Jump to content

Talk:National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad

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

Azawad nationalism

[edit]

2012's rebellion is about "saharian nationalism" rather than "tuareg" nationalism, you can find many different ethnicities in the MNLA army like Songhay and Arab who aren't tuaregs.. imho — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyFoot (talk • contribs) 17:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything to support your statement besides a couple phrases in MNLA press releases claiming that they are fighting for the entire north. MNLA is clearly dominated by Tuareg, they haven't even bothered to present some token fighters from other ethnicities, which suggest there just aren't any. There were some articles about an Arab militia against independence, and Reuters recently mentioned that Songhai anti-separatist militias are training in the Gao region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.74.130 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/National Movement for the Liberation of AzawadLihaas (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spokesmen

[edit]

I've removed two references to spokespeople of the movement that seem rather trivial: Hama Ag Sid'Ahmed is a spokesman for the movement, but is said to be based at an unknown location in Europe.<ref name="reuters"/> Moussa Ag Assarid is another spokesman for the group based in Paris, France.<Ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/04/20124511453404911.html |title=Tuareg fighters declare Mali ceasefire |author= |date=5 April 2012 |work= |publisher=Al Jazeera |accessdate=5 April 2012}}</ref> At least until these people make more than one statement apiece for the group, or are identified by the news as significant in some way, I'm not sure they really belong in our article. Khazar2 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not trivial to mention the spokesman of the group as tey are often te vioice refered to in the media, etc. Hence notable to have mention here in the encyclopaedia. SOme national spokesman have their own ikipages.
Also to add: Mossa Ag AttaherLihaas (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NTC fighters

[edit]

This is sourced in the article (apparently the old source is now a deadlink). instead of removing sourced information because the result is not preferred discuss this here. That is otherwise vandalism and censorship to remove sourced information. THe old regime fell in october? but many left with the old regimes arms supplies before, further this groups was also founded in the same month so it s synthesis to suggest no overlap when we dont have the same dates. Rest assured many "loyalists" still existed in the regime and the green flag was replanted in (whatsthattown)Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readded without discussion and consensus which has been opened here 5 days agoLihaas (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

minor WP:SYNTH section

[edit]

It's not that it's a bad point, but I don't believe that the phrase "similar to accusations against other groups in the Arab Spring" should be attached to the MNLA/AQIM link accusations until it has a reliable source. Making a comparison our sources don't make seems to me to be a bit of original synthetsis. For comparison's sake, we won't say, "Similar to accusations Andrew Jackson made against the Cherokees" unless a source explicitly connected the events. Nor should we offer our own analysis here, I think. I won't revert Lihaas again for now, but I'd welcome a third opinion. Khazar2 (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since there's not even a source for the second half of this, I guess it's just pure WP:OR. But again, I might be wrong. Khazar2 (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the attachment to the source as misleading. Perhaps a link to the Arab Spring/reactions bit? But there are multiple state reaction to link to per Libya/Syria/Bahrain, etc. Felt the link was similar because of the direct connection the Azawad fight has to the Ara Spring...heck, thered be no AZAWAD here today if Bouazizi hadnt opened the dynamics.
Ill hide the text for now?
Its not tagged to any source and also linked to Arab Spring. Just got an idea to add a "note" where we can then link to the relevant articles' reactions?Lihaas (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tifinagh

[edit]

I've transliterated the Tifinagh name with Asnnannu according to Tifinagh#Characters, but this link makes me think the two horizontal bars || should not be transliterated as nn but rather as l to give instead Aslalu. Anyone knows what the right transliteration is? ABJIKLAM I T I C 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azawadi nationalism

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:No original research, "a source must exist even for material that is never challenged". It is reasonable and comprehensible to describe the MNLA as "Azawadi nationalist", but it is still original research, as long as it is not attributable to a reliable, published source. And I doubt that there is any source yet that writes about Azawadi nationalism. Therefore it is a typical example of original research, even if it is not wrong or advancing a particular POV, but that's not the point of WP:NOR. Even balanced and reasonable statements have to be attributable, or they are OR. If Wikipedia editors analyse the ideology of an organisation by themselves, it is OR. If you make conclusions from the name of an organisation to its ideology, it is very critical OR. For example the Social Democratic Party of Portugal is not social democratic, but conservative. Just one example how the names of political organisations can be misleading. Therefore, we must not draw our own conclusions, but adher to WP:V and WP:NOR. --RJFF (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do appear to be the only people on the Internet using the phrase "Azawadi nationalism".[1] I agree that it should be pulled at least until some sources start using this phrase. I'm actually even very reluctant to have "secularism" listed as the group's ideology. While they are a secular group, does that mean that they're fighting/striving for secularism? The US-based National Organization for Women, for example, is a secular group, but we don't list secularism as a key part of their ideology. I'd suggest this be pulled as well, and simply let the article cover this ground. Khazar2 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the original incarnations of ideology? Clearly the group does have an ideology.
I was inclined to support you on secularism, but refraimed from removing per the source.
We cant remove this based on a couple of hours of discussion...the tag should generate discussion and we still dont have consensus on the latter bitLihaas (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for me, the burden of proof is on someone who wants to add information to a controversial article. Personally, I think it's far beyond our bounds to make up a phrase to describe the group's ideology and insert it as you and others are doing here. You seem to feel that this should be allowed to remain for several days, even though a Google search immediately shows that we're the only people on the Internet using "Azawadi nationalism". Why leave something in the article that we know for a fact is not in keeping with policy? Khazar2 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there is any source verifying "Azawadi nationalism" yet, therefore we don't have to engage in lengthy discussions whether or not it's original research. It is. And "secular" and "secularist" is not the same. As Khazar has already pointed out: not every secular group has secularism as its ideology. --RJFF (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Azawadi nationalism, if existing, is a 2012 creation. We can talk about Tuareg nationalism, Berber nationalism or Arab nationalism, but as far as I know, "Azawadi nationalism" is a created term like "Arab Spring"...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to nitpick, but aren't all terms "created"? Just saying... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its certainly some nationalism, its not just "nationalism" what does that even mean? Precede it by something: berber/arab/azawad, etc?
And google is not a barometre of what the term means
Also talking about OR (and hypocrysi): the MNLA flag for Azawad is clearly OR...it does NOT have the support of others holding writ thereLihaas (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, the mnla describes itself as a movement based on "national unity among the sons of azawad." its own description of its "national project" elaborates on this as a nationalist vision for all azawadis. it also identifies itself as following on to previous "nationalist" movements that fought for azawad liberation. unless actually using the group's own documents is considered "original research," it seems silly not to follow the group's lead in using the word "nationalist" to describe it. -- chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.128.192 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

[edit]

MNLA was founded in October 2011 after the Tuareg fighters had returned after the breakdown of Gaddafi's Libya. So the MNLA cannot be an ally of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Their predecessors might have been, but the MNLA as an organisation has not been an ally of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Neither are there reliable sources supporting that MNLA has been an ally of NTC Libya. Ansar Dine is not an ally either. They have been co-belligerents, fighting the same enemy, but not allies. And as of today, they are certainly not allies. --RJFF (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you on all of the above. Khazar2 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MNLA and AD invaded and fought togther, the MNLA were then SOURCED as saying they agree with AD. And that was AFTER Timbuktu, the 2nd last town. Its absolutely hypocritical to talk of OR when saying the MNLA flag and the flag of jihad needs more when the connections are drawn. We cant pick and choose.
The Libya of 1977 dint fall when gaddaffi did, in October (and before) the claimaints of the MNLA came forth from Libya while there are still (and will likely continue to be) elements of supports both ways. The MNLA are a direct result of the defeat of the Jamahariya and have plenty of support with whathisname from the high command of the MNLA military (even though others were from the NTC). The military high command is from the Jamahriya and so are the arms/heavy weapory...that needs reflection. And dnt revert in 3 mins wiht such reasoning and hypocrisy cause the same can and will get support on the Azawad flasg and jihad. The clear synthesis heare is the same as the synthesis condemned there...as is the absurd OR namng differend for the Azawad sate and the Azouagh wider area which is the same thing mistransliteratedLihaas (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"whathisname" is Col. Muhammad Najim, who was named as the guy in charge of defense in the "transitional council" on 7 June. --chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.128.192 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red star

[edit]

Does red star in MNLA emblem mean that MNLA ideology is related to socialism? If not, does anybody know what does it represent? --93.139.24.46 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section doesn't make sense

[edit]

THe source cited (DW) nowhere claims that ECOWAS is actually financing the nationalists, this is the editor's conclusion and it seems rather arbitrary. Kkostagiannis (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Citation 6 is a 404 page, the citation is also only the link and the only capture of it on the wayback machine is also a 404 https://web.archive.org/web/20240830034134/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c78ld18lgr9o24.html Darkdeath0123 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Movement_for_the_Liberation_of_Azawad&oldid=1247302219"