Wikipedia

Talk:Algerian War/Archive 4

< Talk:Algerian War
Latest comment: 3 years ago by VoltigeurFR in topic Why are there lower ranking soldiers KIA in the commanders and leaders tab ?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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).

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

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

Any topic about the Oran massacre ?

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

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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).

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

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

Was Frantz Fanon a leader or commander?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Civilian casualties

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

July 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Since I'm not sure what the editor who keeps deleting the sources[1][2][3] 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)

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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)

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)

M.Bitton here's a diff for you: [4]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:

  • As I previously explained, that diff shows a revert to a version that was there for well over a year. If you disagree with that version, say so, or better still, propose a new one.
  • The post that precedes[5] yours has been left by the anonymous editor who refuses to sign his posts, it's not mine.
  • I reverted your recent change[6] because you are misrepresenting the sources by attributing "French military victory" to the cited sources which, from what I can tell, say "military stalemate". While not all of them are accessible, the two that are only mention "military stalemate" (see the relevant quotes).[1][2]

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)

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)
@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)

Proposal

Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

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

  • Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict: The result 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.
  • The proposal: change the result parameter to "Algerian victory". Optionally, add the consequences of the victory (independence, etc.).
  • Some of the reliable sources describing the final outcome as either an "Algerian victory" or a "French defeat":[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

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)

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)
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)
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)
You disagreement is as irrelevant as the unsubstantiated claim it's based on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Insulting me doesn't build any support for your proposal Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Comment in general terms, the larger and more complex a conflict, the less use this field is, as it is often an attempt to make gray into black and white or to oversimplify the complex. My preferred approach in such circumstances is to create an Aftermath section, and use "See Aftermath section" in the infobox.
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)
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)
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)

RfC about the result parameter in the Infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion
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)
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)

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)

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

  • Per Template:Infobox_military_conflict: The result 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.
  • The proposal: change the result parameter to "FLN victory". Optionally, add the consequences of the victory (independence, etc.).
  • Some of the reliable sources describing the final outcome of the war either as a "FLN victory" or a "French defeat":[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

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)

M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose. The war was won militarily by the French, but political considerations led to a political settlement. "See Aftermath" is the appropriate statement for the Infobox. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
  • Independence of Algeria- shorten the entire multi-line result to this. I'll note that loss of the French will to fight ("political considerations") is a situation that would lead to a loss in the field, however as the result was a settlement, stating the result of said settlement is probably the most correct.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I can accept that. Mztourist (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
  • Oppose. Was this a VICTORY? Not according to Britannica: Battle of Algiers (1956–57). French forces (which increased to 500,000 troops) managed to regain control but only through brutal measures, and the ferocity of the fighting sapped the political will of the French to continue the conflict. In 1959 Charles de Gaulle declared that the Algerians had the right to determine their own future. Despite terrorist acts by French Algerians opposed to independence and an attempted coup in France by elements of the French army, an agreement was signed in 1962, and Algeria became independent. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@Peter K Burian: Sorry, but I have no interest in your original research. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
@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)
  Note: None of the above 3 sources question the FLN victory, much less contradict it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Independence of Algeria and See Aftermath – Not every war has a tidy resolution, and this one was not decided on the battlefield. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@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)
  • 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)
    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)
  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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

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)

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)

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.

missing info

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

prewar events

war events

  • Cold War background (the harki were anti-communist! -listened to harkis commander & political leader of the fr:FAF party, Bachaga Said Boualam's speeches pt.1 & pt.2- as were some french army officers check the translated Bigeard interview now featured in the article).
  • Algerian and French communist parties role
  • Jeanson network (fifth column)
  • civil war, at some point (1962) the conflict turns into a Franco-French civil war and is no more a simple independence or colonial conflict. OAS took maquis in Bab El Oued and the French army answered by bombing the city with aircrafts and tanks archive video
  • FLN pressure on the Muslisms to force them to support the Revolution by force
  • OAS pressure on the Europeans (term then used to designate the non Muslim algerian) to force them to support their Putsch
  • the reasons for the French Muslim Harkis to fight the FLN
  • Moghazni role with the SAS and during the war
  • Harkis massacre (genocide)
  • Liberal Pieds-Noirs/European, those for the revolution and a "new algeria"
  • de gaulle speeches translation (started mostaganem "je vous ai compris")
  • timeline axis with referendums, putsh, siege, etc (this conflict is really complicated with FLN vs French Army, French Army vs OAS, FLN+French Army vs OAS, etc.
  • FLN/Barbouzes/French army joint ops vs OAS (Barbouze included Vietnamese i don't know why)
  • Séfarade (got info on the French wiki that the Jew living in Algeria were called "Sefarade" for Jews from European origins (specially Spain). The term Pied-Noir used for the Jew is actually a mistake.
  • Another mistake is OAS whose true name is not Organisation de l'Armée Secrète as thought, but actually "Organisation Armée Secrète" for "Secret Armed Organization", the french article about OAS was recently renamed with the correct name.

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.

  • Front Algérie Française "French Algeria Front" (Muslims supporting the French Algeria and fighting against the FLN) article doesn't exist in the english wiki (french version fr:FAF)!! video

Shame On You 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Harkis

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lede section of the article includes a passage listing an estimate of 50,000 - 150,000 harkis (Muslims who served as auxiliaries with the French Army) as being killed in reprisals immediately following Algerian independence in 1962. This has just been tagged as "dubious - discuss". While harkis and their families were undoubtedly killed in large numbers, there seems to be no way of fixing an accurate total in the absence of cooperation from the modern Algerian authorities. The high (150,000) figure appears to have been derived from an extrapolation, by contemporary French researchers, over all of Algeria of confirmed deaths in specific areas. The subject of the harkis remains a sensitive one in both Algeria and France - despised collaborators or abandoned loyalists? However they should not be written out of history. Buistr (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

@Fustos: your edits have been reverted because:

  • 1) Contrary to what you claimed, the cited sources are not the same (the author of the first is a co-author of the second). 2) The second one was added to prevent you from cherry picking a term (signaled) from the first. 3) Both sources mention the end of an empire that stretches from Dunkerque to Tlemcen (with the second specifically stating that the empire received its decisive death blow after the end of the war).
  • You have intentionally removed sourced content (first three decades of the conquest) from the article (not once, but twice). M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
the problem with the wording is it makes it seem the war was the reason for the empire collapsed, while it was just part of it. Fustos (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Have you actually read what I wrote ? Why do you keep introducing the same cherry picked term ? Why are you ignoring what the other sources state ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
the term you use make it sound like the colonial empire fell because of the algerian war only. when in fact it was due to a myriad of reason ranging back from WW2 to indochina to algeria. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fustos (talk • contribs) 20:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
What part of what I wrote don't you understand ? M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
i understand what you wrote. the problem is it's misleading. that's why it has to be corrected. Fustos (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No, you clearly don't want to understand what cherry picking means. Time to get an admin involved. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
how ironic. by the same token you're cherry picking as well. Fustos (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Writing The death knell of the empire was sounded or the empire received its decisive death blow (under the pretext that both are attributed to to RS) would be cherry picking. Simply stating that it ended (a statement that was there long before you changed it and a fact that is supported by sources) is not. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  Response to third opinion request (how to present the end of the French colonial empire in the Infobox from a neutral point of view?):
"End of the French colonial empire" is better, for 2 reasons: (a) like the last straw, the last in a series of events always gets the credit because the major consequence would not have occurred without it, and (b) it was more than a signal, much more the "decisive death blow", but that is too verbose for an infobox and a tad puffy too. Batternut (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fustos: As the editor who suggested a WP:3O, please acknowledge the respondent's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
i acknowledge it. but was honestly hoping for more than one opinion. Fustos (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging second and third column of belligerents in the infobox?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

since the OAS and FAF were roughly pro-French, why not add them to the French belligerent column? just put a straight line between the two since they were only roughly on the same side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Algerian war of independence

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe that the war was a french military victory so it should say that instead of military stalemate Derbyboy2890 (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Believe what you want so long as you don't disrupt the article. I personally believe and can prove using scholarly sources that the result should state "Decisive FLN victory" since it was the French who begged for the ceasefire that never materialised before surrendering unconditionally to the FLN's demands; but like I said in the edit summary, this has been discussed and the community has decided to keep the infobox as it is. Should that change, then there will be no reason for me not put forward what I believe and can substantiate. M.Bitton (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Military stalemate?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I changed the result to a French military victory and FLN political victory as it seemed the most appropriate. After operation Jumelles it says that France had won a military control over Algeria so surely this means France won the conflict militarily Uk5056547 (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are there lower ranking soldiers KIA in the commanders and leaders tab ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't see how Herve Artur or Rene Sentenac should be considered leaders or commanders as they were only in the field and did not participate in the grand scheme of things during the war, especially since Sentenac was simply a Sergeant, and that adding them alongside such important figures like Bigeard, Massu, Challe and Salan doesnt make much sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltigeurFR (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Algerian_War/Archive_4&oldid=998140938"