Talk:Tuareg rebellion (2012)

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)

Ancar dine, is a flag of jihad appropriate to add?

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 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.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. --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--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? --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--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." --RJFF (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Usage of flags on Wikipedia should represent actual usage of that symbol by the group. 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. 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: [1] [2] -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

AD/MNLA flags

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)

Lihaas, since when are you a proponent of original research and synthesis? I am surprised. If the typing errors weren't there I would be tempted to believe that someone else has taken over your account ;) This argumentation is quite atypical for you. If we don't have a source explicitly verifying the use of a certain flag, we can't use it. If the source says black flag, then it's black flag, and not "black flag with white letters on it reading ′I testify there are no gods other than God and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God.′" Embellishment, be it according to our fantasy, or to common sense, is always undue. "there is no reported empty black flag", so if they don't explicitly say "EMPTY black flag", it's automatically a black flag with the Shahadah in white letters on it? I am not convinced. I could think of a variety of other styles of a black flag. If someone says "red flag" and not explicitly "EMPTY red flag", it doesn't automatically mean "red flag with hammer and sickle on it" either. No to speculation, even if you call it common sense. --RJFF (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Granted, and i dint restore authomatically. But what the other option? Its common knowlede that the media wont know the details to report back but reporters on the ground askign questions will get the answers from the interviewee...whats the other optuon? With all that AD ae known for and lined to?Lihaas (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, your post got lost in an edit conflict somehow. --RJFF (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I would agree to using a plain black flag (unless we have more exact information about Ansar Dine's symbols) if it is necessary to assign a flag to Ansar Dine to avoid confusion and to improve the clarity and readability of the infobox. And it is wrong to believe that a plain black flag is exclusively associated with anarchism. The article Black Standard shows that different Islamic groups and entities have used different varieties and designs of black flags with different symbols or letterings. --RJFF (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This source says "black flag with Arabic symbols", but it doesn't say what symbols. We mustn't speculate. The article Black Standard shows a variety of flags that would fit this description. It's not up to us to choose one. --RJFF (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we put at least somethign then? Which arabic letter?

May bnot be the best source but heres asertion of the jihad flagLihaas (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed not a reliable source at all. The agency reports again "ominous black flag". All we know is that it is black. So my proposal is to put a plain black flag, as long as we don't know what symbol or lettering they actually use. --RJFF (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already posted a source with there flag in the other section discussing it here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. 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 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)

note the move discussion above was closed with consensus less than a month before a user initiated another discussion per WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and WP:OSE as [fa;se] reasoning). Though WP:CCC is a right, there is precedence not to intiate conversation every so often so as not to create unstable pages and to give time for consensus to change. This was repeatedly ignored in order to get the "right" answer.(Lihaas (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)).

Would like to point out that the nominator of the previous move a month ago has voiced his support for the current move also. In regard to your logic for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it has no bases and every other editor here, except you, has already voiced their support for this move, which is not based on eather that or WP:OSE (at no given time in the discusson was WP:OSE pointed to as a reason). Instead this move is based on WP:Verifiability and WP:COMMONNAME, which, including myself, every editor has pointed to as the main reason for which to make this move. And you already once before made the WP:IDONTLIKEIT accusation and despite that every other editor still continued to voice their support based on WP:Verifiability and WP:COMMONNAME. I fail to see how the page is unstable when every editor, except you, agrees to this move. If anything, you have been ignoring the rest of the Wikipedia editor community in their opinions on this issue, as well as the two Wikipedia rules I mentioned, and the notable sources on which this move will be made. I really don't see the reasoning behind your opposition against this when a concensus has been reached on this issue, which is backed up by sources and Wikipedia directives. I really would have been glad if you had been more open to discussion and compromise on this issue, but for some reason, like in our previous discussions, you expressed bad faith toward me. I'm really sorry about that. Hope you will be more open for discussion in future debates on Wikipedia issues. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

note to moving Admin Per consensus bellow please move the article to Tuareg rebellion (2012) and not Tuareg Rebellion (2012). Small r. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The New York Times[3] and BBC[4] 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. 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, 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. 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.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)

• 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)
  • Yup. Sources on the existence of other non-Tuareg members of the MNLA are almost non-existent and the few that do mention it are not verifiable or neutral. EkoGraf (talk) 17:11, 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.

Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream (common) name trumps personal view per Wikipedia policies. EkoGraf (talk) 20:11, 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)

Support RJFF's proposed amendment. Khazar2 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Fine by me as long as the title has tuareg and rebellion in it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

definatel better...NONE of the other incarnations are proper nouns, but i cant be bothered to change them all.Lihaas (talk) 19:16, 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)

Can you be more specific? Khazar2 (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for 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)

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)

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)

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)

Thats why we dont create move discussion every month!Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 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)

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. 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)

• Support Not only Tuareg rebellion is the most commonly used name (see sources above), but, given the latest developments, the events in norterhn Mali can now be defined a full-fledged rebellion. Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 16:22, 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)

Are you in a hurry? Today is the seventh day of the discussion anyway, and it will be closed per standard tonight or tomorrow. We need someone uninvolved to close this. --RJFF (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, since it's on the front page, I thought it'd be nice to have it taken care of. Didn't realize we weren't past the seven day mark, though--my quick finger counting appears to have failed me again... Khazar2 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The old title doesn't hurt anyone, does it? --RJFF (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It does hurt Wikipedia a bit if it's not an adequate title. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The conflict is no longer a merely Tuareg conflict, with the Islamist factions taking a side of their own. Norvegia suecica (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to Ansar Dine? Because they're also a predominantly Tuareg group. "Islamist" and "Tuareg" aren't mutually exclusive categories. Evzob (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ansar Dine is Tuareg. Jacob102699 (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ansar Dine are Islamist Tuaregs. An Islamist is a religious affiliation, while Tuareg is an ethnic affiliation. So...sorry Norvegia but your assumption was wrong. Both rebel groups are Tuareg-led groups. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Vote Count 13 yea 2 nay on amended title after 8 full days Jacob102699 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but this is WP:NOTAVOTE and Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't count votes. We discuss to find consensus. --RJFF (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And consensus is (with the exception of one editor), backed up by sources and Wikipedia guidelines, that a move should be made. The seven days have passed, with the overwhelming consensus and based on notable sources and Wikipedia rules I would myself make the move but someone not involved in the discussion has to do it. Otherwise I think this is preatty much resolved. Can anybody ask an administrator or something? EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The admins seem to be busy. WP:Requested moves has a backlog of 25 articles all awaiting closure. --RJFF (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya, saw it too right now. They will probably get to it in a few days, there's no rush. EkoGraf (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it's not democracy, just giving status update. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Previous Tuareg rebellions included also non-tuareg groups fighting alongside, for example the Arab Islamic Front of Azawad on the 1990-1995 rebellion. Still, I understand that they are named Tuareg rebellions because of these groups being the majoritary on the revolts. That had not changed in the actual rebellion, so there is no reason for taking a different name than the previous ones.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No need to rush to judgement. This will be changed often in months with such proposals as Azawad indepejndence war (As in South Ossetia, Abzhazia, etc with th e ebenefit of hindsight on de facto states). Even "2012 northern Malian uprising" (a la Arab Spring articles) would be plausible. This is not the same as the past.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It was never called 2012 northern Malian uprising, and if it's changed in the future we will change it, but at the moment, the majority of the world call it Tuareg rebellion. Our naming of articles is based on sources and COMMONNAME, not our own oppinionsEkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment 14 support, 2 oppose. Just commenting, not counting. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 [5], 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)

Agreed. the 2nd link is not related here...seems like it wans coverage on a current event. Its more related to the past rebellion ans should be listed there. Believe RJFF opposes and Bender supports but neither have discussed here. So its clear whee the consensus stands as of now. Give it a day or 2 and if theres nothing then we should remov eit.Lihaas (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed. And I think it is rather uncivil of the user who keeps adding it to do so and ignoring the reverts and this discussion. --RJFF (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits explained

1. [6] 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
2. [7] not in source to add the caveat (which is redundant and repetitious) and even the 65 number is not there.
3. [8] deceptive edit summary not reflective of the edit (thats what talk is for.) Why not non-human casualties? get consensus, its still a loss.
4. [9] 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.
5. [10] 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)

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

1. [11] 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.
2. [12] who defines major? thats pov
3. [13] = accomodated?
4. [14] disruptive] to attack in summaries rather than discuss. And again without discussion after this was here [15] (at any rate, the whole thing should go as nonnotable and by precedence in ongoing events )and otherwise) we dont mention laypersons) + again
5. [16] 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 [17]. 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 [18][19][20][21]. 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)

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 [22]. 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)

Oh, I see the issue. When you said "lost", I thought you meant lost to the MNLA rather than lost by. My apologies for not looking at the icons more closely; I agree that that should be changed until we find a source. Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 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. [23]. I'll add that to the map ASAP (if Mnmazur doesn't beat me to it). Evzob (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Status undetermined" category can be created? I hate to see it listed as Malian-govt controlled when the odds seem to lean the other way. I don't know how complicated that would be to add, however. Khazar2 (talk) 18:19, 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)

Okay, now I see the new legend. Looks good to me. Thanks much for your work on this. Khazar2 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. And for some reason it took me awhile to get the page to load the new version of the file too. Evzob (talk) 08:04, 2 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)

Nice job on the slicing, Lihaas. I played around with what was there a bit more, added a little text back from the coup article; I think what's there now is a good balance. Thanks for tackling that! Khazar2 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job to you too (and especially on cleaning the refs) I just added back the AU suspension which i think is ntoable. Sanctions and support for the coup could help too as it illustrated the burden on one side or the other.Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 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"[24], 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)

Captain Sanogo has acknowledged Gao is in MNLA hands. [25] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:19, 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)

Yep, Aguelhok is in rebel hands and i osourced it, but not sure when it fell back. I imagine the loss was temporary due to fighting ut thats my synthesisLihaas (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am hearing (unconfirmed) rumors being passed along by Africa-watchers on social media that the Tuareg rebels will declare the independence of Azawad shortly: [26] -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera reports Aguelhok is held by the rebels: [27] Ancar Dine says they hold Aguelhok: [28] -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)

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)

I have to agree with RJFF; this is a link that needs to be featured prominently. If you're concerned about overlinking, we can remove the link piped under "gunfire erupted", but let's leave the clear wikilink to the subject. Khazar2 (talk) 15:13, 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)

Okey, ill admit with consensus against me. Dont need to just fight...but we did need to get that discussion on this ;) Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 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)

I removed Lere as the source only cites the flag flies there not being captued. Youre ight on Ber...maybe tag it as {{bettr source}}Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal in infobox

What with this? 2nd unexplained removal, i though it was an EC the first timeLihaas (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's standard use of those templates. It looked bad before; it looks better now. Simple. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"looks better" is highly subjectiveLihaas (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

MNLA/Ancar Dine fight

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)

Well, let's definitely get that source into the article. Can you give the link? Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If confirmed, we should adopt a three-faction infobox a la South Sudan internal conflict (2011–). -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:05, 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)

They are definitely a separate side in the conflict now, holding completely different goals to the MNLA and now opposing them. Get that infobox fixed. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, it was already done. Wikipedia moves quick. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 18:20, 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)

Wo! thats MORE reason to put the jihad flag up then if allied with somalia (where al shabaab are on the back foot and both AD and AS are linked to AQ. But lets not jump, MNLA said theyre working together. Still only been 24 hours.Lihaas (talk) 18:32, 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)

sorry for that, didn't even know it had happened till you reverted it, then I looked back at changes. I Don't know why this has been happening, just in past several days. I wonder if my computer got bugged. I'm on iPad now so it shouldn't be problem. Jacob102699 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Its been reported rather widely that MOJW has taken part in the rebel offensive that pushed into Gao. While i to have seen reports of violance between islamists and the rebels, it isnt clear yet which islamists are fighting the rebels. Its possible that only MOJW has come in conflict with the rebels and not Ansar Dine.XavierGreen (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As for Ansar Dine's flag, the only image i've seen that purports to depict is is this here [[29]]XavierGreen (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But I don't think we have this flag on Wiki commons. It's not the same as 'File:Flag of Jihad.svg' If you want to use it, I'm afraid that you have to draw it first. --RJFF (talk) 13:32, 3 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)

I agree with the three-faction infobox, it is the logic option, as clashes had erupted between MNLA & Ansar Dine, as a result of the underlying tension since March between the two movements, who had different objectives. About MOJWA implication, all sources I saw talked about MOJWA claiming having part of fighting in Gao, but as long as I know, there's no real proof of their implication, apart from their claim. Regards. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

End of conflict

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)

Not while ECOWAS is threatening to send in troops and Ansar Dine is disputing control of the major cities with the MNLA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suggest holding off until things are more clearly stable. If the MNLA and Ancar Dine are indeed fighting (and they seem to be), the conflict is likely to continue for some time. Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 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)

True then...dear me! Factionalised already...over-inflated egos!Lihaas (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alliances of convenience rarely end well. Also, I was under the impression that ECOWAS threatened to send troops against the junta, not the MNLA? 217.210.7.205 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If and when civilian rule is restored...by then consolidation could strenghten their hold. In te meantime the residents of TImbuktu could very well see a better future and work wit the MNLA vs. ADLihaas (talk) 18:57, 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)

We just agreed its too early to call the shots on 3 sides...can we hold off on splitting sides? Per [30] and [31].

See Cornedrut's last comment at Talk:2012_insurgency_in_northern_Mali#Too_early_to_add_Gao_as_taken.3FLihaas (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely do not see how it could not be a three-side conflict now, given that the Ansar Dine have split from the MNLA, as sourced in the main article. 217.210.7.205 (talk) 19:25, 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)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't vote on contents. --RJFF (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But more recently there are sources that said they are workign together and its all withing 24hours...bit of a rush to judgement. Your own statement as linked above ahas them workign togther...lets be patient.Lihaas (talk) 19:32, 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)

There are reports of clashes between MNLA & Ansar Dine in Timbuktu, and statements from MNLA calling Ansar Dine "criminals". Toumast Press, one of the mouthpieces of the Toureg rebels, claim that MNLA fighters had encircled the Ansar Edine fighters and "Moor militias" (MOJWA?, AQMI?) in Timbuktu (http://www.toumastpress.com/actualites/liberation-azawad/344-tombouctou-mnla-encercle-ansaradine-milices-maures-desarmer-sans-conditions.html). Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the creibility of toumaspress? at any rate...24 hours afer calls to shae is a little early to split, no? govt disagreements doesnt mean theyre at wayr. Its democratic politics!Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to judge the credibility of media (What is the credibility of AFP? It sometimes seems that for some people western-backed and controlled media reports are word of God, and other world medias are simple crap). Also, I said that Toumastpress claims, not assures. Please, difference between claims and facts, wether in this issue or the MOJWA one. We can wait for caution and see what happens, but the reported MNLA-Ansar Dine clashes in Timbuktu were not a surprise for many, as tension between the 2 movements was growing in the previous weeks, as reported by Tuareg, Malian and Western sources. And we're not talking about gov. disagreements, but of armed clashes and burnin' of MNLA flags. Regards. --HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What? We obviously use from RS soruces (which are supposed to have editorial oversight), in that vein if Toumastpress is the view of one side then its clearly not credible to qupte.Lihaas (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Strength of MNLA

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)

the source there said 1500-2500. There has been a defection of 500. So we know that it is at least 2000-3000 now, probably more like 2500-3500. Jacob102699 (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally say that the source going up to 3,000 did not include the army defectors, but I haven't checked specifically. Norvegia suecica (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't include defectors, then it's 2500-3500 and maybe 3000-4000

Its a range. We cant arbitrary decide its outdated if its RS. As said above by RJFF we have to stick with the sources an the range suggests rhat...in that case if we want to arbitrary synthesise then lets add the jihad fla.g! THe logic is the same(Lihaas (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)).

Forces listed in infobox

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)

According to this, [[32]] a MOSW representative told a AFP journalist that they were in gao.XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant with "claim". Is there a third party verifying it? --RJFF (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We greed above to wait to split oj 3 sides as 24 hours sensationalism is not a reaon to rush to jusgement.

More importantly, there is NOTHIGN suggesting te efected forces are SEPERATE belligerents, thats why theyre listed as part of the MNLA side now (whih after 3 times the onus is on the adder to get consensus to remove). they are clearly a PART of the MLNA's forces and should be liste as such!Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason i mentioned it here is because an editor kept listing their forces separately in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 20:33, 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)

I never said Ansar Dine is part of the MNLA, the army defectors someone kept inserting into the infobox joined the MNLA.XavierGreen (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Look NOTHING said they ahave been kept seperate of the MNLA. The infoboxis listing the size of the forces and this was a notable sized additions just as the commander is listed in the infobox.Lihaas (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mopti

Looks like some fighting is spilling into Mopti now, [33] 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)

I was just looking at this article myself. Still too early to call Mopti "overrun", I think--we just have a single report of Tuaregs in the area, and no reference to fighting. Let's hold off until the rebels are clearly there, and clearly taking control. Khazar2 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Khazar2, and also added the link to the articl.eLihaas (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between MNLA and Ancar Dine

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."" [34] 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)

Definitely inclue it somewhere. Currently, the situation - with all the list of held town - indicates complete Ansar Dine control over large areas, which is untrue according to this source. Norvegia suecica (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I added it from the other pagge. Not to bothred where it goes. Perhaps in the media reactions section?Lihaas (talk) 10:19, 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)

Feel free to add it, but also with the wording caveat that it is from the horse's mouth (in this case the MNLA spokesman)Lihaas (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Map update

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)

Nicely designed map. But maybe it's different enough that it warrants it's own file name. The other editors can decide whether it should replace the current map on this page. Personally I think we should keep the current map a bit longer, but maybe I should stay out of the decision since I'm emotionally attached... :-p Oh, and one issue - Goundam, Dire, and Niafunke aren't current offensives. They're towns that were overrun by the rebels weeks or months ago, but which we suspect they may still not be actively occupying. Evzob (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Douentza has been reported by both sides to be captured as well, and the MNLA has declared they've captured all their territory [35]--I think you may as well shade the whole thing green. Khazar2 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the Azawad is, quite obviously, under MNLA/Other control now. Norvegia suecica (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

So if what you're telling is correct, shouldnt Goundam, Diré, Niafunké, Ghourma-Rharous and Taoudenni be marked as red? Gomes89 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposition =

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:

• Inclusion on the infobox of MOJWA and perhaps AQMI (There are witnesses who talk about the presence in Timbuktu of 3 Algerian chiefs of AQMI in the reunion that Ansar Dine made with the muftis of the town).
• If not applied the three belligerent infobox, made a difference between MNLA and Ansar Dine, MOJWA, AQMI..., as for example, in the Ethiopian Civil War. As the reports show, the two camps could have a common enemy (Malian govermnent, wether ATT or Sonaga), but they do not mix themshelves, had different and even opposed objectives, and there had been at least some fighting between them. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A three-belligerent infobox is definitely preferable to me by now, given how they've been fighting, and the MNLA has officially rejected Ansar Dine. If not, then the other option is definitely very good, as they are obviously no longer aligned. If AQIM and such are to be included, then the infobox must definitely be separate, as the MNLA have made it very clear - often - their enemity to Al-Qaeda. Norvegia suecica (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. I don't see much harm that a three-combatant infobox would do, given that sources increasingly indicate that this alliance does not or only barely exists; MNLA has called ag Ghaly "a criminal", reports of fighting, etc. I think it is time to include MOJWA in the infobox, too. But let's give it at least 12-24 hours for other users to chime in, given that this has been a contentious issue. Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding them into the infobox, this confirms what the group itself has been saying all along.XavierGreen (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

TH e ref above doesnt mention whats quoted. nothing about mojwa thereLihaas (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The referance says that MOJWA is one of the belliegerent force occupying Gao, if they are occupying gao then they are a party to the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

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)

For now it came from an unnamed source quoted in a publication that I didn't recognize offhand as a reliable source. I could be wrong, though (and my apologies if I am). Does anybody know much about Koaci.com? I was hoping to find a more reliable source for the claim. Khazar2 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears they're a [36] Ivorian Internet journalism site with no notable coverage in either Eng or Fr wiki. I think it's best to hold off for now; this just seems like a rumor so far. Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The french minister confirms that CEDEAO and Burkina Faso are talking witb MNLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornedrut13 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done(Lihaas (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)).

Place for the mention of the coup

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)

Yes there is. Here Template:Infobox military conflict. As you can see Wikipedia guidelines are clear. casualties1/casualties2 – optional – casualties suffered, including dead, wounded, missing, captured, and civilian deaths. Terms such as "dead" (or "killed"), "wounded", or "captured" should be used in place of abbreviations such as "KIA" or "POW". Since the casualties section in question is casualties3 I will refer you to the following rule: casualties3 – optional – if combatant3 is set, this is a third casualty field identical to the two above; if it is not set, this is an alternate combined field for use where only the total casualties of a conflict are known, or where civilian casualties cannot be directly attributed to either side. In regard to the status section the guideline is status – optional – for ongoing conflicts, the current status of the conflict... I would also refer you to the thousands of articles on military battles and wars where this template has been followed. I think that pretty much says it all. Did that clear it up Khazar2? Also, if you are reading this Lihaas, please stick to Wikipedia templates and guidelines. If I recall correctly you had a problem with result and status sections not being the same thing. However, per Wiki guidelines in a sense they are, with status section being used while a conflict is ongoing, and than that being replaced and in its place result section being put when the conflict ends, but both having the purpose to show the consequences of the conflict. Read it please. EkoGraf (talk) 20:46, 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)

Keenan quote

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)

You're right. It's not a "reaction", but a very relevant analysis of the events. --RJFF (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

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)

"Other peoples"

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)

Is someone unreliable because he used to be the manager of a Tuareg pop band? He also writes for the Guardian about Mali.[37] The thing is that even Morgan doesn't confirm the participation of "other peoples", but only that "certain important Arab leaders (...) have already thrown in their lot with MNLA". Another source (this) said that locals reported the Islamist militiamen spoke "Arabic with Mauretanian dialect". Everything else are unconfirmed claims by the MNLA. --RJFF (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just mean to distinguish him from someone like Keenan, who's a published scholar on the subject. If Morgan's working professionally as a journalist, that makes me give him more weight--but we still don't know TAP's reputation for fact-checking, reliability, etc. Maybe the solution is to just source this statement to the MNLA only for now, and change it back if we find outside confirmation. Let me give that a try. Khazar2 (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you word it then? Neither do reliable sources positively confirm that "elements of (...) other peoples" participated in the rebellion, nor can we completely rule out that non-Tuaregs took part. There are enough indications that, at least, Arabs/Arabic-speaking Moors fought on the rebells' side. --RJFF (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just something to the effect of the "The MNLA has stated that other peoples have also taken part in the insurgency" and leave it at that, since there's neither confirmation or denial from other sources. I don't mean to be stubborn, but a reference to aid by other leaders--which could take any form--and the reports of a single eyewitness about the Mauretanian dialect of two fighters (the Canada.com quote) seem a bit weak to make this claim in the lead sentence of the article. I'd be more comfortable not stating this as fact until a reliable source states it as fact. Khazar2 (talk) 15:21, 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)

The sentence "Though dominated by Tuaregs, the MNLA claims to represent other ethnic groups as well,..." is already in the Background section. I don't think that it belongs in the lead section. "Tuareg-led" would be okay. --RJFF (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. [38] Khazar2 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"First Ever" use of ECOWAS troops?

"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)