Template talk:Campaignbox Mali War

War crimes don't happen during war?
In, my addition of International Criminal Court investigation in Mali to this template was reverted.

The stated reason "This is a campaignbox for military operations and battles" is not very convincing. Military operations and battles very often include war crimes. That's the whole point of the ICC's existence.

The template presently includes:
 * In Aménas - this is either as a civilian crime or a war crime - it's clearly not a legal military operation (though Algerian military most likely were involved).
 * Tuareg rebellion (2012) - this is a general article about a military/political takeover of half the country, not just a physical battle. The article includes a section "Human rights situation."
 * Aguelhok - includes a section "Executions" which has nothing to do with legal military operations or battles. It was a mass extrajudicial execution.
 * EUTM - is about training. To quote the article lead: "EUTM Mali will not be involved in combat operations in the north of the country."
 * AFISMA - is about a project to send regional soldiers to Mali. It's not about a battle or military "operation" (meaning actual killing).

So I don't understand the removal of the link International Criminal Court investigation in Mali from this template. Excluding war crimes from the template seems to be in opposition to the reliable sources - the Mali government, FIDH, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the ICC claim that war crimes are part of the conflict - not something to be hidden. Boud (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * exists for "quick navigation among the battles in a campaign, theatre, or war". I think it is appropriate to include military operations and missions. However, I do not think it is appropriate to include other articles related to the conflict. That would be what is for. – Zntrip 06:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boud that EUTM Mali and AFISMA are clearly not "battles in a campaign, theatre, or war", so I'm also not seeing why the ICC investigation was removed and not those. I think it makes the most sense to gather major topics of the conflict in one navbox. If the guidelines call for the title thus to be changed to "Template:Navbox Northern Malian conflict" instead of "Template:Campaignbox Northern Mali conflict", I'm happy to do the page move. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO the reliable sources generally describe the conflict as being a lot more than just a series of military battles, and this is reflected in our present set of articles, including the ones that are specifically listed in the "campaignbox" - as I've summarised above. (To add one clarification: hostage-taking is (legally) not part of a battle - it's either a civil crime or a war crime. Prisoners-of-war are not hostages - they have many rights.) It seems to me we probably have consensus for moving from Template:Campaignbox to Template:Navbox - this is justified from the sources and from common sense. The political/human-rights reorganisation - Malian political groups and parties and institutions, including Tuareg groups now calling for limited autonomy, are reorganising, and political-military relations/reputations are reorganising, human rights institutions (monitoring etc) are reorganising - these are all part of the resolution or continuation of the conflict. These are points easy to find in reliable sources, especially FIDH/HRW/AI/ICC public documents.
 * Are there any objections to moving from Template:Campaignbox to Template:Navbox? Boud (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objections on creating a Template:Navbox, but I highly disagree on moving Template:Campaignbox to Navbox. Campaignbox should stay separate from Navbox. Navbox can include criminal investigations, political events, articles on the consequences of the conflict, international reactions, battles, etc. While per Wikipedia procedure Campaignbox includes exclusively a list of all battles and military operations during the war. For examples look at all other Wikipedia war articles which have separately both a Campaignbox and a Navbox. In response about EUTM Mali and AFISMA, I also agree they are not really military operations and thus I was going to remove them as well. However, I have no objection to including them in the Navbox. In Aménas was a militant operation conducted by one of the parties in the conflict. Wether you regarded it as a crime is totally your right to a POV, but it doesn't really count on Wikipedia. The fact is one of the warring sides instigated an attack which resulted in clashes and that's that. Tuareg rebellion (2012) is there to be a sort of separation line to distinguish between the different phases of the conflict, and which battles corespond to which phase, look up Syrian civil war for this. Aguelhok was a battle, which also included a massacre at the end, but the massacre was only part of the battle. So it WAS a battle however you try to spin it. As for the criminal investigations article, I really have no idea in which way you saw it being part of the campaignbox which is exclusivly reserved for battles/actions/clashes/operations. But, like I said, feel free to add it to the Navbox. At this point, Zntrip and me are for the creation of a separate Navbox. Khazar2 is ether for the creation of a separate Navbox or the rename of this Campaignbox to Navbox. And only you Boud are exclusivly just for the rename. So, I think it would be a fair compromise solution to create a separate Navbox, which, like Khazar2 said, would include all topics on the conflict. And leave the campaignbox as it is, but of course removing the training missions from it as was said. EkoGraf (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is some confusion here between my POV and between RS'd external POVs. My apologies for not giving enough details.
 * Ekograf, you wrote, "In Aménas was a militant operation conducted by one of the parties in the conflict. Wether you regarded it as a crime is totally your right to a POV, ...". Are you denying that it was an incident of hostage-taking? The RS's are unanimous on this point. And what is the RS POV on hostage-taking?
 * hostage-taking: Rome Statute "Article 8.2. For the purpose of this Statute, 'war crimes' means: ... (a) Grave breaches ... (viii) Taking of hostages." This is the POV of the States that ratified the treaty under which the ICC exists, i.e. it's part of international law - a result of more than a century of legal and human rights debate by many individuals, organisations and states. It is not just "Boud's POV".
 * You also wrote, "Aguelhok was a battle, which also included a massacre at the end, but the massacre was only part of the battle." The sources are (at the moment) unanimous in saying that about 100 Malian soldiers were executed after they had surrendered. What is the RS POV on this?
 * Rome Statute "Article 8.2. For the purpose of this Statute, 'war crimes' means: ... (b) (vi) (vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;" Again, this is international law, it is not just "Boud's POV".
 * No original research is required in these cases - there is no dispute by mainstream Western media (or other RS's) that hostages were taken, and there is no dispute from mainstream Western media (or other RS's) that at Aguelhok there was a massacre of soldiers who had surrendered.
 * So including In Aménas as "a battle" is original research - removing it from the Campaignbox is a question of respecting the Rome Statute as RS'd international law. Including "Battle of Aguelhok" as "a battle" means including an article which at the moment consists of roughly a half-half mix of a battle and a war crime, so it's roughly as much about something beyond the topic of "battle" as about the battle itself.


 * I am not the author of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - please do not suggest that it is just my POV. Boud (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Listen Boud, I never denied that there was massacre or a hostage-situation. And I wasn't starting a debate on the legalities of it. But if you would check all the other modern-day war articles on Wikipedia you would see those kinds of militant operations and massacres have also been allowed in the campaignboxs, because they were in one way or another an operation of one of the involved parties which involves, as you bluntly put it, actuall killing. For example of massacres included in campaignboxs look up Syrian civil war and for example of hostage-taking operations included in campaignboxs look up Afghan war 2001 or the Iraq war. Those types of armed incidents are allowed in the campaignboxs because that's the nature of todays modern conflicts. However, a legal investigation has no place in a campaignbox. Its place is in the navbox. So, like I already said, you have my full backing to create a navbox and put whatever related to this conflict you want in it. But, campaignboxes are exclusively reserved for armed incidents in a conflict. So, I would urge you to follow up on the compromise solution which I proposed. Creating a separate navbox. I will myself help you with it if you want to. EkoGraf (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)