word. But I also think that we should gear down and observe the developments of the next time (France and Algeria have hinted openness to (informal) talks with the MNLA; a new anti-MNLA militia has become active in Timbuktu.) The borders might still shift in the future, and we should be ready to react to it. I don't see the urgent necessity to split the article now, but it should be an option worth considering at a later time. --RJFF (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly useful news report about an apparently new group on Timbuctu

This news article - New north Mali Arab force seeks to "defend" Timbuktu - might be useful for improving this article. Roger (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have incorporated it in the politics section. --RJFF (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably these Arabs are Moors, and their reaction may have to do with the Algerian secret services which have been present in the region for years. -- Aflis (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Area, population

According to Frank Jacobs (NYT) "the extent of that area [Azawad] is unclear; for convenience’s sake, recent maps of the area draw a straight, slanted line across Mali’s narrow waist"[18] If the extent of the area is unclear, we can't just totalize the areas of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu in the infobox. What about the MNLA-claimed part of Mopti? Same problem with the population: if Azawad is not just Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu, we don't have a population number of Azawad. Moreover 250,000 people have fled from the region due to the rebellion, so the population has dropped significantly since the 2009 census. --RJFF (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct - and in order to complicate matters even more: in West Africa people often refer to Azawad as being a geographical/cultural region that goes beyond Mali and includes strips of Algeria, Libya, Niger, and Burkina Faso. -- Aflis (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Azawad map-english.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Azawad map-english.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 12 April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Azawad map-english.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Gao as capital?

I realize that a single reliable secondary source is in principle enough of a citation for Gao being the capital of the declared state, but does anyone know where that information came from? Is there an official statement somewhere, or even another secondary source which actually quotes the declaration? Ideally we shouldn't have to base the capital of a state on a single line from a single news article which doesn't even elaborate on its own source for the information. Evzob (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Independent State of Azawad or Islamic Republic of Azawad?

The official (formal) name of the state was named in the declaration of independent as “Independent State of Azawad”. The new name “Islamic Republic of Azawad” is mentioned in the BBC article – "The Islamic Republic of Azawad is now an independent sovereign state." as had told Col Bouna Ag Attayoub, a MNLA commander in Timbuktu. So, is this official statement of government of Azawad? Or perhaps only words of one MNLA commander? Reuters said nothing about this „new name“, but said that “National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) and Ansar Dine Islamist militants have agreed to merge and create an independent Islamic state”. So new state will be, but nothing about new name. So, we don’t know if official name of state was official changed yet (if any such change is planned). Aotearoa (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree - we don't know yet. A colonel in the military certainly can't change the name all by himself. A five-star general in the U.S. army can call the country "The United States of Awesome" if he wants, but that doesn't mean the official name of the country changed. Evzob (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Libya's late "Colonel Ghaddafi" being the exception to the rule.... Evzob (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not an official country anyway so claiming that one "person calling himself a colonel and claiming to be a spokesperson" is more or less "official" than any other "person calling himself a colonel and claiming to a spokesperson" is pointless. Roger (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between a "person calling himself a colonel and claiming to be a spokesperson" and a real army colonel is that the real colonel is a member of the legitimate armed forces of a recognised legitimate country. It's defined somewhere in the Geneva Conventions. Until they have a real government how can anyone actually tell the difference between an "official spokesperson" and some "colonel" who is just making stuff up. Roger (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Redacted my posts above. Roger (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

According to BBC article “Col Bouna Ag Attayoub, a MNLA commander in Timbuktu, told”. And if he told we don’t know whether he told “The Islamic Republic of Azawad” or “The Islamic republic of Azawad” (spelling used in the article, in my opinion, is just interpretation of BBC – are other information agencies listed this name?). Difference between both spellings is significant – the first is the formal name of the state, and the second one is description of state’s form of government. Moreover, if we treat Azawad as de facto state (according to List of states with limited recognition – “have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states”), we agree that Azawad has government. So, if Azawad has government, only official governments statements or documents are reliable sources for any official changes of state’s name or form of government (especially if current formal name is listed in official document, which is Azawadi declaration of independence). Otherwise we can’t treat Azawad as de facto country. Aotearoa (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

According to BBC “The Islamic Republic of Azawad”, according to Figaro “l'État islamique de l'Azawad” (“The Islamic State of Azawad”), according to CNN “the Republic of Azawad”, so various information agencies different names. Without official document/statement we don’t know witch name is right (if, of course, new name was officially adopted). Moreover, according to CNN "The Ansar Dine movement and the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, MNLA, have proclaimed an independent state, Azawad" – so, is it new declaration of independent? is it new “state”? Aotearoa (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to apply Westphalian logic and developed-world concepts of rule of law and political order to a unilaterally proclaimed desert state peopled by nomads, merchants, and mercenaries is a fool's errand, unfortunately. I think in a lot of cases, we're just going to have to read between the lines and take into account the "flexibility" of the situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As I see it the ball is now in Mali's court. It's up to them to decide if they are going to mount a serious (high intensity but low density) military offensive to take back control or; do their sums and decide that the cost of taking back control of a huge chunk of almost empty desert, with a population that they have nothing in common with anyway, simply isn't worth the blood or money. Roger (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a side-note: In the cold light of morning, after a good night's sleep I find myself incrediby embarrassed about my outburst last night. If all parties involved in this discussion so far are ok with it, and particularlyUser:Golbez, may I request that posts referring to my outburst be removed from this page. Again I'd like to profoundly apologise for my behaviour. Roger (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I removed mine. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Roger (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not just the Independent State of Azawad, or the Islamic Republic of Azawad? Oakley77 (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And or the Islamic State of Azawad, or the Republic of Azawad... Unfortunately sources have listed different names, and no one is officially confirmed. If we use in article two (or three) English long names, then we should use two (three) long names in French and Arabic. So, maybe we should remove long name from the infobox and head, and add information about unclear long name only in new “Name” section? Aotearoa (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support such a move until we have more of a consensus of reliable sources as to the name of the state. And I would be shocked if there is an actual legal document in Azawad laying out any sort of a constitutional long-form name either way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kudzu. Khazar2 (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree - leave the long form blank until more authorotative information becomes available. Roger (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Aotearoa (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

demographics hiding race and class issue...

The demographic piechart suggest that Tuareg were a mojority in Timbuctu region, at least in 1950. Inside this category fall both the lighter skinned Tuaregs from Berber ancesters, with a nomadic tradition, and the black skinned farmers and slum dwellers, who are no Songai nor Moors, but people who come from the Tuareg nation, and in the not so remote past were their slaves. Many still are de facto slave today, because there's heavy economic discrimination against them. Few years ago I interviewed a number of them. Many see themselves as ex-Tuareg, and (for good reasons) many fear to be re-enslaved in the Tuareg get their way. My guess is that the majority of them would vote with the Songai against a Tuareg domintated Azawad. That means that the Tuareg wanting any Azawad state are a well organized vocal minority, having little chance of ever establishing a democracy.

Tuareg ex-slaves are socially very vulnerable, and out of neccity, during the 1990's Tuareg rebellion, many fought against the Tuareg, to stop a campaign by some Tuareg to re-enslave their ex-slaves.

If Azawad becomes a two-struggle between Salafist Islamists and Tuaregs, then if ex-slaves at all take sides, they are more likely to side with Ancar Diin, because they preach that all Muslims are equal, and therefore no Muslim can hold any other Muslim as slave.

Ex-Tuareg slaves run the risk to face campaigns of re-enslaving, and are therefore potentially a quick and large recruiting pool for Ancar Diin. Or they might form their own militia, which has maybe already happened, which might explain why so many Malians think they have seen Boko Haram militia in Azawad. My guess is, these are self defence militia of former Tuareg slaves.

I can't find any new sources on this, so I doubt how to integrate it into the article. Any suggestions?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you say, if there's no sources, it probably can't be integrated into the article per our policies on WP:Verifiability and original research. I'll keep an eye out, though. Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Social stratification has to be re-inserted.

I saw 'social stratification' was thrown out for reasons there is little evidence it is still going on, and it's already discussed under 'Tuareg'.

I disagree. All the knowledgeable sources on the Wiki Tuareg-page and the talk and sources behind it, say it existed until recently, and at best little progress has been made in abolishing it. The most friendly (and most incomplete) explanation is that the economy does not allow ex-slaves to stop acting like slaves. So the logic conclusion is, it's still there unless someone comes with a credible source, explaining why and how it suddenly disappeared.

I put it in after being invited on this talk-page to do so. I took great care not to head it as, or directly call it slavery, and to mention that many urban upper cast Tuareg would like to see the system end. So I think it was balanced, certainly not slander, and informative. Also, nobody doubted the provided sources that state that slavery still continues.

One reason Wiki needs it, is encyclopedic: Now the Tuareg are listed as one ethnic group, while in the pics, everybody can see that some are black, Bantu-like, others are Mediterranean or in between. So obviously they are not one single ethnic group.

It is highly relevant also, because the ex-slaves and the lower cast Tuareg are already much poorer, and more likely to suffer from the economic blockade. And they are the most vulnerable: Normally they provide the upper cast Tuareg with food and they are hardly mobile and unarmed, so they are the most likely to be targeted by anti-Azawad armies and militia. Social stratification explains what the Azawad population looks like, literally, and socially, and economically, and politically. It has more influence on Azawad individuals then, for instance, religion. And it's highly relevant for success or not of the Azawad-project. Because their whole basic economy (including food supply) runs on the labor of Iklan.

It also helps understand why so many different armed groups sprung up to resist or support Azawad. Also the rift between MNLA and Ansar Dine is partly about cast (with the latter having much more appeal to lower cast groups). It also helps explain the wildly varying population figures for Tuareg: The Tuareg speaking people are more then twice as many as the 'noble' Tuareg, and probably four times more then the Berber Tuareg.

Throwing it out, therefore, is a bit like explaining the founding of the US, without mentioning slavery. Or like explaining the founding war of India and Pakistan, without mentioning religion. The cast system IS the elephant in room that nobody likes to talk about, but that determines EVERYBODY's place, and the limits to everybody's role in Azawad.

Finally: I know what Iklan think of being treated like slaves, a century after it was formally abolished. But I wonder what they think about them being written out of the birth-history of what is also their country to be.

So if nobody comes with a good source about slavery suddenly having disappeared from northern Mali, or with a good argument why a very harsh social stratification is NOT relevant for an attempt to found a state, (or less relevant then on which side of the roads they drive) them I propose to put it back in. If it's too long, i'll trim it down. If anybody want more sources about actually existing de facto slavery in northern Mali, I'll add it.

If I hear nothing for some days, I presume we all agree? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While Azawad is an unrecognized state, this page should still tell us about its society and culture, and considering this the Tuareg social stratification seems to be worthy of mention. But ideally this information should be backed by several different sources. Yonaka (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (author of Norwegian Wiki Azawad page)

"State of the Azawad"

The mnlamov.net uses "l’Etat de l’AZAWAD", which translates into "the State of the AZAWAD". If they used "l'etat", it would be "the state". I am guessing that they are using the formal name as "Etat de l'Azawad", in English meaning "State of the Azawad". Proposing if this is what they have as there actual formal name. This statement was released June 16, 2012, so any sources (my guess) would have to be June 16 and after for the official name being used. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

And تعليقك here is Arabic version of name (دولة ازواد=Dawlat Azawād). Do we have a new official confirmation of a long name of Azawad? Aotearoa (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of "the" in "State of the Azawad" looks very strange. AFAIK no English source has ever called the region "the Azawad" before the current political situation. Roger (talk) 11:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how French into English works, so maybe it is "State of Azawad", but no English source recognizes Azawad as a country, and may not know of it is "the Azawad" (like the Sudan, except it is obviously recognized) –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

French uses "le"/"la" in place names much more liberally than English uses "the" (e.g. in a French sentence, France is "La France"), so writing "l'Azawad" in French doesn't necessarily imply that it should have "the" in English. "The Azawad" is attested in some English sources, e.g. "National Movement for the Liberation of the Azawad" [19], "...as a result of their successful conquest of an area they call the Azawad..."[20], though even those sources often can't seem to decide which to use. The "the" gets translated to English or not on a case by case basis. Evzob (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it a definite that their official name at least begins with "State of"? I know it is sketchy for "(the) Azawad", so we may need to find sources on that–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The declaration of independence calls it [translation] "Independent State of Azawad"[21]. "State" is definitely there in the French-language source (and capitalized, though we can debate what that's intended to signify). I'm not sure whether it's been used independently in English-language sources. Evzob (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Names change after time. I know when the United States was created, it was originally shown as the United States of North America in official documents, but after its been the way its been for 200+ years. My guess is that "Independent" was to signify its independence, because when they gave a list for government, they used "State of (the) Azawad" (still sketchy about using "the"). –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The usage of "the" is only used with "the Azawadi", not "State of Azawad". I used a translator, so it seems like the is used not for "the Azawad", but for "the Azawadi". "State of Azawad" seems to be the official name of the country, as the MNLA have used it again on their website. Does this mean "State of Azawad" is the official name (in English)? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling "State of Azawad" is the official name of Azawad. User:Spesh531/sandbox#Azawad is a possibility of its official names, and how the top of the infobox would look like. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 04:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So is it a possibility to add "State of Azawad" "دولة ازواد" (Dawlat Azawād) and "Etat de l'Azawad" for its formal name? –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous and brings Wikipedia into disrepute

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well no, the assertion of statehood by a sizeable armed group is not sufficient grounds. Any gang can claim that. It is the assertion of statement by a sizeable armed group, AND the effective defeat and expulsion of the Malian Army from the region, which is sufficient grounds. An insurgent gang actually has to win on the ground, to be considered as a defacto new government or defacto secessionist state. It is the same principle with a regular, non-secessionist coup d'etat. If you win, you are legitimate. Eregli bob (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [22]), 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 [23] and France 24 says they were forced out of their last stronghold on July 12 [24]. 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: [25]. 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)