Talk:Azawad/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Need for new map for Azawad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• According to [1] Islamists control all territory of Azawad. Aotearoa (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Mali map

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

Update

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

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

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

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

Do you have any sources that say Azawad is used to describe a region restricted to Mali? I assumed that Azawagh and Azawad were just different corruptions of the same word. Sources treat it as a synonym: [2], [3] TDL (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion is happening without referring to previous discussions

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

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

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

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

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

To use "The Prophet" as a synonimous from Mohammed, as if it was a personal name, and use from saw pbuh in his name are particular religious terms, no to be used in a secular site as wikipedia is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.141.163 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

FLAG and status

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

This article is about the self-proclaimed state. The geographic region is at Azawagh. The MNLA was the only faction which claimed independence, and this was their proclaimed flag for the state. Azawad hasn't been retaken by Mali, but it's been taken by Ansar Dine which opposes independence. This has all been discused previously above. TDL (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually its also been said that AD did work with the MNLA at first. Hence they were part of the state before the factionalism and so the flag is ONLY that of the MNLA. Were not putting the AD flag.Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ansar Dine nor other Islamist groups did not figure into the declaration of independence or the proposed governing structure of Azawad. This article is about the diplomatically unrecognized state that the MNLA unilaterally declared before the Islamists ran them out of the cities and imposed their own laws, while largely disavowing Azawad and certainly spurning the MNLA's espoused vision of it as a secular, democratic republic. Azawad as a de facto matter no longer exists. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Azawad was declared by MNLA, using their flag. Ansar Dine and MUJAO don't claim an independent state. AD fought alongside MNLA, but never successfully became part of the MNLA's claimed Azawad government. Evzob (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"State of Azawad"

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

Sources? Also, it would need to be in past tense. CMD (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source with the usage of the term "State of Azawad" (minus the all areas where all words are in caps).

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

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

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

If Azawad ever does become "liberated" and retakes control of the area, and functions like a normal sovereign state without a declaration of independence, would it be as if they are currently a government-in-exile? And if that is the case, then the heading in my sandbox should be added. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That is sheer speculation. And Wikipedia is not the place for it. --RJFF (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfounded speculation too. The MNLA have given up independence, and are gunning for autonomy instead. CMD (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If the time were to come, I would put the issue in the talk page as a suggestion, rather, excuse my wording.–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The MNLA now controls various areas around Kidal.XavierGreen (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The gave up the independence claim officially in February. They are holding the area, and waiting for negotiations for autonomy. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 19:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Azawad is still independent

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

The MNLA has dropped its bid for independence and now wishes to enter negotiations for autonomy, so although the MNLA have retaken territory, they haven't brought Azawad back. CMD (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but the MNLA said that they don't want Malian army rule over them and their territory that they currently control because of crimes committed by their soldiers against Tuareg or Azawadi civilians. That is why today the Malian government and army just have control over really central Mali, the far north is controlled by the MNLA and foreign troops from France and African countries. The MNLA did drop their independence goal but now they want self-determination, and the Malian government doesn't agree with them. Far N. Mali doesn't really have any sort of government but the MNLA appointed ministers in Kidal. I would think Azawad does "currently" still exist because the MNLA runs most of the North.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 7 April 2013

It doesn't matter if the MNLA run the north if they don't consider themselves an independent state. There are many similar cases of rebels controlling territory, but not considering themselves an independent state, such as the FARC. The MNLA has always wanted self-determination, and it's under this that they claimed independence, and that they desire autonomy. Azawad doesn't exist because there is no political body claiming it does. CMD (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you think Azawad doesn't exist anymore but it's says in a article MNLA fighters handing out stamps with the name Azawad and motto "Unity, Freedom, Security" this is an example of fighters wanting independence or so greater autonomy. Also, like I said the MNLA threatened to fight back and defend it's people if the Malian army comes to their controlled areas of the north, cause the Malian army commits crimes on Tuareg, Berber, and Arab people. This is not the drug cartel FARC, the MNLA has a flag and an army, the MNLA spokesmen who dropped the independence claim was pressured by French forces who want to bring back Mali's sovereignty over the North, for their own personal gains. EthanKP (talk · contribs)

ALL former states were pressured to drop their independence claims. That's how wars work. It's not our job to try to guess whether they really meant it or not. If they change their mind and reassert their claims in the future, then we should report that. But since the MNLA currently claims that Azawad no longer exists, that's what the article should say. TDL (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Then what do you call all the territory the MNLA has control over which includes one of the North's biggest city, Kidal. What I'm trying to say is the MNLA still supports the creation of Azawad like they did a year ago until it was taken over by Islamists. Azawad is not gone nor is it an existing state but the MNLA is still optimistic about retaking the land they lost to the Islamists.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013 4:38 (UTC)

It's just rebel controlled territory, compare it to Al-Shabaab if you disagree with the FARC comparison. The MNLA no longer supports the creation of Azawad, which did go when the MNLA was kicked out by the Islamists and then rescinded its claim for independence. Even if the MNLA retakes all its former land, if it doesn't declare independence, they haven't brought back the independent Azawad state. CMD (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Population charts -- as most of this project, clearly misleading

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

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

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

Change wording for the map

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

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

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

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