Template:Vital article

Terrorist?

I think the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" should not be used in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.166.33.242 (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Library of Congress

I agree this is a very extensive article with a lot of good information. However, like the person said before, the majority of the information was taken from the Algerian Country Studies page from Library of Congress. And although it is free for public use, Library of Congress asks in the FAQ's section that, "appropriate credit be given to the series." It's important to remember that a lot of time and effort went into gathering and researching the information presented on Library of Congress. Therefore, in order to properly acknowledge LOC, it's important to include quotes around the quoted passages.

Nogin001

An excellent article, at least from the point of view of someone whose knowledge of the subject is limited to having watched Pontecorvo's movie "The Battle of Algiers" 35 years ago. But one point: it draws extensively, which is to say quotes long passages more or less verbatim, from http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/alpha/algeria1954.htm. I don't know if this is a copyvio, since I don't know the ins and outs of copyrighting sites of that sort, but someone who does may want to address the issue. In addition, some persons mentioned in the text, such as Abbas, are not properly identified; other references, such as ALN, have to be guessed at. This is probably a side effect of borrowing. Italo Svevo

Much of it was copied from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html, which is "is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers". All US Government sites are public domain unless otherwise stated. --Jiang 00:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is this accurate?: "The most notable manifestation of the new urban campaign was the Battle of Algiers, which began on September 30, 1956, when three women placed bombs at three sites including the downtown office of Air France." Is it not true that prior to these bombings, the FLN had been assasinating French policemen and the French retaliated by detonating a bomb in the Casbah (killing civilians along, along with their FLN targets). Also, I've heard that of the three bombs, the one at Air France failed to explode. True? 68.156.53.188 20:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)Reply[reply]


issues

L'infobox découpe l'issue du conflit en plusieurs parties (victoire militaire/ politique) je suis désolé mais on ne découpe pas une guerre et en l'occurence une revolution en plusieurs issues distinctes et indépendantes les unes des autres. Comment on peut parler de victoire militaire francaise quand l'adversaire (FLN) ne lutte pas pour un but militaire, mais comme pour toute guerre dite revolutionnaire et assymetrique, pour un objectif politique.

A partir de la la conclusion selon laquelle on assiste a une "victoire militaire" francaise n'est absolument pas pertinent et vrai.

J'edite donc en consequence (Sam9)

Please write in English and stop removing sourced informations without consensus. Blaue Max (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the language.The infobox cut after the conflict into parts (military victory / policy).I'm sorry but we do not cut a war and in this case a revolution in several distinct and independent from each other. How we can speak of French military victory when the opponent (FLN) does not fight for a military purpose, but as with any known war and revolutionary Asymmetrical for a political objective.From the conclusion that there has been a "military victory" French is absolutely not relevant and true. My correction is fully justified (sam9)
This is a personal point of view. Wikipedia does not publish original research per WP:OR. Please don't edit the article until a consensus is reached here. Blaue Max (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Absolutely not, it is the fact of cutting a conflict in victory or defeat political / military and diplomatic might add, mediatic etc which is a debatable point en WOR. And your point of view has no concensus from a historical point of view. Both the speaking of French military victory (this is a point of view but not french military history and contradicted by historical and academic sources), and also the fact compartmentalize and separate a conflict of this kind in many different aspects. And besides no conflict or revolution has been divided into presentation on wikipedia policy issue + military or otherwise. So I return to my anterior Correction. (sam9)
I warned you on your talk page that you have started an edit war and broken the rule of the 3 reverts WP:3RR. I also reported you to the admininistrators for pushing your point of view and for breaking a consensus established several times here and here. As you act with the same disdain of Wiki rules and on the same favourite article than banned user Historian Student (and its numerous sockpuppets), you may face an additional sockpuppetry investigation. Blaue Max (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but my statement was based on an argument that I have previously stated in the discussion page of the articleTalk:Algerian_War#.22complete_success.22_and_.22_attacks_effectively_stopped.22. You did offered no serious argumention, apart tell me will you go to complain to WP. This is not serious. And there is no consensus on it. I think it is you who want to impose a pseudo concensus devoid of any reasoned debate. (sam9)

"complete success" and " attacks effectively stopped"

In the introductory text it is written: "Although the military campaigns led against Algerian nationalists were complete successes, with most prominent FLN leaders killed or arrested and terror attacks effectively stopped," However, the three members are each false and not sourced. 1) The fact that the French military companions were a complete success recess is wrong. And clearly not serious. The ALN army has been greatly weakened in men and munitions but retains half of its 1958 employees until the end of the conflict ( http://hpics.li/06fd0b0 http://books.google.fr/books?id=be9xestT67sC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false )...2) That the principal of the historic FLN leaders were killed or arrested does not contradict the fact that they are replaced refutes the "complete success" of "1)" ... 3) The terrorist and military activity of ALN never stopped until 62 (except in Algiers after the Battle of Algiers, but absolutely not in the rest of the country). (sam9)

Most of (remaining) ALN employees after Challe plan were expelled to tunisia and morroco until negociations with france (your table show it) and weren't a military threat anymore.
There is probably a residual military and terrorist activity but no major action or battle (political fight at UN started)
I reworked the sentence :
"Although the successfull military campaigns greatly weakened nationalists militarily, majority of them killed or expelled from algeria with most prominent FLN leaders killed or arrested and terror attacks effectively stopped..."

Sachaton (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not an expulsion of effectiffs inside outwards. The "armée des frontieres" existed before challe plan. His initial target was to supply weapons and man from inside the bush but with the installation challe + maurice lines , this army was blocked on the outside and was strengthened by recruiting among local Algerian populations ( Algerian refugees in Tunisia) ..
However these are some leaders who were forced into exile on the outside without being able to come back, but it's not the "armées des frontieres" of it even army who was expelled, she has strengthened locally because lines Challe / Maurice
Regarding activtité rebel, after the challe plan, it is inconestable that it declined sharply in terms of guerrilla maquis, but was "offset" by attacks urban guerrila / terrorism including in Algiers, which explains that military losses (included French gendarmerie remain significant after the challe plan).
Accordingly activate and urban terrorism ("fida"), never as strong as that after the Challe Plan, precisely because of the weakening of the maquis..--*sammy* (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not totally okay with it but let's keep this wording, it seems neutral to me and better not to be too accurate here... Sachaton (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro

To Sachaton,

Thank you to avoid deleting sourced and significant passages to understanding the conflict by non-sourced version, and notes that a "interpretation" of the author and personal wrong. I explained how just above this discussion why. Thank you to respond to the argument by argument, not by vandalism, thanks. --*sammy* (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To sammy, last time we told you, stop this edit war, no place for nationalism here thx --Sachaton (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Sachaton...Again, you vandalize content without justification. Except personal invective, you have no argument or debate. I have already explained how the previous Correction was completely justified and I will repeat it once again for you:
First, talk about "military victory" absolutely been no historical consensus including among the french historians. Not that the superiority of the French army in the field are challenged, this is not the challenge. But it is absolutely disputed that to reduce by 30% or 40% the size of a guerrilla and structurally weaken its capacity (until the cease-fire has never stopped fighting qed) be considered a "military victory". But this is not even essential and I will explain why.
Because, secondly, we not speak of a classic conflict between two states or conventional armies but a war of decolonization and Asymmetrical type and "revolutionary." But in a war and revolutionary asymmetrical kind the objective of the struggle is not military but essentially political, and when talking about politics it is about winning its cause the masses. The challenge from the outset is absolutely no military, so unless whether satisfy some personal pride of some, the process is cut into infobox in this period politque appearance or military or diplomatic or other is absolutely not justified and not subject to any historical or academic consensus.
Now, I ask you to refrain from your edits without justifcations, otherwise I would have to report your behavior will find that each of which is closed devoid of any argument--*sammy* (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the "first" There's a consensus [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. "Secondly", that's your POV. "A war is a war" regardless of the conflict. Keep calm, check others discussions about the intro and infobox. --Sachaton (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First: No there is absolutely no consensus: while even the large-scale military operations could not deliver complete military victory and, crucially, there was no evidence of a mass rallying of the Algerians to France...Whereas if their opponents fail to achieve a decisive military victory...this is what sources say you just give me myself. You're not even agreements with your sources because they say the opposite of what you say. Secondly No it is not a pee and " war is war " is not an argument. I already explained that it is not a conventional war but a global revolutionary conflict. This is not a pov and evidence and you will find no such conflt or infobox cut after victory / defeat political / military / diplomatic or other, it is this division which is a pov. The infobox it reacts exclusively to the facts, not the opinion of this or that. As the outcome of evian agreements are a proven fact, ndépendance is a fact, the exodus of pieds noirs is a proven fact that notice the rest is non-consensual and staff.--*sammy* (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also note that you also vandalized the introduction by imposing a version of which was to demonstrate that it is the Wrong on several pointsTalk:Algerian_War#.22complete_success.22_and_.22_attacks_effectively_stopped.22. Always with your same method that is to say pass the strength to change what you do not like a person without coming argument or explanation, vandalism as everyone can see. Obviously this type of method does not.--*sammy* (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obsiously don't like the previous consensus, but aggressively force your POV vandalizing doesn't contribute to the free encyclopedia. I'm a poor french speaker but I can understand that you already tried such edit war on french version and this method never pay. Respect other's contribution and start a true discussion about a new neutral infobox info --Sachaton (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat, you invent an imaginary consensus, even the sources you cite to prove your consensus affirm the opposite of what you say. So no concensus on the contrary.Then you delete a paragraph that is sourced and disputed by anyone other than you. When I ds you do vandalism is really the appropriate word. Finally, contrary to what you said, I do not speak in the French version of the article and not in the infobox ...So I ask you to contribute positively to this page and stop your useless edit war--*sammy* (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Restoring previous version isn't vandalism... You r the one who force edition... Sachaton (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imposing the return at an earlier version that has been shown to be false, not sourced or poorly sourced and impertinence, without even coming to argue on the merits but by inventing imaginary consensus and cursing his interlocutor is vandalism in the most manifest form. I note also that this is your umpteenth operation without substantive argument.--*sammy* (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is more detail, analysis of the historian specialist of the Algeria war on Guy Pervillé about organizational situation of the ALN after Challe plan (after 1960): In the months following the execution of the Challe Plan continued, but without decisive effect. The indoor ALN adapted itself by reconstructing networks in the regions "pacified" and in large cities; it resumed contact with the staff of the ALN outside through clandestine channels of the Federation of France FLN. The announcement of the future "Algerian Republic" by General de Gaulle (speech of November 4, 1960), then the Muslim sporting events Algerian flags and calling for negotiations with the Provisional Government during his trip of 9 to 13 December in Algeria désorientèrent most officers: some deserted, or remained in the army to prepare a "putsch". [7]...You can, if you have any doubts you address the competence of G. Pervillé and you will see how it has an undeniable specialist and recognized the issue. Again the alleged consensus you mentioned are nowhere among the specialists of the algerian war.--*sammy* (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about this one? I copypasted "The vote" section from "évian accords", keeping some of your contribution.
I'm not telling that your refs are not valuable, but mostly unconnected.
I'm trying to change the infobox to get something more neutral but I'm pretty sure that another edit war will start with another wiki contributor... Sachaton (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French army controlling the territory
but FLN political victory
Évian Accords
Seems better to me Sachaton (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The initial version is more balanced as it is limited to the facts (evian, independence) and not the opinions or proclamations proved not unanimous. Your proposal is just the fact that the military France militarily control most of the territory (after challe plan, but it is relevant to the infobox rather than to explain in more detail in the article?--*sammy* (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the history of the world, Algerian independance and evian accords are not very important but winning indenpendance without military success, show that after WWII public's opinion is now a main goal rather than controling a territory. That's why the original version specify the military victory, the infobox have been discussed serveral times. The proposition above is a good consensus, better than "military victory" or a removal. Sachaton (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015

(UTC)

It is a war / revolution of independence so the conclusion of this conflict through independence is essential. If it was a border war it would have been important to say in the infobox it was the fate of this border partner after the war. It's the same thing. In your proposal, even if I do not find it appropriate to clarify the political and military dimensions in the infobox, i found your last version more consensual and acceptable. But maintains independence as the result seems to me essential.--*sammy* (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care what happens here, but can sammy please use the "preview" button more before posting? A series of 5 or 6 rapid-fire small edits polluting watchlists is not a good idea. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you are right, you are right, i will use better preview before posting --*sammy* (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
French army controlling the territory
but FLN political victory
Évian Accords
-Algerian independence
-Exodus of the pieds-noirs

Seem correct like this for me Sachaton (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French army...,but FLN... and evian = résults part
+
independance of algeria = Territorial changes
? --*sammy* (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's correct for me Sachaton (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I closed my side to this debate on the infobox with this consensus--*sammy* (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

april referundum

Only to remind, that the object of this referendum is not about the fact to choose whether algére should be independent or not, but if the voters in France approves the ratification of the Evian agreements and they grant all powers to de Gaulle to implement them.--*sammy* (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casus belli

How can "FLN terrorism in French Algeria" be a cause for the 'Algerian War of Independence'? If anything it would a tactic within that war. Surely the cause is the French colonial rule.

Harkis

The numbers in the new harki section seem highly controversial:

"The term also came to include non-fighting Muslim Algerian who supported a French Algeria, as well as their families." - when? I've never seen it used that way, nor does harkis.com seem to use it that way.
"According to the United Nations, in 1962 there were 476,000 Algerian Muslim fighting for the French army, and 50,000 non-fighting Muslim overtly supporting a French Algeria (mostly Arab and Kabyle rich elite)." - can you point out an exact source? This contradicts even the harkis' own website, which gives 263 000 [1] - and ignores the fact that many harkis switched sides to the FLN before the end of the war.
"Including their families, they numbered at least 1 million, or about 10% of the total Algerian population." At most would be more accurate - can you cite any neutral sources for this figure?

- Mustafaa 18:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

photo of first press conference...

Can someone remove this photo? It has nothing to do with the Algerian war but represents nowadays Corsican independentists, FLNC meaning "front de liberation nationale de la Corse"

The starting date of this event is incorrect.

". The most notable manifestation of the new urban campaign was the Battle of Algiers, which began on September 30, 1956, when three women placed bombs at three sites including the downtown office of Air France."

Dear friends,

The events that generally constitute the Battle happened in 1957, not 1956. Although the date above for the bombings is apparently correct, (The quote seems to be from the LOC country study on Algeria.) The Battle for Algiers began On January 28, 1957 following the national strike.

Specifica dates of interest:

28 January: General strike begins in Algiers which is broken by the paras. 5 March: Larbi Ben M'hidi, FLN leader captured on 25 February, dies in custody. 21 May: Fall of the Mollet government. 29 May: An FLN commando unit massacres all the men in the village of Melouza who belong to the rival MNA. 12 September: Resignation of Paul Teitgen, secretary general for the police in Algiers, who protests at the torture methods used by the paras. 24 September: Head of the Algiers FLN, Yacef Saadi, is arrested in the Casbah.

The Battle of Algiers ends.

French Troops Clash With Algerian Civilians

This picture should be removed. It's a scene from Gillo Pontecorvo's "Battle of Algiers", not a real photo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22838-2003Sep3.html

French Resistance, and french criminals

AtiN: Your second and third additions only say in misspelled, ungrammatical and prolix English what was already present in good English. The first addition, concerning the French Resistance, is unsourced original research denying validity to a peripheral comparison, which was however sourced, and is even more irrelevant to the article. As for targetting civilians I do not recall much about it in general at the moment - are you saying they did not target German civilians? (dubious, false imho) - but it is not controversial and well-known that after the war, there was a lot of score settling by the French resistance that got out of hand and killed innocent people - another reason this does not belong in the article, in addition to being unsourced and not really relevant original research, it would take a lot of space to get right. Put it in the French Resistance article and debate it there. --John Z 05:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks John for your help in engish. The FFI never target civilians, even german civilian. The only murder reported is the murder of a german officier in permission. He was not in duty so he sould have been considered as a civilian. About the "réglements de compte", murder, women insulted just after the liberation it's not due to what we should consider as "resistant". Theses crims are crims of "resistants of the last minutes". But who consider resistants of the last minutes as resistants ?
FLN was a terrorist organisation. It's a fact, not an accusation.
A encyclopedic article must notice a difference between criminals and resistants. Please do not make the confusion. AtiN 14:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Europeans?

In 1954-1962, most "Pieds noirs" were born in Algeria, for a majority their parents were born in Algeria and sometime their grand-parents too.

The governor of California is born in Europe... Who consider Arnold Schwarzenegger as an european ? AtiN 21:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They were European citizens, whereas Algerian Muslims weren't.Palmiro | Talk 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First at that time there was no european citizenship.
But I'm OK with "french citizen"
We can not accept "europeans". "Pieds noirs" were not europeans there were north africans.
Jacques Verges is not an historian, nether a journalist, an analyst... Is an advocat and has a clair tendency to represent some of the most infamous defendants. Compare french administration in Algeria with german occupation of France by nazi has a nice effect in a TV show as Verges love it.... But has nothing to do in an encyclopedic article.
I don't know why but my revert didn't save the end of the article. I'll try to fix it with an other computer. Sorry about that. AtiN 21:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"French citizen" is actually what it says in the paragraph you were objecting to, so I don't see wy you reverted again. In any case, if you have one problem with a particular version, you should fix that rather than making a revert. On this basis, I've reverted back. Palmiro | Talk 15:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You right I sould fix the problem rather than make a reversion. I was too busy. Pieds-noirs were not europeans. American people are not europeans even if most of them are europeans descendents. I sure you are able to understand my point dispite my very bad english. AtiN 15:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Jacques Verges is gone. In English adjectives derived from proper nouns take a capital letter (majuscule) so Algerian is correct, and I changed 'flee' (actually the past tense is 'fled' back to 'left' because it seemed more neutral and less emotionally laden - the text implies that many of them left over a period of two years or so, which suggests that they weren't actually all fleeing. Palmiro | Talk 15:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In English adjectives derived from proper nouns take a capital letter. Thank you, I'm learning. And "muslim" is it a proper noum ?
About "flee" or "left" an encyclopedic article must respect a neutral POV. That doesn't means a neutral vocabulary. To flee mean to be force to left because of a danger. People can flee during years and years... I don't see that "two years or so" as a argument against the use of "flee". Between 1933 and 1939 jews left or fled germany ? I think it's more correct to say "fled". AtiN 19:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Muslim (and other adjectives of religion, such as Jewish and Christian) take capitals. I'm not convinced by your argument about fleeing, but I don;t plan to have anything more to do with this article as it's too far from my area of knowledge. Palmiro | Talk 16:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for your english teaching. I had a friend "pied noir", the son of a baker. He was born in Algeria, he's father was born in Algeria, all his familly was Algerian (most of them had ascendants from France). He was not a rich colon but a modest algerian French citizen. If you ask him "What is your country ?" He will answer "Algeria". I ask him why he never come back, even to visit. Too painfull he said. "You know it's too painfull for me to go back to my country and realise it's not my country anymore". He speaks fluently Arab. Not academic Arab but Algerian Arab. He had Muslim and non-Muslim friends. For him it did not make any difference.

I also had Algerian friends and they are able to understand that the offical version of the history teach in Algeria is far from the reality. Official history in Algeria teach that French in Algeria were like German in France during the second world war.

The reconciliation between France and Germany is done. But the reconciliation between Algeria and France is not already done. It will probably take more time. The time necessary to read together our common history.

Personnaly I would like that EU enlarge not only to Turky but also to the mediteraneans countries.

I think that French are closer to Algerian thant to Norvegian. I dream to the progressive transformation of EU to EMU (Euro-Mediteranean Union). United in the diversity.

Some people dream to a strong Arabic and/or Musulim union and in a choc of civilisation. Some people want a Christian UE. I don't.

i thought this ritcle was well written and it helped a lot with my school paper. I didnt like what that random person blabed about at the end. can you say anoying?

Thanks again for your talk and your help. AtiN 19:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Berbers?

What role did the Berbers play? Smmurphy(Talk) 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mitterand Quote Probably false

In Benjamin Stora's book La Gangrene et l'oubli (pg. 15 La Decouverte/Poche 1998) he quotes historien Charles-Andre Julien saying that the quote attributed to Mitterand "La seule negociation, c'est la guerre" ("the only possible negotiation is war" or whatever) is probably false. Julien couldn't find one witness to substantiate the quote. Also, the fact that the war was simply referred to as "les evenements" for decades in offical french discourse and that Mitterand himself is recorded as saying that they should avoid anything that could appear as a sort of state of war seems to confirm this. I think the quote, besides being quite probably fictitious, does misrepresent the dynamics of the wars beginning. Spetts 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)SpettsReply[reply]

Corrected, nine months later. Late is better than never. Tazmaniacs 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

video archives

I've added a link about official archive videos. It features censored material, interviews from both sides, official speeches, news archives etc. This is a great educational source indeed and could help the overview and understanding of this war. Type "guerre d'algérie" as search ("recherche") and you'll get hundreds of videos, you can search by years replacing "YYYY" ("AAAA") with the year, 1962. I've seen there is an English (and Chinese) version now but I don't think the video summaries are written in these languages. It could came later as the site just opened three months ago. The source is official and reliable as the National Audiovisual Institute (www.ina.fr). Hope it helps. Shame On You 14:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

neutralization of torture

The use of torture by the FLN is not mentioned, there's only one occurence about the Harki, while the term refers to the French army. However torture was in use in both sides, this was war. It's like the use of torture is not acceptable from the French but is acceptable from the independists (same happened with the US in Vietnam and Irak). Godard's 1960 "Le Petit Soldat" (which was censored until the war ended) depicts the use of torture in both sides as well. The current non-neutral treatment of torture must be fixed. Shame On You 14:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can not use torture even if it is war. Thats against human rights and rule of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.207.151 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet it's frequently used by any side in a war. What I find astonishing is that the Algerian insurgents used that many methods of the French resistance. --41.150.18.235 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

colons

the term "colon" is misused in the article. its use reveals a pro-Algerian view. Pied-Noirs were not colons but indigenous, Algeria was a French territory, legally won by war, since 1830 and most of them never went to France. that makes three or four generations living in French Algeria. By the 60s, the Pied-Noirs were not colons anymore but indigenous born from European roots (like the American or Australian citizens doesn't name "colon" themselves anymore, but still are from the native civilisations view), how can we name this in English? Actually the Pied-Noirs named "colons" the metropolitan French! Those who were not born in Algeria but who lived there (including militarymen, administrative, teachers, owners, etc), actually the metropolitans were richer than the Pied-Noirs. The metropolitan named the European indigenous "Pied-Noirs" and the Jews named them "the Pathos" for their catholic religion. the Muslim indigenous named "colons" as a pejorative term for all non-Arabs. Also it should be mentioned the European-origins indigenous, the Jews indigenous and the Muslisms did not lived together but in separate neighborhood cities. The Muslims lived in the outskirts in small towns named "village nègre" (English translation is easy) by the non-Muslim, the latter living in modern European style cities, by that time, Algiers was the 2nd French city after Paris. The communities were not isolated though as there were trading and civil relationship between European-origins and Jew-origins and Arab-origins Algerians. The Muslim Algerians kids went at French school with the Catholic Pied-Noirs and the Jew Pied-Noirs, and the adults worked for French companies, until nationalism and emancipation rose from the awareness of the colons defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and its retreat from Indochina. Hence this war was named Algerian War of Independence by the Arabs but Algerian War by the French. Actually, from the French point of view the Independence of Algeria would had been a cessession from the metropolitan territory involving the army, the Pied-Noirs, the Jews and the Muslims (like the US did vis-à-vis the British). The failed Generals coup d'état would had probably resulted in this situation. Also what the Free World names the "Vietnam War" is named "Vietnamese War of Independence" by the Vietnamese, which is true from their point of view the same way its true for the Algerians. Just naming the conflict from one or the other way indicates the point of view vis-à-vis the event, that's why I'm trying to neutralize the current article (understanding both points of view, except the French Communist pro-FLN fifth column). Shame On You 20:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinating. So...what is "legal" about a war of conquest? It was, and read this carefully: colonialism and imperialism that got the French into another's country: Algeria. The problem with the Pied-Noirs were that thet were in fact "colons", and NEVER viewed themselves as "Algerian", therefore they were never "indigenous", they were "French" and represented a French colonial outpost in Africa.66.77.107.100 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, no country of "Algeria" ever existed before 1830 (there were various Barbary states, but no unified Algeria), and for a time, only the ethnically European settlers called themselves "Algerians." The others were called Arabs, Muslims, Berbers, etc. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And actually war of conquest is legal. It falls under ius ad bellum. But that the anti-White faction tends simply to ignore as it is inconvenient. --41.150.18.235 (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it isn't legal under mordern international legislation. The White suptremacists always forget that. Guinsberg (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing info

prewar events

war events

new infos including video archives (with some never seen before rushes) are now released in france as the war was a long taboo and subject to censorship. the french version artricles about Algerian War, FLN etc are just stubs.

Shame On You 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

end of war

Historians disagree on the war's end according to the French army, Pieds-Noirs or Harkis POV. Some believe the war ended before the Evian Agreements and before the OAS entered the scene turning the French army and FLN as allies against this rebel faction. The current situation in France is no commemoration has been set for this war and there is no end of war celebration day. Further reading is requested. Shame On You 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

false statements

"most of the french were happy of de gaulles return" this is false! the vote was 329 for and 224 against, 3/5. the leftists (communist+socialist) were absolutely against, they feared that france turned into a fascist state, actually there were anti de gaulle protests in paris. the army corps in algeria, the gaullist in the metropole, the french algerian were for de gaulles return. until he didn't acted as expected, then a part of the army and some french algerian turned into the OAS and wanna kill him. Shame On You 06:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So "most" looks correct then since it was greater than 50%. Facius 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

marxist propaganda and picture manipulation

i have added a caption for the article's infobox picture and corrected the pictures summary: these French history events are confusing for our French historians who have materials, i wonder how foreigners can understand such complicated events with no background nor language understanding. Before it was the FLNC Corse picture, now these French barricade rioters confused with pro-FLN Muslims... Also having the OAS and France combatants in the same side is purely nonsense as the French government and OAS were deadly ennemies and absolutely not allies. Actually the FLN became France's ally against the OAS. This conflict was an independence war from 1954 until 1961 and became a civil war in 1962.
Muslims were not living in European style urban areas but in villages, also they were not dressed with European suits but traditional clothes and the women wore Burqa, knowing this cultural facts you can be sure this picture shot in the center of Algiers cannot possibly features Muslims.

Jews, Israel... What the point exactly?

"It was a period of guerrilla strikes, maquis fighting, terrorism against civilians on both sides, and riots between the French army, the European-Algerians (Catholics & Jews)—or the "colons" as they were called by the FLN"

First, this conflict was absolutly not a religiopus one. It was not about catholic but about French people. What the fuck is the catholicism doing here? In an other hand, reading this article, you have the impression that the jews had great importance in the war. But it was NOT a confessional conflict but a national one. Not about catholics, not about jewish, but about former Algerian, and French colons.

There is no "pieds noirs" in Algeria anymore, but lot of jews stayed. They stayed because they were here before the French invasion. The jews who left were the french jews: they don't left because they were jews but because they were french.

Secondly, this last paragraph about Israel and the Palestine is, I am sorry, completely creazy. There is absolutely no link between theses two conflicts. The Algerian one was a colonial war in which people were fighting invadors from an other country, the Israeli-Palestinian one is about two country on the same land, with problems of recognition and territory. You are trying to associate them, because French action in Algeria was absolutly indéfendable. So, stop your propaganda, and clean up this article.

I was told yesterday that wikipedia had serious problems about the actual mid-oriental conflict; I begin to understand why.

Agreed. I've thus taken the liberty to remove the whole paragraph, putting it here (just in case someone really wants to take the pain to argue its legitimity on this article). Tazmaniacs 00:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC):Reply[reply]
"==Influence on Palestinians and Israelis==

Palestinians, even more than other Arabs, followed the Algerian War of Independence with sympathy and regarded its victorious conclusion as a precedent applicable to their own liberation struggle. Following 1967, the efforts of Yasser Arafat's PLO to start a guerrilla campaign in the newly-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip were consciously inspired by the Algerian experience. Later, in periods of extreme hardship for the Palestinian population there was frequent mention of the extreme sacrifices which the Algerians had to make and which were ultimately vindicated by the achievement of independence.

The Algerian War entered the internal Israeli political and military discourse following the outbreak of the First Intifada in 1987. When Israeli forces started using harsh measures in an effort to break the Palestinian uprising, peace groups and left-wing parliamentarians pointed to the French Army's experience in Algeria as proving the futily of such methods. The film The Battle of Algiers, made back in 1966, was shown in Israel for the first time during the Intifada years, drawing considerable public attention and with critics often drawing explicit parallels with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

(This is mistaken. My Israeli wife went to see the film in West Jerusalem in 1984 or 85, some years before the Intifada. At about the same time, I was present at the first cinema screening in Arab East Jerusalem. The atmosphere, as can be imagined, was electric; nobody needed to explicitly point out the parallels.) RolandR 11:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the same time, Alistair Horne's book on the Algerian war was published in Hebrew translation, followed by the work of Raymond Aron. The IDF high command took the decision to distribute copies of Horne's book to all senior officers, a decision sharply criticized by right-wing parties as "defeatist".

Since the idea of evacuating Israeli settlers came on the Israeli public agenda following the Oslo Agreements, the evacuation of the Pieds-noirs is being frequently cited as a precedent.

For their part, the settlers and their political supporters deny the validity of the comparison, on the grounds that Algeria is separated from France by the Mediterranean while Israel and the West Bank are territorially contiguous, and also that Jews have a Biblical and Historical claim over the territory as the French in Algeria did not have. The main difference between the situations is that the French in Algeria still saw themselves as French and their motherland in France, while Jews are connected to Israel not through colonization but through their attachment to Israel itself. Israel will argue that it's exactly the opposite — the Arabs are the historical colonial power who seized the land of the indigenous people of the land of Israel. Israel argues that the Jews, continuously living in Palestine, are in no way strangers to the land.

During the public debate on the 2005 Gaza Disengagement, some well-known columnists criticized Ariel Sharon's decision to have each and every settler physically removed by army or police, and recommended instead the "de Gaulle Method" — i.e., withdrawing the army and leaving to the settlers the choice of remaining in the Gaza Strip or returning to Israel under their own power. The suggestion was, however, rejected out of hand by the Sharon Government.

At present, the history of the Algerian War continues to be frequently invoked in the ongoing political debate in Israel, with the prospect of further West Bank withdrawal and settlement evacuation high on the public agenda."

The parallel beetween algeria war and israelian-palestianian conflict does not respect the NPOV. Why? Because it would means that Israel is a stolen country. Everyone agree that Algeria WAS a stolen land (colonization is about solen land), while saying that Israel in itself is a stolen land is an ideological POV. Palestinian said they were doing the same than Algerian people because Algerian were anyway the "good ones" in the independance war. Then, it shouldn't be put as an evidence here. Sorry for my english, I'm actually French ;)

I am sorry but you dont have a point here. I dont understand how you can state that Algeria was a land stolen by the French. Given this, you have to follow with saying that United States is a land stolen by some colons to indian indigen people.

This is, in fact, the standard leftist position in the US-it is virtually uncontested in the educational system and the bulk of the media. What has to be remembered is that peoples have been migrating to lands occupied by others since long before there was recorded history. Conquest of one people by another is normal in the human species. A fairly recent example is the conquest of what is now South Africa by the Europeans and the Bantu. Both the Europeans and the Bantu displaced the indigenous Khoisan/Hottentot/Bushman peoples. Once the Europeans ruled South Africa, and now the Bantu rule it. Thus South Africa is also "stolen" land. Falange (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro & overview

I assume one need not creates an "overview" subsection which repeats the introduction. Hence, I've removed the overview subsection, and place it here in case any information is forgotten Tazmaniacs 00:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC):Reply[reply]

"The struggle was touched off by the FLN in 1954, shortly after the fall of the French Union at Dien Bien Phu and only two years before France gave up its control over its protectorates of Tunisia and Morocco. The war, which lasted until the March 18, 1962 Evian Accords, and the July 3, 1962 independence of Algeria, immediately followed the Indochina War waged against Ho Chi Minh. Although the war was mainly waged by the FLN, which had overshadowed more moderate parties such as Messali Hadj's Mouvement National Algérien (MNA, National Algerian Movement) or Ferhat Abbas's Union Démocratique du Manifeste Algérien (UDMA, Democratic Union of the Algerian Manifesto), the FLN and the MNA fought against each other in France and Algeria nearly for the duration of the conflict. The Algerian War was marked by the 1956 Suez crisis (France accused Nasser of supporting the FLN); Charles de Gaulle's return to power during the May 1958 crisis, when the French military opposed to Algerian independence threatened to launch Operation Resurrection, designed to overthrow the Republic, and the founding of the Fifth Republic; the April 1961 Generals' putsch in Algiers; and the scandal of the use of torture, systematized by the French army who set up most modern counter-insurgency techniques. Although most supported the war at its beginning, including Premier Pierre Mendès-France who had been elected on a program to put an end to the Indochina War, public hostility became stronger later on. Jean-Paul Sartre and the Jeanson network symbolized the opposition to the war, whether pacifist, anti-militarist or anti-colonialist."

"independantist"

"Independantist", which occurs several times in this article, is not a word in English. While the intended import of the word is generally clear enough, some editor with knowledge of the subject matter should substitute an appropriate word or phrase at each of its occurrences.MayerG 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

np, you can replace it by "communist" or "terrorist" :) Shame On You 01:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intro & Suez Crisis

Thanks a lot for the recent changes which have corrected factual mistakes concerning dates - these need close reading to spot! I just have a remark concerning the removal of the Suez crisis from the intro : isn't it suitable for the intro to include it, as it is an important historical event, on an international scale, which was related, in some way, to the Algerian War? The intro does needs reworking (as the article in general) but unless someone argues the Suez crisis was really peripherical to the Algerian War, I do think it should be included somewhere. Concerning the Library of Congress issue, the best would be to re-word and use other source, I think. In any cases, it is best to use WP:Footnotes for the article, but that is a little detail that we will fix later. Cheers! Tazmaniacs

All of History is linked and the causes of most events are found in other events. Link to the Suez Crisis but dont duplicate. State what its impacts were on the Algerian war and move on. Facius 15:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RETHINKING THE COLD WAR AND DECOLONIZATION: THE GRAND STRATEGY OF THE ALGERIAN WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

"U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower asked his National Security Council “whether such intervention would not mean war.” The council agreed that if communist regulars infiltrated Algeria, the United States would be bound by the North Atlantic Treaty to come to the aid of French President Charles de Gaulle and his beleaguered government. After six years of insurgency, Algeria appeared to be on the brink of becoming a Cold War battleground." looks like interesting :) haven't time to read it yet, maybe someone can have a look at it ans see if it contains relevant untold infos. Shame On You 01:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"do you want mers-el-kebir & algiers to become soviet bases as soon as tomorrow?"

this line is a quote from general challe's appeal to the french army's french algeria corps challe putsh appeal april 22 1961 Shame On You 10:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 moved to Algerian War, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to move this article to Algerian War, because it is the most common name in English for the war. Only a minority uses Algerian War of Independence. Carl Logan 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opening sentence calls it "Algeria War." Is it that or "Algerian War?" Please present further arguments for this move. Algeria War is common but it is also somewhat vague and, if unattested, may be recentism. —  AjaxSmack  01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you had bothered to check the edit history of the article you would have seen that the “Algeria War” was added yesterday by Paris By Night, a French user, that probably just inserted the direct translation of the French name for the war: “Guerre d'Algérie”.

A couple of books that uses the name “Algerian War” (they are many more):

Also a goggle search for “Algerian War” gets 207,000 hits, while a search for “Algerian War of Independence” only gets 49,100. Although a search of the “Algerian War” will of course also get hits on the sites using the “Algerian War of Independence”, so if we subtract the hits for the second from the first (207,000-49,100=157,900) the “Algerian War still has three times the hits of the “Algerian War of Independence”. Carl Logan 07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Settle down, Beavis. I wasn't opposing the move, just asking for more info. I found this myself although I have no idea if there is any widepread adherence to this position: "The war is often called 'Algerian War of Independence', a reflection of the idea that the Christian Europeans had no right to live in the country where they were born; this therefore is a racist term for the war. 'Algerian War 1954-1962' or 'Algerian Civil War 1954-1962' are neutral and adequate terms."[2] —  AjaxSmack  22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

^Propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.80.155 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

stupid sentence

i think this sentence is stupid "It left long-standing scars in French society, and still affects present-day France". what is it supposed to mean? didn't let it scars in algeria with x10 more dead than in france? each war let scars everywhere in the world since ever. this is stupid it should be removed. Paris By Night 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stupid? But the war in Cameroun (several tens of thousands of deaths) didn't affect France so much, neither did the Indochina War for that matter. The fact that archives are still classified forty years after the facts, that you see so much debate on this talk page from right & left wing on one side, pro-French & pro-Algerian on the other sides, show that few are able to be neutral concerning this issue. The very violence of your remarks demonstrate this. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst Tazmaniacs has often shown a less than moderate tone in his discussions I think he has point in this case. It seems that the struggle for Algeria (perhaps because it was seen as part of France) really did have effects that other places havent. Whether those scars run deep in white French children and young adults today i would strongly doubt. But in the older whites and Algerian Arabs I think he may be right. But you are right Paris by Night the other, then recent, wars will have scarred the French almost certainly far more. Tazmaniacs often accuses other people of violent remarks and makes his rejoinders overly personal, dont take it so, its just the way he is. Why he chooses to be this way about Algerian history in the English wikipaedia but almost completely silent in teh French one pases some questions too. It could be that his views are viremently rejected there by people who really know their subject. Facius 15:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though this sentence is often quoted, if not generated, by French politicians as an excuse for not opening the archives after such a long time. You can visit any pied-noirs' site to check that. Your impartiality proves contrary to your point too.

didn't let it scars in algeria with x10 more dead than in france? this is clearly not an honorable fact to boast of. Human misery should not be the subject of pride, on both sides. I saw some years earlier, on france 3, old french veterans who participated in the war shaking with trauma and tormented by deep psychological troubles, I sympathized with them notwithstanding my global view of the events.--Sayih (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to me the sentence should be modified to point out that the conflict left deep scars in both France and Algeria and affects both countries to this day. I don't know if I would choose the word stupid, but I do think the sentence right now is biased in pointing out the pain being felt by one side, and not mentioning that of the other when it would be so easy to recognize both. Parnellg (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

each war let scars everywhere in the world since ever. this is stupid it should be removed. Essentially you are saying that because this is a universal truth, it is therefore "stupid"? It is true that this war has shaped the identity of Algeria, in the workings of their politics, their relationship with France and the rest of the Maghreb. I don't understand how something being true not only in this country but throughout conflicts all over the world makes it stupid? It is true and it shouldn't be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.153.206 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This war let scars on both country because 1/ this war had never been declared so the laws of war hadn't been respected by all the sides. 2/ Unlike in indochina, it interested very much france: The soldiers were conscript (in indochina, the french political learders never engaged conscripts because nobody in france understood that war) and this war dramatically influence france political life. 3/ It let scars on the pieds-noirs and their descents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clems78 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources suggest possible bias

The sources/references list seems to be largely composed of articles from french newspapers. One the most quoted is the paper L'Humanité ("Humanity") which was formerly the daily newspaper of the French Communist Party (PCF), was founded in 1904 by Jean Jaurès, a leader of the SFIO socialist party it begs some questions about its neutrality as a principal source. It was only in 2001 that the paper became independent, but still maintains broad links with the PCF. It is even stated that the paper received subsidies from the USSR until 1990.

I am surprised at the small use of French government or French Army or ex-French Army sources. Is this a language issue with not enough translations available ? Facius 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for making us aware of the history of L'Humanite :) ! Please note however, before crying out to POV (and calling for military sources!), that most of these sources involve historians, which are a bit more reliable sources than militaries (see WP:Primary sources, secondary sources, etc.) Note 2, for ex., is an interview of Benjamin Stora, one of the leading French historian concerning the Algerian War. Note 28 on General Bigeard (concerning the torture controversy) is accompanied by notes 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, etc. by Le Monde, which is the most mainstream French newspaper. L'Humanite references concerning Jean-Marie Le Pen are similarly accompanied by Le Monde references. Don't you think you're making a lot of fuss for little? Have you actually read these articles before pretending they are POV? Tazmaniacs 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah Tazmaniacs good to see you back. Talking of reliable sources, do you have a better source for your comment on the use of Napalm than that it was depicted in a film made nearly 50 years after the events happened ?
Military sources ARE primary sources for these events, you may believe them biased and unreliable but that is your POV and its NPOV is what i am questioning. Historians (as you know from the french) weave a narrative around the facts they choose to use. They do not know the truth. To ask the organ of the communist party to comment independantly on a conflict where it was violently engaged on one side is at best unreliable in many aspects. It is the role of this encyclopaedia to write all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. It is good that you are now putting in wider sources and many of them are now ones that can be accessed if not understood by readers of this wikipaedia. You silence in the French one is deafening. Facius 15:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from the Viet Minh reeducation camps to the Arzew Psychological Warfare School

The "école de guerre psychologique d’Arzew" near Mostaganem, French Algeria was a psychological warfare academy ("une école de formation des cadres sur la guerre psychologique"). Most of the teachers were Indochina veterans who had experienced the Viet Minh reeducation camps from which 3/4 of the French Union POWs died or disappeared (especially the south vietnamese). These veterans experienced the political commissioners psychological work. A famous commissioner working for the Viet Minh and torturing the French was the French communist party militant fr:Georges Boudarel known for the Boudarel Affair. Paris By Night 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this school related in some way to the "Jean d'Arc" school under Bigeard ? Facius 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems in references

talking about setif massacre "during which the French army killed between 20,000 and 45,000 Algerians," if you go and check the wkipedia link given, you 'll find that the number fluctuate between "1,020 (the official French figure given in the Tubert Report shortly after the massacre) and 45,000 people (as claimed by Radio Cairo at the time). Alistair Horne notes that 6,000 was the figure finally settled on by moderate historians but acknowledges that this remains only an estimate."

And it was not the fact of the sole French army, but also by police and "pied noir" militia shooting randomly at muslims and lynching prisoneers. Hence the statment "during which the French army killed between 20,000 and 45,000 Algerians" is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.187.242.142 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I think this situation seems to be widespread for this conflict. Some, such as myself have read the memoirs of the soldiers who commanded during this conflict. Others. like Tazmaniacs, seem to have sources that are often based on, or directly, primary sources from the Communist/FLN side. The 'facts' do not match. I think therefore we must represent both views as fairly as possible even though they may seem incompatible. Some others feel that a particular view must prevail and undo my additions as well as saying that my primary sources are biased. I believe that he is right that they are biased but unfortunately it is almost certain, in my mind. that his are as well and a common ground is difficult to establish. If only it were easy to spot moderate historians amongst all their partisan colleagues. Facius 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End of French colonial empire?

The result section in the infobox include the statement that this was the end of the French colonial empire, I think that is a questionably ascertain. If one is to look formally than the French colonial empire ended 1946, being replaced with the French Union and French Algeria wasn’t even considered a colony but a part of France. If one defines the French colonial empire as the possessions of France outside metropolitan France than the empire still existed with Overseas departments and territories like Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and others. So in neither sense is the statement really true and should therefore be removed. Carl Logan 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egyptian forces...

shouldnt their be a section for Egypt's contribution in the War, with Gamal Abdel Nasser sending forces and aid to the Algerian Liberation movements!!!

Arab League User (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The exodus of the pieds-noirs

I think there is subjective and unverified material in this portion of the Algerian War article that should be either clearly sourced or deleted. In fact I had deleted the passages in question myself, only to see them re-inserted repeatedly.

The question is obviously a very emotional one, with strongly held views on all sides.

The passages I bring into question here are those which declare that the French government had not anticipated a mass exodus of over one million citizens from Algeria to Metropolitan France in a matter of months. This lack of anticipation is offered as the reason many hundreds of thousands of people were left indigent and homeless for long periods after their arrival in France.

There is a long and very well documented history of animosity between the pieds-noirs community and General DeGaulle and governments headed by him. This animosity is made reference to in many other articles here on Wikipedia, with many of those articles offering multiple objective sources.

There was quite significant support among pieds-noirs for the Vichy government in the early years of World War 11.

The pieds-noirs community and those French officers supporting their cause offered strong support for the return of DeGaulle in 1958, with the clear understanding that his return to power would prevent the splitting of Metropolitan France, of which Algeria was then a part.

When DeGaulle shifted his position on this issue there was an enormous sense of betrayal felt by pieds-noirs and those who supported their position.

This sense of betrayal manifested itself in many ways cited right on the Wikipedia page I am referring to. Uprisings, attempted coups, several attempted assasination attempts on the life of DeGaulle, all culminating in an extraordinary campaign of terrorism directed at the institutions and personnel of the French state in Algeria.

It is very reasonable considering all of this that the French government would by 1962 have had a quite negative view of the pieds-noirs community and that the shocking treatment of them upon their arrival in France was deliberate and not because of a lack of anticipation that nearly all of them would flee.

The question is a difficult one, because it is one of what went on in peoples minds, rather than what happened. We all seem to agree there was no planning for the arrival of over one million people, but how do we know what government ministers were thinking and feeling when plans to receive pieds-noirs in France were being drawn up?

The only source cited in the pieds-noirs paragraph is INA.fr, which receives funding from the French government. Why should Wikipedia repeat what is essentially the French government position? If there is independent information, let's see it. otherwise I think the passage does not belong here. Parnellg (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

discrepancy in "Beginning of Hostilities"

There is a discrepancy in the section "Beginning of Hostilies". It states that "While Messali Hadj had radicalized by forming the FLN, Ferhat Abbas maintained a more moderate, electoral strategy". Massali Hadj did not create the FLN but in fact was the leader of the oppositional party the Mouvement National Algérien (MNA) which rivaled the FLN and fought with them throughout the war. In the article about the FLN it says,

"It was created by the Revolutionary Committee of Unity and Action (CRUA), which emanated from clandestine opposition and emergent paramilitary networks continuing the nationalist tradition of the Algerian People's Party (PPA). The CRUA urged all the warring factions of the nationalist movement to unite and fight against France. By 1956 - two years into the war - nearly all the nationalist organizations in Algeria had joined the FLN, which had established itself as the main nationalist group through both co-opting and coercing smaller organizations. The most important group that remained outside the FLN was Messali Hadj's Mouvement national algérien (MNA). At this time the FLN reorganized into something like a provisional government. It consisted of a five-man executive and legislative body."

These two statements are oppositional and should be rectified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.153.206 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela was in Algeria during that war. At least that's what I've read. Should this be included in the article.--196.207.47.60 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not unless he contributed to the events of the war, otherwise it should just be mentioned in his own article. SGGH speak! 09:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if he contributed, it seems he was there for "learning" and "training".--41.150.18.235 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mandela's visit to Algeria was during 1962 but shortly after independence - there are several photographs showing him with Algerian officers at the headquarters of the new national army.(Buistr (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Names

There is something wrong about the surnames of key player Guy Mollet is referred to simply as Guy an De Gaulle referred to as De. I do not feel expert enough about liks to change this buts someone should. 14 May 200980.169.162.100 (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Gaulle is his full last name. He should never be referred to as "De." As for Mollet, referring to him by his first name is far too casual for an encyclopedia. They, like everyone else, should be referred to first by their full name and then by their last names. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NAME IN ARABIC?

What was this war known as in Arabic? Or at least, what did the Algerians call it? Le Anh-Huy (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the arabic wikipedia's article about the war is named the "Algerian Revolution", I think the Algerian call it the war of independence, the revolutionary war, the revolution or some other varation on that theme. Carl Logan (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

setif

The Setif massacre is generally regarded as a key moment--Horne's numbers are used here as they are in the Setif article, but a lot more people believe the higher 20,000-45,000 toll. It's terribly hard to know, since these numbers are used for propaganda, but perhaps the article should not merely assert Horne's numbers to be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.93.238 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benjamin Stora is not god

he is just a self-admitted Troskyist.[8] I don't like how he is outspoken in this article. see for yourselves. Cliché Online (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although the article states that both sides made extensive use of torture, only the torture of the FLN is described graphically. This seems somewhat biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.7.95 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:ALN battalion.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ALN battalion.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slight what?

@ chapter 1 in the article it says "On the pretext of a slight to their consul"... of a slight what? offense? Does anyone has the book where this line is taken from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funraiser (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Setif events of June 1945 - massacre or genocide?

There has been discussion on the talk page of the Setif massacre article whether the title should be changed to Setif genocide. I think that the respective arguments have been set out clearly and without POV bias. As the Setif events are generally seen as a major factor in the events leading up to the Algerian War of 1954-62, contributors to and viewers of the latter article are likely to be well placed to consider whether "massacre" or "genocide" is the appropriate description to use. Grateful if views could be expressed on the Setif massacre discussion page. Buistr (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First film clip is inaccurately described

It is not from 1954, it is the first minute of a 20 minute American newsreel from 1961. The whole newsreel can be found on youtube. Maybe you should change the description to "Depiction of Algeria in 1954 prior to the war of independence". Or something like that. Cbmccarthy (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casualties and losses

there is a lot of bias here, first the user shame on you is fron france, the second, the algerians only was 1500000 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyu 157 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Algerian War"

This article should be renamed Algerian War of Independence or Algerian Revolution because the name "Algerian War" could also refer to the Algerian Civil War that took place in the 1990s. Charles Essie (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was it only the FLN that killed civilians?

The entry makes it seem that this was so. And it is only FLN's civilian casualties that ever receive a number. We're left in the dark about casualties produced by the French, which, considering their superior firepower and the beastiality of their attacks, were arguably much higher. We have evidence of French attacks on civilians - the entry itself presents one of them: a picture of a French soldier shooting at fleeing civilians. So why doesn't the corpus of the text reflect that?

I also removed several instances where the word 'terrorist' was used (almost exclusively to refer to Algerians), and I may do so again in the future. The word 'terrorist' is not NPOV and it wasn't even used correctly - it referred also to incidents of Algerian native attacks on French military. Poor Algerians, they just can't help! Even when (unlike the French) they spare the "civilians" from their independence struggle, they're nothing but terrorists. 187.58.109.156 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You actually removed references to "OAS terrorism" - although that was a European settler organization which undertook a series of attacks on Muslim civilians during the final stages of French rule in an attempt to derail the peace process. This was an exceptionally brutal colonial war with atrocities on both sides and no purpose is served in rewriting history half a century later by trying to sanitize one side or the other - whether Algerian nationalist or French. Use sourced references to expand the article and give the fullest picture possible121.73.91.201 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I wish I had the time and the sources. As I don't, all I can do is to tone down the insane POV being pushed by the sympathizers of French colonialism. 'Terrorism', for example, is not regarded an NPOV term, and has no place in the text, specially when its use reflects such callous bias. Funny that you say I've removed reference to French terrorists, when this is not actually the case. Does the text even acknowledges the existence of French terrorism, state-sponsored or not? 177.206.176.236 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The passage that you edited was "During the three months between the cease-fire and the French referendum on Algeria, the OAS unleashed a new terrorist campaign. The OAS sought to provoke a major breach in the ceasefire by the FLN but the terrorism now was aimed also against the French army and police enforcing the accords as well as against Muslims". The "insane POV" in this case related to a factual account of the actions of Pied Noir (French settler) extremists, not the FLN. Please try and get basic points like this correct. The full article, which has been worked on by a number of editors, does attempt an even-handed treatment of a cruel historic war, without exonerating any of the several parties involved. Improvements and corrections are welcome. Reference sources from a wide range of perspectives are readily available. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Need more articles on battles/operations

The French Wikipedia has articles on 15 battles/events. We only have articles on nine. (You can compare the infoboxes of the two articles.) We need to translate some of the French articles 108.254.160.23 (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death toll

You have surely missed a zero off the death toll given at the foot of the box on the right hand side, which should read 1,530,000 rather than 153,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.13.146 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please remove the decapitated heads photo!

I was absoloutly shocked to find such picture here. This is a site open and frequently visited by all kinds of people, including chicldren. Who, in his right mind, thought it appropriate to show a picture of two cut-off heads with their genitalls in their mouths, without any warning? Please remove it NOW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.169.59 (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, but I'm removing the other picture as well, just to be balanced. Blaue Max (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
   Thank you very very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.52.13 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victory in infobox?

‎Historian Student (talk · contribs) has attempted to launch an edit war over whether the phrase "French military victory; FLN political victory" should be included in the infobox. Regardless of which way the discussion goes, this kind of thing should be done by consensus - not by one new user who feels him/herself above wiki guidelines. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reply (Historian Student): I didn't launched that war, other guy did. Speaking of a FLN political victory or a French military victory it's like saying which religion is true, it's a very complicated debate with no easy answer, algerian and french hisorian disagree a lot about that, and even algerian/french historian beetween them, there's no official truth about that. We can say that FLN lost or won the diplomatic war, he won many things like the fact that Algerian cause was kinda famous, specially in arab world and pro-soviet areas. He also lost a lot, specially in the eyes of USA (See book about US involvment in the war), and he lost at the ONU. We can discuss about that for hours, there's many books about that, it's a debate, not a fact. Same goes for military victory, did the FLN lost ? He certainly didn't win, but speaking of a military loss, which loss ? In wich wilayet ? Do you count the army of the borders who was very strong even after 1962 ? I don't think they military lost the war. Wikipedia and specially box is made for general facts that pretty much every historian admit, not for such things, who are very sensitive issues. It's the war memories, and you can't simply take a side and ignore the other.‎Historian Student (talk · contribs)
It was a clear military victory for the French: the most prominent FLN leaders were killed or arrested, the terror attacks were stopped and French counter-insurgency tactics were studied for years in military academies as an example. However, the use of torture during the battle of Algiers led to an increasing opposition in France and among the United Nations. So there was no reason to contest the result in the infobox. Blaue Max (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(talk) I don't think that the opinion of a far-right supporter is really trustable when it comes to discuss about thread like that, no offense but don't mix real history with your own fantaisies. No, "most" of FLN leaders weren't arrested, and even if they were, they get remplaced, the terror attacked never stopped before 1962. There's excellent reasons to contest the result of the infobox, if they weren't, I wouldn't be posting this. We can share the opposite views of a special paragraph in the article, why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.49.47 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I think we're very kind to give credits to an unidentified IP, violating Wikipedia's basic rule. You give no arguments. French military victory and subsequent political "betrayal" is a well documented fact.[9] [10] [11][12] [13] [14] 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Historian Student (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't accuse me to start an edit war, you did! You should reach consensus on the talkpage before changing the previous consensus, not the other way around.
The first source is a blog, it is unreliable. Please have a look here: WP:RS. That can be useful for a "Historian student".
The second source doesn't contradict the "political failure" theory.
The third source is biased and probably not reliable either. It also aknowledge the fact that there is a large consensus amongst historians about the political failure theory. As a fringe theory WP:FRNG, we should't give undue weight to your version of history.
Other occurence of a conflict resulting in a military victory but political failure can be found, such as the Suez Crisis. Blaue Max (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historian Student (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC) There's no consensus, only some vandals forcing their PoV. I gived enough citation for encyclopedia to refute the military victory theory, there's also many french author who deny it, it's absolutly not a fact. I don't care about your personal opinion only facts and citation matters.Reply[reply]

Who's pushing his pov here but you? There was a consensus and you change it without trying to reach a new consensus on the talkpage, you just dropped a bunch of sources, mostly unreliable and biased, that you probably haven't read. You must follow the Wikipedia guidelines I gave you: WP:RS, WP:FRNG. Thank you. Blaue Max (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historian Student (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Nope, you're the one who insist on putting false information for nationalists purpose. I'm for removing anything related to the military victory or not. And like I said I don't care about your opinion about my source, who are way more serious than yours.Reply[reply]

The problem is that you give absolutely no argument and you're violating almost every rules on wikipedia. I insist that you read at least WP:CONDUCT or the only result you'll get is to be blocked. Blaue Max (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historian Student, you changed the consensus on this article by forcing your POV. When we asked you to give explanation on the talk page, you were insulting and left the convesation. Accordingly, we restored the previous consensus, but you're starting an edit war again! If you're not willing to discuss and to reach a consensus on the talkapage before you modify the article, you will be reported.Blaue Max (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume, by vandalizing my personal talkpage[3], that you don't want to have a rational debate... Blaue Max (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My citation [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Defining the groups

It states that the war was a civil war between Loyalists and Muslim insurrectionists. If religion is going to be included shouldn't it be something like 'Christian and Muslim Loyalist and Muslim Nationlists'?89.243.7.195 (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Gaulle and the Six Day War

I've just watched the documentary "French President Charles De Gaulle and the Six-Year War (1960)" directed to it by a post script in the external links section of "Algerian War". I am credited as the writer of the documentary, (I produced it as well, the two named producers were the bosses at United Press (Bill Higginbotham) and at MovieTone News (Edmund Reek) who did nothing but say yes to the idea of producing the film. UPMT distributed the documentary which was successfully sold to, among others, NBC which recut and reused the piece as a half hour on their network. You might be able to get that version from their film library, although that is notoriously difficult. I also noted that it is online on the Internet Archive.

Thanks for reminding me of my better days. And you might want to mention the credits in your external links credits.

-Reese Schonfeld (who in 1960 was still writing as Maurice Schonfeld) Please let me know how I might purchase a copy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.114.101 (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hi!
It seems obvious that User:Historian Student is bypassing his blocking by creating sockuppets, namely User:M.Bitton and User:Kaka322. With the same obsessions he disrupts articles related to Algerian history. How are we suppose to react when we are confronted to that ? Blaue Max (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Blaue Max: It seems that you have a problem with the reliably sourced content. Accusing me and others of sock puppetry is the perfect excuse for deleting it without engaging in a constructive discussion. Feel free to challenge any of my edits. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SP reported ; WP:DISRUPT to be reported to WP:AN/I. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'am not M.Bitton, let your slander for yourself. Kaka322 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
   ::::::::::::: I hate it when bad things happen the English language.

War outcome reliable sources

List your sources here so we can discuss their reliability

Algerian victory [21][22][23][24][25]

Military stalemate [26][27][28][29][30]

1.5 million dead [31][32][33][34]

M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


About the Algerian victory : [35][36] [37][38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]
the Military stalemate: this citation ones are good [60] [61] [62] Kaka322 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, if this isn't enough, I can provide 100, 200, 500 citation maybe?

Kaka322 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should read WP:OVERCITE then. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, could you please comment on those sources' reliability? Thanks. (And my apologies for stirring the pot - I am just trying to keep things fair.) DS (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton basically put any book he could find with the words "Algerian" and "Victory" in it. A bit of source criticism allows to dismiss these sources. The cited books are mostly about sociology [4] [5] [6] [7], linguistics [8], religion [9][10], geopolitics [11][12][13][14][15] [16], individual opinions in newspapers [17] [18], he even put a novel [19] and an atomic scientists bulletin [20] ! The only history books are not about the Algerian War [21] [22] [23]
Just putting thousands of unrelated sources with "Algerian victory" in it doesn't help to understand how the FLN could have managed to military win the war... Blaue Max (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*sammy* starting a war edition

Sachaton (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you have started a vandal action by imposing your will without justification or argument or consensus If you with arguments, thank you to come answer the discussion I opened higher, otherwise thank you to avoid vandalizing the content of this page.--*sammy* (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Algerian Genocide

More than 2 million Algerians were killed by the French. I think this deserves an article titled the Algerian Genocide. -Ribbontool (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is alleged by noone but diehard ex FLN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.231.223.191 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=jQndAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=_qxvVOKaOIPqyQOnmYBY&ved=0CCcQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  2. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=9EiToLETF5UC&pg=PA103&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=_qxvVOKaOIPqyQOnmYBY&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  3. ^ http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/12/a-policy-of-violence-the-case-of-algeria/
  4. ^ http://www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter10/interviews/filetodownload,23012,en.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2004/Algeria-821.htm
  6. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=7pOfmghKXOUC&pg=PA53&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=qatvVN3uC-vGsQTfuICgCQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  7. ^ http://guy.perville.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=99
  8. ^ "Benjamin Stora Historien de l'intérieur" by Claude Askolovitch, Nouvel Obs
  9. ^ http://toto.lib.unca.edu/sr_papers/history_sr/srhistory_2012/brannum_keith.pdf
  10. ^ http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Algerian_War.html
  11. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=4pCqdooCE14C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
  12. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18343039
  13. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=jEWiKkPC_koC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
  14. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=yuvRAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Twentieth-Century+War+and+Conflict:+A+Concise+Encyclopedia&source=bl&ots=JuNb9oMyTx&sig=KWiCO-SmxezdGSgcYgeKlCR96bU&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=lxxLVKOWMI7VaoXvgOgM&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Twentieth-Century%20War%20and%20Conflict%3A%20A%20Concise%20Encyclopedia&f=false
  15. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=jQndAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=_qxvVOKaOIPqyQOnmYBY&ved=0CCcQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  16. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=9EiToLETF5UC&pg=PA103&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=_qxvVOKaOIPqyQOnmYBY&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  17. ^ http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/12/a-policy-of-violence-the-case-of-algeria/
  18. ^ http://www.port.ac.uk/special/france1815to2003/chapter10/interviews/filetodownload,23012,en.pdf
  19. ^ http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2004/Algeria-821.htm
  20. ^ http://books.google.fr/books?id=7pOfmghKXOUC&pg=PA53&dq=%22algerian+war%22+%27military+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=qatvVN3uC-vGsQTfuICgCQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=%22algerian%20war%22%20'military%20victory%22&f=false
  21. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=cU31neSrLUwC&pg=PA110&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  22. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=rjHjBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  23. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=x_-5XTVKW08C&pg=PA102&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=4A7iVK73Asqc7Abb_4G4Bg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  24. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=a08owAWb-F8C&pg=PA73&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg
  25. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=u8KDn_CPIJ8C&pg=PA231&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=KBHiVNG1JIXuUvWDgegE&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  26. ^ The Algerian War 1954-62, By Martin Windrow, Mike Chappell, page 11
  27. ^ Introduction to Comparative Politics, By Mark Kesselman, Joel Krieger, William Joseph, page 108
  28. ^ Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations, By Alexander Cooley, Hendrik Spruyt, page 63
  29. ^ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Jan 1967, page 48
  30. ^ Christian A. Herter: The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy By George Bernard Noble, page 155
  31. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/05/50-years-algeria-independence-france-denial
  32. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/charlie-hebdo-paris-attack-brothers-campaign-of-terror-can-be-traced-back-to-algeria-in-1954-9969184.html
  33. ^ http://www.english.rfi.fr/africa/20121220-hollande-condemns-unjust-and-brutal-french-colonialism-algeria
  34. ^ http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/01/24/page/24/article/algerian-war-hate-still-lingers
  35. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=cU31neSrLUwC&pg=PA110&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  36. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=rjHjBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA46&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  37. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=x_-5XTVKW08C&pg=PA102&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=4A7iVK73Asqc7Abb_4G4Bg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  38. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=a08owAWb-F8C&pg=PA73&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Dw_iVIKCKbPY7AajzYGwBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg
  39. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=u8KDn_CPIJ8C&pg=PA231&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=KBHiVNG1JIXuUvWDgegE&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  40. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=u8KDn_CPIJ8C&pg=PA231&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=naDjVKn4LuiM7AbwsoGwDg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  41. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=lgoNO8q_lToC&pg=PA1131&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=06DjVKrNDIPU7Aav04DQAQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  42. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=bIdjWgGc_2IC&pg=PA190&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=06DjVKrNDIPU7Aav04DQAQ&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  43. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=ES_wd_TaxIoC&pg=PA172&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=naDjVKn4LuiM7AbwsoGwDg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  44. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=jZ7t3j1oNKsC&pg=PA162&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=naDjVKn4LuiM7AbwsoGwDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  45. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=Cn-GjfTltF0C&pg=PT213&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=naDjVKn4LuiM7AbwsoGwDg&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  46. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=x_-5XTVKW08C&pg=PA102&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=t6DjVL7qEdSv7AbZ74CQDA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  47. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=a08owAWb-F8C&pg=PA73&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=t6DjVL7qEdSv7AbZ74CQDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  48. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=KnJ94LFpow0C&pg=PA27&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwATgo
  49. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=FVd5dJGBYMsC&pg=PA40&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgo#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  50. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=IcNomnJ6DKsC&pg=PA48&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgo#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  51. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=_fvFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA143&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBTgo#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  52. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=4EKH5xb_9noC&pg=PA13&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCDgo#v=onepage&q=%22Algerian%20victory%22&f=false
  53. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=yGiFAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=wKHjVOXMLaS67gbqtICYDw&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCTgo
  54. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=8KYHAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DqLjVJPmD-Sr7AbXiIDACw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgy
  55. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=0qsOAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DqLjVJPmD-Sr7AbXiIDACw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgy
  56. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=I4faAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DqLjVJPmD-Sr7AbXiIDACw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBDgy
  57. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=jZ1WAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=DqLjVJPmD-Sr7AbXiIDACw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgy
  58. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=uJDTAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=daLjVJH7AojX7QbrnICYCw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjg8
  59. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=b4jwAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Algerian+victory%22&dq=%22Algerian+victory%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=u6LjVJTLAeaw7Aby4IHICg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAzhG
  60. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=w2kJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75&dq=Algeria+%22Military+stalemate%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=gZ_jVMjKEIXV7gaV1oCgAg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Algeria%20%22Military%20stalemate%22&f=false
  61. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=CRGdjkSVzE4C&pg=PA63&dq=Algeria+%22Military+stalemate%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=gZ_jVMjKEIXV7gaV1oCgAg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Algeria%20%22Military%20stalemate%22&f=false
  62. ^ https://books.google.fr/books?id=1QcAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA47&dq=Algeria+%22Military+stalemate%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=gZ_jVMjKEIXV7gaV1oCgAg&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Algeria%20%22Military%20stalemate%22&f=false

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algerian War. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Algerian War. 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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any topic about the Oran massacre ?

Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.231.223.191 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Algerian War. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 2017

Since I'm not sure what the editor who keeps deleting the sources[24][25][26] is trying to achieve, I'm starting this discussion to give them a chance to explain what they want. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused, it seems to be your edits that are changing this from French military victory to military stalemate. Can you please explain this Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello there! no it's not his edits. someone else deleted of what was written about the French military campaigns. Listen, some people think and want to change the world, but it's impossible to change history! the new French president called it a crime against humanity and that's is true! The French army won that war and you can find hundred of sources about it on the net. I just want to see the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.69 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: All you have to do is to go through the page's history to realize that I'm not changing anything. I'm simply restoring the references that have been there for well over a year prior to their unexplained deletion a week ago.
@31.154.81.69 You still haven't explained why you're deleting the references and what exactly you're trying to achieve. If all you want is to change the result parameter of the infoxbox, please say so and let us have a proper discussion on what it should include. In the meantime, please refrain from deleting the references. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I'm not talking about the results and the references on the infoxbox but I will be happy to see the true results there! I changed it because some people here think that they can write and have their own history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.2 (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you fix the article please? This is ridiculous! It's look like France lost the war and this is absolutely not true maybe the government and many other people did but not the army.
Of course France lost the war. If anything, the article doesn't make this crucial information clear enough. Please, sign your posts and stop changing the result in the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you also want to sound ridiculous? If so, please tell me how exactly France lost the war? You and your friends says it was a "military stalemate" without even know what is a stalemate! Please explain! I don't really care about today politicians, but the new French president said it was a crime against humanity and I think that's say everything! Isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.65 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton I have read through the changes and as noted by the anonymous editor above, you are changing the result in the Infobox. France won the war militarily. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: Per WP:TALKNO. Not only you failed to provide diffs to support your assertion, but you are now falsely attributing something to the anonymous editor who already told you that it was someone else who apparently changed something (without specifying who that editor is supposed to be, what was changed or when). M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

31.154.81.65 This is the last time I ask you to sign your posts and to stop changing the result in the infobox. GeneralizationsAreBad is not my friend and the point they made while reverting your unjustified content removal is valid. military stalemate is not synonymous with political defeat. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.Bitton here's a diff for you: [27]. Now as I said above, it seems to be you who is changing this from French military victory to military stalemate, which is incorrect. Why are you doing this? There was no military stalemate, the FLN/ALN was defeated militarily, however De Gaulle realized that the demographics of Algeria and the global move to decolonization meant that France couldn't realistically hope to keep Algeria as part of France Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what is that? Is this a joke or what? I'm not the one who started that. And why you are changing the discussion? Tell us how France was defeated by those great "moderate" arab "freedom fighters" you still didn't answer.
@Mztourist: That diff shows a revert of an earlier change by the anonymous user who deleted the sources. I already explained this. Why are you insisting on describing it as a change ? M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton you asked for a diff and I gave you one. You changed the outcome from French military victory to stalemate which is incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely incorrect! And as I said before, I changed it because a user by the name "Licha46" deleted of what already written on the article about the French military campaigns which crushed the rebels. And also, the french colonial empire officially ended some eighteen years later and not in algeria. What we should do about this?
M.Bitton the diff shows that you changed it from French military victory to military stalemate which is incorrect and which you have failed to justify. What does your comment that "the french colonial empire officially ended some eighteen years later and not in Algeria" have to do with anything? This page is about the Algerian War, not French colonialism as a whole. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it should be removed from this article. Because the once large french colonial empire ended in 1980. see French colonial Empire for more details.

@Mztourist: Here we go again:

References

  1. ^ George Bernard Noble (June 1970). Christian A. Herter: The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy, XVIII. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 155. The war in Algeria remained stalemated in 1960 on both military and diplomatic fronts.
  2. ^ Alexander Cooley; Hendrik Spruyt (20 April 2009). Contracting States: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations. Princeton University Press. p. 63. ISBN 1-4008-3065-6. True, the French forces had proved at integrating new military technology (as the helicopter), but They could not pacify the remote hinterlands and even some of cities remained hotbeds of nationalist resistance. Rather than re-imposing hierarchy and imperial control, a military stalemate ensued.

M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.Bitton two points, firstly you have acknowledged that you have changed this from French military victory to military stalemate, I do not agree with this as it confuses the political and military aspects of the war and will provide WP:RS that this was a French military victory. Secondly in relation to the Infobox result of "End of the French Empire", I agree this is incorrect as it confuses various issues, Algeria was conquered during the period of French colonial expansion in the 1830s, while originally a colony, it subsequently became an integral part of France. So despite a source which says Algeria's independence marked the end of the French Empire that is incorrect as numerous other colonies subsequently became independent. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: Not only have you failed to at least acknowledge your misinterpretation of the sources, but you are now misinterpreting my comments. So, rather than waste time on what seems like a pretty fruitless discussion, I'll be putting forward a proposal that should hopefully address the core of the issue. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was Frantz Fanon a leader or commander?

I don't think he is considered a leader or commander. Geo8rge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Civilian casualties

The treatment of civilian casualties in the current revision of the article seems to be original research, misinterpreting the source. We have a source saying it's 55,000-60,000 and then decide on our own that it might actually double-count (despite giving a separate figure of 30,000 for the Harkis, which the source adds to the 55,000 and to the separately counted European civilian deaths to arrive at the total minimum estimate of casualties) and reduce that number. I'll clean that up. Huon (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal

Since the result parameter in the Infobox does not comply with the guidelines, I'm putting forward a proposal that should remedy the situation.

References

  1. ^ Matthew James Connelly (2002). A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria's Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post-cold War Era. Oxford University Press. pp. 263–277. ISBN 978-0-19-514513-7. The Algerians' victory enabled the French to become free--free from their colonial charges, and free from the United States....... Although France was obviously eager to get out, it had to accept the terms of its defeat.
  2. ^ Alistair Horne (9 August 2012). A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962. Pan Macmillan. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-4472-3343-5. The war in Algeria (which lasted nearly eight years - almost twice as long as the "Great War" of 1914-18) toppled six French prime ministers and the Fourth Republic itself. It came close to bringing down General de Gaulle and his Fifth Republic and confronted metropolitan France with the threat of civil war. Yet, when defeat led to the cession of this cornerstone of her empire where she had been "chez elle" for 132 years, out of it arose an incomparably greater France than the world had seen for many a generation.
  3. ^ Phillip Chiviges Naylor (December 2000). France and Algeria: A History of Decolonization and Transformation. University Press of Florida. p. 263. ISBN 978-0-8130-3096-8. De Gaulle managed with difficulty to persuade the French that decolonization did not equate with decadence. He prided himself on being wedded to the twentieth century and being able to replace colonialism with cooperation, satisfying essentialist imperatives. Still, this master mythmaker (witness in his manipulation of the image of France's Resistance during the Second World War) could not alter the reality or purge the memory of France's defeat in Algeria.
  4. ^ Jo McCormack (2010). Collective Memory: France and the Algerian War (1954-1962). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-7391-4562-3. The French defeat in the war effectively signaled the end of the French empire... The resentment and the bitterness of defeat in the Algerian War continue to feed into racism and to a general ignorance of this period of French history that is inhibiting Algerian French being able to find a home in France.
  5. ^ Robert Malley (20 November 1996). The Call From Algeria: Third Worldism, Revolution, and the Turn to Islam. University of California Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-520-91702-6. Then, in 1962, came the FLN's victory in Algeria, a defining moment in the history of the Third Worldism, for the battle had lasted so long, had been so violent, and had been won by a movement so acutely aware of its international dimension.
  6. ^ Ruud van Dijk; William Glenn Gray; Svetlana Savranskaya (13 May 2013). Encyclopedia of the Cold War. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN 1-135-92311-6. During this war of independence, Algeria was at the center of world politics. The FLN's victory made the country one of the most prominent in the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s.
  7. ^ Charles R. Shrader (1 January 1999). The First Helicopter War: Logistics and Mobility in Algeria, 1954-1962. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-275-96388-0. Retrieved 15 December 2015. the path to independence was strewn with many obstacles, not all of which the leaders of the FLN were able to overcome. Nevertheless, they succeeded in creating ex nihilo an effective political structure able to suppress internal dissent and gain the support of outside forces. That same newly created political entity also proved itself able to raise, organize, equip, train, and direct military forces capable of posing a significant threat to French control inside Algeria. At the same time it could create a conventional army of imposing presence which, although retained in Tunisia and never fully committed in battle, played an important role in achieving the overall victory.

M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose. It is far more nuanced than Algerian victory or French defeat. It should either state "See Aftermath" or agreement should be reached on each of the outcomes. The only one that is contended is whether this was a "French military victory" or "Military stalemate" Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is absolutely nothing nuanced about the final outcome of this war. All WP:RS state that France lost; therefore, we have to reflect those sources.
How France was defeated (by the combined political-military efforts of the FLN) in this war of attrition does not belong in the Infobox and is not what is being discussed here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree and have no interest in arguing this further with you, will wait and see how your proposal fares. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You disagreement is as irrelevant as the unsubstantiated claim it's based on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever, you're obviously just wanting an argument and I'm not going to indulge you. So far two of us support See Aftermath rather than your proposal. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your refusal to defend the unfounded and unsubstantiated claim upon which you have built your entire argument, makes your personal point of view even more irrelevant than it already is. M.Bitton (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Insulting me doesn't build any support for your proposal Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Reminding you that personal opinions are irrelevant is not an insult. I strongly advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:OR and the WP:Talk page guidelines. 2) Unless there's a compelling reason why the WP's policies and guidelines shouldn't apply to this particular article, the proposal (which complies with both) has all the support it needs. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No it doesn't, there's this thing called WP:Consensus, which is running 2:1 in favour of See Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WP:Consensus article reiterates what I've been saying all along: arguments based on personal opinions carry no weight whatsoever; no one, not even a consensus among a limited group of editors can override Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; talk pages should be limited to discussion of sources and policies.
Per Template:Infobox military conflict: the "see aftermath" is only used in cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome. This is clearly not the case here, as we have a standard term ("FLN victory") that reflects what the reliable sources say.
Are you implying that the FLN did not win this war ? M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh, the comments below apply, the accepted approach is to use See Aftermath. The FLN did not win the war as they did not prevail militarily over the French, rather De Gaulle sensibly decided that the demographics and world opinion were stacked against the French and that it was better to allow Algerian independence than indefinitely battle an insurgency. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What part of "what goes into the infobox must comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" don't you understand ?
Prevailing militarily over the French wasn't even part of the FLN's strategy, let alone their political objectives. Are you seriously implying that the FLN war aims weren't fulfilled ?
De Gaulle, the man who said: "never in my lifetime will the F.L.N flag fly over Algiers", was forced to either give in to the FLN demands or face an interminable war that was starting to spill into metropolitan France. If that's not a "French defeat", I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The French achieved military victory over the FLN in 1960. The fact that we are even having this debate just supports the need for reference to See Aftermath, because in this case French military victory wasn't the end of the story, De Gaulle saw this and negotiated Algerian independence. Arguing with you is just a waste of my time. The consensus is for See Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The FLN won the war in 1962 (this fact is unquestionable). In case you missed my first comment: how France was defeated (by the combined political-military efforts of the FLN) in this war of attrition does not belong in the Infobox and is not what is being discussed here.
The only reason we're having this discussion is because you're desperately trying to contradict the scholars with your preposterous original research.
De Gaulle, having promised that "never in his lifetime will the F.L.N flag fly over Algiers" and that "the insurrection will not kick the French out of Algeria", tried in vain to win the war. Thereafter, he tried to find a negotiated end to the war that would not look like a pure FLN victory, but failed miserably, and was forced to do everything he promised not to in order to save France from certain disaster: to negotiate solely with the FLN; to drop the demand for a cease-fire before negotiations could get under way; and to give up the Sahara. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to move that your proposal is closed as the consensus is for See Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because the war was long and complex doesn't mean that the war aims weren't simple, or that the F.L.N. didn't achieve the political objectives for which the war was fought in the first place. The result is crystal clear, the FLN won the war, there's nothing complicated about this fact and, most importantly, no disagreement amongst scholars on this point. M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What happened to wikipedia? people who don't know what is a military stalemate want to tell readers about wars? No and the war was not so long! There were much longer wars throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.81.13 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of assuming that the others don't know what military stalemate means, you should be asking yourself whether you really understand the difference between the FLN's "war aims" (independence) and their "war means" (a combination of rural guerilla war, urban terrorism and international diplomacy that has inspired insurgencies ever since). M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC about the result parameter in the Infobox

There is a clear consensus opposing a change to FLN victory; with an underlying consensus that this would not accurately reflect the complexity of the sources.
There is some support for Independence of Algeria or for See Aftermath, though it is noted that the former is already in the Infobox (at Territorial changes) and the latter is complicated by the lack of an Aftermath section. There is no consensus found as to such a change, and further discussion on these options should be undertaken if desired. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A request was made for additional explanation of the closure rationale; in particular to address the question of whether votes were or should have been discounted. In providing such an explanation, I note the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome; particularly on discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. In reviewing the discussion, I did not find any arguments that contradicted established policy; any that were particularly fallacious; or any that showed no understanding of the issue - I did not, therefore, discount any arguments on these bases. This leaves the question of personal opinion only, and an associated question of the ((Infobox military conflict)) result parameter documentation. Addressing the latter first, I found both the FLN victory and the See Aftermath !votes to be in direct alignment with the parameter documentation text as a whole. I also determined the parameter documentation to have a compliance requirement equivalent to a guideline, below a policy; accordingly, although the Independence of Algeria !votes may not directly align with the parameter documentation, but they do not thereby contradict policy, and should not be wholly discounted on that basis - SMcCandlish puts this well, there is no policy we're violating by including more information in a parameter than the template writers originally had in mind. I further found while the parameter documentation is clear that the term used should reflect the sources, there is no guidance within the parameter documentation as to how editors should decide whether to use the "See Aftermath" (or equivalent) option; how they should decide that the "X victory" or "inconclusive" options are not sufficient to accurately describe the outcome. Without any such additional guidance, such a decision is a matter for consensus (agreement) among editors - that is: opinion, not on the article subject itself, but on where to draw (or ignore) the lines of the parameter documentation (particularly the "See Aftermath" provisions), if it is neither fallaciously reasoned nor demonstrative of a lack of understanding, is within the discretion of a consensus of editors.
I also note the sources provided which use the terms "FLM victory" or "French defeat" (either of these in a military, political or combined military/political context) are not incompatible with either "Independence of Algeria" or "See Aftermath"; consequently, as per the extended discussion below the !vote of Icewhiz, they are not dispositive of the RfC; particularly not so of a consensus of editors to use the "See Aftermath" option (should such emerge).
Reviewing the !votes, I found strong agreement among them that "FLN victory" either does not sufficiently or does not sufficiently accurately describe the result. I was not, therefore, able to find a consensus in favour of this option. I further found that there was no agreement as to whether "Independence of Algeria", "See Aftermath" or the status quo should be used; though the combination of "IoA" & "SA" came closest, and might easily have been considered successful. I was not, therefore, able to determine a consensus in favour of or against any of these options; and leave them open for further discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion 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.

- clarified - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am seeking comments on a proposal to make the result parameter in the Infobox comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.

References

  1. ^ Matthew James Connelly (2002). A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria's Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post-cold War Era. Oxford University Press. pp. 263–277. ISBN 978-0-19-514513-7. The Algerians' victory enabled the French to become free--free from their colonial charges, and free from the United States....... Although France was obviously eager to get out, it had to accept the terms of its defeat.
  2. ^ Alistair Horne (9 August 2012). A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962. Pan Macmillan. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-4472-3343-5. The war in Algeria (which lasted nearly eight years - almost twice as long as the "Great War" of 1914-18) toppled six French prime ministers and the Fourth Republic itself. It came close to bringing down General de Gaulle and his Fifth Republic and confronted metropolitan France with the threat of civil war. Yet, when defeat led to the cession of this cornerstone of her empire where she had been "chez elle" for 132 years, out of it arose an incomparably greater France than the world had seen for many a generation.
  3. ^ Phillip Chiviges Naylor (December 2000). France and Algeria: A History of Decolonization and Transformation. University Press of Florida. p. 263. ISBN 978-0-8130-3096-8. De Gaulle managed with difficulty to persuade the French that decolonization did not equate with decadence. He prided himself on being wedded to the twentieth century and being able to replace colonialism with cooperation, satisfying essentialist imperatives. Still, this master mythmaker (witness in his manipulation of the image of France's Resistance during the Second World War) could not alter the reality or purge the memory of France's defeat in Algeria.
  4. ^ Jo McCormack (2010). Collective Memory: France and the Algerian War (1954-1962). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-7391-4562-3. The French defeat in the war effectively signaled the end of the French empire... The resentment and the bitterness of defeat in the Algerian War continue to feed into racism and to a general ignorance of this period of French history that is inhibiting Algerian French being able to find a home in France.
  5. ^ Robert Malley (20 November 1996). The Call From Algeria: Third Worldism, Revolution, and the Turn to Islam. University of California Press. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-520-91702-6. Then, in 1962, came the FLN's victory in Algeria, a defining moment in the history of the Third Worldism, for the battle had lasted so long, had been so violent, and had been won by a movement so acutely aware of its international dimension.
  6. ^ Ruud van Dijk; William Glenn Gray; Svetlana Savranskaya (13 May 2013). Encyclopedia of the Cold War. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN 1-135-92311-6. During this war of independence, Algeria was at the center of world politics. The FLN's victory made the country one of the most prominent in the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s.
  7. ^ Charles R. Shrader (1 January 1999). The First Helicopter War: Logistics and Mobility in Algeria, 1954-1962. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 231. ISBN 978-0-275-96388-0. the path to independence was strewn with many obstacles, not all of which the leaders of the FLN were able to overcome. Nevertheless, they succeeded in creating ex nihilo an effective political structure able to suppress internal dissent and gain the support of outside forces. That same newly created political entity also proved itself able to raise, organize, equip, train, and direct military forces capable of posing a significant threat to French control inside Algeria. At the same time it could create a conventional army of imposing presence which, although retained in Tunisia and never fully committed in battle, played an important role in achieving the overall victory.

Relisted by Winged Blades of GodricOn leave at 16:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey

Mztourist 1) Literally, in the first cited source, Matthew Connelly is telling you that France not only lost the war, but it had to accept the terms of its defeat. France sent the army to achieve a political objective (to keep Algeria French), and in that it failed. That is an unquestionable fact that even the myth-maker (De Gaulle) could not alter (see the third source). 2) What is appropriate for the Infobox is decided by the WP:RS and the guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton your attempts to bludgeon me and any other User that disagrees with you is tedious. The consensus is See Aftermath or Independence of Algeria Mztourist (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: Please stop the ad hominem. Refuting the misleading statements is not only my right; it's my duty. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton I stepped away from this discussion for a while, but having checked back in I see that still no-one supports your position and accordingly the result should be "See Aftermath" or "Independence of Algeria". Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: 1) It's not my position, it's the position of the WP:RS. 2) The "I just don't agree with the reliable sources" drivel, whether based on ignorance of the topic or agenda-driven, is usually ignored, no matter how many times it's repeated. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton it should be clear by now that no-one agrees with your position despite your attempts to WP:Bludgeon everyone who disagrees with you. It is time to bring this RFC to a close. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't going to say anything, but I believe it's time to call a spade a spade. Your total disrespect for the WP:Talk page guidelines and your insistence on making this about me, even though I asked you nicely not to, lead me to believe that you have a hidden agenda, and that articles involving France bring out the worst in you (you used the same nonsense in the Indochina War article where you edit warred and argued that the result was nuanced, despite all evidence to the contrary[1][2][3][4]).

References

  1. ^ George J. Andreopoulos; Harold E. Selesky (1994). The Aftermath of Defeat: Societies, Armed Forces, and the Challenge of Recovery. Yale University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-300-05853-6. Between 1946 and 1962, in the jungles of Indochina and in the desert djebel of Algeria, the French army waged two wars. It lost each of them.
  2. ^ Nicola Cooper (1 January 2001). France in Indochina: Colonial Encounters. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 181. ISBN 978-1-85973-476-6. Indochina is certainly not the open sore that Algeria appears to be in contemporary France. Nonetheless, imperial France fought and lost bloody colonial wars in both Indochina and Algeria.
  3. ^ Bronson Long (2015). No Easy Occupation: French Control of the German Saar, 1944-1957. Boydell & Brewer. p. 40. ISBN 978-1-57113-915-3. France lost its wars in both Indochina and Algeria, while the remainder of its colonial empire largely achieved independence peacefully
  4. ^ Jeffrey Record (2011). Beating Goliath: Why Insurgencies Win. Potomac Books, Inc. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-59797-321-2. During the cold war, serious intellectual examination of the strong succumbing to the weak was provoked by a series of events: the success of the Chinese Communists in 1949, the rapid largely unexpected disintegration of European colonial empires in Asia and Africa, France's violent defeat in Indochina and Algeria, and above all the defeat and humiliation of the United States in Vietnam.
M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can accept that. Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Icewhiz 1) The independence of Algeria was the FLN's political objective (the consequence of the result), a war aim that was achieved through victory (the result). 2) In a war of attrition, when you lose the will to fight, you lose the fight. 3) What Mztourist downplays as "but political considerations" (as if that had nothing to do with the FLN) was in fact at the heart of the FLN's strategy from day one: to isolate France at home and abroad. 4) What Mztourist calls "settlement" is actually France giving in to the the FLN's demands and losing the biggest portion of its territory to what it considered a terrorist organization; and that, despite successive French governments putting every effort and staking their reputation on keeping Algeria French. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton - I don't disagree with most of what you said, I just think that Algerian Independence summarizes most of what you said concisely as a result in a war of independence.Icewhiz (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Icewhiz: I understand where you're coming from, but such an approach would create more problems than it would solve. First, it does not comply with the guideline, and secondly, it would set a double standard precedent, for there is no compelling reason why it should apply to this particular article, but not the others (such as the American War of Independence, for instance). M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
M.Bitton as you mention the guideline, here it is in full: "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." So See Aftermath or Algerian Independence is the appropriate approach as this is a case "where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome" Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mztourist: 1) The standard term "FLN victory" accurately describes the outcome of the war and is supported by WP:RS. 2) There is no disagreement amongst scholars about the fact that France lost this war. 3) Your personal views are of no consequence in this matter. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter K Burian: Nowhere in that source does it state that this wasn't a victory, in fact, by saying that: the ferocity of the fighting sapped the political will of the French to continue the conflict, it is implicitly stating that France lost this war (for when you lose the will to continue the war, you lose the war). Does it matter that Britannica doesn't spell it out ? Not one bit, since the fact that France lost this war and the FLN won it is supported by a raft of WP:RS (that spell it out in the clearest possible terms), and not contradicted by any reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is a victory in a war, M.Bitton? When France got tired of the battle, were they defeated? Maybe it was a moral victory.
1. a success or triumph over an enemy in battle or war.
2. an engagement ending in such triumph:
American victories in the Pacific were won at great cost.
3. the ultimate and decisive superiority in any battle or contest:
The new vaccine effected a victory over poliomyelitis.
4. a success or superior position achieved against any opponent, opposition, difficulty, etc.: a moral victory. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/victory
Peter K Burian (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter K Burian: Sorry, but I have no interest in your original research. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remain opposed. Quote: That military victory for the French proved, in the longer term, a propaganda victory for Algeria https://books.google.ca/books?id=HfPcCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT277&dq=Algerian+war+of+independence+victory&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Algerian%20war%20of%20independence%20victory&f=false
Quote: France took eight years to crush the nationalists in Algeria, by which time France was close to civil war. https://books.google.ca/books?id=j4p4CAAAQBAJ&pg=PT163&dq=Algerian+war+of+independence+victory&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Algerian%20war%20of%20independence%20victory&f=false  :::::Quote: a major tactical victory for the French army .... The Algerian War was ultimately won not by military means, but by political pressure when Algeria was granted independence in 1962. https://books.google.ca/books?id=ELDlCAAAQBAJ&pg=PT79&dq=Algerian+war+of+independence+victory&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Algerian%20war%20of%20independence%20victory&f=false Peter K Burian (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peter K Burian:So you said. You can come back when and if you're capable of bringing reliable sources that contradict mine. M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
information Note: None of the above 3 sources question the FLN victory, much less contradict it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SteveStrummer: 1) Arguing that a war has to be decided in the battlefield (by which, I assume you mean the military one) is nothing but preposterous original research that goes against common sense and everything we know about asymmetric warfare.[1][2] 2) The "FLN victory" is an undisputed historical fact that is supported by WP:RS.

References

  1. ^ Roger Chickering; Dennis Showalter; Hans van de Ven (27 September 2012). The Cambridge History of War: Volume 4, War and the Modern World. Cambridge University Press. p. 592. ISBN 978-1-316-17592-7. Asymmetric war abjures the idea of ending matters in the open field. Instead, it operates in the longue durée... Its best early example was Algeria's war for independence between 1954 and 1960, when a combination of terror, insurgency, and propaganda brought defeat and revolution to France.
  2. ^ Mack, Andrew (18 July 2011). "Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Conflict". World Politics. 27 (02): 175–200. doi:10.2307/2009880. ISSN 1086-3338. Retrieved 22 September 2017. The Vietnam and Algerian wars have demonstrated that the overwhelming conventional military superiority of major powers is no guarantee against their defeat in wars against small nations.
M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as-is, with one exception ("End of the French Empire"). The effects of this conflict were varied and highly consequential, for both Algeria and France. I WP:DGAF what some wikiproject typically wants here as a default parameter value. Just calling it an FLN/Algerian victory and leaving it at that is misleading, in that the socio-political victory was a real consequence, but they did not clearly prevail miltarily. The idea of calling this a French "victory" is trés revisioniste. A scorched-earth temporary "victory" on a battlefield, at terrible cost, that results in the other side quickly getting what it wants, is not a "victory". And the sources appear to really conclude that it was actually a stalemate at the military level, though I detect some source reliability and interpretation conflicts in above discussions. Not everything in real life is binary, and we do a great disservice to our readers when we erect false dichotomies. The fact that infoboxes tend to lead some individuals to pursue one-or-the-other pseudo-answers in infobox parameters is a large part of why so many editors hate infoboxes. The one line-item I would remove is "End of the French Empire" since that's hyperbolic, has only one source, and is not what the source says (it says that it "effectively signaled the end of the French Empire"; the reduction to "end of the French Empire" is WP:OR (specifically, novel re-interpretation). The statement in the source it itself hyberbolic or at least excessively figural; the actual end of the French Empire was in 1870. The author means the French colonial "empire" in the metaphoric sense of that word, but our readers aren't going to know that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS: Actually, "Independence of Algeria" can be removed, since it's the same item in the "Territorial changes" parameter immediately below this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. The result parameter is about who won and who lost the war, not the effects of the conflict (national amnesia,[1] regionalism,[2] racism,[3] etc.), which although directly related to the war outcome, is an entirely different subject.
  2. The ridiculous claim that one has to prevail militarily in order to win a war has been addressed in the previous comment. This war was fought on many battlefields (political, diplomatic, terror, etc). To concentrate on a single aspect of it (the least significant, as far as the FLN was concerned) is nothing but a pathetic attempt at trivializing the importance of the FLN's strategy, and the very thing that made its victory against overwhelming odds important.
  3. Alistair Horne, Matthew Connelly and Martin Thomas, just to name a few, describe the result as a "FLN victory". Do you honestly believe that these scholars are misleading people ?

References

  1. ^ Michael Humphrey (15 April 2013). The Politics of Atrocity and Reconciliation: From Terror to Trauma. Routledge. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-134-47960-3. There is no collective work or remembrance of the French defeat. In France the Algerian war, the 'dirty' colonial war that was lost, was ignored in favour of the good and noble war that was won (The Second World War)
  2. ^ Alec G. Hargreaves; Michael J. Heffernan (1993). French and Algerian identities from colonial times to the present: a century of interaction. E. Mellen Press. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-7734-9233-2. The Algerian War was waged on the French side on the principle of an indissoluble union between France and Algeria. France lost the war, and in so doing, this sacred principle suffered a severe blow. It was the committed and more extreme regionalists who learned the lesson of this defeat.
  3. ^ Jo McCormack (2010). Collective Memory: France and the Algerian War (1954-1962). Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-7391-4562-3. The resentment and the bitterness of defeat in the Algerian War continue to feed into racism and to a general ignorance of this period of French history that is inhibiting Algerian French being able to find a home in France.
M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see WP:BLUDGEON. You've already made your viewpoint clear to everyone. Your points 1 and 2 above are self-contradictory. As for the first one, WP:IAR. If we determine that readers are better served by an infobox being more informative, there is no policy we're violating by including more information in a parameter than the template writers originally had in mind. Your point #2 isn't responsive to anything I said, but is randomized ranting, so I'm going to ignore it. #3: Fine. Other sources treat the situation as far less binary and either/or. See WP:CHERRYPICKING.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SMcCandlish: 1) I would appreciate it if you could avoid the ad hominem remarks. 2) Can you please explain how points 1 and 2 are self-contradictory ? 3) I really don't see how censoring crucial information (who won the war) can in any way be considered informative. 4) Point 2 was in response to what you said: but they did not clearly prevail militarily. 5) I have no idea what sources you're referring to and I certainly don't see how anyone would treat the result of a war that was fought over all or nothing as anything but binary. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Please read ad hominem. 2) I decline to waste time detailing the obvious. 3) The fact that you think it was responsive when it clearly wasn't because you're misinterpreting is illustrative of the problem here. 4) See the rest of the discussion, the previous discussions, and the article. 5) I agree that you are not understanding. No one here, nor the closer who comes along later, will want to wade through a re-re-re-explanation of all that stuff. You've made your position clear, I've made mine clear, let's move on and let others have their say. If you insist on wanting to continue talking about this stuff, use user talk, please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) I have and I stand by what I said. Commenting on the contributor (asking them to read some random essay about their supposed behaviour) and not the content is a form of character attack. 2) Since my time is no less precious than yours, I will simply ignore the baseless assertions. 3) No one here, nor the closer who comes along later, will want to wade through a re-re-re-explanation of all that stuff: if the editors used the TP in accordance with its intended purpose, no one would have to wade through a re-re-re-refutation of personal opinions and ridiculous original research. M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. The historical data cited by User: Peter K Burian from Britannica was very compelling. Bottom line: "In 1959 Charles de Gaulle declared that the Algerians had the right to determine their own future."Knox490 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is yet another example of the nonsensical WP:OR that has plagued this RfC from the start. A raft of scholarly WP:RS describing the result of the war is ignored in favour of a sentence mentioning an event that happened 3 years before independence and that the editor completely misunderstood.
  1. De Gaulle's 1959 offer was a failed attempt at ending the war on his own term by sidelining the FLN (with whom he categorically refused to negotiate). He promised to give the people a say (on choices designed to keep Algeria under French control) at some point after a ceasefire has been achieved. The FLN which declared itself as the sole representative of the Algerian people rejected his offer of a ceasefire. De Gaulle prolonged the war in vain only to finally negotiate solely with the FLN; to drop the demand for a cease-fire before negotiations could get under way; and to give up the Sahara.
  2. The FLN did not wait for de Gaulle or any anyone else to tell them they have the right to determine their own future, they declared it in 1954 (see their declaration). In fact, they went a step further and gave France a choice: accept our written terms (to which the FLN adhered religiously all the way to victory) or face a war that you will lose. The rest, as they say, is history. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

M.Bitton don't move my comment again. I am moving that this discussion is closed, you have failed to establish a consensus and have bludgeoned everyone else for disagreeing with you. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't move my comment again. I should have known better than to assume that was a genuine mistake on your part. You are obviously deliberately placing your misleading comment at the end of the survey section in order to discourage others from commenting.
you have failed to establish a consensus. The fact that you pretend not to understand the importance of Wikipedia policy in determining consensus, coupled with your insistence on dismissing the scholarly sources in favour of nonsensical WP:OR, makes it impossible to take you seriously.
have bludgeoned everyone else for disagreeing with you. It's a hard job, but someone's got to remind those who disagree with the scholars that Wikipedia's content is determined by WP:RS, and that article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Of course, I don't expect denialists to appreciate it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Threaded discussion

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.
Categories