Jacob102699 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jacob102699 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
::: It did not exist before. The group has been created with fighters returning for Libya, this should be clearly stated. Instead, we got a "were said to" and "though it has been disputed". I will remove it because nothing explain this language. --[[User:ChronicalUsual|ChronicalUsual]] ([[User talk:ChronicalUsual|talk]]) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
::: It did not exist before. The group has been created with fighters returning for Libya, this should be clearly stated. Instead, we got a "were said to" and "though it has been disputed". I will remove it because nothing explain this language. --[[User:ChronicalUsual|ChronicalUsual]] ([[User talk:ChronicalUsual|talk]]) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::Agree with BabyFOOT. the group existed before the end of /fall of the Libyan govt. (the chap who died in a "Car accident" had begun owork on an insurgency long before, in addition to the links BF |
::::Agree with BabyFOOT. the group existed before the end of /fall of the Libyan govt. (the chap who died in a "Car accident" had begun owork on an insurgency long before, in addition to the links BF provid |
||
== Conflicting pics == |
|||
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)[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 05:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: The MNLA refers to Azawad as "Gao, Kidal, Timbouctou" what i tried to show in Azawad in context.jpg. The map Tuareg area is beautiful, but it's wrong, it lacks Taoudeni. In Encyclopédie Berbère (ISBN 978-2857444619, tome 6) it says that Azawad is everything above Timbuktu (timbuktu included).. i'll soon provide an article on it... i just need to find out where to buy this book..--[[User:BabyFoot|BabyFoot]] ([[User talk:BabyFoot|talk]]) 09:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::http://www.mnlamov.net/templates/mnla2/images/header/orange/banner.png --[[User:Reader1987|Reader1987]] ([[User talk:Reader1987|talk]]) 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move 1 == |
|||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
The result of the move request was: '''moved''' to [[2012 insurgency in northern Mali]]. <small>(non-admin closure)</small> [[User:Jenks24|Jenks24]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 20:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''', because I agree with respect to the POV issue. [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 09:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support''' a move to [[2012 insurgency in northern Mali]] (i.e. lower-case "northern") because it is a geographical term and not a political region. [[User:Green Giant|Green Giant]] ([[User talk:Green Giant|talk]]) 15:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Oh yes, you're right. --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 15:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|||
:::Belated this but i dint notice and it was a good moce...the fight is ot [yet] beyond Malian Azawads.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 05:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Article name == |
|||
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: |
|||
{| class="wikitable" border="1" |
|||
|+ |
|||
! 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? -- [[User:Orionist|<font color="#0066CC">'''Orionist'''</font>]] ★ [[User talk:Orionist|<font color="#0066CC">talk</font>]] 09:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:This is not an entirely Tuareg rebellion, and does therefore not fit as "2012 Tuareg rebellion". [[Special:Contributions/217.210.7.205|217.210.7.205]] ([[User talk:217.210.7.205|talk]]) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree - "Tuareg rebellion" is not accurate enough to be appropriate for the article title. However, I do support adding a "2012 Tuareg rebellion" redirect to this page, as well as bolded text early in the article, e.g. "(widely, but inaccurately, known as the '''2012 Tuareg Rebellion''')" [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 18:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Do we have independent sources to verify that it is ''not'' entirely a Tuareg rebellion? Because if we have a hundred sources speaking of a Tuareg rebellion, there is a strong indication that it ''is'' a Tuareg rebellion. May I remind you that Wikipedia is based on [[WP:verifiability, not truth]]. This article cannot come closer to the "truth" than its sources. If you want to write that it is "widely, but inaccurately, known as the 2012 Tuareg Rebellion", you also need a source to verify just this. Otherwise it is [[WP:OR]] or synthesis. --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::"''The MNLA includes non-Tuareg peoples as well.''" It's right here, first paragraph, source and all. [[Special:Contributions/195.198.127.39|195.198.127.39]] ([[User talk:195.198.127.39|talk]]) 12:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::This [http://thinkafricapress.com/mali/causes-uprising-northern-mali-tuareg] is one independent source, and I'm sure there are others. But I have no problem with the article saying "questionably" or "somewhat controversially", for example, rather than "inaccurately". The point was just to keep "Tuareg" out of the title itself, while explaining why in the text. [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 09:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The source uses "uprising in northern Mali", but it does not state (as far as I have scanned it), that the term "Touareg rebellion" were either "inaccurate", or "questionable", or "controversial". If you want to write that, you have to provide a source that ''explicitly'' supports it. --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::How about "widely known as the 2012 Tuareg Rebellion, despite reports that members of other ethnic groups are also participating in the uprising"? [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 19:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::How complicated do you want to make it? And where are the sources saying that other ethnic groups are also participating in the uprising"? --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm not on any crusade to change it. I'm fine with how the article is now. I already cited one source, and I think we could find others, but first maybe we can wait and see if there's any consensus for making changes in the first place. [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 09:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Foreign-language sources == |
|||
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. --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 20:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I was also under the impression that citations do not necessarily need to be in English. [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 09:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, this claim is entirely false and the editor who thinks so is just wrong - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 07:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Disruptive sock activity == |
|||
Please note that per [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual]], [[User:AgAzaw]] is a CheckUser-confirmed sock of [[User:ChronicalUsual]]. -[[User:Kudzu1|Kudzu1]] ([[User talk:Kudzu1|talk]]) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:As such, editors should feel free to revert any of his/her edits for no other reason than that he/she is evading a block. -[[User:Kudzu1|Kudzu1]] ([[User talk:Kudzu1|talk]]) 23:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Redirecting the 2012 Mali army mutiny page== |
|||
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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/94.7.30.182|94.7.30.182]] ([[User talk:94.7.30.182|talk]]) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Its interlinked with sources. THe other pages that get created end up being useless orphans per NOTNEWS that get no attention after being a current event per RECENTISM...contrarily this article gets continued attention and neither is too big.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::for the record , if and when themoe happens im proposing toleave a para or 2 about the coup taking palce with the buildup and the reaction of AU suspendning and UNSC condemning, perhaps ECOWAS as well.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== US Air Force Involvement == |
|||
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. [[User:Apanuggpak|Apanuggpak]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Apanuggpak|Apanuggpak]] ([[User talk:Apanuggpak|talk]]) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Air Force dropped logistics to Malian troops (as is sourced in the article, it dint "Appear out of the blue"). France doesnt seem to be active, but it does have significant ties to its African colonies, and with Mali, and has in the passt worked with forces for freeing hostages (or trying, anyways), etc.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 02:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Per [[User talk: Lihaas#Mali insurgency, the United States and France]], it would be OR to suggest that without sources and mostly guesswork. Though the aircraft probably come from Djibouti.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Ancar dine, is a flag of jihad appropriate to add?== |
|||
in the info box, should this flag: {{flagicon image|Flag of Jihad.svg}}, 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--[[User:Misconceptions2|Misconceptions2]] ([[User talk:Misconceptions2|talk]]) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Its dubious to add it just yet. Lots of media will jump to conclusions and parrot state views, etc. Imposing sharia is NOT the same as the violent jihad come to be affiliated with the glag, butlets see what others have to say.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 02:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:It's original research and/or synthesis anyway. As long as no source verifies that they actually use this flag, we are not warranted to add it just for nicer illustration of our article/infobox. --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 11:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::The flag actually denotes that it is a militant islamist organisation, like the war is somalia, afghan, iraq flag--[[User:Misconceptions2|Misconceptions2]] ([[User talk:Misconceptions2|talk]]) 14:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::And who warrants you (or anybody) to lump together different militant Islamist organizations in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Mali by using the same flag for all? --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well its seems to be the wikipedia etiquette or practice, users are already doing that and am just ponting out its been done on those articles--[[User:Misconceptions2|Misconceptions2]] ([[User talk:Misconceptions2|talk]]) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Then we should drop this practice now. [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:No original research]] is more important than a custom like "We always put the 'Flag of Jihad' next to the names of Islamist groups in armed conflict infoboxes." --[[User:RJFF|RJFF]] ([[User talk:RJFF|talk]]) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Agreed. Usage of flags on Wikipedia should represent actual usage of that symbol by the group. [[User:Evzob|Evzob]] ([[User talk:Evzob|talk]]) 17:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Completely agree with RJFF and Evzob. It's not our place to assign an organization a flag, but rather to follow the flag used by that organization. [[User:Khazar2|Khazar2]] ([[User talk:Khazar2|talk]]) 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:I've read reports in the past couple of days that Ansar Dine is indeed flying the flag of jihad: [http://www.modernghana.com/news/386487//malis-isolated-junta-seeks-help-to-stop-tuareg-jug.html] [http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Gunfire+breaks+Tuareg+rebels+enter+northern+Mali+city/6391463/story.html] -[[User:Kudzu1|Kudzu1]] ([[User talk:Kudzu1|talk]]) 22:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested move 2 == |
|||
{{requested move/dated|Tuareg Rebellion (2012)}} |
|||
[[2012 insurgency in northern Mali]] → {{no redirect|1=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. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Agree'''. The New York Times[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/world/africa/mali-coup-france-calls-for-elections.html?ref=global-home] and BBC[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17498739] both appear to consistently refer to this as a "rebellion" rather than an "insurgency", and its participants as "rebels"; other sources seem to follow suit. [[User:Khazar2|Khazar2]] ([[User talk:Khazar2|talk]]) 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
**Yes, and I would also like to add that most hits on the internet are ''tuareg rebellion'' and again even though there are some other ethnicities among the rebels, a majority are Tuaregs. I would like to refer everyone to Wikipedia's rule on this point, [[Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names|Common names]] which clearly states that we eather name the article based on eather the "official" name or the more commonly used one based on what a wide majority call it, and per most sources it's called the ''Tuareg rebellion'', which brings me to the other Wikipedia rule on Verifiability. The current name of the article isn't verified and in my personal opinion is the result of the POV of only a few editors, no offense, which wasn't based on the most widely cited sources. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:'''oppose''' its PVO to call it a rebellion of Tuaregs when others are involved, [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] DOESNT COUNT while this round is much more different than the others. Further WP is not a media outlet to parrot what is said there blindly or what goggle suggests.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
:'''oppose''' its PVO to call it a rebellion of Tuaregs when others are involved, [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] DOESNT COUNT while this round is much more different than the others. Further WP is not a media outlet to parrot what is said there blindly or what goggle suggests.[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 16:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
::So in your opinion the BBC, New York times, CNN, AFP, Reuters and in essence every major news media outlet that exist are wrong when they call it a Tuareg rebellion in their articles which are written by veteran reporters and political analysts? Please put your personal opinions aside and stick to the clearly defined Wikipedia rules. And please don't use caps, no need to yell. :) [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
::So in your opinion the BBC, New York times, CNN, AFP, Reuters and in essence every major news media outlet that exist are wrong when they call it a Tuareg rebellion in their articles which are written by veteran reporters and political analysts? Please put your personal opinions aside and stick to the clearly defined Wikipedia rules. And please don't use caps, no need to yell. :) [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 254: | Line 146: | ||
'''Support'''--[[User:LCG8928|LCG8928]] ([[User talk:LCG8928|talk]]) 22:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC) |
'''Support'''--[[User:LCG8928|LCG8928]] ([[User talk: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. Btw, I have a new signature. <i><b><big><font color="red">Jacob</font><font color="blue">102699</font></big></b></i> ([[Talk]]) 11: |
'''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. Btw, I have a new signature. [[User:Jacob102699|<i><b><big><font color="red">Jacob</font><font color="blue">102699</font></big></b></i>]] ([[User Talk:Jacob102699|Talk]]) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Belligerents == |
== Belligerents == |
Revision as of 11:57, 2 April 2012
Africa: Mali Unassessed Top‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Military history: African Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
News Article
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)
Names on Map
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)
- that's a good request but the question is the free time of the users able to do such a work. I hope we see one, though!--Reader1987 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- One can be requested at the Map workshop,.
- good map example here http://stratfor.com/image/tuareg-insurgent-attacks-mali --93.137.147.200 (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- One can be requested at the Map workshop,.
Army control
"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)
Date
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)
- I will move this within 24 hours unless someone provides evidence that the conflict started in 2011. Everyking (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The article should be renamed
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)
- Every media is reporting it as a Tuareg rebellion. I have not seen any report that suggests that it is not a Tuareg ethnic insurgency. We could rename it Azawad war but Tuareg rebellion is widely used. --Aginsijib (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Though i should add i think the current name is crap, but its just a continuation from the others. So a name change would definately be in order. Although ti cant be a revolution with an ongoing fight.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- To "Aginsijib" It's an encyclopedia isn't it ? I don't think Wikipedia should reflect the "tabloid" view rather than a more neutral approach. War in Azawad , or Revolution/War/Independance fight in northern Mali would have been more neutral imho.--BabyFoot (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Though i should add i think the current name is crap, but its just a continuation from the others. So a name change would definately be in order. Although ti cant be a revolution with an ongoing fight.Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Every media is reporting it as a Tuareg rebellion. I have not seen any report that suggests that it is not a Tuareg ethnic insurgency. We could rename it Azawad war but Tuareg rebellion is widely used. --Aginsijib (talk) 20:17, 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)
- I believe Azawad has a map. See this: File:Tuareg area.png Try WP:Graphics
- As for the title i think weve quickly come to resolve the issue (and kudos, btw). Azawad war is fin by me. To throw out other suggestions: Malian Azawad war, Azawad insurgency (as its in the early stages and would likely involce some element across state lines), Malian Azawad insurgency ?Lihaas (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I like Insurgency in Azawad for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have i just opened up a can of worms? Anyways, if the other 2 agree we can move it there. (though the other pages at Tuareg rebellions need a move too.
- Also your edit per "under..." is pov to suggest its a fiefdom. (see my topic above, that had NO consensus before this last revert) It isnt. an alternative to suggest a GOVERNMENT led by Gadaffi would be better. Its stilly to suggest he had not support, exspecialyy compared to TUnisia/Egypt he hd a lot mre support. Even more than Jordan/Saudi/Bahrain.Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- He's dead, sorry. Anyway, the convention is well established per History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, Foreign relations of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, etc. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- First discuss THEN revert. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesnt justify errors all over. It should be the Gadaffi GOVERNMENT because its outright stupid to suggest Libya was his personal fiefdom without support. (why is Bani Walid taken back now that hes "Dead"?)Lihaas (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I like Insurgency in Azawad for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to double-check the order of WP:BRD. As for the Gaddafi debate, WP:NOTAFORUM; it's established on Wikipedia that "Libya under Muammar Gaddafi" and variants are all acceptable, and it's widely acknowledged that Gaddafi's government was, well, Gaddafi's government. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a policy that refers to deletion discussions, not content discussions. Not sure what you're driving at. Per WP:MOS and WP:CONSISTENCY, language established elsewhere on Wikipedia by consensus is not only acceptable to use, it's preferred. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus can change at any time. Further can you point ot that community consensus that establishes as such>? Its firstly absurd to say that ANY govt in the world is the fiefdom of one person in this day and age. We don t have drone bombings under Barack Obama!
- Further this is not WIKINEWS or a social media and the order of BRD menas the FIRST BOLD edit of being "under" needs to be discussed before beign reinserted. not to establish one "right pov"Lihaas (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you need to double-check the order of WP:BRD. As for the Gaddafi debate, WP:NOTAFORUM; it's established on Wikipedia that "Libya under Muammar Gaddafi" and variants are all acceptable, and it's widely acknowledged that Gaddafi's government was, well, Gaddafi's government. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a policy that refers to deletion discussions, not content discussions. Not sure what you're driving at. Per WP:MOS and WP:CONSISTENCY, language established elsewhere on Wikipedia by consensus is not only acceptable to use, it's preferred. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:57, 10 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)
Libya connection
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)
- So: one http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/africa/tuaregs-use-qaddafis-arms-for-rebellion-in-mali.html?_r=1, two http://stratfor.com/weekly/mali-besieged-fighters-fleeing-libya, three http://www.smh.com.au/world/ghost-of-gaddafi-haunts-mali-as-tuareg-rebels-step-up-fight-20120206-1r1xa.html , four http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16853692, five http://www.africanliberty.org/content/gaddafis-guns-haunt-mali, six http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/06/world/africa/mali-unrest/index.html, seven http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.com/2012/02/gaddafis-legacy-brings-misery-to-mali.html
- Do you need more sources? --Aginsijib (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- These are tabloids sorry. These newspapers themselves have weak sources imho --BabyFoot (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tabloids? Really? The source you provided yourself said they come from the Libyan army, that they were trained in Libya, and that they smuggled weapons out of that country. Even their leader was colonel in Libyan army. I don't know why you reject the obvious here --Aginsijib (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No one is denying that there IS a libyan connection. There is just the element of those who were NOT involved in Libya (part of what the MNLA itself says of which Tuareg people's fought for the NTC as well). Further, the weapons come from both the Gaddafi arsenal AND the arms drops over the Libyan desert, so its not ONLY a Gadaffi connection, even if some were from the Libyan army. (whathisname resigned in the early days of the protests (allegedly)).
- We also need to include the suspicious convoys of 200+ trucks with weapons that crossed the Libyan border and have been speculated to be Tuaregs heading to this zone.Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tabloids? Really? The source you provided yourself said they come from the Libyan army, that they were trained in Libya, and that they smuggled weapons out of that country. Even their leader was colonel in Libyan army. I don't know why you reject the obvious here --Aginsijib (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- These are tabloids sorry. These newspapers themselves have weak sources imho --BabyFoot (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Approx. date of beginning
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)
- Actually we have an exact date, Jan 17 2012 - http://allafrica.com/stories/201202071495.html --Reader1987 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Lead
- Don't understand the part: "MNLA were said to have been boosted by a sifnificant number of returning and heavily armed Tuareg fighters who fought for either the National Transitional Council or the Libyan army during the tenure of Muammar Gaddafi, though this has been disputed.[7] The MNLA is comprised of non-Tuareg groups as well"
- 1) MNLA did not exist before the return of these fighters. It was not boosted by but created with or founded by.
- 2) I find the expression "during the tenure of Muammar Gaddafi", quite curious and not standard compared to other Wikipedia articles.
- 3) What is disputed exactly? And where has it been disputed? --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- ofc it exists before, MNLA = MNA (separatist political movement, created in 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0i1PgBRVzo ) + MTNM (armed movement, it was involved in 2006-2009 insurgency in azawad, and earlier)
- Libya has always been a place where Malian troops train themselves, the MNLA fund its army with the material of Malian army first ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aNZ05bM248 ), moreover a lot of tuaregs fought with NTC aswell, should we write that the MNLA was created and founded by NATO ? --BabyFoot (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- It did not exist before. The group has been created with fighters returning for Libya, this should be clearly stated. Instead, we got a "were said to" and "though it has been disputed". I will remove it because nothing explain this language. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with BabyFOOT. the group existed before the end of /fall of the Libyan govt. (the chap who died in a "Car accident" had begun owork on an insurgency long before, in addition to the links BF provid
- It did not exist before. The group has been created with fighters returning for Libya, this should be clearly stated. Instead, we got a "were said to" and "though it has been disputed". I will remove it because nothing explain this language. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- oppose its PVO to call it a rebellion of Tuaregs when others are involved, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS DOESNT COUNT while this round is much more different than the others. Further WP is not a media outlet to parrot what is said there blindly or what goggle suggests.Lihaas (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- So in your opinion the BBC, New York times, CNN, AFP, Reuters and in essence every major news media outlet that exist are wrong when they call it a Tuareg rebellion in their articles which are written by veteran reporters and political analysts? Please put your personal opinions aside and stick to the clearly defined Wikipedia rules. And please don't use caps, no need to yell. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly...its now SOURCED as not being tuareg.
- ANd this shouting nonsense doesnt cut it...cpas lock is a different format of typing there is not voice.Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sourced? What's sourced? Nothing's sourced? 99 percent of existing sources call it a Tuareg rebellion because it is being conducted mostly by Tuaregs. Several dozens of sources (including tens of notable ones) calling it a Tuareg rebellion trump 2-3 sources not using that term. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- So in your opinion the BBC, New York times, CNN, AFP, Reuters and in essence every major news media outlet that exist are wrong when they call it a Tuareg rebellion in their articles which are written by veteran reporters and political analysts? Please put your personal opinions aside and stick to the clearly defined Wikipedia rules. And please don't use caps, no need to yell. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree: It is part of Wikipedia:Article titles policy to use the common name. "Tuareg Rebellion" is clearly the most common name, as both Khazar2's examples and a quick Google News search show. "Insurgency in northern Mali" is rarely used in sources. The consistency of article titles with former Tuareg Rebellion is a secondary argument in my view. That other ethnicities participate in the uprising is a claim by the MNLA and not confirmed by neutral sources. --RJFF (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not neutral? because there is a non-manstram view is certainly not "non-neutral"
- For the record the current incarnation was NOT my view...also though RJFF supported it as he moved it back here.
- Not neutral? because there is a non-manstram view is certainly not "non-neutral"
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).
- I've overlooked something: I propose to amend the proposed title to Tuareg rebellion (2012), as "Tuareg Rebellion" is no proper noun. Per WP:CAPS, "rebellion" should be spelled lowercase. --RJFF (talk) 17:30, 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.
- Comment isn't there another Tuareg rebellion going on as well? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Opposefor the moment. All of the sources mentioned for "Tuareg rebellion" are using those terms purely descriptively, not as a proper noun - that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't use it, but it does mean that "Tuareg rebellion" doesn't have quite the mandate that some editors are attributing to it according to WP:COMMONNAME, which by the way also says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." I see no reason why Think Africa Press is not a reliable source, though I can understand questioning the neutrality of the Andy Morgan article - just please stop ignoring it altogether. On the question of neutrality, I would question the neutrality of the AFP as well, as they mostly just reprint stuff the Bamako government says. Finally, the claim that the current article name is unverifiable is nonsense - it's purely descriptive, based on undisputed facts. We can discuss whether it violates WP:COMMONNAME, but there is no verifiability or neutrality issue in the name itself. Evzob (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I just overlooked it: could you please prod me to the line where Morgan writes that it is not a Tuareg rebellion? All I read is "The MNLA have also made strenuous efforts to present themselves as a revolutionary movement for the liberation of ALL the peoples of Azawad - Tuareg, Songhoi, Arab, Peul - and not just a Tuareg rebel movement." — "They made efforts to present themselves...", not "They are..." Yes, Morgan writes that "certain important Arab leaders ... have already thrown in their lot with MNLA" But in most of his article, he presents the MNLA basically as a Tuareg organization, and the rebellion as a Tuareg rebellion. "Tuareg rebellion" is in no way ambiguous. It might not be 100% accurate, but saying that it were inaccurate would go too far. Essentially it is a Tuareg rebellion, even if some mebers of other ethnicities participate. --RJFF (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- And even if Morgan had written that this isn't a Tuareg rebellion (which, like RJFF, I'm not convinced he did), he's an individual nonnotable commentator, on a website of debatable notability. Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Khazar2 and RJFF. Also, in essence Evzob, you are questioning the neutrality of AFP, one of the most reliable and oldest news organisations that exists? I'm sorry Evzob, with all due respect, what you said doesn't fulfill Wikipedia criteria and even goes against it. However you try to spin it, CNN, BBC, AFP, AP, Guardian, Independent, Al Jazeera, etc, etc, etc, all trump in notability all the less known news sources. All the notable ones are calling it a tuareg rebellion and also a large number of non-media organisations are also calling it a tuareg rebellion, thus it is in accordance with the Common name rule. I have a compromise solution to put forward to you. Why don't we rename it to Tuareg rebellion (2012), but put in the lead something like The Tuareg rebellion (2012), called an insurgency by some, is an ongoing event etc...? Would that satisfy you? Cause in essence it is called a rebellion by MOST (99 percent), you can't deny that. And even if we would compare what's a rebellion and what's an insurgency, this event does not fit into the category of an insurgency but of rebellion. In that regard read what Kudzu1 said bellow. EkoGraf (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- And even if Morgan had written that this isn't a Tuareg rebellion (which, like RJFF, I'm not convinced he did), he's an individual nonnotable commentator, on a website of debatable notability. Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I just overlooked it: could you please prod me to the line where Morgan writes that it is not a Tuareg rebellion? All I read is "The MNLA have also made strenuous efforts to present themselves as a revolutionary movement for the liberation of ALL the peoples of Azawad - Tuareg, Songhoi, Arab, Peul - and not just a Tuareg rebel movement." — "They made efforts to present themselves...", not "They are..." Yes, Morgan writes that "certain important Arab leaders ... have already thrown in their lot with MNLA" But in most of his article, he presents the MNLA basically as a Tuareg organization, and the rebellion as a Tuareg rebellion. "Tuareg rebellion" is in no way ambiguous. It might not be 100% accurate, but saying that it were inaccurate would go too far. Essentially it is a Tuareg rebellion, even if some mebers of other ethnicities participate. --RJFF (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support per WP:COMMON. And this obviously isn't an insurgency, considering that the rebels hold most of the territory they claim. This isn't a rear-guard action a la Iraq or a string of loosely coordinated raids a la Afghanistan, this is a rebellion by a bona fide separatist movement that has successfully captured and defended territory. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
- Whoops! Sorry about the typo in your name! I was in too much of a hurry to get back to work... :-p Anyway, yeah, I think that would be good compromise, if there aren't any objections. Oh, and to everyone else - I realize that several of you were making the same argument as EkoGraf, so I should acknowledge that too - I was just referencing the "99%" estimate. :-) Evzob (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually the lead section used to state that the MNLA presents itself as the representative of all peoples of Azawad (i.e. northern Mali). I don't know who has removed it and why. --RJFF (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- See: the first section already reads "amongst elements of the Tuareg and other peoples". --RJFF (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Its still not a proper noun + we already mention that EkoGraf.Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you would look up Lihaas you would see that I already agreed for the letter r in rebellion to be small so it would be a proper noun. :) In any case, I think we have found the solution to our problem. Re-naming plus adding of content on the non-Tuareg rebels. I will let the discussion continue for several more days before I make the changes but I think we have resolved the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Its still not a proper noun + we already mention that EkoGraf.Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 30 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)
- Support per nom. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Per nom? Did you read the discussion? It says to move to the proper noun in line with the other past names that are wrong. Sure Tuareg rebellion maybe right but it is nowhere listed as a proper noun and thats pure OR. Further, as done before the nom blindly parrots elsewhere whats been made and cites his view as what he likes. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that discussion shouldnt revolve on something else as reasoning, as was the founding of this discussion
- This is also thesecond move request in a very short period of time, which, btw, reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when a move discussion was RECENTLY made. this was less than a month after the other discussion closed, and as anywhere else on WP, that is way too early to reset a discussion because it wasnt liked. Please see WP:CCC where consensus CAN change but "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again." More so within a month, without reason and IONTLIKEIT.(Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)).
- Lihaas, I think that everyone, except you, is preaty much in concensus on the issue. Even the nominator for the name change from a month ago (which you pointed to) has voiced his support for the change. And I don't really see where you came up with WP:IDONTLIKEIT when everyone, including myself, have pointed to the COMMONNAME and VERIFIABILITY rules on which the current renaming will be based. With verifiability being one of the core rules of Wikipedia and commonname being...simple logical reason. Also, one month isn't really a short period of time, a lot has happened since, if it was a day or a week than ok its short, but a month? And I'm really starting to not understand you with the noun thing. First you said Tuareg Rebellion with a capital R was not proper, now you say that the proper noun can't be used because it is nowhere listed as a proper noun and thats pure OR? I simply...don't even know how to respond to that. And I don't parrot and I have not cited my views as I like but based them on credible notable media outlets, as have the other supporters of this name change did. And I have found that really to be offensive and lacking good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thats cool...but consensus discussion dont regenerate in a month on false premises because you dint like the last outcome!Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Its not that I don't like the last outcome, and its not the reason I started this move. I started the move so the title would be in line with Wikipedia's rules on article naming, with which the current title is in conflict with. And I don't realy know what false promises you are talking about. EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- This is also thesecond move request in a very short period of time, which, btw, reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT when a move discussion was RECENTLY made. this was less than a month after the other discussion closed, and as anywhere else on WP, that is way too early to reset a discussion because it wasnt liked. Please see WP:CCC where consensus CAN change but "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again." More so within a month, without reason and IONTLIKEIT.(Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)).
- Per nom? Did you read the discussion? It says to move to the proper noun in line with the other past names that are wrong. Sure Tuareg rebellion maybe right but it is nowhere listed as a proper noun and thats pure OR. Further, as done before the nom blindly parrots elsewhere whats been made and cites his view as what he likes. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means that discussion shouldnt revolve on something else as reasoning, as was the founding of this discussion
- I did and therefore it is per nom. And I am not sure if you know what does that term mean. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:55, 1 April 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)
- I would refer you to WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. We can't speculate what might happen in the future when or even if the Tuaregs declare independence. Wikipedia is based on Verifibility, at the moment most, if not all sources, call the conflict Tuareg rebellion, haven't find any sources that call it Rebellion in Azawad or Rebellion for Azawad independence as you say. We can't make the names up, we name them per the name given to them by the general population, international media and other organisations. EkoGraf (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Wouldn't 2012 Tuareg rebellion fit better with the nomenclature? -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Id tend to agree...but just realised this monthly discussion is futile.Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know whats so futile about it, when everyone agree the current title is wrong and have agreed in principle how the new title should aproximately look like. EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not wrong, but the proposed title is much more common, and we agree that the title should reflect the common term. The last move discussion (proposed by me, if I remember correctly) was only about NPOV and not about COMMON. And only 3 users participated! So its outcome is not written in stone. The current title is better than the old title, because it is NPOV. But the proposed title is even better than the current one, because it is COMMON. --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- When I said wrong I ment it's not in line with common and verifibility (no, or almost no, sources naming the conflict per the current name of the article). Anyway, yes, new name better, more common and verifiable. When we change the name I'm gonna put in the lead paragraph by the name several notable sources confirming the name Tuareg rebellion. I see info on the non-Tuareg rebels has been added to the background section per concensus with Evzob, nice. Giving the discussion another day or two, since it will be a full week than, before I close it and apply the changes. EkoGraf (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not wrong, but the proposed title is much more common, and we agree that the title should reflect the common term. The last move discussion (proposed by me, if I remember correctly) was only about NPOV and not about COMMON. And only 3 users participated! So its outcome is not written in stone. The current title is better than the old title, because it is NPOV. But the proposed title is even better than the current one, because it is COMMON. --RJFF (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know whats so futile about it, when everyone agree the current title is wrong and have agreed in principle how the new title should aproximately look like. EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Id tend to agree...but just realised this monthly discussion is futile.Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't this just part of the universal war between the "arabs" and the "blacks" which is taking place everywhere from Senegal to Somalia and all places in between ?Eregli bob (talk) 19:05, 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. Btw, I have a new signature. Jacob102699 (Talk) 11:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Belligerents
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)
- It is in terms of this insurgency (obviously not over the cup page , if that were to use the infobox) as theyre both against the rebels in th enorth. (for that matter Ancar Dine are not wholly in agreement with MNLA...sure, theyre piggy-backing of each other...)Lihaas (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
To do
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)
- Out of those four, I believe 2 and 3 have already been added to the coup article. #3 should definitely be mentioned here, too, but perhaps #2 is best left in the coup-specific article. Let's see if we can find sources for 1 and 4. Khazar2 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I confirmed #1 and added it to the coup article; I'm not sure it belongs here, per the merge discussion above. The AP article I found about the aid suspension didn't even mention the insurgency[1], which makes me feel this information is best-suited to only the other article. I couldn't find a source for "mlnsa approaching kidal as troops defect/flee without a fight" on my first pass--in fact the one source I did find indicated the opposite:[2]. But that's 12 hours old and relies only on Malian official statements. Can you turn up a source? Khazar2 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Further reading
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 [3], 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)
- I notice that further reading about previous Tuareg rebellions continues to be inserted into this article. Again, I'd argue that this fails the main criterion of Wikipedia:Further reading, which is that "A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article". It's not a big issue, but seems worth fixing. Can I get another opinion on this? Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Edits explained
- [4] Just cause 1 person cant find it doesnt mean others cant. Thats what tags are for. Its not AGF or CIVIL to accuse other editors + it adds the other content without reason
- [5] not in source to add the caveat (which is redundant and repetitious) and even the 65 number is not there.
- [6] deceptive edit summary not reflective of the edit (thats what talk is for.) Why not non-human casualties? get consensus, its still a loss.
- [7] deceptive edit summary that moved whats not mentioned + the sentence doesnt mention relief or any forces, it says as does the source that the troops retreated.
- [8] even more irrelevant to summary = unecxplained revert.(Lihaas (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)).
- I don't think I have a strong opinion on these save for #1--with apologies to Lihaas, I don't see a good reason to have unsourced information in a controversial conflict article. Let's find a source and then add it back. Regardless of where they came from originally, those numbers are a week or two old anyway at this point, right? Better that we get something accurate and verifiable, I think. Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- There was a hidden text note indicating that this came from an older source that has since revised its claims. This suggests to me that perhaps those claims are not to be trusted, but one possibility would be to use Wayback Machine to try to find the older article text. We could then take a look here and evaluate it more fairly. Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think I have a strong opinion on these save for #1--with apologies to Lihaas, I don't see a good reason to have unsourced information in a controversial conflict article. Let's find a source and then add it back. Regardless of where they came from originally, those numbers are a week or two old anyway at this point, right? Better that we get something accurate and verifiable, I think. Khazar2 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okey go for it. Thanks for discussing anyways. You hmake good points...and its easier to discuss here then edit sumaries ;)Lihaas (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
More issues
- [9] is clearly deceptive in its summary that adds/changes what is not explained on a whim without discussion. Hence we discuss. The ouster by the coup is NOT a status update its a result, hence a casualty. The Malian strength is OR which is backed by nothing saying this. Quite clearly after the coup the military was not fully equipped and its still silly to say all the strength was in the north and there was nothing in the sourth (Sanogo did not magically appear with military personnel in Bamako?). The casualties is redundant as weve already mentioned the dead and now REmentioned the number elsewhere. At any rate, the range already includes/can include the dead.
- [10] who defines major? thats pov
- [11] = accomodated?
- [12] disruptive] to attack in summaries rather than discuss. And again without discussion after this was here [13] (at any rate, the whole thing should go as nonnotable and by precedence in ongoing events )and otherwise) we dont mention laypersons) + again
- [14] really? what is then? By definition they are incidents in the isnurgency...it would help to explain/provide an alternativeLihaas (talk) 09:52, 1 April 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)
- 1. Yes, i agree it s a result you placed it in the status. Further who said casualties are for dead/injured/refugees. Thats your demand...casualties are a result of the war and more so when status is not reflective. Dont insert opinion as fact and right.
- 2. Okey, I was wrong...still though learn to communicate and facilitate discussion instead of being disruptive with vengeance mongering "haha".
- 3.
The Al jaz source mentions the retreat, which is also where the source is tagged. read that. But okey.RESOLVED - 4. Was just saying that the edit summaries, warring and name calling dont help.
- 5.
Thats NOT what incidents means by implication or otherwise. But fine we seem to accomodate.RESOLVED, ut still looks silly - 6. When its repeated then there is a need to discuss.Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 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)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not limit to human casualties in deaths/injuries. Where is the "results" section? You just added to the status section...did you see tha edit? There are also other issues in the first edit tha tyou have not explained (see above). About the other thing, we can remove it now (i updated the lead to be more accurate) Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't really factor into this discussion because 99.5 percent of war articles on Wikipedia use the style I described. Don't know why you would want to change that now. Also, when I was talking about the results section I was talking about the status section because some war articles say status some say result, check it out for yourself if you don't belive me. But most say result. Example [16][17][18][19]. I just call them all result section universally, doesn't matter anyway, same thing in the infobox. Hope we done now. Hope to work with you in the future. Bye! :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is precisely the reason it does factor in. Dont need to parrot everything else unnecessarily. Well "some say this and soem say that" is the same. Status does NOT mean result just as incidents can mean somethign else (although status can by no menas = results whereas incidents are what is in the timeline). " I just call them ..." is flagrantly admiggint WP:IDONTLIKEIT is valid enough to assert as pleased and without discussion. Hard to AGF there.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- You are entering now into some, in my opinion no offense, meaningless discussion over proper wording on talk pages that I, and I think most other editors, don't care much really. When I said result I was speaking in my own terms but ment the status thingy in the infobox, and my wording in how I talk and make my sentances on the talk page has no impact on the edit itself so its not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so please don't overanalyze now every word I say, there is no point. In any case, seems Cornedrut13 agrees with me in part (his comment bellow). I don't know why you are obviously having a problem with some universally adapted styles the Wikipedia community is using to do their edits (and calling on various Wiki rules that don't really apply to it) and I don't really care. As far as I'm concerned we resolved our issues three hours ago, don't see the point why you are still pursuing problems that don't exist. :P Bye bye.... :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is precisely the reason it does factor in. Dont need to parrot everything else unnecessarily. Well "some say this and soem say that" is the same. Status does NOT mean result just as incidents can mean somethign else (although status can by no menas = results whereas incidents are what is in the timeline). " I just call them ..." is flagrantly admiggint WP:IDONTLIKEIT is valid enough to assert as pleased and without discussion. Hard to AGF there.Lihaas (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't really factor into this discussion because 99.5 percent of war articles on Wikipedia use the style I described. Don't know why you would want to change that now. Also, when I was talking about the results section I was talking about the status section because some war articles say status some say result, check it out for yourself if you don't belive me. But most say result. Example [16][17][18][19]. I just call them all result section universally, doesn't matter anyway, same thing in the infobox. Hope we done now. Hope to work with you in the future. Bye! :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not limit to human casualties in deaths/injuries. Where is the "results" section? You just added to the status section...did you see tha edit? There are also other issues in the first edit tha tyou have not explained (see above). About the other thing, we can remove it now (i updated the lead to be more accurate) Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Discuss content...this rant mentions nothing. There are issues you havent even answered. Andif you refuse to do so your whim will not be consensus. At any rate, consensus is not vote counitng! if you want to ignore the issues in tlak and war over summaries, dont eve expect your diktats to hodl sway.Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 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)
Map
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)
- Sourced in the article here [20]. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see nothing in that text which answers my question. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I may be misunderstanding your question, then. The Wikipedia article contains the text "The Tuaregs advanced to about 125 kilometers away from Timbuktu and their advance was unchecked when they entered without fighting in the towns of Diré and Goundam", and it's sourced to a Reuters article that has as its first sentence "Rebels on Mali's western front, near the border with Mauritania, were unopposed as they entered the towns of Dire and Goundam, southwest of Timbuktu, a government official and sources in the region told Reuters". Can you clarify your issue? Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm refering to the map of the Azawad and the towns taken by the MNLA. Should probably have done it in the file's talk page, but I doubt anyone would answer over there. Diré and Goundam are noted as "past control", while I see nothing that indicates that they have been lost. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I may be misunderstanding your question, then. The Wikipedia article contains the text "The Tuaregs advanced to about 125 kilometers away from Timbuktu and their advance was unchecked when they entered without fighting in the towns of Diré and Goundam", and it's sourced to a Reuters article that has as its first sentence "Rebels on Mali's western front, near the border with Mauritania, were unopposed as they entered the towns of Dire and Goundam, southwest of Timbuktu, a government official and sources in the region told Reuters". Can you clarify your issue? Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see nothing in that text which answers my question. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 17:20, 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)
- I see your point, but I worry that marking them as "past control" indicates that we know definitively that they were taken and lost by MNLA. I think it's fair to mark them according to who held them in our last information; from a practical perspective, it also seems exceedingly unlikely that the Malian military has managed to retake them while also failing to hold Kidal. All that said, I'm very much willing to defer to your judgement--I admire you for putting this map together in the first place! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 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)
- First, I can't take credit for putting the map together - it was created by Orionist. I've just been updating it and tweaking the decorations. You two are probably right about Diré and Goundam, but I'd like to think on it a bit before making a change that's not explicity verifiable. Cornedrut13, it seems you're right about Aguelhok - apparently the rebels retook it on January 24. [21]. I'll add that to the map ASAP (if Mnmazur doesn't beat me to it). Evzob (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
How about this? File:Azawad_Tuareg_rebellion_2012.svg Evzob (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm. "Past control" still suggests to me that they are now under control of Malian Army. Khazar2 (talk) 19:49, 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)
Why is the coup section so large ?
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)
- Almost everyone here agrees, I think, but we're waiting for a formal close to the discussion above. Thanks for addition to the article! Khazar2 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, eaxactly. Should i go ahead and move it? Ill cut it down to sme pertinent info and th erest thats not on the coupo should be added there.Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't know how much really needs to be moved at this point. I went over that line by line to see if anything was there to add to the coup article, but didn't find much. (It could use another person's eyes, though). Mostly I think it'll be a question of just deleting text here, reducing this down to only the facts most relevant to the rebellion: the coup's connection to the rebellion, the swift gains of the rebellion following the coup, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, eaxactly. Should i go ahead and move it? Ill cut it down to sme pertinent info and th erest thats not on the coupo should be added there.Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Too early to add Gao as taken?
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)
- VOA describes rebels in "the middle of town"[22], and everyone describes the Malian military as in full retreat. I think it's safe to say taken for now but let's definitely keep our eyes open for more info. Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- The latest information seems to suggest the city has fallen. Sounds like Tomboctou is next. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:04, 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)
- I'm also skeptical that anything in that region smaller than Timbuctu is currently held by the Malian military. But the trouble is finding reliable sources giving information about Aguelhok. If you can find anything on its current status, please update! Thanks for your additions, Khazar2 (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera reports Aguelhok is held by the rebels: [25] Ancar Dine says they hold Aguelhok: [26] -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- hmmm...i imagine itd spend some years being like kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh with Mali blabbering on at the UNGA opening session... but anyhoo...
- As for the links, ve added al Jazeera as saying Aguelhok is not govt vcontrol as we thought earlier. BUT im not sure about the AD claim. they claim maniy , we have sources for the others to MNLA THOUGH AD claim later and could have taken it. What do you think? If you wish cite the article to change the who holds bit in the table?Lihaas (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera reports Aguelhok is held by the rebels: [25] Ancar Dine says they hold Aguelhok: [26] -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:21, 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).
- Can we get a source for that? It seems useful to include in the article. Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
Link to main article
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)
- Change the wording since it fits in the prose?
- Per WP: See also "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body..." and possible Wikipedia:Hatnote#Linking_to_articles_that_are_related_to_the_topic. Lihaas (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- As I already said, it is not "See also", the "general rule" for "See also" doesn't apply here. The link to the main article is very relevant and should be prominent in order to make it easy for readers to quickly find it. Lihaas, I don't understand why you want to make it more difficult for readers. What's your profit if they don't find the main article for this topic quickly?
- Im making it dificult? Were adding content here. Im just sticking to guideline on overlinking and the above mentioned guidelines. I understand when the section was massively long. But notw its smaller anyways so its not buried in there.Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely. Because the section is shortened, it is necessary to put the link to the main article in a prominent place, to make clear that this is only a short summary, and there is a main article where readers can find the details. It is not overlinking to put a head note linking to the main article. It is common practice to do this. The guidelines you cite don't apply to this case. Neither is it "see also", nor is it a hat not linking to an article that is simply related. It is a hatnote linking to the main article. And this is exactly the situation to use a "main article" hatnote. You don't have an advantage from opposing this. But readers have an advantage if they can quickly and easily find the link to the main article. --RJFF (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Im making it dificult? Were adding content here. Im just sticking to guideline on overlinking and the above mentioned guidelines. I understand when the section was massively long. But notw its smaller anyways so its not buried in there.Lihaas (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- As I already said, it is not "See also", the "general rule" for "See also" doesn't apply here. The link to the main article is very relevant and should be prominent in order to make it easy for readers to quickly find it. Lihaas, I don't understand why you want to make it more difficult for readers. What's your profit if they don't find the main article for this topic quickly?
"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)
status
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)
- Why? Any reason? Status is not = to result by definition. I agree it should be mentioned, not question at all, in the infobocx but nt under status because it is not the nature of the conflict as it goes. As a result of the war it should be listed where the resutls are instead of splitting it.Lihaas (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for more opinions...
...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)
Do we have a source for a de jure declaration of independence?Evzob (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)- Somehow missed your link to the Azawad talk page - continuing discussion there. Evzob (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Léré
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)
- I'm wondering this too. The same town shouldn't be on the list twice. Even if it was lost and retaken, that's what the other columns are for. Evzob (talk) 08:05, 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)