![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Would someone mind putting in the names of important towns on the map, to help get a sense for where this is happening? - 86.41.38.98 ( talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"under..." is npov as signifies a personal fiefdom. A country is not run by one man (and he wasn't even general in the army) regardless of what certain media/people choose to believe. That said the name is ntoable so i added "during the tenure of" but am more than open to a better wording change that is nto npov. Lihaas ( talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be renamed? As I understand it, the fighting only started in January 2012, not in 2011. Everyking ( talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's NOT a "tuareg rebellion", it's a fight for the independance of azawad, which is very difference. The liberation's army includes every ethnicity of Azawad. It's the first time that a revolution is done in Azawad with a strong political background (the MNA). It's non-sense to compare this war to the previous ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyFoot ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The only small blemish I see with that name is that the fighting is so far exclusively in Mali and not in another parts of Azawad. But that blemish is already here with the current name-- Aginsijib ( talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the map, i did it in emergency with 0 knowledge on how to create a map, i'd like to do another one but i don't know how to find a good blank one -- BabyFoot ( talk) 20:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As the creator of the current "crap" name, I suggest Insurgency in the Azawad (2011/12-present) (for date problem see below)-- Reader1987 ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I came to an accomadation but obviously one editor (who also inserts his pov view for Syria at the deletion discussion) insists on one way. He says every source says his edit is the right one. Then please provide those "every sources" Because the MNLA page has a source that says otherwise. Further, per BRD the reverted edit needs discussion first. Lihaas ( talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I put 2011 after reading the rebel group's date of formation. Could someone find the approx. date when the actual fighting started?-- Reader1987 ( talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Azawad in context.JPG and Tuareg area.png show different aread of Malian Azawad (though the latter is good cause it goes beyong the Malian bits) Lihaas ( talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 2012 insurgency in northern Mali. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 insurgency in the Azawad →
2012 insurgency in Northern Mali – The current page name is both POV and original research. Not a single source uses "insurgency in the Azawad". If you search, you will get zero hits, except Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirrors. Moreover, it is POV, because it is the MNLA's position to claim Azawad. Wikipedia should not take sides. "Northern Mali" is more neutral.
RJFF (
talk)
20:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the discussion of the move above, but I was going to suggest to find out what's most widely used by the media. So I did some searches in Google News and this is what I found:
search term | hits | search term | hits | search term | hits | search term | hits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"insurgency in northern Mali" | 2 | "rebellion in northern Mali" | 9 | "revolt in northern Mali" | 1 | "uprising in northern Mali" | 2 |
"tuareg insurgency" | 7 | "tuareg rebellion" | 65 | "tuareg revolt" | 4 | "tuareg uprising" | 4 |
The clear media favorite is "tuareg rebellion", which becomes clearer once you realize that many of the hits contain hundreds of similarly-titled articles, possibly because of newswire agencies using this particular term. I sifted through them and it appears that most are using "rebellion" with a lower-case "r" so it's not yet the "official" name.
I also repeated the same searches in general Google Search but with the addition of "MNLA" -Wikipedia to filter out hits not related to this particular Tuareg rebellion and those originating from Wikipedia. The results also came pretty much in favor of "Tuareg rebellion".
My conclusion is "2012 Tuareg rebellion" could be a better name for this article. What do others think? -- Orionist ★ talk 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not know any policy or guideline stating that "sources need to be in English on English-language Wikipedia" Having a statement supported by a foreign-language source only, is absolutely no reason to remove it. -- RJFF ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please note that per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual, User:AgAzaw is a CheckUser-confirmed sock of User:ChronicalUsual. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Why was the coup/mutiny page removed and redirected here without consensus first ? a seperate page worked fine. The coup was not part of the insurgency, although it occured because of it. Many coups have articles e.g the Thai coup in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.30.182 ( talk) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the role of the United States in this conflict. At the moment the United States Air Force appears out of the blue in this article. Apanuggpak ( talk) 20:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
If someone could clarify the roles of the United States and France, respectively, that would be great. Apanuggpak ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
In the belligerents part of the infobox, Touré and Sanogo are on the same side. Is that correct? I was about to move Sanogo to the side of the MNLA, or adding a third column as now the military of Mali is supposed to be on Sanogo's side, but I don't have enough info to modify it, so any answer is appreciated.-- Andres arg ( talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
off the tv: us suspends aid, protests in bamoko against coup, govt of sanoko talking to tuaregs, mlnsa approaching kidal as troops defect/flee without a fight. Lihaas ( talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
1. The coup is a political/military consequence and a result of the conflict and it's place is thus in the results not the casualties section, the casualties section exists only for the numbers of dead, injured or refugees.
2. Who defines major? Hahahaha. Actually you do Lihaas. XD My edit was based on your edit [15]. As I see it you yourself said all major cities. Lol.
3. Source doesn't say anything about the retreat, read it please, there is no mention of the retreat to Algeria in that specific source. The retreat is talked about in the next paragraph. ...and the Malian military forces fled towards the border with Algeria.
4. When I said disruptive I ment that people who only check out this article and not the tags wouldn't be able to know about the ongoing discussion on the name change. It wasn't ment as an attack against you Lihaas, I'm sorry you saw it that way, but that was not the purpose of my summary.
5. When you say incidents it seems as the conflict is only minor and not a country-changing event. However, if you still want something to be in its place than I will put Timeline of the conflict. Ok? EkoGraf ( talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Also if you think I made those edits without discussing them that's because I didn't see the edits so big that they needed discussion prior to making them and I didn't see this section on the talk page you started. If I did I would have responded earlier. EkoGraf ( talk) 10:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
About the casualties section. Please check out all of the other Wikipedia war articles, they all list almost exclusivly dead/injured/refugees in the casualties section. The political consequences are always put in the results section. And about the other thing. Wasn't vengeance mongering, it was just...a bit funny ;), sorry if you were offended. EkoGraf ( talk) 10:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, I really have no idea what you are talking about. What have I refused to answer to? I have answered all of your questions. If you are still talking about what you termed my demand that the casualties section is only for the dead/wounded/refugees etc I would advise you to look at every other war article on Wikipedia and all of them exclusivly talk about only those kinds of casualties, the coup and deposition of the president are most certainly not a casualty. Which I have said over and over. And using the term rant and whim and accusing me of making diktats is really bad faith on your part and in conflict with WP rule on civility, so please calm down. At no point in time did I try to insult you, which you have today done repeatedly toward me. And this rant you said I made was a calm reply to your accusation that I made up the term result section. In any case, again you yourself said on all edit accounts resolved, any other problem you have with me personally doesn't matter to me since it doesn't involve the editing to the article. I replied to all the content you made questions to so I'm done. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way I'm going to change the name of the Timeline section to Course of the conflict, you were right, the other name was looking a bit silly hehe. :P EkoGraf ( talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There is already an article for the coup d'etat, which incidently is either about the same size or acutally smaller than the section on it in this article. Also, it seems rather pointless as the coup, whilst having had a major effect on the insurgency, is not directly related. I think that section should be shortened siginifantly since it takes up more space than is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.30.213 ( talk) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The source which was placed there says they abandoned the areas around Gao rather than the city as a whole. I believe it should not be added as taken by the rebels. -- 66.41.55.237 ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Gao is taken. The advance of the rebels is very quick as Mali state seem to be collapsing. The question will be, will the Tuareg declare their independance as soon as they take Timbuktu (if they succeed) or will they push their advantage toward Bamako? And the situation of the city of Aguelhok, are we sure that the town is not held by the rebellion? When we look the map and see the malian tactic of retreating even from biggest northern cities, it seems doubtful they would keep such an advanced city among Tuareg new territory. What are the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are 3 fronts in Northen mali, Ancar Dine is leading the front in the Kidal region, being helped by MNLA, while MNLA is the leading force on the two other fronts( Timbuktu and Gao).
It is a Malian article http://www.malijet.com/a_la_une_du_mali/40345-nord_mali_le_mnla_s_en_prend.html, not sure its quality can be used directly but it says MNLA and Ansar Dine are cooperating and sharing the frontline. It is coherent with Ansar Dine claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The link to the main article 2012 Malian coup d'état should be in a prominent place, because it is likely that many readers look for it. Yes, there is a link in the propose, but it is practically hidden, because it is a piped link, displaying "gunfire erupted", and not the actual title of the article. Therefore difficult to find for readers, and not clear that it is actually the main article for the topic of this section. The guidelines for the "See also" section don't apply in this question. I agree that it would be inappropriate to link to an article already linked in the prose in the "See also" section. But this is about having a "main article" note, so this is different. -- RJFF ( talk) 11:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This (the {{ main}}) template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. (...) This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". (...)" — Description of the usage of the "main" template.
-- RJFF ( talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is adapted to write that the current status is that the Tuareg rebels have taken control of almost all north Mali as it is the facts as of today. The result is a status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this article reads like a news article. Consider revision for a more encyclopedic approach. Possible idea is to keep most of the material that reads like news, reformat it, and add absolute factual information behind it. 69.152.44.76 ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the map have Diré and Goundam as lost, when there's no other mention of it - and I've seen naught of it in the news? 217.210.7.205 ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who's been updating the map. You can get ahold of me either here, on the file's talk page(s), or on my user talk page - I'm following all of them. "Past control" of Diré and Goundam is my compromise for not knowing whether the rebels still hold them or not (read the source carefully; it actually explicitly states that it's unknown whether the rebels stayed there). These towns were controlled by the MNLA at a point in the past - it's the present we're unsure about. I realize this isn't as clear as would be ideal, but I'm not sure how else to represent it. As far as I know there's no source that would justify showing them as currently controlled. By all means, give me your suggestions. Evzob ( talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Malian army has abandonned almost every nothern city and we have not heard about any counter attack, we just heard about rebel advance. The map should show both cities in Tuareg control. I think that Aguelhok is also probably in rebel hands, when you see the position of the city, surrounded by Tuareg controled cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
How about this? File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012.svg Evzob ( talk) 19:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Good map. I dont think there is one Malian soldier left north of the Niger river, wich is the Tuareg country with a Tuareg majority in the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
...about when we should put an infobox on Azawad as a declared independent nation. Please see Talk:Azawad. Khazar2 ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Might I ask why Léré is on the list of captured towns twice, without any information to indicate it was lost in the first place? 217.210.7.205 ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Ber shouldn't be on the list unless we can find a neutral source. We're currently citing the MNLA's own website.... Evzob ( talk) 08:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What with this? 2nd unexplained removal, i though it was an EC the first time Lihaas ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A link to a journal article about the 2007 Tuareg Rebellion has been added here twice now; since the second time led to some shouting [27], I thought I'd take the issue to talk instead of reverting. As much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Futurama fan, Wikipedia:Further reading states that "A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article"; as this article is entirely about the previous rebellion, that's not the case here. The two rebellions involve the same ethnic group but different leaders and organizations; it seems to me that we need a reliable source that more clearly discusses this connection, instead of leaves the connection to reader inference. So I suggest that it be removed, or if it has a few lines that have a clear bearing on the present conflict, that those be quoted and cited in the body of the article itself. Other thoughts?
(I am, however, adding it to the 2007 Tuareg rebellion article, where it'll be a great addition.) Khazar2 ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
AFP is saying now that a group of Ancar Dine fighters have attacked MNLA and put the Malian and islamist flag in Timbuktu. if it is true, there will be a violent fight between the Tuaregs.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources are not in english yet. It is resident claims that Iyad came with 50 pick up and ousted MNLA while burning flags. The aid of Iyad told that Somalians, and other islamists foreigners were fighting with them. http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/monde/mali-un-leader-islamiste-touareg-prend-le-controle-de-tombouctou_1100477.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There are claims of Boko Haram and MUJAO (Al Qaeda Malian split faction) to be with Ancar Dine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree to present alleged allies of the rebels, i.e. MOJW, AQIM and Boko Haram, in the infobox. The infobox must be restricted to summarizing facts, and not rumors, allegations and speculations. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
And I would like to ask Jacob102699 to please restore the original, chronological order of this talk page. Why is Requested move 2 over reguested move 1? This is confusing, unlogic, and unnecessary. Please undo it. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about a fight between Ansar Dine and MNLA. I put allegations back on there because a sourced edit was reverted and I followed WP:BOLD. I won't put it back on there unless it's per talk. I do think if Awazad through negotiations becomes and independent country, Ansar Dine will launch uprising. I don't think much is happening right now. I do think a flag of Jihad is appropriate for Ansar Dine because they are Islamist. Jacob102699 ( talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No one forces us to rely on a source from 5 February, if we have sources from 20 March and today that indicate otherwise. This is not a question of verifiability vs. original research but a question of up-to-dateness. -- RJFF ( talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't include defectors, then it's 2500-3500 and maybe 3000-4000
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over two issues. The first is the inclusion of Malian army defectors. There should be no reason to list this force seperately in the infobox since they defected to the MNLA, they are not a seperate belligerent. The second issue at hand is the inclusion of the MOSW, which several sources say are present at least in gao and participated in the advance there. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have only seen sources reporting MOSW claims to have participated. Do you have a source verifying this by a third party? -- RJFF ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
We need to divide in 3 sides. MNLA and islamists can no longer be put together. MUJAO has confirmed its participation, elements of AQMI are confirmed being with Ancar Dine at Timbuktu. Ancar Dine has put down Azawad flags and said they don't want independance but sharia. MNLA said they will hunt down AQMI.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ansar Dine is not a part of MNLA, they are a different group with different allies and goals. Thinking that Ansar Dine is a part of MNLA is a big misunderstanding. Apparently, they have not really started to fight one again each other but the difference of goals is too big to place them on the same place. MNLA is also ennemy of AQMI while Ansar Dine is its ally.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like some fighting is spilling into Mopti now, [30] we should color in Mopti yellow in the map. Though it is weird they are going past the proposed border. Spongie555 ( talk) 05:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was page moved. Various redirects should be created if they haven't been already. One bit of advice: ease up on replying to everyone's comments. Your arguments don't get stronger when you repeat them over and over; they get weaker. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
2012 insurgency in northern Mali → Tuareg Rebellion (2012) – Simply put most news sources refer to it as the Tuareg rebellion which is the common name. Also previous examples: Tuareg Rebellion (1962–1964), Tuareg Rebellion (1990–1995), Tuareg Rebellion (2007–2009). Why would this one be any different? I know another user said that there are people of other ethnicity among the rebels but the two main rebel groups National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and Ancar Dine are primarily Tuareg-led and a wast majority of the rebels are Tuaregs. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas ( talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there are Tuaregs, it is a fact, this is a tuareg independance war with the nationalist tuaregs MNLA and the islamists tuaregs, Ansar Dine.— 208.110.86.67 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Yes rebellions seam to be an attack against a goverment, while insurgencies tend to be harrasment. This subject can't just be harrasment judging how it has caused a coup in one of the most stable nations in west Africa. [User: sauernc80] March 26, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauernc80 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Sauernc80 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The main passage I was referring to in the Morgan article was this: "It’s true that certain important Arab leaders, such as Baba Ould Sidi Elmoctar, the hereditary chief of the influential Arab Kounta tribe, have already thrown in their lot with MNLA. As I write, there are also reports arriving from the desert of northern Arabs in the towns of Leré, Timbuktu and Goundam who are leaving to join MNLA in the field." Notability and reliability are not necessarily the same thing, and neither is neutrality - I'm having difficulty understanding how criticizing the AFP goes against Wikipedia policy. A rather large part of the AFP's information on international events is taken from the relevant countries' national news agencies, which makes it not very neutral (or reliable) in my opinion. I don't have a citation for that, however, so I'm not demanding that Wikipedia stop using it as a source. I just personally disagree with characterizing it as neutral or reliable (I actually suspect this claim may be verifiable, but I don't have time to find a source right now).
I actually have no problem with the word "rebellion" - that was never an issue for me. And as for "Tuareg", I'm willing to concede at this point that that's probably the best way to conform with WP:COMMONNAME. It just seemed to me that we hadn't properly discussed some of the issues until now. Although I'm personally reluctant to give it a name that I believe may be inaccurate, I do think EdoGraf is right that over 90% of the sources refer to it as a "Tuareg rebellion", which means that under Wikipedia policy we should probably change it to that.
Evzob ( talk) 10:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's EkoGraf XD but tx lol. Listen, in a bid to compromise, how about we mention in the lead or in the background section that there have been some reports that some non-Tuaregs have been joining the Tuareg-led rebellion? EkoGraf ( talk) 11:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there is no reason not to name this Tuareg rebellion. All the others in Mali are. WP:COMMONNAME. Al Jazeera calls it Tuareg rebellion, so do most other sources. It should be at least called the previous name with Awazad in it. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I find Tuareg Rebellion name a little too general. "in Azawad" or "For Azawad independance" could be added to be more specific. If Tuaregs do declare independance "Independance War of Azawad" could be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Wouldn't 2012 Tuareg rebellion fit better with the nomenclature? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support per Khazar2 and Kudzu1. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support-- LCG8928 ( talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Most sources call it Tuareg Rebellion including Al Jazeera English. Also all the others were called Tuareg rebellion? Why not this one? Because of Ansar Dine? MNLA with new defection has like 3000 men. Ansar Dine only has around 200. They're not a real force. They are also Tuaregs too! This has no need for discussion and EkoGraf is right on this one. The only opposes are Lihaas and Evzob. There are many supports. I say EkoGraf can close this as moved right now. Jacob102699 ( talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support. The current title is both unwieldy and misleading. Tuareg rebellion is much better. LANTZY TALK 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for close Given the broad consensus here--we appear to have only one oppose (plus one withdrawn oppose), can this be closed? Khazar2 ( talk) 16:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Vote Count 13 yea 2 nay on amended title after 8 full days Jacob102699 ( talk) 11:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we call it the end? as MNLA seem to have done lalready...though im not sure about AD's statements. Radical nitwits they seem. Lihaas ( talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
MNLA said they will issue and independance declaration in the next few days but it seems that they will have to turn their weapons against the islamists. -- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I expected a struggle for the power after the collapse of the Malian Army but I did not expect it to come so quickly.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I vote for the 3 sides. Altough MNLA has been open with cooperating with Ancar Dine, it was before being attacked. And MNLA already stated they won't accept the islamists groups that Ancar Dine is bringing in. MNLA second goal after independance is to crush AQMI in the region.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
They were allied for sure but MNLA said previously that they would take different paths if Ansar Dine wanted to force shariah. With Ansar Dine rejectif Azawad independance, this can ongly go to a fight and it seems to have started very quickly.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This quotation's pretty great: "But Keenan said the group, consisting of a few hundred fighters, played an insignificant role in the rebels' seizure of the north. Aghaly's "contribution on the military front is small," he said. "What seems to happen is that when they move into a town, the MNLA take out the military base — not that there's much resistance — and Iyad goes into town and puts up his flag and starts bossing everyone around about sharia law."" [35] Is there a logical place to put this in the article? It's one of our first expert voices on the precise relationship between the two groups in the fighting here, and also has the advantage of being hilarious. Khazar2 ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
An interview of MNLA spokesman : http://amazigh.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/04/05/le-mnla-procedera-a-la-proclamation-de-la-republique-de-lazawad-mossa-ag-attaher/ He says they control all Azawad, and are holding all three former governor offices and will declare independance. About Ansar Dine, they told their disagreement to Iyad Ag Ghaly and his islamists views. Military, he says that Ansar Dine are no match for the MNLA (thousands for MNLA vs hundreds from one family/tribe for Ansar Dine) and that they won't let them do islamic law. He also said that after Gamou defection, black Malian soldiers attacked Tuaregs soldiers in Timbuktu which created a fight in the Malian army and their withdrawal of the city.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 10:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As seeing this new source ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grilySJ5EdrgURoNp1mt3AIJhTgg?docId=CNG.915a5505555757d7df5029b5b99451cc.261), and most of all this part: "Gao's elected lawmaker Abdou Sidibe confirmed that it was under the control of several rebel groups including AQIM splinter group the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (Mujao) and traffickers. "Gao has been occupied, annexed by three groups. The MNLA is in one camp, Ansar Dine and the west African jihadists are together and the traffickers ... the road to Bamako is closed, the road to Niger is closed, there is no food left in town," he said." I propose this changes:
Why the text about Burkinabe president sending a delegation to MNLA and ECOWAS hoping they could clean the islamist has been deleted?-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The french minister confirms that CEDEAO and Burkina Faso are talking witb MNLA [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Names of towns on map of Azawad, I made a new version of File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012.svg. However my account is less than 4 days old, so I can't overwrite files. I uploaded the new version to File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012 - 2.svg, could someone please overwrite for me? Thanks, Wigiz ( talk) 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
User Lihaas has argued that the place for the mention of the deposition of the president in a coup is in the casualties section of the infobox. I have explained to him that the standard practice of editing conflict infoboxes on Wikipedia is that the numbers of dead/injured/refugees/deserters are placed in the casualties section. I have also told him that the coup is a political/military consequence and a result of the conflict and it's place is thus in the results/status not the casualties section. He has argued against this logic, which has been practiced by editors in all of the war articles. Lihaas has also demanded a consensus on this issue. So, in good faith to Lihaas I would like to ask people to express their support or oppose opinion on wether the mention of the coup deposition should be left in the results/status section, or be moved to the casualties section. Also note, Lihaas has removed the mention from the results/casualties section of the fact that the rebels have taken all of the towns in the north of the country, don't know why, but I reinserted it. So...
Support leaving the coup mention in the results/status section. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Question What you say makes perfect sense, and I'm inclined to support what you're saying. The coup seems to make much more sense in "status" than in "casualties". But is there a "gold standard" example for one of these infoboxes (from a FAC for example, or just a set of guidelines) that we could see the usual format in? Khazar2 ( talk) 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Support per guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict; coup does not belong in "casualties". "Status" seems to allow more descriptive answers. Khazar2 ( talk) 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the Keenan quote about Ancar Dine being less significant militarily than the MNLA keep floating down into its own "Reactions: Academia" section? This is actual information about what's happening from one of the foremost scholars on these groups (see his publications), not a statement like "I hereby condemn this coup." I suggest this either be reintegrated or removed from the article; as information about AD, it seems useful, but my guess is that nobody is reading this to check out John Q. Keenan's statement on the conflict. Khazar2 ( talk) 20:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
And there we have it, folks. http://mnlamov.net/component/content/article/169-declaration-dindependance-de-lazawad.html Norvegia suecica ( talk) 06:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to briefly revisit the claim that "other peoples" are participating in this rebellion. While this may well be true, has it been reported in any reliable sources yet? The MNLA claims this, but for third party confirmation so far we only appear to have a link an article by Tinariwen's band manager Andy Morgan at the online commentary/blog site Think Africa Press--I'd be astonished if that counted as a reliable source. I suggest this claim be removed from the article until a reliable source can be found. Khazar2 ( talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Morgan uses the phrase "Tuareg-led" in that Guardian article. What do you think of that as a way to try to allow for the possibility that other groups participated without stating it definitively? Khazar2 ( talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
in the info box, should this flag: , be added next to the name of ancar dine.reliable sources such as AFP have said the group is an Islamist organisation with links to alqaeda--
Misconceptions2 (
talk)
00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Its been reported on multipel sources that the AD have their black flag flying, its laso said widely that theyre islamist. its WP:COMMONSENSE that this is the flag of jihad as there is no reported empty black flag (and theyre NOT anarchic), while theyll also linked to other movements such as AQIM. With Al Qaeda leading the intl charge on jihadist ideology AND the lnks theres more to say this is the same. Maybe it was earliy to say that then but nowit seems more logical with a variety of ources coming out with it. We also have the MNLA flag listed with sources mentioning the confusion of flags...this is the only loical flag that needs to be there. It also seems its part of the jihad ulema idea, which is under the said flag. Lihaas ( talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"With ECOWAS troops on stand-by for a first ever intervention in a membership country..."
ECOMOG troops are basically ECOWAS troops, right? If so, ECOWAS forces have gotten involved in many member countries. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, and more.
JoshNarins ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that, if anything, the MNLA and Ansar Dine are enemies as they claim the same territory and regard the other as illegitimate. Their aims are also irreconcilable: Ansar Dine wants an Islamic state encompassing all of Mali, and the MNLA wants to achieve independence for the region of Azawad. They certainly are not allies, as the infobox would make it seem by placing them in the same column. If anything they should be placed on opposite sides, as a three-way conflict. -- Yalens ( talk) 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree but for the moment, they have not fought one against the other but only together against Malian Army. But is is likely they will fight in the future, if they can't negociate an agreement.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a Tuareg rebellion at first but now, the situation has evolved. Tuaregs rebellion title don't give an accurate location. There are Tuaregs in Algeria, Niger, Libya in addition of what was Mali. They have not rebelled. Tuareg rebellion in Azawad would be more accurate. Azawad conflict too since Islamists groups are also a component. Azawad independance war could be good too as the territory has been captured and has separated itself from Mali. Current title is too large and does not reflect the situation clearly. -- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 09:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
..that should be addressed by the article. Whether we see a reconquista or not. -- Reader1987 ( talk) 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I slightly agree. The problem with this is there has been no second phase. We can possibly put on there halt in fighting like korean war except without ceasefire. Jacob102699 ( talk) 01:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This article from cnn ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/mali-revolt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) proves that MNLA and MOJWA (part of AQIM) are opposed. The MNLA now says their main goal is is to clear al-Qaeda from the area. They say Ansar Dine is still an ally of them though, and wants stability. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Should this article be called Azawad War of Independence? Or too soon? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This article's infobox states that this conflict is still ongoing. Well, nothing has happened since the first half of April so perhaps the infobox should be updated to reflect this state. -- 93.142.36.166 ( talk) 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think it's probably okay to mark it as done. I imagine that if ECOWAS or the AU goes in, that could just as easily be categorized as a separate conflict. Leaving this conflict ongoing because we're still waiting for that is coming a little bit close WP:CRYSTALBALL, IMO. We might as well mark it done like it looks now, and if that changes then we can change it back then. Evzob ( talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Berber Tuareg, at least to me, claimed on several occasions that they own all the land north of the river Niger. Tuareg (again to me, but I red the same stuff several times) devide themselves in several categories: religious people / poets, warriors, skilled workers (blacksmiths etc), and manual workers. The same roughly counts for Moorish society.
The manual workers were in effect slaves until quite recently, and often higher cast Tuareg don't allow them much freedom. Many Tuareg households where I was a guest, have a black skinned maid that gets no salary, nor any other rights, except to work long days. Also the poorer quarters of Timbuctu are (were) populated with countless thousands of black skinned people, who were the slaves of Moors and Tuareg, but who were sent off during the droughts of the 1980's. Hefty economic discrimination against them by a dominant part of the feudally minded Tuareg elite continues till today.
Also the northern banks of the river Niger are farmed by people who are often taxed at will by feudally minded Tuareg, who claim that since they own the land under the farms, the crop and everything these farmers own, also belongs to them. Seen it myself on one occasion: a village gets robbed of 70 % of their yearly crop in trade for 'protection'.
Besides Tuareg, Northern Mali also has a quite sizable population of berber Moors (also with a background from nomadism and trade) and of Fulani. Tuareg, when asked with how many they are, tend to include the Tamasheq speaking dark skinned 'ex-slaves' and the riverine farmers on the land they 'own' in their head count. Although Berber Tuareg are highly visible and vocal, the true number of Berber upper cast Tuareg is probably much smaller then the millions now claimed. If Azawad would hold truly free and fair elections, then most likely Azawad independence would get a thumps down from most Moors and Fulani, most Soninke, most riverine farmers, and from the majority of 'ex-slaves'. Even many berber Tuareg would probably prefer a political solution, because stubbornly closing borders destroys trade, which is (directly or indirectly) the main source of income for a very large percentage of Tuareg.
Effectively, Tuareg who want an independent Azawad, most likely would form a small or very small minority in their own 'state'. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it deals with the misconception that northern Mali is a territory where the Tuareg nomads are the local population, which is the basic presumption behind the whole uprising, and behind most of the reporting about it. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 08:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The name independance war would be more accurate. And this conflict is practically over since no counter offensive of the Malian Army came in two months. It may come later, but it would be a new conflict, between two states.-- Remzone ( talk) 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How are they calling this conflict?-- Remzone ( talk) 07:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It evolved in something quite different. The previous Tuareg rebellions never achieved such a big breakout and never declared independance over a territory they controled. -- Remzone ( talk) 08:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Reports of Boko Haram in Gao all trace back to unnamed citizens. It is very unlikely that Boko Haram has managed a 2000 km journey through three countries over open terrain, while in Nigeria itself they have never been spotted yet in any 4 wheel drive of their own. That is not the way they operate. They only have small motorbikes. Also, Boko Haram has a religious ideology, completely different from both Ansar Dine and MNLA. Very likely these were either ex-slaves from the Tuaregs (Iklan or Bella), being recruited into one of the Tuareg militia. Or they were Tuareg ex-slaves who were afraid of being re-enslaved, so they formed their own self-defence militia around defected army generals, exactly like it happened in the previous uprising (then called Ganda Koi and Bella awakening). As Boko Haram presence hasn't been confirmed or even re-rumoured in ten weeks now, I propose to throw them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See, the only problem I have is with your last statement. You seem to treat reliable sources as scripture. Yes they are generally reliable, but you're assuming that each sentence is reliable to the last letter. Reliable is not infallible. In the Reuters article we're discussing (here's the original article, btw), this might just be a case of unintentionally omitting of the word "reportedly". Moreover, an important part of being reliable is mentioning your sources, which enables us to verify your information. That's almost always the case in news reports, but not in analysis and opinion articles. I'm asking for news reports, and that is not going beyond WP:RS. Just look at the section titled WP:RS#News_organizations, it says:
And here is an example for "the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors": Look at this Reuters article from last January. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the corrections, five in total, to false statements of the kind that might bring you a defamation suit (avoiding which was the reason fact-checking departments were created in the first place). here's the backstory, and here's the article that prompted the correction. Another example from Reuters would be this article, which, after being mocked in the media, was substituted by this one (see this for the backstory). What makes these examples even worse, is that Reuters should've been extra careful and diligent as they were reporting on the US. And with millions of eyes on them, any mistake will be caught out. Of course, this wouldn't have happened if they were reporting on a remote place, Mali, for instance. -- Orionist ★ talk 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Would someone mind putting in the names of important towns on the map, to help get a sense for where this is happening? - 86.41.38.98 ( talk) 22:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
"under..." is npov as signifies a personal fiefdom. A country is not run by one man (and he wasn't even general in the army) regardless of what certain media/people choose to believe. That said the name is ntoable so i added "during the tenure of" but am more than open to a better wording change that is nto npov. Lihaas ( talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be renamed? As I understand it, the fighting only started in January 2012, not in 2011. Everyking ( talk) 15:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's NOT a "tuareg rebellion", it's a fight for the independance of azawad, which is very difference. The liberation's army includes every ethnicity of Azawad. It's the first time that a revolution is done in Azawad with a strong political background (the MNA). It's non-sense to compare this war to the previous ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyFoot ( talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The only small blemish I see with that name is that the fighting is so far exclusively in Mali and not in another parts of Azawad. But that blemish is already here with the current name-- Aginsijib ( talk) 21:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the map, i did it in emergency with 0 knowledge on how to create a map, i'd like to do another one but i don't know how to find a good blank one -- BabyFoot ( talk) 20:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As the creator of the current "crap" name, I suggest Insurgency in the Azawad (2011/12-present) (for date problem see below)-- Reader1987 ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I came to an accomadation but obviously one editor (who also inserts his pov view for Syria at the deletion discussion) insists on one way. He says every source says his edit is the right one. Then please provide those "every sources" Because the MNLA page has a source that says otherwise. Further, per BRD the reverted edit needs discussion first. Lihaas ( talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I put 2011 after reading the rebel group's date of formation. Could someone find the approx. date when the actual fighting started?-- Reader1987 ( talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Azawad in context.JPG and Tuareg area.png show different aread of Malian Azawad (though the latter is good cause it goes beyong the Malian bits) Lihaas ( talk) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 2012 insurgency in northern Mali. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
2012 insurgency in the Azawad →
2012 insurgency in Northern Mali – The current page name is both POV and original research. Not a single source uses "insurgency in the Azawad". If you search, you will get zero hits, except Wikipedia, and Wikipedia mirrors. Moreover, it is POV, because it is the MNLA's position to claim Azawad. Wikipedia should not take sides. "Northern Mali" is more neutral.
RJFF (
talk)
20:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little late to the discussion of the move above, but I was going to suggest to find out what's most widely used by the media. So I did some searches in Google News and this is what I found:
search term | hits | search term | hits | search term | hits | search term | hits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
"insurgency in northern Mali" | 2 | "rebellion in northern Mali" | 9 | "revolt in northern Mali" | 1 | "uprising in northern Mali" | 2 |
"tuareg insurgency" | 7 | "tuareg rebellion" | 65 | "tuareg revolt" | 4 | "tuareg uprising" | 4 |
The clear media favorite is "tuareg rebellion", which becomes clearer once you realize that many of the hits contain hundreds of similarly-titled articles, possibly because of newswire agencies using this particular term. I sifted through them and it appears that most are using "rebellion" with a lower-case "r" so it's not yet the "official" name.
I also repeated the same searches in general Google Search but with the addition of "MNLA" -Wikipedia to filter out hits not related to this particular Tuareg rebellion and those originating from Wikipedia. The results also came pretty much in favor of "Tuareg rebellion".
My conclusion is "2012 Tuareg rebellion" could be a better name for this article. What do others think? -- Orionist ★ talk 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not know any policy or guideline stating that "sources need to be in English on English-language Wikipedia" Having a statement supported by a foreign-language source only, is absolutely no reason to remove it. -- RJFF ( talk) 20:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Please note that per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual, User:AgAzaw is a CheckUser-confirmed sock of User:ChronicalUsual. - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Why was the coup/mutiny page removed and redirected here without consensus first ? a seperate page worked fine. The coup was not part of the insurgency, although it occured because of it. Many coups have articles e.g the Thai coup in 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.30.182 ( talk) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please clarify the role of the United States in this conflict. At the moment the United States Air Force appears out of the blue in this article. Apanuggpak ( talk) 20:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
If someone could clarify the roles of the United States and France, respectively, that would be great. Apanuggpak ( talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
In the belligerents part of the infobox, Touré and Sanogo are on the same side. Is that correct? I was about to move Sanogo to the side of the MNLA, or adding a third column as now the military of Mali is supposed to be on Sanogo's side, but I don't have enough info to modify it, so any answer is appreciated.-- Andres arg ( talk) 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
off the tv: us suspends aid, protests in bamoko against coup, govt of sanoko talking to tuaregs, mlnsa approaching kidal as troops defect/flee without a fight. Lihaas ( talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
1. The coup is a political/military consequence and a result of the conflict and it's place is thus in the results not the casualties section, the casualties section exists only for the numbers of dead, injured or refugees.
2. Who defines major? Hahahaha. Actually you do Lihaas. XD My edit was based on your edit [15]. As I see it you yourself said all major cities. Lol.
3. Source doesn't say anything about the retreat, read it please, there is no mention of the retreat to Algeria in that specific source. The retreat is talked about in the next paragraph. ...and the Malian military forces fled towards the border with Algeria.
4. When I said disruptive I ment that people who only check out this article and not the tags wouldn't be able to know about the ongoing discussion on the name change. It wasn't ment as an attack against you Lihaas, I'm sorry you saw it that way, but that was not the purpose of my summary.
5. When you say incidents it seems as the conflict is only minor and not a country-changing event. However, if you still want something to be in its place than I will put Timeline of the conflict. Ok? EkoGraf ( talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Also if you think I made those edits without discussing them that's because I didn't see the edits so big that they needed discussion prior to making them and I didn't see this section on the talk page you started. If I did I would have responded earlier. EkoGraf ( talk) 10:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
About the casualties section. Please check out all of the other Wikipedia war articles, they all list almost exclusivly dead/injured/refugees in the casualties section. The political consequences are always put in the results section. And about the other thing. Wasn't vengeance mongering, it was just...a bit funny ;), sorry if you were offended. EkoGraf ( talk) 10:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas, I really have no idea what you are talking about. What have I refused to answer to? I have answered all of your questions. If you are still talking about what you termed my demand that the casualties section is only for the dead/wounded/refugees etc I would advise you to look at every other war article on Wikipedia and all of them exclusivly talk about only those kinds of casualties, the coup and deposition of the president are most certainly not a casualty. Which I have said over and over. And using the term rant and whim and accusing me of making diktats is really bad faith on your part and in conflict with WP rule on civility, so please calm down. At no point in time did I try to insult you, which you have today done repeatedly toward me. And this rant you said I made was a calm reply to your accusation that I made up the term result section. In any case, again you yourself said on all edit accounts resolved, any other problem you have with me personally doesn't matter to me since it doesn't involve the editing to the article. I replied to all the content you made questions to so I'm done. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way I'm going to change the name of the Timeline section to Course of the conflict, you were right, the other name was looking a bit silly hehe. :P EkoGraf ( talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There is already an article for the coup d'etat, which incidently is either about the same size or acutally smaller than the section on it in this article. Also, it seems rather pointless as the coup, whilst having had a major effect on the insurgency, is not directly related. I think that section should be shortened siginifantly since it takes up more space than is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.30.213 ( talk) 21:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The source which was placed there says they abandoned the areas around Gao rather than the city as a whole. I believe it should not be added as taken by the rebels. -- 66.41.55.237 ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Gao is taken. The advance of the rebels is very quick as Mali state seem to be collapsing. The question will be, will the Tuareg declare their independance as soon as they take Timbuktu (if they succeed) or will they push their advantage toward Bamako? And the situation of the city of Aguelhok, are we sure that the town is not held by the rebellion? When we look the map and see the malian tactic of retreating even from biggest northern cities, it seems doubtful they would keep such an advanced city among Tuareg new territory. What are the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are 3 fronts in Northen mali, Ancar Dine is leading the front in the Kidal region, being helped by MNLA, while MNLA is the leading force on the two other fronts( Timbuktu and Gao).
It is a Malian article http://www.malijet.com/a_la_une_du_mali/40345-nord_mali_le_mnla_s_en_prend.html, not sure its quality can be used directly but it says MNLA and Ansar Dine are cooperating and sharing the frontline. It is coherent with Ansar Dine claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The link to the main article 2012 Malian coup d'état should be in a prominent place, because it is likely that many readers look for it. Yes, there is a link in the propose, but it is practically hidden, because it is a piped link, displaying "gunfire erupted", and not the actual title of the article. Therefore difficult to find for readers, and not clear that it is actually the main article for the topic of this section. The guidelines for the "See also" section don't apply in this question. I agree that it would be inappropriate to link to an article already linked in the prose in the "See also" section. But this is about having a "main article" note, so this is different. -- RJFF ( talk) 11:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"When a Wikipedia article is large, it is often rewritten in summary style. This (the {{ main}}) template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised. (...) This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". (...)" — Description of the usage of the "main" template.
-- RJFF ( talk) 15:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is adapted to write that the current status is that the Tuareg rebels have taken control of almost all north Mali as it is the facts as of today. The result is a status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
A lot of this article reads like a news article. Consider revision for a more encyclopedic approach. Possible idea is to keep most of the material that reads like news, reformat it, and add absolute factual information behind it. 69.152.44.76 ( talk) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the map have Diré and Goundam as lost, when there's no other mention of it - and I've seen naught of it in the news? 217.210.7.205 ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm the one who's been updating the map. You can get ahold of me either here, on the file's talk page(s), or on my user talk page - I'm following all of them. "Past control" of Diré and Goundam is my compromise for not knowing whether the rebels still hold them or not (read the source carefully; it actually explicitly states that it's unknown whether the rebels stayed there). These towns were controlled by the MNLA at a point in the past - it's the present we're unsure about. I realize this isn't as clear as would be ideal, but I'm not sure how else to represent it. As far as I know there's no source that would justify showing them as currently controlled. By all means, give me your suggestions. Evzob ( talk) 14:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Malian army has abandonned almost every nothern city and we have not heard about any counter attack, we just heard about rebel advance. The map should show both cities in Tuareg control. I think that Aguelhok is also probably in rebel hands, when you see the position of the city, surrounded by Tuareg controled cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
How about this? File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012.svg Evzob ( talk) 19:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Good map. I dont think there is one Malian soldier left north of the Niger river, wich is the Tuareg country with a Tuareg majority in the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
...about when we should put an infobox on Azawad as a declared independent nation. Please see Talk:Azawad. Khazar2 ( talk) 05:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Might I ask why Léré is on the list of captured towns twice, without any information to indicate it was lost in the first place? 217.210.7.205 ( talk) 05:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Ber shouldn't be on the list unless we can find a neutral source. We're currently citing the MNLA's own website.... Evzob ( talk) 08:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
What with this? 2nd unexplained removal, i though it was an EC the first time Lihaas ( talk) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A link to a journal article about the 2007 Tuareg Rebellion has been added here twice now; since the second time led to some shouting [27], I thought I'd take the issue to talk instead of reverting. As much as I hate to disagree with a fellow Futurama fan, Wikipedia:Further reading states that "A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article"; as this article is entirely about the previous rebellion, that's not the case here. The two rebellions involve the same ethnic group but different leaders and organizations; it seems to me that we need a reliable source that more clearly discusses this connection, instead of leaves the connection to reader inference. So I suggest that it be removed, or if it has a few lines that have a clear bearing on the present conflict, that those be quoted and cited in the body of the article itself. Other thoughts?
(I am, however, adding it to the 2007 Tuareg rebellion article, where it'll be a great addition.) Khazar2 ( talk) 15:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
AFP is saying now that a group of Ancar Dine fighters have attacked MNLA and put the Malian and islamist flag in Timbuktu. if it is true, there will be a violent fight between the Tuaregs.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources are not in english yet. It is resident claims that Iyad came with 50 pick up and ousted MNLA while burning flags. The aid of Iyad told that Somalians, and other islamists foreigners were fighting with them. http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/monde/mali-un-leader-islamiste-touareg-prend-le-controle-de-tombouctou_1100477.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There are claims of Boko Haram and MUJAO (Al Qaeda Malian split faction) to be with Ancar Dine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I strongly disagree to present alleged allies of the rebels, i.e. MOJW, AQIM and Boko Haram, in the infobox. The infobox must be restricted to summarizing facts, and not rumors, allegations and speculations. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
And I would like to ask Jacob102699 to please restore the original, chronological order of this talk page. Why is Requested move 2 over reguested move 1? This is confusing, unlogic, and unnecessary. Please undo it. -- RJFF ( talk) 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know much about a fight between Ansar Dine and MNLA. I put allegations back on there because a sourced edit was reverted and I followed WP:BOLD. I won't put it back on there unless it's per talk. I do think if Awazad through negotiations becomes and independent country, Ansar Dine will launch uprising. I don't think much is happening right now. I do think a flag of Jihad is appropriate for Ansar Dine because they are Islamist. Jacob102699 ( talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
No one forces us to rely on a source from 5 February, if we have sources from 20 March and today that indicate otherwise. This is not a question of verifiability vs. original research but a question of up-to-dateness. -- RJFF ( talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't include defectors, then it's 2500-3500 and maybe 3000-4000
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over two issues. The first is the inclusion of Malian army defectors. There should be no reason to list this force seperately in the infobox since they defected to the MNLA, they are not a seperate belligerent. The second issue at hand is the inclusion of the MOSW, which several sources say are present at least in gao and participated in the advance there. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have only seen sources reporting MOSW claims to have participated. Do you have a source verifying this by a third party? -- RJFF ( talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
We need to divide in 3 sides. MNLA and islamists can no longer be put together. MUJAO has confirmed its participation, elements of AQMI are confirmed being with Ancar Dine at Timbuktu. Ancar Dine has put down Azawad flags and said they don't want independance but sharia. MNLA said they will hunt down AQMI.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ansar Dine is not a part of MNLA, they are a different group with different allies and goals. Thinking that Ansar Dine is a part of MNLA is a big misunderstanding. Apparently, they have not really started to fight one again each other but the difference of goals is too big to place them on the same place. MNLA is also ennemy of AQMI while Ansar Dine is its ally.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks like some fighting is spilling into Mopti now, [30] we should color in Mopti yellow in the map. Though it is weird they are going past the proposed border. Spongie555 ( talk) 05:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was page moved. Various redirects should be created if they haven't been already. One bit of advice: ease up on replying to everyone's comments. Your arguments don't get stronger when you repeat them over and over; they get weaker. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
2012 insurgency in northern Mali → Tuareg Rebellion (2012) – Simply put most news sources refer to it as the Tuareg rebellion which is the common name. Also previous examples: Tuareg Rebellion (1962–1964), Tuareg Rebellion (1990–1995), Tuareg Rebellion (2007–2009). Why would this one be any different? I know another user said that there are people of other ethnicity among the rebels but the two main rebel groups National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad and Ancar Dine are primarily Tuareg-led and a wast majority of the rebels are Tuaregs. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Lihaas ( talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there are Tuaregs, it is a fact, this is a tuareg independance war with the nationalist tuaregs MNLA and the islamists tuaregs, Ansar Dine.— 208.110.86.67 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
Yes rebellions seam to be an attack against a goverment, while insurgencies tend to be harrasment. This subject can't just be harrasment judging how it has caused a coup in one of the most stable nations in west Africa. [User: sauernc80] March 26, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauernc80 ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — Sauernc80 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The main passage I was referring to in the Morgan article was this: "It’s true that certain important Arab leaders, such as Baba Ould Sidi Elmoctar, the hereditary chief of the influential Arab Kounta tribe, have already thrown in their lot with MNLA. As I write, there are also reports arriving from the desert of northern Arabs in the towns of Leré, Timbuktu and Goundam who are leaving to join MNLA in the field." Notability and reliability are not necessarily the same thing, and neither is neutrality - I'm having difficulty understanding how criticizing the AFP goes against Wikipedia policy. A rather large part of the AFP's information on international events is taken from the relevant countries' national news agencies, which makes it not very neutral (or reliable) in my opinion. I don't have a citation for that, however, so I'm not demanding that Wikipedia stop using it as a source. I just personally disagree with characterizing it as neutral or reliable (I actually suspect this claim may be verifiable, but I don't have time to find a source right now).
I actually have no problem with the word "rebellion" - that was never an issue for me. And as for "Tuareg", I'm willing to concede at this point that that's probably the best way to conform with WP:COMMONNAME. It just seemed to me that we hadn't properly discussed some of the issues until now. Although I'm personally reluctant to give it a name that I believe may be inaccurate, I do think EdoGraf is right that over 90% of the sources refer to it as a "Tuareg rebellion", which means that under Wikipedia policy we should probably change it to that.
Evzob ( talk) 10:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It's EkoGraf XD but tx lol. Listen, in a bid to compromise, how about we mention in the lead or in the background section that there have been some reports that some non-Tuaregs have been joining the Tuareg-led rebellion? EkoGraf ( talk) 11:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, there is no reason not to name this Tuareg rebellion. All the others in Mali are. WP:COMMONNAME. Al Jazeera calls it Tuareg rebellion, so do most other sources. It should be at least called the previous name with Awazad in it. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I find Tuareg Rebellion name a little too general. "in Azawad" or "For Azawad independance" could be added to be more specific. If Tuaregs do declare independance "Independance War of Azawad" could be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Wouldn't 2012 Tuareg rebellion fit better with the nomenclature? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support per Khazar2 and Kudzu1. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support-- LCG8928 ( talk) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Support Most sources call it Tuareg Rebellion including Al Jazeera English. Also all the others were called Tuareg rebellion? Why not this one? Because of Ansar Dine? MNLA with new defection has like 3000 men. Ansar Dine only has around 200. They're not a real force. They are also Tuaregs too! This has no need for discussion and EkoGraf is right on this one. The only opposes are Lihaas and Evzob. There are many supports. I say EkoGraf can close this as moved right now. Jacob102699 ( talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support. The current title is both unwieldy and misleading. Tuareg rebellion is much better. LANTZY TALK 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for close Given the broad consensus here--we appear to have only one oppose (plus one withdrawn oppose), can this be closed? Khazar2 ( talk) 16:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Vote Count 13 yea 2 nay on amended title after 8 full days Jacob102699 ( talk) 11:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Should we call it the end? as MNLA seem to have done lalready...though im not sure about AD's statements. Radical nitwits they seem. Lihaas ( talk) 18:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
MNLA said they will issue and independance declaration in the next few days but it seems that they will have to turn their weapons against the islamists. -- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I expected a struggle for the power after the collapse of the Malian Army but I did not expect it to come so quickly.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I vote for the 3 sides. Altough MNLA has been open with cooperating with Ancar Dine, it was before being attacked. And MNLA already stated they won't accept the islamists groups that Ancar Dine is bringing in. MNLA second goal after independance is to crush AQMI in the region.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
They were allied for sure but MNLA said previously that they would take different paths if Ansar Dine wanted to force shariah. With Ansar Dine rejectif Azawad independance, this can ongly go to a fight and it seems to have started very quickly.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 19:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This quotation's pretty great: "But Keenan said the group, consisting of a few hundred fighters, played an insignificant role in the rebels' seizure of the north. Aghaly's "contribution on the military front is small," he said. "What seems to happen is that when they move into a town, the MNLA take out the military base — not that there's much resistance — and Iyad goes into town and puts up his flag and starts bossing everyone around about sharia law."" [35] Is there a logical place to put this in the article? It's one of our first expert voices on the precise relationship between the two groups in the fighting here, and also has the advantage of being hilarious. Khazar2 ( talk) 07:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
An interview of MNLA spokesman : http://amazigh.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/04/05/le-mnla-procedera-a-la-proclamation-de-la-republique-de-lazawad-mossa-ag-attaher/ He says they control all Azawad, and are holding all three former governor offices and will declare independance. About Ansar Dine, they told their disagreement to Iyad Ag Ghaly and his islamists views. Military, he says that Ansar Dine are no match for the MNLA (thousands for MNLA vs hundreds from one family/tribe for Ansar Dine) and that they won't let them do islamic law. He also said that after Gamou defection, black Malian soldiers attacked Tuaregs soldiers in Timbuktu which created a fight in the Malian army and their withdrawal of the city.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 10:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
As seeing this new source ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5grilySJ5EdrgURoNp1mt3AIJhTgg?docId=CNG.915a5505555757d7df5029b5b99451cc.261), and most of all this part: "Gao's elected lawmaker Abdou Sidibe confirmed that it was under the control of several rebel groups including AQIM splinter group the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (Mujao) and traffickers. "Gao has been occupied, annexed by three groups. The MNLA is in one camp, Ansar Dine and the west African jihadists are together and the traffickers ... the road to Bamako is closed, the road to Niger is closed, there is no food left in town," he said." I propose this changes:
Why the text about Burkinabe president sending a delegation to MNLA and ECOWAS hoping they could clean the islamist has been deleted?-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 18:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The french minister confirms that CEDEAO and Burkina Faso are talking witb MNLA [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Seeing a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Names of towns on map of Azawad, I made a new version of File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012.svg. However my account is less than 4 days old, so I can't overwrite files. I uploaded the new version to File:Azawad Tuareg rebellion 2012 - 2.svg, could someone please overwrite for me? Thanks, Wigiz ( talk) 11:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
User Lihaas has argued that the place for the mention of the deposition of the president in a coup is in the casualties section of the infobox. I have explained to him that the standard practice of editing conflict infoboxes on Wikipedia is that the numbers of dead/injured/refugees/deserters are placed in the casualties section. I have also told him that the coup is a political/military consequence and a result of the conflict and it's place is thus in the results/status not the casualties section. He has argued against this logic, which has been practiced by editors in all of the war articles. Lihaas has also demanded a consensus on this issue. So, in good faith to Lihaas I would like to ask people to express their support or oppose opinion on wether the mention of the coup deposition should be left in the results/status section, or be moved to the casualties section. Also note, Lihaas has removed the mention from the results/casualties section of the fact that the rebels have taken all of the towns in the north of the country, don't know why, but I reinserted it. So...
Support leaving the coup mention in the results/status section. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Question What you say makes perfect sense, and I'm inclined to support what you're saying. The coup seems to make much more sense in "status" than in "casualties". But is there a "gold standard" example for one of these infoboxes (from a FAC for example, or just a set of guidelines) that we could see the usual format in? Khazar2 ( talk) 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Support per guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict; coup does not belong in "casualties". "Status" seems to allow more descriptive answers. Khazar2 ( talk) 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Why does the Keenan quote about Ancar Dine being less significant militarily than the MNLA keep floating down into its own "Reactions: Academia" section? This is actual information about what's happening from one of the foremost scholars on these groups (see his publications), not a statement like "I hereby condemn this coup." I suggest this either be reintegrated or removed from the article; as information about AD, it seems useful, but my guess is that nobody is reading this to check out John Q. Keenan's statement on the conflict. Khazar2 ( talk) 20:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
And there we have it, folks. http://mnlamov.net/component/content/article/169-declaration-dindependance-de-lazawad.html Norvegia suecica ( talk) 06:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to briefly revisit the claim that "other peoples" are participating in this rebellion. While this may well be true, has it been reported in any reliable sources yet? The MNLA claims this, but for third party confirmation so far we only appear to have a link an article by Tinariwen's band manager Andy Morgan at the online commentary/blog site Think Africa Press--I'd be astonished if that counted as a reliable source. I suggest this claim be removed from the article until a reliable source can be found. Khazar2 ( talk) 14:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Morgan uses the phrase "Tuareg-led" in that Guardian article. What do you think of that as a way to try to allow for the possibility that other groups participated without stating it definitively? Khazar2 ( talk) 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
in the info box, should this flag: , be added next to the name of ancar dine.reliable sources such as AFP have said the group is an Islamist organisation with links to alqaeda--
Misconceptions2 (
talk)
00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Its been reported on multipel sources that the AD have their black flag flying, its laso said widely that theyre islamist. its WP:COMMONSENSE that this is the flag of jihad as there is no reported empty black flag (and theyre NOT anarchic), while theyll also linked to other movements such as AQIM. With Al Qaeda leading the intl charge on jihadist ideology AND the lnks theres more to say this is the same. Maybe it was earliy to say that then but nowit seems more logical with a variety of ources coming out with it. We also have the MNLA flag listed with sources mentioning the confusion of flags...this is the only loical flag that needs to be there. It also seems its part of the jihad ulema idea, which is under the said flag. Lihaas ( talk) 12:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
"With ECOWAS troops on stand-by for a first ever intervention in a membership country..."
ECOMOG troops are basically ECOWAS troops, right? If so, ECOWAS forces have gotten involved in many member countries. Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, and more.
JoshNarins ( talk) 13:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that, if anything, the MNLA and Ansar Dine are enemies as they claim the same territory and regard the other as illegitimate. Their aims are also irreconcilable: Ansar Dine wants an Islamic state encompassing all of Mali, and the MNLA wants to achieve independence for the region of Azawad. They certainly are not allies, as the infobox would make it seem by placing them in the same column. If anything they should be placed on opposite sides, as a three-way conflict. -- Yalens ( talk) 15:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree but for the moment, they have not fought one against the other but only together against Malian Army. But is is likely they will fight in the future, if they can't negociate an agreement.-- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It was a Tuareg rebellion at first but now, the situation has evolved. Tuaregs rebellion title don't give an accurate location. There are Tuaregs in Algeria, Niger, Libya in addition of what was Mali. They have not rebelled. Tuareg rebellion in Azawad would be more accurate. Azawad conflict too since Islamists groups are also a component. Azawad independance war could be good too as the territory has been captured and has separated itself from Mali. Current title is too large and does not reflect the situation clearly. -- Cornedrut13 ( talk) 09:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
..that should be addressed by the article. Whether we see a reconquista or not. -- Reader1987 ( talk) 12:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I slightly agree. The problem with this is there has been no second phase. We can possibly put on there halt in fighting like korean war except without ceasefire. Jacob102699 ( talk) 01:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This article from cnn ( http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/world/africa/mali-revolt/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2) proves that MNLA and MOJWA (part of AQIM) are opposed. The MNLA now says their main goal is is to clear al-Qaeda from the area. They say Ansar Dine is still an ally of them though, and wants stability. Jacob102699 ( talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Should this article be called Azawad War of Independence? Or too soon? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This article's infobox states that this conflict is still ongoing. Well, nothing has happened since the first half of April so perhaps the infobox should be updated to reflect this state. -- 93.142.36.166 ( talk) 17:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think it's probably okay to mark it as done. I imagine that if ECOWAS or the AU goes in, that could just as easily be categorized as a separate conflict. Leaving this conflict ongoing because we're still waiting for that is coming a little bit close WP:CRYSTALBALL, IMO. We might as well mark it done like it looks now, and if that changes then we can change it back then. Evzob ( talk) 18:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Berber Tuareg, at least to me, claimed on several occasions that they own all the land north of the river Niger. Tuareg (again to me, but I red the same stuff several times) devide themselves in several categories: religious people / poets, warriors, skilled workers (blacksmiths etc), and manual workers. The same roughly counts for Moorish society.
The manual workers were in effect slaves until quite recently, and often higher cast Tuareg don't allow them much freedom. Many Tuareg households where I was a guest, have a black skinned maid that gets no salary, nor any other rights, except to work long days. Also the poorer quarters of Timbuctu are (were) populated with countless thousands of black skinned people, who were the slaves of Moors and Tuareg, but who were sent off during the droughts of the 1980's. Hefty economic discrimination against them by a dominant part of the feudally minded Tuareg elite continues till today.
Also the northern banks of the river Niger are farmed by people who are often taxed at will by feudally minded Tuareg, who claim that since they own the land under the farms, the crop and everything these farmers own, also belongs to them. Seen it myself on one occasion: a village gets robbed of 70 % of their yearly crop in trade for 'protection'.
Besides Tuareg, Northern Mali also has a quite sizable population of berber Moors (also with a background from nomadism and trade) and of Fulani. Tuareg, when asked with how many they are, tend to include the Tamasheq speaking dark skinned 'ex-slaves' and the riverine farmers on the land they 'own' in their head count. Although Berber Tuareg are highly visible and vocal, the true number of Berber upper cast Tuareg is probably much smaller then the millions now claimed. If Azawad would hold truly free and fair elections, then most likely Azawad independence would get a thumps down from most Moors and Fulani, most Soninke, most riverine farmers, and from the majority of 'ex-slaves'. Even many berber Tuareg would probably prefer a political solution, because stubbornly closing borders destroys trade, which is (directly or indirectly) the main source of income for a very large percentage of Tuareg.
Effectively, Tuareg who want an independent Azawad, most likely would form a small or very small minority in their own 'state'. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 16:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it deals with the misconception that northern Mali is a territory where the Tuareg nomads are the local population, which is the basic presumption behind the whole uprising, and behind most of the reporting about it. Pieter Felix Smit ( talk) 08:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The name independance war would be more accurate. And this conflict is practically over since no counter offensive of the Malian Army came in two months. It may come later, but it would be a new conflict, between two states.-- Remzone ( talk) 07:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
How are they calling this conflict?-- Remzone ( talk) 07:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It evolved in something quite different. The previous Tuareg rebellions never achieved such a big breakout and never declared independance over a territory they controled. -- Remzone ( talk) 08:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Reports of Boko Haram in Gao all trace back to unnamed citizens. It is very unlikely that Boko Haram has managed a 2000 km journey through three countries over open terrain, while in Nigeria itself they have never been spotted yet in any 4 wheel drive of their own. That is not the way they operate. They only have small motorbikes. Also, Boko Haram has a religious ideology, completely different from both Ansar Dine and MNLA. Very likely these were either ex-slaves from the Tuaregs (Iklan or Bella), being recruited into one of the Tuareg militia. Or they were Tuareg ex-slaves who were afraid of being re-enslaved, so they formed their own self-defence militia around defected army generals, exactly like it happened in the previous uprising (then called Ganda Koi and Bella awakening). As Boko Haram presence hasn't been confirmed or even re-rumoured in ten weeks now, I propose to throw them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter Felix Smit ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
See, the only problem I have is with your last statement. You seem to treat reliable sources as scripture. Yes they are generally reliable, but you're assuming that each sentence is reliable to the last letter. Reliable is not infallible. In the Reuters article we're discussing (here's the original article, btw), this might just be a case of unintentionally omitting of the word "reportedly". Moreover, an important part of being reliable is mentioning your sources, which enables us to verify your information. That's almost always the case in news reports, but not in analysis and opinion articles. I'm asking for news reports, and that is not going beyond WP:RS. Just look at the section titled WP:RS#News_organizations, it says:
And here is an example for "the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors": Look at this Reuters article from last January. Scroll to the bottom of the article to see the corrections, five in total, to false statements of the kind that might bring you a defamation suit (avoiding which was the reason fact-checking departments were created in the first place). here's the backstory, and here's the article that prompted the correction. Another example from Reuters would be this article, which, after being mocked in the media, was substituted by this one (see this for the backstory). What makes these examples even worse, is that Reuters should've been extra careful and diligent as they were reporting on the US. And with millions of eyes on them, any mistake will be caught out. Of course, this wouldn't have happened if they were reporting on a remote place, Mali, for instance. -- Orionist ★ talk 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)