Talk:Sétif and Guelma massacre

Refs added
References added, but I imagine it would help if somebody hit this with scholarly sources someday too... Dvyost 14:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I heard that the french army massacre was in retaliation to the death of 100 europeans (quite the opposite of the article.) What are the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.157.172.233 (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The sources are the two external links at the bottom. I agree that they're not as scholarly as I would like (see comment directly above yours); if you have better information, please feel free to plug it in yourself, citing the new sources.  Thanks!  --Dvyost 15:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is quite true. But these 100 European killings occurred after deadly shooting by the French authorities against local demonstrators. Nnemo (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is absolutely terrible. The fact that the article keeps repeating that the french soldiers that carried out the massacre were "80% african" makes it read like it was writte by an apologist that is trying to whitewash the entire thing. Other examples of this tendency include the fact that it talks about the number of Algerian dead without ever indicating where they were civilian or not, but then when it talks about the 104 dead french civilians, it specifically says that over half were women and children. In addition, the article says nothing about what the massacre did to the Algerian national psyche, how it contributed to the formation of the Algerian resistance movement, etc. This article needs to be completely overhauled, although I am not the person to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.142.84 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Be bold! If you don't care to change obvious biased content, you can always put "citation tags" after dubious assertions (see Reliable sources. Tazmaniacs 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or...
...are some of the links listed at the end of the articel very questionable looking? I'm not feeling quite bold enough to remove some of them, so am asking here... 68.39.174.238 03:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisions
The number of protesters in the city of Sétif is evaluated to 2000 to 5000 in the latest study on the subject. Vicq 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Massacre or Genocide

 * Genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

Muslim Algerians are killed systemically, although there was no war in 1945. The French military units included Muslim tirailleurs and goumiers too, but they came from the French forces of WWII. French forces may contain Muslims or not, French forces killed a religious group systemically with order and not in a war.


 * Massacre: "A massacre is the general and unnecessary slaughter of members of one group by one or more members of another more powerful group. A massacre may be indiscriminate or highly methodical in application."

Sétif incident is not done "unnecessarily", nor "indiscriminate" Just Muslim Algerians are killed by French forces for a reason systemically without war.

This incident is more than a massacre, it's a genocide. Dr.tolga (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the sincerity of Dr.tolga's views and certainly have no wish to defend the brutal excesses of French colonialism (I am neither French nor Algerian). However I think that we need to be very careful indeed about the use of the word "genocide" in the context of the Setif events of June 1945. The details of the cycle of killing and counter-killing in and around this town are given in the article and there is no attempt there to excuse the scale and ferocity of the French army and pied-noir reprisals. However there is also no suggestion that these were intended to eliminate or even disperse the entire Muslim population. Accordingly, of the two definitions given above that of "massacre" seems to me to be by far the most appropriate. It is certainly the word used in both English and French language histories of the period. It should be noted that a recent statement by the Turkish Prime Minister accusing the French of genocide in Algeria during the Algerian War of 1954-62, is in response to pending French legislation criminalising denial of the Armenian killings (whether massacres or genocide) of 1915. In short a tit for tat scoring of political points as part of a current dispute between the two NATO allies and not grounds for rewriting history. Buistr (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for expressing your opinions. The definition of "genocide" includes: "systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". Genocide definition doesn't include "intended to eliminate or even disperse the entire Muslim population". If it is "intended to eliminate the whole population" or not, we have to evaluate the international common definition and fix academically and logically the wrong parts of widespread information of history. Recent political discussions are not Wikipedia's subject of interest. Also a widespread information may be wrong too. As i said, Wikipedia users have to discuss and even correct wrong titles and namings about history, widespread or not. Also the definition of Massacre in Wikipedia includes: "A Massacre is a single event, though it may occur during the course of an extended campaign or war." Setif incidents are not a single event. They started in 1945 before and apart the Algerian War. Also i found an independent source of International Center for Watching Violation of Rights, 2010 World Report on Violation of Rights. According to this report, at least 2 million Muslims are killed between 1945-1962. Also this incident is called as "Genocide" according to this independent source. I think we have to use the term "genocide" for this incident because of definitions, indepentent sources and objective numbers. Dr.tolga (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this Dr.tolga. I think that we have set out our respective cases clearly and that it is now a case of seeking concensus opinion from other editors with an interest in Franco/Algerian history. Since the Setif events are closely linked with the subsequent Algerian War of 1954-62 I will post a brief notification of our discussion on the talk page of that article inviting views. If there is no input from any other editors within say a month then perhaps we could refer the question to the appropriate Wikipedia discussion/arbitration forum for consideration. Buistr (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest. I hope we can correct common terminologic mistakes about history by using objective information without politics. Dr.tolga (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Et Guelma?
Is there information in this article about Guelma, as per the title? Perhaps it could be made more explicit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.27.69 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. On the same day as the outbreak in Setif there was a second demonstration in Guelma. This was on a smaller scale, was contained by Muslim tirailleurs from the local garrison and (according to French accounts) resulted in only one death and about a dozen wounded. I have added a reference to this in the main text of the article, to explain the (generally used) title.Buistr (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sétif and Guelma massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060207134504/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/C50D0EF1-4FCE-48C6-89A9-D059B34F7B0D.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C50D0EF1-4FCE-48C6-89A9-D059B34F7B0D.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Genocide?
How is there absolutely NO mention of this at all? Even the Algerian government itself has asked France to apologize for the 'Algerian Genocide'.

The issue at hand is not whether it is a massacre or a genocide, it isn't up to us to decide that. However, it is up to us to inform people as well as we can and that includes mentioning genocide claims.

This, the article in its current state, is just whitewashing. Clear and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.61.102 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See detailed discussion above. Buistr (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Algerian Genocide
More than 2 million Algerians were killed by the French. I believe this constitutes an Algerian Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I second the idea. It is about time. -Ribbontool (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2 million figure is a rough estimate of total casualties on both sides during the Algerian War of 1954-1962, not the Setif massacre of 1945. Buistr (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying numbers, sections
Tracymacl (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)On page 38 of his book The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon documents the dead as 45,000.

As a reasonable representative of the typical WP reader who might visit this article (amateur interest in WWII, no background in French-Algerian relations), I'll raise two points of mild confusion that I'm hoping someone might address:

1) The decision to put the "context" section third is atypical for articles like this. With almost no additional work, this section could be renamed "background" and moved before the "outbreak" section.  This section might also benefit from one additional introductory sentence clarifying that France had in fact colonized Algeria, probably with an approximate date (these are assumed as background).

2) The "context" section says:

"With the end of World War II, 4,000 protesters took to the streets of Sétif, a town in northern Algeria, to press new demands for independence on the French administration."

...and the "outbreak" section says:

"A parade by about 5,000 of the Muslim Algerian population of Sétif to celebrate the victory ended in clashes between the marchers and the local French gendarmerie, when the latter tried to seize banners attacking colonial rule."

To a naive reader, it's highly unclear whether (a) these are referring to the same event, (b) why the numbers don't agree, and (c) whether the primary motivation for the event was celebration or protest.

I recommend moving the "context" section to a leading "background" section, clarifying this discrepancy, ending the "background" section with the clarified description of the event, and starting the "outbreak" section from the point at which the demonstration/parade was already happening. I think these relatively small changes will improve readability quite a bit.

Thanks!

LittleWalrus (talk)

"Terrorists"
The colonial settlers are called "terrorists" literally six times throughout the article, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is against wikipedia policy. This cannot stand, I'm removing it. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, per WP:TERRORIST, this seems like a bit much. El_C 03:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In "A Savage War of Peace. Algeria 1954-1962": the most detailed account of the killings at Setif currently available in English; the historian Alistair Horne refers to "pied-noir settlers", "colons", "european settlers", "Europeans", and "organised vigilantes". He never uses the term "terrorist". He also takes care to provide a balanced account of the atrocities on both sides, ending with the conclusion that the French reprisals against Muslim civilians were on a much greater scale than the initial killings of European settlers. If the history articles in Wikipedia are to have any validity we should aspire to well referenced and neutrally worded material of this nature. Buistr (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you even read the diff you reverted? This is a blatantly obvious display of vandalism. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The IP doesn't seem to understand what the paragraph is saying. The word terrorist is used as a distinguish between terrorist and non-terrorist Pied-noir(European) setters. It looks like a poor whitewashing attempt and it is obvious because look at the led paragraph that the IP and Buistr proposed and the original version:
 * The Sétif and Guelma massacre was a series of terrorist attacks by French colonial authorities and Pied-noir settler terrorist militias on Algerian civilians in 1945 around the French Algerian market town of Sétif, west of Constantine, Algeria. French police fired on demonstrators at a protest on 8 May 1945.
 * The Sétif and Guelma massacre was a series of widespread disturbances and killings in 1945 around the market town of Sétif, west of Constantine, Algeria.
 * Did you notice the difference? The perpetrators and the victims are not named. Again poor attempt.
 * For a source the perpetrators/terrorist were done by European settler terrorists who formed vigilante squads
 * A book by the famous British historian James McDougall (academic) says this European terrorists including Andre Achiary the man responsible for the Guelma massacres
 * You can literally find hundreds of sources that say that the attacks were terrorism and state-terrorism
 * Also by definition of the word terrorism, the attacks targeted innocent civilians and so they are terrorist attacks unlike for example USS Cole bombing which we don't call terrorist because it is not by definition a terrorist attack and we apply WP:TERRORIST there not here.
 * I want also to say that there are a lot of whitewashing in these Algeria-France related articles which I will surely try to fix when I have time, these days I am very busy.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a load of crap, and you know it. If you want to mention in the article that some sources call the settlers terrorists, then fine, find an NPOV way to do it. But putting the word "terrorists" after most mentions of them is completely unacceptable.


 * Furthermore, the version you prefer isn't the "original version", it was a vandalism edit added by an IP in April. Fix "whitewashing" all you want, but keep it NPOV, otherwise you'll see things like editors going to Muslim conquest of the Levant and adding "imperialists" after every use of the word Muslims. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "If you want to mention in the article that some sources call the settlers terrorists, then fine, find an NPOV way to do it."
 * You are again not getting what the paragraph says. It is saying that the attack was done by Pied-noir[French] settler terrorist militias. That doesnt mean we are describing the settlers as terrorists  we are describing those who committed the massacre, not all settlers!. So there is no source that describe settlers as terrorists but those who committed the massacre are described as terrorists and thats agreed by all sources. There is no source that says the settlers who committed the massacre were not terrorists. Also it doesn't make any sense  that those settlers who committed massacre are not terrorists, what are they then?  -The sources describe them as terrorists, -what they did is by definition, terrorism. Also stop calling fine edits that you dont agree with, vandalism.
 * We definitely should mention who committed the massacre and who are the victims in the lede paragraph.SharabSalam (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * IP, I think I read that diff more carefully than you read WP:VANDAL, given this edit (and the answer was this). In other words, I am less convinced by your grasp of policy than you are. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And then there's this and similar edits, and all the while you're reverting two editors, claiming they are edit warring, and you're not. I rest my case. We'll hammer this out, but whether you'll be part of that discussion remains to be seen. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again a plea for factual and non-emotive wording to record a historical event of major importance. Could we look back at the article as it stood until March 2019 where sourced material recorded in balanced detail an outbreak involving the deaths of both Europeans and, on a much larger scale, the reprisal killings of Muslims. There were atrocities commited on both sides involving the mutilation of corpses and the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilians from both communities. Selective insertion of terms like "terrorists" to place the onus on the extremists of one side only turns the article from a history into a polemic. Buistr (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , last time I checked this article was about Sétif and Guelma massacre which happened to Muslims by terrorist Europeans not the prior attacks on Europeans. Also the armed combatants settlers are legitimate targets if you are talking about the terrorist Europeans. We need to mention who are the attacker and who are the victims in the lede paragraph. The very old version is vague and whitewashing.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

So you really think that it's acceptable to describe the settlers as "terrorists" multiple times in the article? Please explain to me how that's NPOV. 2604:6000:FFC0:54:5D97:40B6:3599:6C13 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh. Given that "go to hell" and "fuck off", I don't really feel the need to engage in conversation with you. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Replying to the IP, see my above argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There appears to be a mistake here. The passage quoted above from Professor James McDougall's recently published "A History of Algeria" (ISBN 978-0-521-61730-7 pages 266 and 338) refers to the establishment in 1956 of the "French Algeria Resistence Organisation". This organisation subsequently carried out a bombing responsible for 60 deaths during the Battle of Algiers of 1956-57 - undoubtedly a terrorist act but not one connected with the widespread communal violence in and around Sétif and Guelma in 1945. McDougall describes the reprisal killing of Muslims in 1945 as being carried out by "European settler militias", as well as French army units. He only uses the term "European terrorists" in respect of the Battle of Algiers outrage eleven years later. As several editors have pointed out "terrorists" is an incorrect term to use in the context of the Sétif and Guelma repression - no matter how "ferocious, spectacular and utterly indiscriminate" (Professor McDougall's words) the French reprisals of 1945 were. Buistr (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed "terrorist attack". I dont think I have time for the argument about the type of the attack. I will leave it for another time when I am not busy. However, the source describe them as terrorist Europeans in relevance to this attack; it says "European terrorists including Andre Achiary, the man responsible for the Guelma massacres" (emphasis mine) -- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2020 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sétif massacre.jpeg