Talk:Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African / European / French B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force European military history task force French military history task force Algeria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. inactive .ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles

I think it might be worthwhile to edit this article all the way through for clarity and grammar, and potentially to fix some of the sourcing along the way. My sense is that all of the information contained here is correct, but is often poorly presented and hard to read. I'm happy to do some of this, but if others are able to help out it would be fantastic. This is an important topic and information about it should be presented as clearly as possible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammytwiki (talk • contribs) 04:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am debating making a change to the page. It refers to the belligerents as French vs Muslim. The latter is inaccurate; it was a nationalistic movement, with elements of religion but largely the purpose was independence in a nationalistic sense. To describe one side as Muslim is needless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwayz (talk • contribs) 11:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Your description of the FLN as a nationalistic rather than religious movement is accurate but removal of "Muslim" from the article does create a problem. Most of the pied noirs had been born in Algeria and many of their families had been there for generations. Only about one in five were of actual French origin (the remainder were of Italian, Jewish, Spanish, Maltese and other descent). Accordingly historians normally use the generic terms Muslim and European (or pied noir) to distinguish the two major categories of inhabitant of pre-independence Algeria. Another complication is that the oldest indigenous population of Algeria are Kabyles or Berbers - who like their Arab compatriots are almost exclusively Muslim. In the context of the pre-1962 society it is not a simple case of "Algerian" and "French".Buistr (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • I agree with Buistr. Mztourist (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • But then you have a question- of what does it mean when a native movement removes a colonial power? For example, the Vietnamese also removed the French, despite being there for about the same time. And yet, when you read the page on the first Indochina War, you'll note that it's quite different- the political ideologies are barely mentioned, and it's described as a nationalistic movement ~~Coldwayz~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwayz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.dz/books?id=ORFBAAAAIAAJ&dq=Battle%20of%20Algiers%201957&hl=ar&pg=PA51#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Algiers%201957&f=false 41.102.22.191 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a military expert but even in the source above it describes a French tactical victory. The FLN had fled. It was a FLN strategic victory in that France could not secure its victory or follow it up with subsequent security of the country so a new group took their place some years later. It was a tactical victory but an overall strategic defeat for the French. That's what the book above provides. --ARoseWolf 20:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

n fact, the historians' intention that the National Liberation Front won the war went into a in vain. Indeed, when Algeria won, the French armies intervened once stronger and carried out massacres

But the battle was good Do you know why

Because thanks to that battle, Algeria was able to present the Algerian cause to the United Nations..Therefore, it is considered an Algerian victory, whether algeria wins or in handing over the case

So, as long as the historian said that the victory of Algeria was useless because after that battle the French soldiers returned 41.102.22.191 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think this is the entry of France into Algiers again in March 1957 of the Algiers war, but again they left in September 41.102.22.191 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here to discuss. You haven't adequately supplied the sources to back up that the result is a full FLN victory. The battle was tactically won by the French. But it was a strategic loss. Please do not attempt to disrupt the article further by forcing the changes you want without adequately explaining your changes and providing inline citations supporting those edits,

WP:CITE. Thank you. --ARoseWolf 20:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it's neither NPOV nor appropriate to add unsourced content and use expressions such as "claim" (that aren't used in the cited sources) to call the statement's credibility into question. M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring the page until this is resolved. Your tortured English is clearly POV. It is Teitgen's claim/what Teitgen said, nothing more. There are no RS that such events ever occurred, just endless repetition of Teitgen's accusation. Aussaresses' book makes no mention of such death flights, rather he claims responsibility for all the summary executions. Aussaresses reported to Teitgen daily and he asserts that Teitgen must have known about the executions, yet somehow Teitgen accused Bigeard of this. Mztourist (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) You started edit warring. 2) You've been around long enough to know that you're not supposed to add unsourced content and call the statement's credibility into question (when the cited source doesn't).

Your tortured English is clearly POV 1) start by providing a diff that shows whatever you're attributing to me. 2) explain why it's "tortured English" and POV. M.Bitton (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.Bitton do you really think that Bigeard (then a Colonel) personally poured cement: [1]? Mztourist (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is irrelevant. Let's just stick to what the attributed statement says. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, apply some commonsense, Bigeard would never have poured cement himself. The paragraph is totally back to front and reads better as I redrafted it. Also Manual of Style says you don't repeat military ranks. You had 6 days to respond to my comments, but didn't bother until I changed the paragraph today. You must follow

WP:BRD and engage in proper discussion here. Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We don't apply so-called "common sense" to attributed statements. I didn't see you engaging in anything: you had months to back your baseless claims (see above). M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing baseless in anything I have said. As I have said repeatedly these accusations are based solely on Teitgen's accusation, but as its almost impossible to prove a negative, I can't prove that Teitgen was wrong, despite Aussaresses claiming responsibility for all deaths himself and making no mention of the supposed death flights in his book. Similarly Alistair Horne doesn't mention them in his book either. So do you want me to make that clear in the paragraph?

As it stands the paragraph is repetitive with the first sentence "The French Army used cement shoes on Algerians who were murdered on so-called "death flights"." being essentially repeated and expanded by the 3rd sentence which is poor drafting, as is implying that Bigeard personally poured cement. These issues are resolved by rewording the paragraph to read "According to Paul Teitgen, secretary general of the French police in Algiers in 1957, Bigeard's men put the victim's feet in a basin, poured quick-setting cement in and threw the person into the sea from a helicopter. The victims were called "crevettes Bigeard [fr]", lit. Bigeard shrimps, after Bigeard." as was contained in my edit. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the highlighted text (in green) and the raised concerns that follow it.

Nobody's asking you to prove anything. The statement is attributed to Teitgen and as such, it cannot be rephrased just because one doesn't believe it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The highlighted text (in green) about your tortured English? I stand by that because the paragraph is repetitive and does not flow. Your statement that Teitgen's statement cannot be rephrased is ridiculous, we paraphrase on WP all the time, but if you insist on purity then provide Teitgen's actual quote. As you are insistent on including the Bigeard's crevettes accusation, I am equally insistent that this accusation be countered. Mztourist (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding

WP:OR to the article. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

M.Bitton explain how it is OR that the two major sources used for this page make no mention of "crevettes Bigeard" and I still await your response to my 12 April message above. Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR because it's an idea for which no reliable, published sources exist. I suggest you read

the policy

.

There is a big difference between paraphrasing (the sentence is already paraphrased) and attempting to discredit the statement (you made it clear from the start that you don't believe Teitgen and went as far as to remove a sourced statement to whitewash Bigeard).

Since you seem to think that your points deserve a special treatment, I will now insist that you address what you've been ignoring for months: 1) start by providing a diff that shows whatever you're attributing to me. 2) explain why it's "tortured English" and "POV".

Failure to address the above points (I mean all of them) would signal the end of this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable published sources" which are used for the majority of this page (Horne and Aussaresses) make no mention of Bigeard's crevettes, that's not OR, its demonstrable fact. You are determined to keep the Teitgen accusation that is not backed by reliable sources, but you can't then reject the fact that RS do not support Teitgen's claims. Also you don't get to dictate terms of discussion here. Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" don't you understand? M.Bitton (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you that there is no OR here, the "reliable published sources" which are used for the majority of this page (Horne and Aussaresses) make no mention of "Bigeard's crevettes". You threatened to take this to Admins, so please go ahead as you seem to be popular at ANI at the moment. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand what the word "published" means, then I can't help you. I'm done here, now that you are resorting to casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horne and Aussaresses are both published. Pleased to hear you're done, stop reverting it. Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton you said on 20 June that you were done here, but you repeatedly editwar this point. Horne and Aussaresses make no mention of Bigeard's crevettes, the absence of any reference in the two main RS for this page is the sourcing. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely done re-explaining to you the fact that what you're adding is unsourced, while you're cherry picking what to answer and what to ignore. M.Bitton (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of any mention in the RS means it is sourced. You threatened taking this to the Admins before but didn't because of your recent popularity at ANI, but that's where this is headed. Mztourist (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact something isn't mentioned in sources means it's sourced? Ridiculous 37.245.40.126 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP turns up and makes its first and only edit on this Talk? How strange, socking anyone? Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A uncommunicative IP has disrupted the lead, forcing me to add more to it (per NPOV). Further so-called clarifications and edit warring have turned it into a mess following their misrepresentation of the added source. I suggest restoring the stable version to give them more chance to seek consensus for whatever changes they want to apply to it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is fine as it is now. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it certainly is not. You shamelessly misrepresented a source to make it look as though the Pieds Noirs and the police carried out a terrorist attack against the FLN, when in fact they killed civilians in their sleep. Anyway, it's a bit too late to start communicating now that you've been reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have made two edits in a row where it looked like the French and the FNL were fighting together against the French forces, and I fixed them. Learn to write decently instead of wasting the admins' time. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are now adding childish attacks to the mix. This is new (though not surprising). M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are an expert in childish behaviour, but unfortunately for you not in recognizing it. What I wrote is objectively correct. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks won't be tolerated. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]