Talk:Algerian War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

colons

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

Fascinating. So...what is "legal" about a war of conquest? It was, and read this carefully: colonialism and imperialism that got the French into another's country: Algeria. The problem with the Pied-Noirs were that thet were in fact "colons", and NEVER viewed themselves as "Algerian", therefore they were never "indigenous", they were "French" and represented a French colonial outpost in Africa.66.77.107.100 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no country of "Algeria" ever existed before 1830 (there were various Barbary states, but no unified Algeria), and for a time, only the ethnically European settlers called themselves "Algerians." The others were called Arabs, Muslims, Berbers, etc. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

"Algerian War"

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

• Good point but published sources generally use "Algerian War and "Algerian Civil War" respectively for the two separate conflicts. Both are well established designations now, at least in French and English. Buistr (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it only the FLN that killed civilians?

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

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

You actually removed references to "OAS terrorism" - although that was a European settler organization which undertook a series of attacks on Muslim civilians during the final stages of French rule in an attempt to derail the peace process. This was an exceptionally brutal colonial war with atrocities on both sides and no purpose is served in rewriting history half a century later by trying to sanitize one side or the other - whether Algerian nationalist or French. Use sourced references to expand the article and give the fullest picture possible121.73.91.201 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC).

I wish I had the time and the sources. As I don't, all I can do is to tone down the insane POV being pushed by the sympathizers of French colonialism. 'Terrorism', for example, is not regarded an NPOV term, and has no place in the text, specially when its use reflects such callous bias. Funny that you say I've removed reference to French terrorists, when this is not actually the case. Does the text even acknowledges the existence of French terrorism, state-sponsored or not? 177.206.176.236 (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The passage that you edited was "During the three months between the cease-fire and the French referendum on Algeria, the OAS unleashed a new terrorist campaign. The OAS sought to provoke a major breach in the ceasefire by the FLN but the terrorism now was aimed also against the French army and police enforcing the accords as well as against Muslims". The "insane POV" in this case related to a factual account of the actions of Pied Noir (French settler) extremists, not the FLN. Please try and get basic points like this correct. The full article, which has been worked on by a number of editors, does attempt an even-handed treatment of a cruel historic war, without exonerating any of the several parties involved. Improvements and corrections are welcome. Reference sources from a wide range of perspectives are readily available. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC).

Need more articles on battles/operations

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

Death toll

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

please remove the decapitated heads photo!

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

Okay, but I'm removing the other picture as well, just to be balanced. Blaue Max (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you very very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.52.13 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) 

Victory in infobox?

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

My reply (Historian Student): I didn't launched that war, other guy did. Speaking of a FLN political victory or a French military victory it's like saying which religion is true, it's a very complicated debate with no easy answer, algerian and french hisorian disagree a lot about that, and even algerian/french historian beetween them, there's no official truth about that. We can say that FLN lost or won the diplomatic war, he won many things like the fact that Algerian cause was kinda famous, specially in arab world and pro-soviet areas. He also lost a lot, specially in the eyes of USA (See book about US involvment in the war), and he lost at the ONU. We can discuss about that for hours, there's many books about that, it's a debate, not a fact. Same goes for military victory, did the FLN lost ? He certainly didn't win, but speaking of a military loss, which loss ? In wich wilayet ? Do you count the army of the borders who was very strong even after 1962 ? I don't think they military lost the war. Wikipedia and specially box is made for general facts that pretty much every historian admit, not for such things, who are very sensitive issues. It's the war memories, and you can't simply take a side and ignore the other.‎Historian Student (talk · contribs)

It was a clear military victory for the French: the most prominent FLN leaders were killed or arrested, the terror attacks were stopped and French counter-insurgency tactics were studied for years in military academies as an example. However, the use of torture during the battle of Algiers led to an increasing opposition in France and among the United Nations. So there was no reason to contest the result in the infobox. Blaue Max (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk) I don't think that the opinion of a far-right supporter is really trustable when it comes to discuss about thread like that, no offense but don't mix real history with your own fantaisies. No, "most" of FLN leaders weren't arrested, and even if they were, they get remplaced, the terror attacked never stopped before 1962. There's excellent reasons to contest the result of the infobox, if they weren't, I wouldn't be posting this. We can share the opposite views of a special paragraph in the article, why not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.170.49.47 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I think we're very kind to give credits to an unidentified IP, violating Wikipedia's basic rule. You give no arguments. French military victory and subsequent political "betrayal" is a well documented fact. 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Historian Student (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't accuse me to start an edit war, you did! You should reach consensus on the talkpage before changing the previous consensus, not the other way around.

The first source is a blog, it is unreliable. Please have a look here: WP:RS. That can be useful for a "Historian student".

The second source doesn't contradict the "political failure" theory.

The third source is biased and probably not reliable either. It also aknowledge the fact that there is a large consensus amongst historians about the political failure theory. As a fringe theory WP:FRNG, we should't give undue weight to your version of history.

Other occurence of a conflict resulting in a military victory but political failure can be found, such as the Suez Crisis. Blaue Max (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

The problem is that you give absolutely no argument and you're violating almost every rules on wikipedia. I insist that you read at least WP:CONDUCT or the only result you'll get is to be blocked. Blaue Max (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Historian Student, you changed the consensus on this article by forcing your POV. When we asked you to give explanation on the talk page, you were insulting and left the convesation. Accordingly, we restored the previous consensus, but you're starting an edit war again! If you're not willing to discuss and to reach a consensus on the talkapage before you modify the article, you will be reported.Blaue Max (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume, by vandalizing my personal talkpage[1], that you don't want to have a rational debate... Blaue Max (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My citation

Defining the groups

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

 Done Blaue Max (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

De Gaulle and the Six Day War

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry

Hi!

It seems obvious that User:Historian Student is bypassing his blocking by creating sockuppets, namely User:M.Bitton and User:Kaka322. With the same obsessions he disrupts articles related to Algerian history. How are we suppose to react when we are confronted to that ? Blaue Max (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Blaue Max: It seems that you have a problem with the reliably sourced content. Accusing me and others of sock puppetry is the perfect excuse for deleting it without engaging in a constructive discussion. Feel free to challenge any of my edits. M.Bitton (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

SP reported ; WP:DISRUPT to be reported to WP:AN/I. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'am not M.Bitton, let your slander for yourself. Kaka322 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

   ::::::::::::: I hate it when bad things happen the English language.

War outcome reliable sources

List your sources here so we can discuss their reliability

Algerian victory

Military stalemate

1.5 million dead

M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

About the Algerian victory :

the Military stalemate: this citation ones are good Kaka322 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Kaka322 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You should read WP:OVERCITE then. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That said, could you please comment on those sources' reliability? Thanks. (And my apologies for stirring the pot - I am just trying to keep things fair.) DS (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

M.Bitton basically put any book he could find with the words "Algerian" and "Victory" in it. A bit of source criticism allows to dismiss these sources. The cited books are mostly about sociology [2] [3] [4] [5], linguistics [6], religion [7][8], geopolitics [9][10][11][12][13] [14], individual opinions in newspapers [15] [16], he even put a novel [17] and an atomic scientists bulletin [18] ! The only history books are not about the Algerian War [19] [20] [21]

Just putting thousands of unrelated sources with "Algerian victory" in it doesn't help to understand how the FLN could have managed to military win the war... Blaue Max (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

issues

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

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

J'edite donc en consequence (Sam9)

Please write in English and stop removing sourced informations without consensus. Blaue Max (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the language.The infobox cut after the conflict into parts (military victory / policy).I'm sorry but we do not cut a war and in this case a revolution in several distinct and independent from each other. How we can speak of French military victory when the opponent (FLN) does not fight for a military purpose, but as with any known war and revolutionary Asymmetrical for a political objective.From the conclusion that there has been a "military victory" French is absolutely not relevant and true. My correction is fully justified (sam9)

This is a personal point of view. Wikipedia does not publish original research per WP:OR. Please don't edit the article until a consensus is reached here. Blaue Max (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, it is the fact of cutting a conflict in victory or defeat political / military and diplomatic might add, mediatic etc which is a debatable point en WOR. And your point of view has no concensus from a historical point of view. Both the speaking of French military victory (this is a point of view but not french military history and contradicted by historical and academic sources), and also the fact compartmentalize and separate a conflict of this kind in many different aspects. And besides no conflict or revolution has been divided into presentation on wikipedia policy issue + military or otherwise. So I return to my anterior Correction. (sam9)

I warned you on your talk page that you have started an edit war and broken the rule of the 3 reverts WP:3RR. I also reported you to the admininistrators for pushing your point of view and for breaking a consensus established several times here and here. As you act with the same disdain of Wiki rules and on the same favourite article than banned user Historian Student (and its numerous sockpuppets), you may face an additional sockpuppetry investigation. Blaue Max (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but my statement was based on an argument that I have previously stated in the discussion page of the articleTalk:Algerian_War#.22complete_success.22_and_.22_attacks_effectively_stopped.22. You did offered no serious argumention, apart tell me will you go to complain to WP. This is not serious. And there is no consensus on it. I think it is you who want to impose a pseudo concensus devoid of any reasoned debate. (sam9)

*sammy* starting a war edition

Sachaton (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

april referundum

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

Intro

To Sachaton,

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

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

@Sachaton...Again, you vandalize content without justification. Except personal invective, you have no argument or debate. I have already explained how the previous Correction was completely justified and I will repeat it once again for you:

First, talk about "military victory" absolutely been no historical consensus including among the french historians. Not that the superiority of the French army in the field are challenged, this is not the challenge. But it is absolutely disputed that to reduce by 30% or 40% the size of a guerrilla and structurally weaken its capacity (until the cease-fire has never stopped fighting qed) be considered a "military victory". But this is not even essential and I will explain why.

Because, secondly, we not speak of a classic conflict between two states or conventional armies but a war of decolonization and Asymmetrical type and "revolutionary." But in a war and revolutionary asymmetrical kind the objective of the struggle is not military but essentially political, and when talking about politics it is about winning its cause the masses. The challenge from the outset is absolutely no military, so unless whether satisfy some personal pride of some, the process is cut into infobox in this period politque appearance or military or diplomatic or other is absolutely not justified and not subject to any historical or academic consensus.

Now, I ask you to refrain from your edits without justifcations, otherwise I would have to report your behavior will find that each of which is closed devoid of any argument--*sammy* (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

First: No there is absolutely no consensus: while even the large-scale military operations could not deliver complete military victory and, crucially, there was no evidence of a mass rallying of the Algerians to France...Whereas if their opponents fail to achieve a decisive military victory...this is what sources say you just give me myself. You're not even agreements with your sources because they say the opposite of what you say. Secondly No it is not a pee and " war is war " is not an argument. I already explained that it is not a conventional war but a global revolutionary conflict. This is not a pov and evidence and you will find no such conflt or infobox cut after victory / defeat political / military / diplomatic or other, it is this division which is a pov. The infobox it reacts exclusively to the facts, not the opinion of this or that. As the outcome of evian agreements are a proven fact, ndépendance is a fact, the exodus of pieds noirs is a proven fact that notice the rest is non-consensual and staff.--*sammy* (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I also note that you also vandalized the introduction by imposing a version of which was to demonstrate that it is the Wrong on several pointsTalk:Algerian_War#.22complete_success.22_and_.22_attacks_effectively_stopped.22. Always with your same method that is to say pass the strength to change what you do not like a person without coming argument or explanation, vandalism as everyone can see. Obviously this type of method does not.--*sammy* (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You obsiously don't like the previous consensus, but aggressively force your POV vandalizing doesn't contribute to the free encyclopedia. I'm a poor french speaker but I can understand that you already tried such edit war on french version and this method never pay. Respect other's contribution and start a true discussion about a new neutral infobox info --Sachaton (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I repeat, you invent an imaginary consensus, even the sources you cite to prove your consensus affirm the opposite of what you say. So no concensus on the contrary.Then you delete a paragraph that is sourced and disputed by anyone other than you. When I ds you do vandalism is really the appropriate word. Finally, contrary to what you said, I do not speak in the French version of the article and not in the infobox ...So I ask you to contribute positively to this page and stop your useless edit war--*sammy* (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Restoring previous version isn't vandalism... You r the one who force edition... Sachaton (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Imposing the return at an earlier version that has been shown to be false, not sourced or poorly sourced and impertinence, without even coming to argue on the merits but by inventing imaginary consensus and cursing his interlocutor is vandalism in the most manifest form. I note also that this is your umpteenth operation without substantive argument.--*sammy* (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is more detail, analysis of the historian specialist of the Algeria war on Guy Pervillé about organizational situation of the ALN after Challe plan (after 1960): In the months following the execution of the Challe Plan continued, but without decisive effect. The indoor ALN adapted itself by reconstructing networks in the regions "pacified" and in large cities; it resumed contact with the staff of the ALN outside through clandestine channels of the Federation of France FLN. The announcement of the future "Algerian Republic" by General de Gaulle (speech of November 4, 1960), then the Muslim sporting events Algerian flags and calling for negotiations with the Provisional Government during his trip of 9 to 13 December in Algeria désorientèrent most officers: some deserted, or remained in the army to prepare a "putsch". ...You can, if you have any doubts you address the competence of G. Pervillé and you will see how it has an undeniable specialist and recognized the issue. Again the alleged consensus you mentioned are nowhere among the specialists of the algerian war.--*sammy* (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this one? I copypasted "The vote" section from "évian accords", keeping some of your contribution.

I'm not telling that your refs are not valuable, but mostly unconnected.

I'm trying to change the infobox to get something more neutral but I'm pretty sure that another edit war will start with another wiki contributor... Sachaton (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

French army controlling the territory

but FLN political victory

Évian Accords

Seems better to me Sachaton (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The initial version is more balanced as it is limited to the facts (evian, independence) and not the opinions or proclamations proved not unanimous. Your proposal is just the fact that the military France militarily control most of the territory (after challe plan, but it is relevant to the infobox rather than to explain in more detail in the article?--*sammy* (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the history of the world, Algerian independance and evian accords are not very important but winning indenpendance without military success, show that after WWII public's opinion is now a main goal rather than controling a territory. That's why the original version specify the military victory, the infobox have been discussed serveral times. The proposition above is a good consensus, better than "military victory" or a removal. Sachaton (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015

(UTC)

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

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

you are right, you are right, i will use better preview before posting --*sammy* (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

French army controlling the territory

but FLN political victory

Évian Accords

-Algerian independence

-Exodus of the pieds-noirs

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

French army...,but FLN... and evian = résults part

+

independance of algeria = Territorial changes

? --*sammy* (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That's correct for me Sachaton (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I closed my side to this debate on the infobox with this consensus--*sammy* (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"complete success" and " attacks effectively stopped"

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

Most of (remaining) ALN employees after Challe plan were expelled to tunisia and morroco until negociations with france (your table show it) and weren't a military threat anymore.

There is probably a residual military and terrorist activity but no major action or battle (political fight at UN started)

I reworked the sentence :

"Although the successfull military campaigns greatly weakened nationalists militarily, majority of them killed or expelled from algeria with most prominent FLN leaders killed or arrested and terror attacks effectively stopped..."

Sachaton (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not an expulsion of effectiffs inside outwards. The "armée des frontieres" existed before challe plan. His initial target was to supply weapons and man from inside the bush but with the installation challe + maurice lines , this army was blocked on the outside and was strengthened by recruiting among local Algerian populations ( Algerian refugees in Tunisia) ..

However these are some leaders who were forced into exile on the outside without being able to come back, but it's not the "armées des frontieres" of it even army who was expelled, she has strengthened locally because lines Challe / Maurice

Regarding activtité rebel, after the challe plan, it is inconestable that it declined sharply in terms of guerrilla maquis, but was "offset" by attacks urban guerrila / terrorism including in Algiers, which explains that military losses (included French gendarmerie remain significant after the challe plan).

Accordingly activate and urban terrorism ("fida"), never as strong as that after the Challe Plan, precisely because of the weakening of the maquis..--*sammy* (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algerian War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130115052428/http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/dztoc.html to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/dztoc.html

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) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Algerian Genocide

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

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