Talk:Pacification of Algeria

Algeria High‑importance

	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.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: African / European / French

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Morocco Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Help expand the project:

You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mounir Charïbi
Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data
Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco
Stubs : Morocco stubs
Other :
- Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu

Help!

This article needs a lot of work. It's almost a stub. Help! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a complete mess

Basic rules of wikipedia are not respected (citations in the intro for exemple), and dubious sources are used to push a fringe point of view and turn a serious article on the military operations in Algeria between 1830 and 1875 into something else. 92.150.228.97 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What fringe point of view would that be? M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bias

Not a forum. M.Bitton (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Its funny how wikipedia ignores that this was a response to ethnic targeting, piracy and slavery done by algeria against the french and others for centuries. this is a highly biased article that fails to mention the prelude and i believe wikipedia moderators should have to answer for this 2001:4644:714B:0:4C06:3908:8BDE:9CAA (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so is it fair to kill one million people just because they did piracy? Yeah, this is the really "civilised" Europe. Their justice is just perfect. You are trying to make it look like its not a bad thing. Europeans are really funny. When they do worst genocides its name becomes things like "passification" "civilisification". But when a pirate attacks their ships, whole nation become barbarian and unhuman and they must be "civilised". 31.223.101.31 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

@LeChatiliers Pupper: you didn't answer my question: do you disagree with the fact that it was violent? M.Bitton (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please abide by wikipedia policies, its puffery and superfluous language, the page reads better without it and wikipedia should be confined to facts only with encyclopaedic language. Its really that simple. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the difference between a "policy" and a "manual of style"?

the page reads better without it pages cannot read better by omitting facts, especially when euphemism ("pacification") is used. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should follow the MoS its that simple I really shouldn't have to explain that to you.

Consider Peninsular War - Wikipedia, similar numbers of dead as this event (but more concentrated spread over 5 years) violence is never mentioned (except in an explicitly sourced comment as to the reasons for Spanish liberals supporting one side or the other.

Operation Torch - Wikipedia - violence is never mentioned

Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis - Wikipedia - violence is never mentioned

World War II - Wikipedia - never mentioned in the article

All of these articles appear to me to be following policies and manuals of style.

I really cant see the need to include superfluous language in this article but not any other, shall we note before every battle of such place that this was a violent battle or this military campaign was an action of military force. An absurdity.

Please see the **policy** WP:VNOT I am going to remove the language again please do not edit war. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should answer questions when asked. As for your question, I'd say depends: are those genocides that have "pacification" in the title and the lead sentence? M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange I seem to recall you never answering my questions in previous discussions I will make sure to note your comment for reference.

As per the MoS - facts should be left to speak for themselves the article does this by listing many actions - there were massacres, there were raids there were military expeditions and campaigns. These are factually listed in the article do you object to letting the facts speak for themselves? LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will make sure to note your comment for reference please do, as that will remind me of the fact that you didn't answer any of my questions.

You cited MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:LABEL in your edit summary. Feel free to quote the relevant parts (from both). M.Bitton (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Violent" seems to be an accurate description, given what the sources say. MOS:Puffery does not apply here. Bogazicili (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that as a broad description isnt accurate not every operation was violent many aspects were bloodless, the occupation of Oran the surrender of Algiers were for instance bloodless.

Even if it is at least accurate to many of the battles and campaigns - violence is implicit.

Raid on Algiers - Wikipedia

Operation Terminal - Wikipedia

Other pages about conflict simply dont use it its a redundant word. The very dictionary definition of the words in the pages title make this abundantly clear to any English speaker. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHER. I think "violent" is a very accurate descriptor here per RS. Skitash (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]