Talk:Operation Serval

Deletion

... Why should this be deleted? --Lawman (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur, I propose reintegrating with the Northern Mali conflict page short of deletion. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is common to have pages for military operations, separately from the conflict page. Where is the problem ? 93.22.224.162 (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Operation Harmattan also has it's own individual entry although part of the wider Libya conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Harmattan stephlamy —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost all French and foreign major military interventions have their Wikipedia page. Besides, given that any major operation involves large stakes and important military means, this dedicated article appears completely relevant. — OZGoodwood (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No 2eme REP

The 2eme REP is not in Mali (yet). The 2eme REP was in Alerte Guépard but this Alerte ends on January 15 and has to be replaced by the 2nd RIMA so this is the 2nd RIMA which will come to Mali.

So far from the Legion, only the 1st REC is present in Mali.

source

http://www.opex360.com/2013/01/12/quelles-sont-les-unites-de-larmee-de-terre-engagees-au-mali/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.206 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 

French numbers

Do we have any stats on French forces committed yet? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Helicopter was not down!

Lieutenant Boiteux was killed by rifle shooting on his Gazelle but the aircraft was not destroyed in the process. He managed with his copilot to reach base, was evacuated to hospital where he died. However two other Gazelle were damaged indeed.

source http://lemamouth.blogspot.fr/2013/01/une-bande-qui-en-dit-long-mais-pas-tout.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.206 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the pilot was injured, but the crew managed to get the helicopter to the base. 90.57.92.62 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The source is actually real clear, the other pilot did managed to get the helicopter back to base but it was so seriously damaged that it was written off as lost. Read the source. EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, thank you for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.93.165.206 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Afd message

It is problematic for the high number of readers seeing this high profile, ongoing article to see that Wikipedia is thinking of "deleting" coverage when the actual discussion is about merging, not deleting, the content into Mali conflict. Think normal people, not wiki insiders. I've customized the Afd message as best I could to reflect what we're actually discussing in plain English terms. NE Ent 11:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC) See also AN discussion NE Ent 11:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Should Mali be listed w/France in the belligerents table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.193.141 (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

They should be yes something for you to do! only joking but seriously if you could do it please. Tomh903 (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that Operation Serval only refers to the French (and French-allied) mission in Mali, not the general war (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Mali should probably be put into the "Supported by" section. JoeWang4 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You have a point but seeing that the mission is to support the Mali goverment I personally think that it should stay in the belligerents section. Tomh903 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Action picture?

Could someone please upload a picture of French troops on the ground please?Tomh903 (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomh903 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I was thinking the one photo there is of the troops can be put into the box, and the map can be moved below and blown up nice and big. I will do it right now, and if anybody objects just revert it.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaza

"to which Israeli UN ambassador, Ron Prosor responded at the UN Security Council debate, "If Mali is on France’s doorstep, Gaza is in Israel’s living room.""

What does this have to do with the current intervention in Mali? Is this the official government reaction? What is the position of the Israeli government? This is nothing but a quip, and it is neither related to Mali, nor a reaction, nor a position, nor anything. If the Israeli government has given a statement what it thinks about the intervention in Mali, put that in. Don't put in architectural discussion. noclador (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

noclador - it is a reaction to serval, pronounced by the ambassador at the UN hearings discussing serval. what about that do you not understand? this was israel's official state reaction. what is not clear? and, this is not your page - you do not own it. so please, do not remove it. really, be nice. Soosim (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help you if you willingly quote wrongly from the source! You say this was at the "UN Security Council" debate; well it was NOT the one on Mali, but the "UN Security Council’s monthly open debate on the Middle East." So it was a comparison of some event in Africa with Israels situation to score points in a UN debate about another topic! And the quote continues "We only ask that France and all the countries who are supporting its principled stand today, support Israel tomorrow when we fight Islamic terrorism on our borders.” You're violating NPOV here by quoting selectively and liking unrelated debates/topics! Please stop to add this mis-presented, wrongly attributed, unrelated quip! I have replaced your quip now with the Israeli Prime Ministers take on the events.

Result

With French, Malian and other African troops now in control of all major cities is the result can still be qualified as only "ongoing"? At least this should be mentioned as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.32.37 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Russian

The Russians have not in any way aided the intervention in Mali. What The Economist writes is erroneous. The French Military doesn't know of this Russian planes too, or maybe they just forgot to list them when they listed all aviation support given to France: [1]. Back in January the French Foreign minister said that Russia had offered planes, but either the French never took up the offer or the Russian government never formalized it, because the only Russian plane that flew to Mali was loaded with "36 tons of aid, including 45 tents, 2,000 blankets, canned food, cereals and rice." [2]. So, Russia is not in any way involved in Operation Serval. noclador (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This source quotes the French foreign minister as confirming that Russia early on offered to transport troops - not just humanitarian aid. Follow this up with The Economist stating that "Russia helped fly in French troops earlier this year" and it is quite clear that the sources add up to support this specific Russian assistance. Why would TE mention this if it were not true? Why would this assistance not be more publicly acknowledged? Perhaps the French are embarrassed to publicize it. Perhaps the French & Russians just don't want to make an open fuss of it. I don't know; but there is nothing to suggest that this is a lie IMO.Fotoriety (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read your source carefully you will note that it says that "Russians have proposed", it does not say they did. And in fact Russia did not send any planes to transport French troops. It is not a lie, the French have been constantly releasing press releases about who is adding them and Russia was not mentioned once. However Ukraine was mentioned as the Russian chartered there planes. Until now the only source that says the Russian flew in French troops is the Economist, nobody else says that the Russians actually did that! (If you check for sources you will see that all other always just say that the French Foreign Minister said the Russians offered that, but nowhere it says that a Russian government official did say this and with the exception of the Economist nobody mentions any Russian plans flying materiel or troops to Mali). --noclador (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All sources I can find speak of one Russian plane with humanitarian supplies [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. What the Economist could mean is maybe that besides hiring the civilian Ukrainian cargo-airline Antonov Airlines for transport of heavy equipment, the French also used the Russian civilian cargo-airline Volga-Dnepr for the same purpose, which has a standing agreement with NATO to support strategic NATO airlift missions (SALIS contract). However I can tell you right now and 100% for sure that the Russian government did not send any Russian government or military planes to support the French! Using a civilian airline from Russia doesn't mean that the Russians are involved in Mali, Ukraine is also not listed in the "supported by" section as the French only used a civilian airline from there. noclador (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you're right, quite simply if you want to lease heavy lift the only option are soviet planes (either Russian or Ukrainian), there is no civilian C-5 galaxy or C-17 you could use instead. France's Transall are too small and too few, and the Airbus A400M aren't there yet. Aesma (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent potential source

There is a fascinating report from the RAND corporation which could and should definitely be used to improve this page. I don't have time to expand right now, but I encourage anyone interested to read the report. The paper is public and free to download through this page: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR770.html Salaco (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Serval. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140116072639/http://www.startribune.com/world/202715891.html to http://www.startribune.com/world/202715891.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)