Talk:Algerian War

Casus belli

How can "FLN terrorism in French Algeria" be a cause for the 'Algerian War of Independence'? If anything it would a tactic within that war. Surely the cause is the French colonial rule.

photo of first press conference...

Can someone remove this photo? It has nothing to do with the Algerian war but represents nowadays Corsican independentists, FLNC meaning "front de liberation nationale de la Corse"

The starting date of this event is incorrect.

". The most notable manifestation of the new urban campaign was the Battle of Algiers, which began on September 30, 1956, when three women placed bombs at three sites including the downtown office of Air France."

Dear friends,

The events that generally constitute the Battle happened in 1957, not 1956. Although the date above for the bombings is apparently correct, (The quote seems to be from the LOC country study on Algeria.) The Battle for Algiers began On January 28, 1957 following the national strike.

Specifica dates of interest:

28 January: General strike begins in Algiers which is broken by the paras. 5 March: Larbi Ben M'hidi, FLN leader captured on 25 February, dies in custody. 21 May: Fall of the Mollet government. 29 May: An FLN commando unit massacres all the men in the village of Melouza who belong to the rival MNA. 12 September: Resignation of Paul Teitgen, secretary general for the police in Algiers, who protests at the torture methods used by the paras. 24 September: Head of the Algiers FLN, Yacef Saadi, is arrested in the Casbah.

The Battle of Algiers ends.

French Troops Clash With Algerian Civilians

This picture should be removed. It's a scene from Gillo Pontecorvo's "Battle of Algiers", not a real photo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22838-2003Sep3.html

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Algerian woman sexually abused by the French army.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Torture during the Algerian War, Teleghma 1961.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Alphonse Djamate

who is this person. No mention of him in any sources. Probably not real or not worth mentioning in infobox ~2025-35205-34 (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The title

I think it should be the algerian war of independence ~2025-41051-85 (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe shorter titles are preferred. natemup (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Contradictions in lede and body

My recent edit addressing inconsistency between the lede, infobox, and body of the article was reverted by @M.Bitton without a stated reason beyond "not an improvement". A minor grammatical fix was also deleted in the revert, signaling a possible contentious edit. Upon further discussion, it appears we are at an impasse. In short, I feel that the article should consistently describe the Algerian War.

The first sentence of the lede calls it a one-on-one conflict between the FLN and France. The infobox and article body (and hell, even the lede outside of the first sentence) describe it as a multi-pronged conflict centering around that one-on-one conflict but not identical to it. My edit, now reverted, changed the opening sentence to reflect the latter description.

The body of the article also describes the Algerian War as including multiple "civil wars". The lede, however, says the entire conflict became a single "civil war"—a claim not found in the body at all. My edit also addressed this, removing reference to an overarching, singular civil war.

M.Britton's logic seems to lead to the conclusion that it's OK for the lede to contradict the infobox/body of the article because reliable sources, presumably those cited in the lede, call the whole Algerian War a conflict between the FLN and France. I say that if we're going to go with those sources, then the infobox, lede, and article body should reflect that description uniformly. We should not treat the lede (or the infobox/body) as an independent section with logic and sources functioning independently of the rest of the article. natemup (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I stated a reason and elaborated on it on my talk page. There is nothing preventing you from correcting the so-called minor grammatical error.

The first sentence of the lede calls it a one-on-one conflict between the FLN and France I have no idea where you got the one time from. It is described as a conflict between France and the FLN (which is how all RS about the subject describe it as).

an armed conflict centering around France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) which RS describe it as such?

There were no multiple civil wars, just like there were no multiple wars. It's just one war which became at some stage what "some sources" describe as a "civil war" (which is already a stretch), that's why the sourced sentence that you fiddled with says "the conflict also became a civil war between the different communities and within the communities" (which reflects what's in the article's body).

The lede already covers what the article says. As for the Infobox, if for some reason you think that it doesn't, then you're welcome to point out what is at odds with rest of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, even there in your reply you have fabricated a quote ("one time") that I never wrote.

Secondly, the infobox and the body of the article describe the Algerian War as having multiple parties on the Algerian side against France. If we're keeping that info, then it's not a one-on-one conflict between France and the FLN and the opening sentence is inaccurate.

Thirdly, the body of the article literally uses the phrase "civil wars" to describe the internal Algerian conflicts of the Algerian War, which is why I have it in quote marks. If you don't think there were multiple civil wars, take it up with the editor(s) who made that edit and others. It is one of three mentions of civil war in the body of the article; the other two refer, unsurprisingly, to two separate civil wars that took place as part of the Algerian War.

Again, as it is right now, and as you have insisted the article remain, the body, infobox and lede are at odds with each other. natemup (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I misread one-on-one (it should be obvious since I quoted the whole sentence before that). Regardless, the article doesn't say that. What is says is that it was a war between France and the FLN (a simple fact that is repeated in all RS about the subject). The obvious clue is in the signatories of the Evian Accords.

Like all other wars, minor parties don't count as the main belligerents and shouldn't be given UNDUE weight.

It shouldn't (that part is also unsourced).

an armed conflict centering around France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) which RS describe it as such?

Again, you're welcome to point out which part of the infobox is at odds with rest of the article. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Tangentially related: moving Operation Jumelles to Challe Plan

The 'operation' was really just one part of the larger French offensive, spearheaded by General Challe, like: Crown, Belt, Ruby, etc.

There's not very much to talk about in the stub as is, whereas a larger article would allow for the other operations to be mentioned as well.

We could then link to this new article on here, as in 'more detailed information at Challe Plan', talk about how it was the peak of French military dominance (but not political), etc.

Thoughts? Mnohohrishnyi (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Reworking the lead

Hey all, per WP:LEAD, shouldn't we trim down the lead section for this? Also, I think there's too many citations for a lead section. Mnohohrishnyi (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many citations. They should be in the body of the article. Whether the lead needs to be trimmed is a marginal call but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)