Loading AI tools
This is an archive of past discussions about Algerian War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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:
{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.cndp.fr/Tice/Teledoc/dossiers/dossier_gone.htm{{dead link}}
tag to http://www.abri.org/antidelation/IMG/pdf/RAPPORT_BESNISTI.pdfWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think he is considered a leader or commander. Geo8rge (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
Since I'm not sure what the editor who keeps deleting the sources 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)
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)
@Mztourist: Here we go again:
References
The war in Algeria remained stalemated in 1960 on both military and diplomatic fronts.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I am seeking comments on a proposal to make the result parameter in the Infobox comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
References
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.
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.
France lost its wars in both Indochina and Algeria, while the remainder of its colonial empire largely achieved independence peacefully
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.
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)References
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.
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.
References
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
@Fustos: your edits have been reverted because:
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 blowafter the end of the war).
first three decades of the conquest) from the article (not once, but twice). M.Bitton (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The death knell of the empire was soundedor
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.