I have been viewing the talk page and edit history and is there not any way for a compromise? Perhaps class the military result as disputed as there are sources that state a french military and sources that state a military stalemate. Something like “military stalemate or french military victory both are claimed” could be added to the info box so both sides are happy and their view/claim is represented. Wowlebureh (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it has always been my understanding that this was a French military victory, but De Gaulle realized that the situation was unsustainable and negotiated the French withdrawal. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yh I don’t really understand the military stalemate outcome the FLN only had around 5,000 soldiers left with many of them out the country and De Gaulle announced on tv that fighting had virtually ended in 1961 a year before the actual ceasefire which shows the FLN as a fighting force had been rendered redundant (similar to the Indonesian war of independence and Portuguese colonial wars in Africa). However others will claim that because France failed to capture or kill every single FLN fighter that it’s a military stalemate (I don’t agree with that view personally) but Wikipedia is a site where users can contribute so I think both views should be listed in the result box so both sides are happy. It’s also obvious the result was an FLN political victory. Wowlebureh (talk) 09:09 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mztourist: because it was a military stalemate, the FLN didn't beat the French and the French couldn't eradicate the FLN is what you said when you reverted Omar Hall's edit less than 2 months ago.

@Wowlebureh: The ottomans failed to capture Vienna and conquer Austria like they planned but did gain land so... is what you said when changing the result of the Austro-Turkish War (1663–64). So, given France's plans to keep Algeria, the result here should obviously be "FLN Victory" if you follow your logic; and in this case, we don't even have to resort to misrepresenting the sources (like you did in the other article) since we we have tons of sources supporting this undisputed fact.

I don’t really understand Luckily for us, this encyclopedia is not based on people's lack of understanding, otherwise editors such as "Derbyboy2890" (a banned user with whom Drmies is familiar) will turn this project into a joke.

If we are to rely on targetted Google search results and stick everything in the Infobox, including conflicting information, then there is a lot more we could add, including "FLN military victory"; but as anyone would have actually read books about this war would tell you, the military stalemate is what led the French to ask/beg for a ceasefire (that never materialised), before surrendering unconditionally to the FLN's demands.

For my part, it has always been my understanding (based on what is acknowledged in every reliable source about this war) that this was a FLN victory and that there is no reason, none whatsoever, not to display this undisputed fact in the Infobox, just like we do for similar wars, such as the Vietnam War. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Yes the FLN did achieve their goal in the war as Algeria became independent but they achieved it through political means not through military strength. Like how the Dutch military was successful in the Indonesian war of independence and the Portuguese were successful in their colonial wars in Africa, the French military was successful in Algeria. All three of these conflicts were won militarily by the occupying power but lost politically by their politicians. So I think it is important to include both the military and political results in the information box so people get a clear understanding of how Algeria became independent which was at the negotiating table and not through military strength. But as I said you like others will disagree and believe that the conflict was a military stalemate (which is obviously fine) so both the view of a military stalemate and french military victory should be included in the info box. I am glad you replied but your bias is clearly showing considering De Gaulle offered the FLN a ceasefire in 1959 but the FLN refused so he ordered the army to crush the FLN and the Évian Accords was a ceasefire so saying the calls for a ceasefire “never materialised” is wrong considering the Évian Accords was a ceasefire. Also the fact you even contemplate an FLN “military victory” shows you do not really understand what the term military victory really means. Also there are many sources which state a French military victory. Wowlebureh (talk) 15:46 March 2021 (UTC)

saying the calls for a ceasefire “never materialised” is wrong considering the Évian Accords was a ceasefire Utter nonsense! Anyway, I see that you managed to avoid addressing your double standard that I highlighted above, just like you did with your source misrepresentation that you used to push your POV in the other article. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: We can discuss the Austro-Turkish war edits in that pages talk page where we have already started a discussion. Yes the Evian Accords was a ceasefire as it even states it in the article. Algeria wouldn’t gain independence until July 1962 when a referendum was held and the Évian Accords were signed in March 1962 which is officially seen as the end of the conflict. It’s like how the armistice that ended fighting in World War One was signed in 1918 but the treaty of Versailles wasn’t signed until 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowlebureh (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Instead of cherry picking what suits you, I suggest to take your time to read and hopefully understand what I wrote about the ceasefire (which is obviously about France wanted before the negotiations could take place and what the FLN refused. This is elementary and time wasting). Anyway, you still haven't addressed your double standard with regard to this war. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Ok I will address my so called “double standards” and then we can actually get back to discussing the military result properly. The reason I put the following edit summary “The ottomans failed to capture Vienna and conquer Austria like they planned but did gain land so...” is because the Ottoman armies were pretty decisively defeated at the Battle of Saint Gotthard (1664) meaning that the war resulted in an “Austrian military victory” as they defeated the ottomans in battle and stopped Vienna from being captured. However you miss out the fact I also added “Ottoman diplomatic success” to the result box because in the Peace of Vasar the ottomans gained some territory and Austria agreed to pay annual tribute. This means that the Austria’s successful defeated the ottomans in open battle of stopped Vienna from being captured which means the result of the war is an Austrian military victory however the ottomans won a diplomatic victory as they gained some land and got tribute payments despite being defeated in battle. In the Algerian war result box I am trying to say that France won militarily while the FLN won diplomatically. This is not double standards as in both of these pages I never claimed an all out victory for either side. I never said “Austrian victory” or “Ottoman victory” I said “Austrian military victory” and “Ottoman diplomatic victory” as you can see the results show that both sides were victorious in different elements of the conflict. Austria on the battlefield and the Ottomans at the negotiating table. Just like how the French won on the battlefield and the FLN won at the negotiating table. I never claimed an all out victory for either side on both pages. Now can we get back to the discussion. Wowlebureh (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The ottomans failed to capture Vienna and conquer Austria has only one meaning that you cannot change, regardles sof how hard you try (just like the source that you misrepresented, it's there as a testimony to how you approach certain subjects).

As for the Algerian war, I will simply repeat what I said previously. For my part, it has always been my understanding (based on what is acknowledged in every reliable source about this war) that this was a FLN victory and that there is no reason, none whatsoever, not to display this undisputed fact in the Infobox, just like we do for similar wars, such as the Vietnam War. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Wowlebureh, I suppose we need to watch these talk pages more quickly so that socks like you don't get to spread their venom and disrupt the editing process. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)