Talk:Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)


Grammar and sourcing issues throughout article

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]

Possible issue with terminology

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]

source about full algerian victory

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]

Teitgen's claims

User:M.Bitton it is perfectly appropriate and WP:NPOV to state that "Paul Teitgen, secretary general of the French police in Algiers in 1957 claimed that Bigeard put his victim's feet in a basin, poured quick-setting cement in and threw the person into the sea from a helicopter." as opposed to "Bigeard put his victim's feet in a basin, poured quick-setting cement in and threw the person into the sea from the top of a helicopter, said Paul Teitgen, secretary general of the French police in Algiers in 1957." the former is NPOV, the latter is awkwardly worded deliberately to lend more weight to what is just an assertion by Teitgen. In addition Bigeard always denied involvement in torture and summary executions. Paul Aussaresses was the summary executions man and he didn't waste limited helicopter resources, the condemned FLN were taken to a pied-noir farm outside Algiers, shot and buried, its all in his book. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 17 November 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]

User:M.Bitton I see that you have made various undiscussed changes, first this change: [2] where you added "Bigeard justified the torture in Algeria as a "necessary evil," while claiming to have never practised it himself. However, numerous witnesses attest to the contrary", relies entirely on one news story, but you present it as undisputed fact. That same story claims that Bigeard was also accused of having executed Larbi Ben M'hidi, but we know that Aussaresses was responsible for his execution, so we cannot rely on a vague statement that "many witnesses attest to the contrary". Controversial claims require numerous sources. Then you added this change [3] "Bigeard, first denied the facts, but was obliged to retract his statement following Massu's confession and remorse." What "facts" are you referring to? What does this completely new source say? Your edit summary "a bit more about the fact that he lied" demonstrates your POV on your edits to this page. Mztourist (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.Bitton rather than answer me here I see that you have added more (mostly inaccessible) sources claiming Bigeard was a torturer. The only substantive source accessible online: Ruscio, Alain (1 Jan 2012). "Deux ou trois choses que nous savons du général Bigeard is clearly not WP:RS due to its inherent WP:BIAS, the introductory language, translated from French states: "The historian Alain Ruscio wished to recall the extent to which the "glory" of General Bigeard is an ideological construction, orchestrated by himself, relayed by numerous pressure forces and even by the government of the Republic. The text is part of the protest movement against the construction of this heroic legend of colonization." Then you ignore contradictory statements in the article itself "The testimony of an individual [Massu] is not sufficient to provide proof." and "The main actors in this sinister episode – Massu, Aussaresses, Chabanne, Trinquier – have confessed, some have even justified, this practice. Bigeard, for his part, has always been biased." Find NPOV sources or present those balancing statements. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Google translate isn't working properly, but when I run the passage from Menschenrechte im Schatten kolonialer Gewalt p.231 it reads "In a private conversation with R. F. G. Sarell of the British Consulate General in Algiers, Captain Robert Frequelin, communications officer in Colonel Marcel Bigeard's notorious Parachute Regiment, explained this procedure in detail and openly reported that they had never tortured any of their prisoners." However you wrote "that they tortured every one of their prisoners." please explain. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is clearly not WP:RS due to its inherent WP:BIAS that's a baseless claim.
It is very clearly biased. I'll take it to RSN. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find NPOV sources you're welcome to do that.
No, that's your responsibility when making such a claim. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it reads "...they had never tortured any of their prisoner" that's not what it reads. Here's the full quote (in German): "In einem privaten Gespräch mit R. F. G. Sarell vom britischen General-konsulat in Algier erläuterte zum Beispiel Capitaine Robert Frequelin, Nachrich-tenoffizier im berüchtigten Fallschirmjäger-Regiment von Colonel Marcel Bigeard, ausführlich diese Vorgehensweise und berichtete dabei unverhohlen, dass sie je-den ihrer Gefangenen gefoltert hätten". M.Bitton (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "Perhaps Google translate isn't working properly", when I run the phrase again today I get a different result. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Bigeard mentioned by Raphaëlle Branche (e.g. [1][2][3])? He's mentioned elsewhere in the already-cited Lazreg book[4] too. Meluiel (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Branche, Raphaëlle (2017). The French Army and the Geneva Conventions during the Algerian War of Independence and After.
  2. ^ Branche, Raphaëlle (2016). La torture et l'armée pendant la guerre d'Algérie (in French). Paris: Gallimard. ISBN 978-2-07-046920-8.
  3. ^ Branche, Raphaëlle (2014). "The French military in its last colonial war: Algeria, 1954–1962 – the reign of torture". In Andrew, Christopher; Tobia, Simona (eds.). Interrogation in war and conflict: a comparative and interdisciplinary analysis. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-88215-4.
  4. ^ Lazreg, Marnia (2016). Torture and the Twilight of Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-17348-1.

Recent disruptive editing

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]

9 March 2025

User:Skitash despite my warning to follow WP:BRD you reverted my edit: [4] meaning you are edit-warring. You need to read Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters under Result which states: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Look at the Aftermath section which clearly states "The battle was the first clearly definable French victory of the war." accordingly "French victory" accurately describes the result in the Infobox. Please revert your edit. Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current version displaying "see Aftermath" in the result parameter has been stable for more than two years. You've edited the article numerous times while it stated "French tactical victory; FLN strategic victory".
""French victory" accurately describes the result in the Infobox." No, it was not an outright French victory. Many scholarly sources consider it a French strategic defeat,[5] which is why editors opted to change the result to the current one to prevent edit wars while also adhering to Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameter. Skitash (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS states "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict." It was a French victory, whatever "scholarly sources" may have later said about it does not change the immediate outcome of the battle. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already presented a source contradicting your claim. If by "immediate" victory you mean it was a military victory, that misses the point. In a national liberation war, tactical/military wins by the colonizer don’t mean much when the movement's strength is tied to civilian support. Skitash (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath - "seen by some scholars"

Hi @Mztourist, regarding this change: while I have no fundamental opposition to using the phrase "seen by some scholars", it does need to be demonstrated that there is an actual academic debate over the outcome of the battle. At present, no sources have been provided that show the existence of such a debate, and I'm concerned that your change fails WP:VER as neither source cited in the prose supports that particular wording. If you have other sources which do support that position, of a similar recency and quality, I'd love to see them.

In addition to the Porch[1] and Seferdjeli[2] citations currently in the article, here are a few more sources, all of which support stating the long-term impacts of the battle in WP:Wikivoice: [3][4][5]

Pinging @Skitash who has also been involved in this part of the article (see talk page thread above) and may be interested in this discussion.

Meluiel (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their change does indeed fail verification. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The language was there previously, Meluiel changed it without discussion and I reverted it. "Some scholars" is an accurate description, it is a view held by some scholars. No sources have been provided that prove that is correct. This is just all a continuation of the disputed outcome of the battle. As I noted above 9 March 2025, Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters under Result states: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. Yet we have users here who are arguing against the MOS, by ignoring the immediate outcome and focussing on later writing about torture and summary executions to claim that the French somehow retrospectively lost the battle which is ridiculous. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You added it (while claiming that it's the opinion of a single author). Meluiel reverted your edit, added more sources and started this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be absolutely explicit in order to avoid misunderstanding. My contention is not with the infobox result parameter, which I think is accurate as-is. My contention is with this change to the Aftermath section (which you have now re-inserted twice) and the characterisation of the long-term impact of the battle as an opinion of "some scholars", rather than stated plainly as the scholarly consensus.
The essential policy is WP:NPOV, particularly bullet points two and three under "Explanation":
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
  • Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
The five sources currently provided in this thread all agree on the deleterious impact of the battle on the French war effort, despite their initial military success. No reliable source has thus far been presented that shows any disagreement or makes any conflicting assertion. As it stands, this is strong evidence of scholarly consensus.
As stated before, framing it as contested requires you to demonstrate that such contention actually exists, per WP:BURDEN. Please do so. Anything else is a violation of NPOV and WP:OR. Meluiel (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that there is "scholarly consensus", but the 5 sources you provide adopt differing views on the longer-term impact of battle, particularly the use of torture. This does all comes back to this being a continuation of the disputed outcome of the battle and users who want to ignore the immediate outcome of the battle and focus on the longer-term impact on the war. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you elaborate on why you think the five sources provided adopt differing views on the matter. Perhaps you could give your own summary of the views of each source? Because from where I'm standing, all of the sources broadly concur that:
1) the Battle had significant negative consequences for the French, with all but Connelly explicitly calling it an FLN (political/strategic/long-term) victory (and Connelly calls it a Pyrrhic victory for the French, which is hardly much better)
2) the repressive methods used by the French to inflict a military defeat on the FLN, including torture, and particularly their publicisation in France and abroad, were a major component in producing those negative consequences.
If reliable sources so commonly bring up the long-term aftermath of the Battle when discussing it, which the quotes demonstrate, then we should also include it in our own article per WP:DUE.
I would also like to reject your assertion that I "want to ignore the immediate outcome of the battle"—I have not attempted to remove mentions of the military victory of the French army and have no reason to do so, given that RS are also consistent in supporting that facet of the result. Meluiel (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Porch, Douglas (2013). Counterinsurgency: Exposing the Myths of the New Way of War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 186–187. ISBN 978-1-107-02738-1. But by October 1957, the French army had transformed a tactical victory over the FLN into a strategic defeat. The Battle of Algiers, launched in a period when French public opinion firmly supported Algérie française, exposed to public view the violence of the French counter-terror methods that the mainland press had been reporting since January 1955, and even earlier, to no avail. Now both international and French public opinion increasingly questioned the legitimacy of a rule that relied on such extra-legal methods. The press was simply one voice in a growing chorus of protest from 1957 against COIN methods [...], shocked that torture had become standard operating practice in their army. [...] 1957 and the Battle of Algiers proved to be the turning point that began to shift popular opinion toward a negotiated outcome to the war. While popular pessimism about the prospects for a military victory did not end the war in Algeria, it helped over time to isolate the army politically and accorded Charles de Gaulle the leeway to bury Algérie française after 132 years.
  2. ^ Seferdjeli, Ryme (2020). "A War over the People: The Algerian War of Independence, 1954–1962". In Ghazal, Amal; Hanssen, Jens (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Middle Eastern and North African History. Oxford University Press. p. 256. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199672530.013.22. ISBN 978-0-19-967253-0. At the end of the battle, the French had defeated the FLN-ALN and dismantled its organization in Algiers. Yet at the same time, the battle of Algiers turned out to be a major diplomatic victory for the FLN-ALN. The systematic use of torture by the French—and more particularly, the stories of young Algerian women who were arrested and subjected to torture, became widely reported. The worldwide response to these abuses, as well as the concerted effort by the FLN-ALN to make the world aware of the Algerian conflict during the repression of Algiers, greatly contributed to internationalizing the conflict, and aroused a great deal of sympathy for the Algerian cause at the international level. As for France, its use of torture contributed to its isolation at the international level. It had won militarily but lost diplomatically.
  3. ^ Vince, Natalya (2020). "1957, 'The Battle of Algiers': A French Military 'Success', a FLN Political Victory". The Algerian War, The Algerian Revolution. Springer Nature. p. 96. ISBN 978-3-030-54264-1. By summer 1957, the FLN's Algiers bomb network had been almost totally dismantled by the French army, with its leaders either killed or imprisoned. The military strength of the French army might have won the battle by crushing the ALN, but ultimately, they lost the war. Under the scrutiny of an international media increasingly fascinated by the unfolding confict, the terror of the methods employed by the French army to stop terrorism fatally undermined the French claims of its 'right to rule', as well as alienating the Algerian wider population.
  4. ^ Connelly, Matthew (2002). A Diplomatic Revolution: Algeria's Fight for Independence and the Origins of the Post-cold War Era. Oxford University Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-19-514513-7. Be that as it may, a year after the CCE was driven into exile, the Battle of Algiers began to seem like a Pyrrhic victory because it was impossible to conceal the methods by which it had been won, sapping support for the war at home and abroad.
  5. ^ Horne, Alistair (2012). A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962. Pan Macmillan. p. 156. ISBN 978-1-4472-3343-5. But all this was in the immediate present: in the longer term there were ways in which the Battle of Algiers was to prove a blessing in disguise [...]. First of all, by making the CCE quit Algiers, the French would be assisting it to find a base of relative tranquillity in Tunis. Secondly, by pressing upon it the correct strategic conclusions it would help the CCE turn a short-term defeat into a long-term victory. Thirdly, with the utmost irony, the Battle of Algiers, by focusing the TV cameras, newsfilms and journalists of the world upon it, had probably done infinitely more to achieve the sought-after "internationalisation" of the war than all Ben Bella's efforts in Cairo, or Yazid's at the United Nations. Fourthly, through the reaction they produced both in France herself and elsewhere, the repugnant methods with which the paras had won in Algiers were materially to help bring victory from the outside.

25 April 2015

User:Skitash don't accuse me of edit-warring: [6], "FLN defeated" has been there since September 2013: [7] until User:M.Bitton deleted it without discussion: [8]. There is nothing misleading about it, the battle was in Algiers and the FLN were defeated in the battle in Algiers. I'd also note that as you thought the Infobox result being stable for 2 years (your 9 March comment above) then why are you changing something that has been stable for 11 years and supported by numerous sources, while claiming that its misleading? Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) You are edit warring. 2) 11 or 6000 years, once it's been challenged by two editors, you don't get to restore it without consensus. 3) You added WP:OR (claimed) to the article to call Massu's statement's credibility into question. I will note that we already had a similar discussion about such additions since you did the same thing for Teitgen's_statement. M.Bitton (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) No you are doing so 2) show the rule that says that and why WP:BRD should just be ignored. Once again as with Teitgen, its a claim by Massu, not proven fact. Mztourist (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is stable" is not a valid reason to revert things. See WP:STABLE. Personally I think the heading isn't that misleading, though it's entirely possible that's just a consequence of having English as my first language. If we can make the section clearer then we may as well. Meluiel (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet when User:Skitash used that WP:STABLE justification on the Infobox result that was met with silence other than from me. The subheading isn't at all misleading; this is just M.Bitton and Skitash obscuring the immediate outcome of the battle to focus on torture and the overall impact on the war. Mztourist (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bring it up because I notice it's a reasoning you use frequently in edit summaries and the like. With regards to the "9 March 2025" discussion: even if the stable argument is improper, the rest of Skitash's point is sound, especially given that they then edited the article to provide a corroborating source.
"Obscuring" the immediate result of the battle to discuss torture doesn't seem particularly wrong-headed, given that historically the use of torture did indeed obscure and overshadow the French military victory. Meluiel (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Algiers_(1956%E2%80%931957)