Talk:Torture during the Algerian War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): French military history task force

	Algeria Portal 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.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

An entry from Torture during the Algerian War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on February 17, 2007.

Contents 1 Copy edit 2 Salvages? 3 More cleanup please 4 Balance tag 5 Lead too long

[edit] Copy edit

This article should be re-written for clarity. Actual information on the existence, scope and methods of torture in algeria is buried amidst long quotations, many of which are of doubtful relevance. Furthermore, the article makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims, which are not properly documented. E.g. "Torture was a frequent process in use since the beginning of the colonization of Algeria, which started in 1830." While this may be true (I have no detailed knowledge about the history of Algeria or of French Colonialism), the article doesnt offer any source. Similarly, the article claims that "The systemic use of torture lifted a national controversy which has had lasting effects on French and Algerian society;" but then fails to explains what these effects are.

While the article contains many quotations from various authors, they are so numerous, so long and so close to one another that they obscure rather than enhance the article. It reads more like a collage of quotations denouncing torture, than like an encyclopedic article.

165.123.184.227 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Zev

Changed a few things based on your remarks. The only thing I wonder at is your remark that the article fails to explain "lasting effects on French and Algerian society" (although I agree the section could be extended). Isn't the fact that it can still lift a controversy 40 years later, and that Marcel Bigeard still denie it, a sign of it? What about, but this could also be extended, Jean-Marie Le Pen's reaction to it? Maybe I am more aware of that because of my reading of the sources, but it really seems obvious. Finally, the methods employed by the Algerian security services themselves, in particular during the Algerian Civil War, could be, although I dislike that, some sort of Oedipus complex - do to others what they've done to you... Isn't the sole fact that this article exists a proof of the "lasting effect" of this controversy? About the quotes, yes, this is deliberate. One could, I'm sure, go looking for more sources on the number of people tortured or the methods used. But I have low interest in the methods used (apart if they can learn something other than simple "voyeurism"), and beside, the fact that nobody has been judged for these crimes, the fact that the French state repeatedly denied it, makes it difficult to find any reliable source on the matter. Maybe the Algerian state has something on that, but I doubt, seeing the methods it itself has used, that it would have carried an investigation on the matter. The only thing you have is direct testimony, and this does not replace something like the Valech Report for Chile. Last thing: do not forget, Wikipedia:Be bold, and if you think your changes might be too massive, why not propose on this talk page a re-write? Wikipedia articles are not the work of one person, but cooperative work, and if you lack knowledge, you can still help on syntax and global understanding and coherence of the text. Thanks for your remarks, cheers! Tazmaniacs 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a sub-section on its lasting (or lingering) effects would make for a good wrap-up of the article. This is not an area in which I have expertise, but I'm sure there must be such commentary available to draw on for references. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs - your energy does you credit. I think it was good idea to stop clogging up other pages with this stuff and to start a page dedicated to this subject. I think that a sense of injustice and violation is appropriate by those who have been affected by these events. I believe it has been clear for a long time that they happened and the denials by the French state and her officers has probably just amplified the feelings i referred to earlier. As a french speaker myself i have easier access to the sources you reference than many and have tried to put into better english the events and ideas you relate. Be careful when you make links to things like the Oedipus complex and undermine your arguement by suggesting a meaning that your reference does not support (refers to stage of psychosexual development in childhood in which children of both sexes regard their father as an adversary and competitor for the exclusive love of their mother). The difficulty as, i think, you suggest above is the paucity of sources which refer to the same specific events. This makes it very difficult to justify a point of view as neutral (NPOV). Many of your sources are not just in French (what other language would they be in afterall) but are not primary sources themselves (they are journalists views). It is very difficult for the English-speaking audience of this page to assess the objectivity of French newspaper/journal articles. So your energy for this subject may be making your contributions happen but also undermining their credibility by leading you to represent one point-of-view over others. This is not why people come to Wikipedia and is against one of its 'absolute and non-negotiable' principles. Facius 15:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that i could find no such page in the French Wikipedia which is where all the heat and interest on this subject might legitimately be focussed. Indeed the whole subject is quite quiet there where, presumably, more informed discussion might ensure better balance. Facius 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salvages?

Bigeard, who qualified FLN activists as "salvages", claimed torture was a "necessary evil."

Would this be savages, or is it a mistranslation, or is their some other meaning of salvages in this context? --86.145.222.229 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a spelling mistake. I've just spent a good amount of effort cleaning up spelling and punctuation errors. I doubt I caught them all, though. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Tazmaniacs 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More cleanup please

I made it halfway through the lead and already can't figure out who said what to whom. Rmhermen 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it really that confusing? Is it really the syntax, or unfamiliarity with the subject and the persons? Names can be confusing: I have a hard time when I read some articles to which I am completely foreign to. Tazmaniacs 04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance tag

I believe this article is unbalanced in its coverage and may be violating WP:SOAPBOX or WP:POV. While an article on the French use of torture during the Algerian War is fine (though the title should really be used to reflect that the article is entirely about the French use of torture), there appears to be no attempt in the article to present context other than an emphasis that the French actions were wholly despicable. I don't mean that there should be an apologist perspective added, but I believe there should at least be a presentation of the French authorities' justification/rationalization of their policies (rather than summing it up as "counter-insurgency" (with appparently no representation of what the insurgency was or meant) with critics saying it was centuries-old oppression for oppression's sake/aren't-colonial-governments-inexplicably-nasty sort of thing - I'm sure the French authorities didn't present it as so.)

Just as e.g. early 21st century US government justification/rationalization of rendition flights is important to critically historically understanding that policy as much as condemnation of that practice by human rights groups is, so is the French authorities' perspective of the use of torture in Algeria is. At the moment, I don't see this in the article - there is hardly anything on the French view of the FLN (apparently nothing on the view that the group was a terrorist organization) and their involvement in the Café Wars (e.g. bombs in civilian cafes as portrayed in The Battle of Algiers[1]). There is in fact hardly any mention of the FLN - more mention is given to the less important OAS. The article even does not mention that OAS was a French nationalist group but says more than once that the OAS was a terrorist group - was the FLN not seen as a more significant terror threat by the authorities?

In addition, what does the subsection "Massacres in metropolitan France" have to do with this article (which is specifically about torture in the Algerian War )? It may be relevant if the title is changed.

The final section ("The French School") also appears to be odd - the weight of these claims need to be tempered here with reference to the US School of the Americas? (the idea of a "French School" appears to be derived from the "US school"). Otherwise it appears that the article is making the claim that the French were solely or primarily responsible for training death squad and torture tactics to Latin American regimes (a role more commonly given to the School of the Americas).

Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged to explain the context better. The article has still lot to be improved. Concerning your claims concerning OAS/FLN, I think you rather be more careful. "French nationalist" is an euphemism for a far right group that did a series of bombings and tried to assassinate Charles de Gaulle. Concerning the section in "metropolitan France", are you trying to say that the Algerian War had no effects in metropolitan France? So that it should cover only acts committed on "Algerian" territory? The problem is, that territory at the time was a French department. You really ought to be careful about what you saying, you don't seem to be very familiar with the subject. The final section does not claim that France was "solely" responsible. It gives an account of important works recently done. There are other things that could be add, such as that Paul Aussaresses taught the Americans such techniques. You seem to ignore the fact that the School of the Americas largely drew up on The Battle of Algiers... In other words, apart of your ideological disagreement, I don't really see what facts you are disputing with legimacy; in any case, you need to make more convincing arguments and find sources. Again, the article is far from being perfect. Fare well, Tazmaniacs 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I recommend you to read this account from Le Monde diplomatique on presentation of the war and of the use of torture. Tazmaniacs 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tazmaniacs - beware going to far. Bwithh has some good points which if used rather than refuted would make your page contributions to the stronger. You acknowledge this yourself so beware 'coming across' as defensive. I agree that some OAS/FLN context may help, but afterall the page is about torture not the conflict, so keep it short. Who were involved and why does not justify torture. I think that he is claiming that Algeria was part of metropolitain france because it had a departmental code, this is (i think) as misunderstanding on his part of the meaning of metropolitain in this case. Beware of suggesting his mistake may be about the depth of his knowledge when you are writing in a language not your own and using words with special french context. His comments about French school seem appropriate since the article does not refer to any other schools or how they interacted and influenced each other. The only link to the school seems to be your comment here which is not in the article. Your link to suggested reading is only open to subscribers so unavailable to most readers of the wikipedia. So, in summary, I suggest that you re-read the NPOV tutorial and remember that very few English speakers will have any context or detail on the events you describe so comments will likely be on style and meant to be constructive. I suggest that the PoV of most English speakers on this subject will be neutral. Facius 16:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead too long

I think the intro is too long. There should probably only be 2-4 paragraphs prior to the table of contents - enough so that someone can get the essence of the article, but without excessive detail. The current one is peppered with details, facts and figures. These should certainly be in the article, but would fit better below the TOC, where they can be put in context. The intro should be understandable and easily readable to people with little to no background on the subject - like a two minute television news story. -- 15:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a brief intro, a huge overview and then a summary which is self confessed by the author to just be a copy from the overview which is itself too long. I will remove the summary and shorten the overview unless i hear otherwise. I will try to save interesting or importnant pieces of content and reposition them in the very long body of the article. I have already gone through removing references to films recounting the events and statements about political parties being split on this issue. Facius 10:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)