Talk:Mali War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Origins of article

This article originated as a split of Tuareg rebellion (2012); please see that article's history for attributions of the content. For discussion of the split, please see Talk:Tuareg rebellion (2012). Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Include foreign intervention in infobox?

[1] The UN has agreed to allow foreign countries to intervene in the conflict. Should we include that in the infobox?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be premature for the infobox, but certainly the article should be updated... might try to do this myself in a bit, I'm half-watching a baseball game at the moment... Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this conflict part of the War on Terror?

...specifically the Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think "part of" would be seriously overstating it. My understanding is that the main combatants for the first half of the conflict were Tuaregs and the Malian government, and for the second half, the Tuaregs and the Islamists. Boko Haram and other terror groups have been sighted in the conflict, but aren't the main players. Why do you ask? Just curious, or thinking of working this into the article? Obviously, if you have reliable sources contradicting what I just wrote, I say go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it absolutely is. The principle group behind the Islamists is AQIM and their affiliates. Rail88 (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Front for the Liberation of the Azawad

Should this group be added to the conflict? http://www.startribune.com/world/171061311.html?refer=y 64.134.174.193 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

They're probably too small to be worth adding in the infobox (at least until they're documented to have joined some battles). But I did add a sentence about the split in the Islamist-Nationalist section of the article. Khazar2 (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

2012–present Northern Mali conflict → Mali conflict (2012–present) – Or Malian conflict (2012–present), Malian Civil War, etc. This conflict in the last few months particularly has extended beyond Northern Mali, with the Islamist rebels (unlike the Tuareg secessionists) seeking to control the whole country. 94.192.38.84 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Any objections? If not, I can make the move. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone moved it to Mali conflict, which is not one of the options suggested here in the move request. Since there were other conflicts in Mali in the past, I added a hatnote that leads to a disambiguation page.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to have the word "north" in some form in the title because most of the fighting occurred in the north, and with the French intervention, it's unlikely that the Islamists will advance southward.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

  • The most clear title is either "2012-present Northern Mali conflict" or "Northern Mali conflict (2012-present)". The current title "Mali Conflict" is just troubling as FT makes clear. I also agree that in reputable sources the conflict is often distinguished between "Mali" and "Northern Mali" with a decided emphasis on the later. See: NPR here, NY Times, etc. The title "Northern Mali" adds key distinctions into the title that should be retained for clarity. I support titles which include "Northern" and the "2012-present" in some form. Other titles are sorely lacking, may contribute to confusion, and may obscure links to this issue on other pages. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both Future and Abatra. Revert that rename back to Northern Mali conflict (2012-present). EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The move to "Mali conflict" seems hasty and ill-advised, and should be undone. I agree that both "north" and a date should be left in the title. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that the rebels have already ventured outside Northern Mali, and have been present in Central/Southern Mali for some time. They probably will be ultimately repulsed by the French back to the north, but at present that remains extremely speculative. 94.192.38.84 (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
We go with the common name in the media, per Wikipedia policy. And most media still are using the word "north". If they stop using it than that's another matter, but until than....Revert back. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"Mali conflict" fails WP:CRITERIA by being insufficiently precise (Mali has known more than one conflict during its history, and this article is only about one conflict). The title needs a date or something else to make it more precise. Formerip (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Mali conflict" alone lacks precision. "Northern Mali conflict" or "North Mali conflict" is very common in relevant sources. So why should we move it? And claiming that it is a civil war, without showing that a number of relevant sources shares this view, has no merit, either.

Rename War in Mali (2012-present)

I believe that with the now occurring counter offensive and addition of foreign troops that this is now more of a war than just a simple conflict, similar to Afghanistan. Other media sources are beginning to address it as the War in Mali in recent days. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Media depictions of the violence as "war" have shot up dramatically since French intervention. It seems right now to be largely from one AP article for English publications; French publications seem to have more significantly broke towards using the term war for the conflict with French intervention. This change may be warranted, but I would like to see more significant usage to justify terming it a "war", this may change with coverage today. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a war! With the French intervention, we can not call it a conflict or a civil war.

3bdulelah (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

    • I would also like to state that I do not believe that Northern Mali conflict is very suitable Konna as well as today's attack on Diabaly show that there is fighting centered towards the south-central region of the country as well. It is safe to assume that the conflict is country wide in scope and impact. I believe it should be renamed more appropriately to War in Mali. --Kuzwa (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Show me some sources that call this conflict the "War in Mali" or "Mali War". Then maybe I'll be convinced.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the following...
    • TIME
    • [2]
    • [3]
    • [4]
    • [5] - French newspaper using "Guerre au Mali" or War in Mali.
    • [6] - Another French article.

Important to note that a lot of the French media is also calling this a war... --Kuzwa (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just mentioning "war" won't do. If "Mali War" or "War in Mali" becomes a common name in the news, then we can change it. But right now, there's no common name for it, so we're using a descriptive title. Also, "northern" should not be dropped even if we do perform a name change, because most sources say that the conflict is in the north.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Would like some more opinions on this matter. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • REanme to Malian Civil War, which currently redirects here. There have been a series of Tuareg rebellions, but few seem to have penetrated as far as the rebels in this case. As I understand it, Mali consists of a habitable strip of land along the upper reaches of the river Niger and an area of sdesert to the north, where the Tuareg are nomadic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2013 (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.

canada

The flag of Canada should be added to the box since they are sending troops see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-contributing-to-fight-in-mali-by-training-niger-forces/article7279904/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada2015 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Canada is providing training to Nigerian troops, not directly supporting Mali.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Canada is helping Niger, not Nigeria or Mali.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.188 (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be united with Tuareg rebellion (2012)?

--Menah the Great (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No, there was a lengthy discussion on this issue a year ago and it was decided by a majority consensus that the Tuareg rebellion, which was a specific phase (January-April 2012) of the overall conflict, have its own article, and the condensed/summarized version of that rebellion be talked about here in this article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Belligerents that aren't really it

Spain has not intervened in the war. The source link quotes Rajoy during a business meeting with President Bouteflika of Algeria saying that he'd like (or not dislike) to intervene after a long list of ifs that have not happened like the Spanish congress approving it. There has not been debating about this, let alone a vote, and there has not been Spanish intervention either by providing troops or supplies to the Malian forces. I can't speak of the Danish intervention since the source is in Danish and I don't speak the language, so I'm leaving it in for the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was blown out of proportion too.--Menah the Great (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's ceding transport planes now (of which France is short of, apparently), like Britain, so that's a different story.--Menah the Great (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Supporting Countries

I am unclear about what qualifies a country for inclusion under the Supported By: heading in the title and since it has already caused some issues (re: Spain and Canada above) which will likely increase, figured it may be useful to discuss a possible rule of thumb for including an actor as a Supported By: actor. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Options

(Please feel free to edit these for clarity)

  • Option 1: Support=provision of military hardware. For inclusion in the Supported By: section, a country must provide some military hardware directly to the operations and not simply logistical help. For example, Denmark providing a transport aircraft to the conflict would qualify them; but U.S. helping delivery of supplies here would not count.
  • Option 2: Support=provision of military hardware or logistical assistance. Both U.S. and Denmark efforts above would count as Supporting according to this option. However, Algeria allowing the French to have unfettered access to their airspace would not be considered support.
  • Option 3: Support=Any form of support to the military operation. U.S., Denmark, and Algerian allowing the French to use airspace would all count. But non-military foreign aid to the Malian government or people would not qualify.
  • Option 4 Do not include any actor that is supporting. Only include in the infobox those actors who are directly engaged in some combat activities.

Comments

(Please write comments about the options and preferences here)

  • Preference for Option 1 Although I would readily accept Option 2 or Option 3 and find all acceptable, I think I find Option 1 the clearest for identifying what actors are most directly supporting the military operation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Logistics is pretty important as well, and it's not hard to identify.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Option 2 for me as well. Not only is the US already helping with logistics, BTW, there is also intelligence as well. I'm for putting anyone who provides material help in the "supporting" role, and anyone who deploys people as belligerent. Algeria's decision to allow its airspace and close the frontier no doubt facilitates the Mali government side and should be indicated in the article, but does not qualify as the Algerian military taking part in the conflict (barring a possible border clash in the future). --Menah the Great (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Training mission

The LA Times is reporting that the EU is sending a 450 strong training contingent to Bamako. Any ideas as to how this information gets incorporated into the infobox? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 15:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Strength France infobox

There are only 800 French troops in Mali. while they plan to increased gradually to 2,500 soldiers-[7] I belive that the Infobox should reflect the current number of troops on the ground in Mali. So i suggest changing it from 2,500 to 800+. --Liquidinsurgency (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got a good point. Maybe we can say "800+ (current)" followed by "2,500 (planned)". --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moktar Belmoktar dead?

The infobox shows this guy as being killed in action but provides no source. News media reports from today state hes very much alive as he just lead an attack against an oil refinery in algeria.108.5.245.216 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the KIA, per this recent report that suggests that he is still alive. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

LInk to attac on Algeria refinery

One look at a map of the region shows that the reference to Islamists crossing from Mali into Algeria to attack the BP refinery in Algeria makes no sense. Nor does it tally with the main article on the refinery attack. The refinery is on the Algerian border with Libya, hundreds of kilometres from Mali. The AQIM group carrying out the attack must be more local. Bacardi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.96.152 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The hostage attack is not part of the conflict in Mali, which is why I removed info concerning it from the infobox.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Netherlands logistics

Aviation week is saying that ...the Dutch government has agreed to make Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) transport aircraft available to support French Operation Serval in Mali , but also that this allows for flights to countries bordering Mali but not to Mali itself.

Does this make it to the infobox or not? If not, what do we do with it? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 22:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

  • If I read the consensus for Option 2 above, then it goes into the infobox as a supporting state. Logistical support of the operation doesn't seem to matter if they are directly going to Mali or just helping out further up the chain of the operation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali military force size

QUESTION: What should the article have as the military size of the Mali military?
Figured I'd post it here and let the community of editors decide. Good faith IP tried to add a source to the size of the military and to change the number from 7,000 to 15,150. I reverted with the reasoning that the source (which I assume is the Military Balance from 2010 although full cite wasn't added) did not take into account the large defection from the Malian military in 2012. When challenged, I provided this edit with this source (admittedly not my favorite source, but they do a good job of explaining the change in military size). That was then reverted with the source deemed not reliable and the size of military was replaced with 14800-15600 and now no source. Where it is right now.
Let's see what sources say: Sources that claim the Mali military size is around 7,000 include NY Times ("That success led to intense frustration in the 7,000-strong Malian Army"), LA Times, ("Mali's military has only 7,000 soldiers"), Reuters("the Malian army had 6,000 or 7,000 troops"), Wall Street Journal("Mali’s army of 6,000-7,000 soldiers is described by EU officials as ineffective and “demoralized.”"), Congressional Research Service ("totaling some 7,000 troops prior to the defections and military defeats of the past year"), Toronto Star of which I made the other editor aware of ("The United Nations Security Council has approved the deployment of a West African force of 3,300 troops who were to be sent later this year to help Mali’s 7,000-strong army"), Washington post ("The Malian armed forces are relatively small, with about 7,000 personnel") and on. Sources that say the forces are near the 15,000 mark include the International Criminal Court("The strength of the active Malian armed forces is assessed in 2011 to be at 12,150 – 15,150"), AFP ("The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in 2012 estimated Mali's army to be made up of 12,150 men."), and not much else (note how both clearly date their claims to before the crisis started). What should we have as troop size of Mali military? Thanks for the help. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • My quick idea: says "12,150 (before war), 7,000 (late 2012)". or something like that. Any suggestions appreciated. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, dating the sizes is probably the best idea. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good job with the infobox

I think we have reached the final form of the infobox. Now it's pretty useful and informative. I suggest to keep it in this form and not make any big changes, only gradually add more information. Good job guys. --Novis-M (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • seconded of course, but I'm still uneasy about the MNLA in two columns. Even though they have "declared support" for the anti-Islamist coalition, it seems that including them neglects their continued opposition to Malian army in the North: "We don't want to see the Malian army in Azawad without a prior accord between the two parties". I think we may want to think about putting them back in their own column and somehow explaining in that column that they were with the Islamists, then split from the Islamists, and now with the French-ECOWAS force, but couldn't figure out a great way to do so that didn't clutter the infobox. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It declared support for France... not necessarily Mali... But this isn't important. This sort of situation could be compared to that of the Yugoslav wars, in which the Bosniaks and Croats were at one point rivals and then allies in the rest of the conflict.--Yalens (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like someone reorganized the infobox in some chronological format. In my opinion, it looks like a mess. Please revert it back to the way it was before, with the large map and the simple 3 columns.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the format to reflect the one used on the Yugoslav Wars IB. Mainly I don't see the value of MNLA having their own column and being in another simultaneously. What if we either a.) removed the "declared support" bit and use a footnote in the middle column explaining how their allegiance has changed, or b.) also add a "declared support" bit to the Islamist column? I think those would give a more accurate picture of the situation. Rail88 (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
They never declared support for the Islamists. Even in the days when they were fighting against the same foe, there isn't evidence (at least that I've seen) to show that they were even the least bit close to each other. --Yalens (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd actually like to propose MNLA in one column (with no explanation in infobox) at this point. We know they "merged" with Ansar in March of last year (here), but then even that gets murky and the recent declaration of support (or that they are "ready to assist the French army") has a lot of question marks for me (here). I think this is one of those points where less clarity may improve both A. comprehension by the reader and B. the truth of the claims. I hate it, but the three column solution with Mali government, MNLA, and Islamists as the three big headings seems to work until we get some better clarity and then I'd like to move to Yalens great suggestion of the Yugoslavia wars example which should work and look good when there is clarity to help it make sense. Note: If they take part in joint or coordinated operations with any part of the UNSCR 2085 coalition, my opinion would change. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, having the MNLA in two columns is completely unnecessary and confusing.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
@sideswitching: The "merger" lasted a couple days, which only highlights how much the Islamists and nationalists can't get along. The truth (which I think is, or at least should be, obvious to us all) is that the Tuareg nationalists despise (greatly) both the Malian government and the Islamists. They only worked with the Islamists because it was in their temporary interest to- and even then things quickly fell apart between the two groups (and likewise, if they fight alongside the Malian troops they were just fighting last year, it's only because they have to). Although the media occasionally gets confused on this issue, Wikipedia shouldn't make the mistake of assuming the nationalists were ever fond of the Islamists. This sort of stuff isn't actually that rare. Yugoslav wars is a good example (and model), another well-known example is World War II.
@Yugoslav format: Since many people seem to like this idea (the chronological, Yugoslav format) and I don't see any objections, why don't we just go ahead and adopt it? (although we may have to rethink/consult the boundary between this page and its predecessor, which currently stands in April 2012)--Yalens (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
@sideswitching. Agree on all counts. And that's actually the reason for my hesitancy on @Yugoslav format (right at this moment), is that it is hard to date such wily pragmatists as these nationalists. Let's see how this develops, but it is possible right now that their "pledge to support the French" is as significant at their "merger" with Ansar Dine (or even that MNLA has dissipated somewhat). I aesthetically think that Yugoslav solution may work (FT appears to disagree so that probably the Novis-M suggestion of specific discussion on any change to infobox is appropriate), but am not convinced MNLA should be actually aligned with anyone (right now). So I think wait and see should be the guideline. Side note: Content may solve infobox problems; a section on the different factions may be able to provide far more information than any infobox solution. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Date span in title

I do believe titles such as this, with the qualifier like 2012–present are not entirely proper. Many articles about currently ongoing conflicts that span several years, I notice, are titled this way, but I believe only the starting year, if needed, should be used. After all, most, if not all, historical articles about prolonged conflicts use a single date, such as the Revolutions of 1989, War of 1812, and so on. So, in my opinion, the duration should not really be noted, especially with the word "present". Jmj713 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't make up names on WP. We use clear, descriptive titles when common names are not available.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
yes, but this isn`t a good descriptive title. I have a huge Problem with "????-Present" titels anyway, because that causes allways problems with the talksite-archieves. There must be a Way around...--87.123.52.181 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not 2012 Northern Mali conflict? Jmj713 (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I need some better reasons to consider a name change at this point. It just isn't necessary to change the title for personal preferences away from the current. I also think the "we don't use datespans elsewhere" argument is faulty in that other Mali related-similar topics use the titles that are used in the literature of, for example, Tuareg rebellion (1990–1995) or 2009–2010 West African meningitis outbreak. The literature doesn't call it the Tuareg rebellion of 1990 and so as much as revolutions in Eastern Europe may use singular years, or wars in North America may do the same; there needs to be some contextual reason to change "Northern Mali conflict (2012-present)" away from that title to a different one. In addition, in confusing situations, the most clarity as possible is the best rule to follow. Finally, I'm not sure naming debates necessarily help improve the article at this point; the event is ongoing, there is no clear and universal name yet, there is a decent name to describe the event based on sources currently, and it clearly disambiguates from other "conflicts" in Mali: while there will be a need to refine the name later and I am certainly not against the suggestions on how to improve the name, we all might have to accept imperfection at this point because it is a murky situation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
War in Mali or War in Northern Mali sounds simple enough to me. Considering there are no other conflicts that this one will get confused with. Similar to the Iraq War. --99.251.252.217 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New information - updates

I thought it would be a good idea to have a section on the talk page where anyone can dump raw info about the ongoing events which then either gets out into the article or not.

Seems interesting. I definitely think we should add it, but only after they manage to get near Gao, if they do.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be added the moment they cross the border.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Australia removed from the infobox

I've just removed Australia from the list of 'supporting' countries from the infobox - the news report saying that the Australian Government had decided to provide aid wasn't correct - please see this story: the government is considering providing humanitarian assistance at some unspecified future time, and has ruled out providing any military assistance. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Burundi

While the source notes that Burundi is part of AFISMA, they do not appear to actually be part of ECOWAS. I'm going to move them from that section to the "supported by" section as they have not yet appeared to have pledged troops either. We should probably also verify whether Cape Verde and the Gambia have pledged troops, but I'll leave them in that section for now. Epigrammed (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Burundi is committing troops and should be considered a combatant in its own right. Chad is in a similar situation (albeit with 10x forces compared to Burundi) since it is an African combatant but not a member of ECOWAS. Supporters are countries that help one of the sides in some way (by say supplying transport, intelligence or advisors) but do not commit troops of their own to fight in battles.--Menah the Great (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia's involvement

We need to figure out exactly what Russia's involvement is. Per media reports based on a statement by the French FM several days ago, they had supposedly offered to contribute heavy airlift planes, as several western nations had. Apparently, Russia has clarified that they had advised France to contract private Russian airlines for this purpose, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the Russian government DID in fact furnish the planes but did not want to appear too supportive (however even if true this would probably be difficult to prove). I thought I saw a picture a few days ago of French troops boarding an Antonov An-225. But unless we can find a source proving that the Russian government provided these planes directly, I don't think they should remain in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.160.145.2 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this was used as a way to put pressure on the US after the offer of airlift at the cost of French payment. The US is now picking up the tab and the Russian offer has seemingly evaporated. Kinda reminds me of when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Kuwaiti foreign minister asked for international help, asking the US and then doubling down mentioning welcome of help from the Soviets just to move the US. Then again, the US has contracted Russian airlift assets for decades now, including An-225s. Just because it's a Russian craft doesn't say who's paying for it and doing the actual moving. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Name change for two battles for Gao

It seems no editor from Battle of Gao is keeping up the recent updates. If you go to that article, it does not only involve the 2012 Battle of Gao, but mentions how islamic groups taking over Azawad from MNLA. Shouldn't we change the original Battle of Gao to something like Battle for Azawad, and make new article that covers current battle between French & Mali vs islamic groups? Or should we keep the first as First Battle of Gao and make the recent one as Second Battle of Gao? Kadrun (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not use "first" or "second". I think it's better to change that article's title to Battle of Gao (2012).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles for each phase of this conflict

Template:Campaignbox Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) divides this conflict into three phases: Tuareg rebellion (2012), Islamist-Tuareg conflict and Foreign intervention. Of those, only Tuareg rebellion (2012) has its own articles, while Islamist-Tuareg conflict and foreign intervention are only covered in sections of the main article.

It might be good to create articles about those two phases and leave only a relatively short summary in the main article for sake of ease of navigation and consistency. --93.139.202.28 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, each article would then have its own infobox, which should make some things more clear. --93.139.202.28 (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, the main article is not that long. I don't see any real need to do this.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

MNLA sides with Mali & France

I found a report MNLA is siding with Mali, fearing that the Tuaregs may be backlashed after a Malian-French victory http://www.africanewsnet.com/pages/western/mali/2013/01/23/touaregs-join-fight-against-islamists/Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Their change of alliance is already mentioned in the wiki article (Northern Mali conflict (2012–present)#MNLA realigns with the Malian Government). Additional relevant information, if present in the africanewsnet article, should preferably be added to the existing section. 212.10.77.171 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

In the commanders and leaders box, there is Queen Elizabeth II with flag of Canada. I know that she is queen of many countries, but she should be there with the flag of UK and Canada, because they both are opponents in the conflict.

--Ransewiki (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

She is not a military leader. She shouldn't included in the infobox at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. 194.46.190.4 (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

countries in the infobox

I've move Canada to the "supported by" section in the infobox. Their participation consists of one transport plane. The troops on the ground mentioned in the title of the linked article are merely securing the embassy: "The specially-trained soldiers are not in the West African country to participate in any direct combat action, nor will they provide training to the Malian troops, sources said Monday."

Also, somebody removed Angela Merkel from the "leaders" section. Germany, UK, Canada are so far all contributing transport planes. Germany+UK will also send equipment and military advisors as part of the EU mission. Consequently we should either list the commander-in-chief of all three countries or none of them. --Hisredrighthand (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The addition of the Canada, UK, USA and German HoS ahead of the African ones is ridiculously western-cetric. The French should be the only western leaders listed since it's France only who has had a non-supporting role. Chad and Niger's leaders also deserve to be mentioned more, particularly the first one since the article briefly details Chadian operations and negotiations with the MNLA.--Menah the Great (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, although its just a detail. --Hisredrighthand (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of French troops

Although, indeed, like it's said in the infobox, France said it would send 2,500 troops to Mali, and have, in the recent days I've read many articles which give a higher number. This one speaks of 2,900 French troops in Mali. I had previously read other articles mentioning more than 2,500 soldiers, but amidst so many articles about the conflict I have difficulties finding them again.--Munin75 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source which speaks of 3,000 French troops in Mali.--Munin75 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This source now speaks of 3,500 French troops currently in Mali. That's it, I'm editing.--Munin75 (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Centralized map discussion

I've centralized the discussion on the map to here: File talk:Northern Mali conflict.svg. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

lack of songhai and fulani paramilitaries in the belligerent table

both ganda koy and ganda izo have been documented taking part in hostilities and executing islamists in captured towns, how come they aren't mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.201.189 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Ganda Goy and Izo are both government militias paid by and virtually run by the Malian army. I dont think they play such important role in the ongoing Malian civil war but on a few instances during the 2012 Tuareg rebellion they fought a few skirmishes but nothing much cause there numbers are rather small, I think. Also the militia fighters are said to be retired Malian soldiers or policemen adding to the fact that's virtually part of the army itself. Like I siad before the militia itself has never had a big role in the conflict besides fighting a few skirmishes with the MNLA. For example, if your familiar with the Syrian civil war the government pays the Shabiha local fighters to take arms on behalf of them, and the Shabiha are usually from the Alwati sector with the Ganda Izo being from the Songhai, a pro-government tribe. One more thing is a would think when someone says the Malian army they would include the miltia groups, if im wrong and you have references you can add the group to the belligerent if you want to. I hope this helps (talk) 6 April 2013

Swiss AAD10 Involvement

According to the Swiss papers the Special Forces group AAD10 (aka ARD10) were sent into Mali to protect and get Swiss citizens to safety. There does seem to be an issue with this deployment since it completely bypassed the Swiss Government. Check here for source, http://www.20min.ch/schweiz/news/story/21878200. Sorry its in German, maybe run it through Google Translate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Bear86 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


It hasn't been confirmed for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.80.166 (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Autonomy

What about Tuareg autonomy? Will it be created?--Kaiyr (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Change title to Malian civil war

I think it would make more sense if instead of having the article named the Northern Mali conflict it should instead be named the Malian civil war as it fits all the criteria's for a civil war. Most jihadists are either Arab or Black (Malians) who are taking arms against their country but there's some foreign fighters but its the exact same as the ongoing situation in the Syrian civil war, with foreign people coming around the world to support jihad (al-Nusra Front). Also Tuareg specialists in Northern Mali are still Malian people turing against their own government which fits with a civil war. The title of this article the Northern Mali conflict is wrong, the whole situation doesn't take place just in the North, even tough fighting is mainly focused there. In January 2013, jihadists rebels reached as far as the town of Diabaly which is just 250 miles north of Bamako the capital of Mali which is located in the south. If you look on a map of the location of Diabaly you will see that's it's not atoll close to the North but actually in the South. During the Tuareg rebellion in 2012, on a few instances rebels attacked several army bases in the Ségou Region in central Mali according to the MNLA, which supports my claim that of having it be named the Malian civil war instead of the Northern conflict. I think enough people have died during this war with ranges of more than 1,000. It doesn't put a dent casualty toll wise, to the Syrian or Libyan civil wars but it's still a lot for a 21st century conflict. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 6 April 2013

I share this view although I think that it could also simply be named Mali War, or War in Mali, as with the amount of foreign involvement it's a little more than a simple civil war. It's more reminiscent of Afghanistan if anything. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I also share the same view with foreign involvement and jihad like Afganistan, but maybe if this continues for more than a year (Intervention) people would call it the War in Mali cause it's been going on for so long like Afganistan for 12 or so years. Also this is a little different because the Tuareg people in the North want to succeed from Mali and create their own state which would split Mali in half, this would fit more with a civil war. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 7 April 2013

Oppose - Hardly any sources call this a civil war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Oppose - This is flat out not a civil war. You could sort of call it a civil war for the North (and even then the term wouldn't really be used much as it doesn't really fit perfectly) but not for the whole of Mali. --Yalens (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

3 columns

User:Magneto616 (contributions) keeps changing the infobox from 3 columns to 2 columns, implying that MNLA and islamists are on the same side throughout entire conflict, but they were on the same side only during the first phase. --93.139.176.94 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed it back. I'll let him know about WP:3RR, and if he does it again I'll bring it to the noticeboard tell him to stop, I guess. Didn't notice they were more than 24 hrs apart. Still, thanks for getting involved and pointing it out. Ansh666 21:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (edited 01:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC))

Non-free file problems with File:ECOWAS Flag.png

File:ECOWAS Flag.png is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:ECOWAS Flag.png. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> France prepares to withdraw Mali troops>> France to cut troop numbers in Mali>> Germany sees bigger military role in Africa (Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

This conflict isn't over...

Just FYI everyone the peace deal collapsed after only a few months. [1] and the French are still in Mali, I think this should be marked as an ongoing conflict. Or should we start another article... I personally think we should just continue this one... --Kuzwa (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done marked as ongoing. Updated, box and lead, need to update rarticle. My focus now is on CAR and SS, so somoenone can focus hwere.(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 70 external links on Northern Mali conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Northern Mali conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Conflict is not over

The conflict is not over with hundreds of deaths since 2015. The page should be updated. Wykx (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I shall edit the content.GreyShark (dibra) 16:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)


Northern Mali conflict → Mali War – The article is outdated even in the title: fighting has long spread across the country, especially in the central region. According to The Telegraph: "Armed conflict broke out in northern Mali seven years ago but has recently spread into central regions of the country - despite the signing of a peace agreement in 2015.". Another sources: France 24 and International Crisis Group. The French Wikipedia naming the conflict "Guerre du Mali" (Mali War). 2804:431:B704:C7A1:F5D7:C9B2:8B16:882A (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

support: the war has spread to the Mali-Burkina Faso border.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Material copied to another Wikipedia page

Material from this page has been copied to the Wikipedia page 2010s political history.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing?

Why are post-2015 attacks on civilians considered part of the same war? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The two main belligerents are the same from the start of the war, Malian Army vs Ansar Dine (now part of the JNIM), even if in 2015 peace accords were signed between MNLA and Mali.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Mali Civil War or Mali War

@TimothyBlue: you requested the page to be moved to Mali Civil War. That conflict may be civil war but no one calls it a civil war, see WP:COMMONNAME. By the way, it is rather an insurgency, since the "rebels"/jihadists do not really control territories. Can I request the return to Mali War? --Le Petit Chat (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Reply: Hi Le Petit Chat, I don't have any objection to a better name. Mali War seemed far too generic per PRECISE, but if there is something that meets both PRECISE and COMMONNAME, that would be ideal. Right now there is a redirect from Mali War >> Mali Civil War; I was going to work on making Mali War into a DAB, but will wait until there is a consensus. I'm not a page mover, so I can't reverse it, but if you wish to request a page move to a better name, please do. Thanks for your input, and my apologies for not starting a discussion before requesting the move, I wrongly assumed the move would be straightforward. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  00:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @TimothyBlue: Hi. (First at all, I would like to apoligy for my rough style above.) I disagree about the fact that the Mali War should be named Mali Civil War. To take a comparison, no one will call the Vietnam War "Vietnam Civil War". The Mali War is rather similar to the Tuareg rebellions (for the 2012-2013 part) or to an insurgency, such as the Allied Democratic Forces insurgency. Would you oppose a request for changing the name back to Mali War, with a redirect from Mali Civil War to Mali War? --Le Petit Chat (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Name

I don't know who thought Mali Civil War was an ingenious name, everywhere it's mentioned it's called Guerre du Mali, from FranceInfo to L'express to most French-speaking newspaper. This isn't a case of a proper civil war, more of an international fight against Islamist groups like the War in Afghanistan, and although Azawad separatists are present they are definitely not the main focus of the war. ~~Omir Laa~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omir Laa (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


Mali War → Malian Civil War – Mali is the name of country, and malian is its demonym so i think it’s more appropriated to move to this name Ridax2020 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ridax2020 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, per nom. Seems reasonable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mali War would be a better name. Wowzers122 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and revert to Mali War.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The proposed move is a technical change that is an improvement on the current title. Whether or not it should be at "Mali War" is a different question that could be considered separately. (English sources seem to prefer conflict over War but war.) CMD (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The article was moved without discussion to "Mali Civil War" should return to the status quo ("Mali War") and a new requested move should be started. --Fontaine347 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree Ridax2020 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RELISTING NOTE there is clear consensus not to use the current name of Mali Civil War, but no consensus yet between "Mali War" and "Malian Civil War". As the page was previously moved by RM to "Mali War", I am moving the page back to that title, while leaving this discussion to move to Malian Civil War open. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep the title "Mali War". It is the title used in French Wikipedia and in several French-speaking sources. It is not just a civil war, but mainly an international fight against jihadist groups in Mali. --Fontaine347 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As there are many international mission which is involved in such as AFRICOM, UN, EU, and African Union, we cannot think this as "civil war". There are some example that includes "civil war", which are mainly between domestic groups but other countries involved in. (e.g. Syrian civil war) But we should think about common name. If Mali civil war is common name, then we can use the term "civil war" -- 06:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 웬디러비 (talk • contribs)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Outdated and inaccurate data in section of Belligerents

In the section "Belligerents" are outdated informations. The Tuareg separatists are no longer united only by the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad is a member of a coalition called the "Coordination of Azawad Movements", in which (according to an article on the English wikipedia about CMA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Azawad_Movements) is not only MNLA, but also: The High Council for Unity of Azawad (HCUA) The Arab Movement of Azawad (MAA) The Coordination of Patriotic Resistance Movements and Forces (CMFPR) The Coalition for the People of Azawad (CPA). The "Result" section reads: "Ceasefire signed on 20 February 2015 between the Malian government and the Coordination of Azawad Movements [70]", so it also follows from this article that the Tuareg separatists are de facto represented by the CMA and not just the MNLA, so I think it would be more accurate if the Coordination of Azawad Movements were written directly in the "Belligerents" section instead of the MNLA, which is only one organization from the whole coalition. Second point: in the "Belligerents" section it is still written: Islamic Movement of Azawad (MIA), while according to a French article on the wikipedia about MIA (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouvement_islamique_de_l%27Azawad) this movement was official dissolved on 19 May 2013 and its former members joined the High Council for the Unity of Azawad (HCUA) (one of the organizations that is also a member of the CMA). Thus, the MIA should be removed from the "Belligerents" section, as it no longer exists.--Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Lithuanian presence

It seems at least Lithuanian military presence is not acknowledged under MINUSMA members. The list needs a look through, there are probably others. 78.62.14.179 (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sweden has pulled out

Multiple other nations is also pulling out, update is needed 2001:2040:C00F:15E:0:0:2:2A6B (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Ifoghas

The article for the Battle of Ifoghas was expanded hugely by User:Che1999galleani, and while the info seems to be very in-depth, there is, frankly, too much info there. There are excessive citations, huge paragraphs, and some info that may not be particularly necessary, so it might need some cleanup. I'll work on it in some time but others may need to participate, there's a lot - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 14:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Information overload in the infobox

What is going on with the infobox here? I can't for the life of me understand why it's necessary to list every head of state and government of every single state involved in the UN peacekeeping mission or in ECOWAS. If you open the "show" sections, the infobox expands to take up the entire length of the article. What information are we even attempting to communicate with this? --Grnrchst (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Lord you're right, I'm gonna try to trim that real quick - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 01:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

German military is withdrawn supposedly because of Russian merecenaries last year

Please read this article: German military mission to Mali suspended – DW – 08/12/2022

It seems like the info listing their supposedly current activity in Mali needs to be withdrawn. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ [8]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mali_War/Archive_1&oldid=1188566685"