Pied-Noir

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I threw it over to FAC and withdrew after 4-5 days. One of the main concerns was the article's length (previously about 3,500 words) and focus (too much detail). These were serious concerns, thus I withdrew and started cutting down the length. My collaborators and I have managed to cut down to about 2,100 words. I was hoping the review could provide some insight on: areas which could be cut further, address any lingering NPOV issues, and add some stylistic input. General notes are welcome as well!

As always, thank you dearly for your time.

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: I know I commented on this article before and am glad to look at it again. I read the previous peer review, the talk page (English parts), and the FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps and glad to see more feedback, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments Here are a few more suggestions. Without prior knowledge of the subject area I found the article interesting and informative, which is what encyclopedia articles should be. I offer the following ideas for consideration:-

Anyway, thank you for an interesting insight into what is for me unknown territory. Brianboulton (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Before I begin editing the article, I wanted to take a moment to thank both of you for reviewing the article! I appreciate it greatly. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Brianboulton: I have moved a series of comments inserted into the article's text to its talk page. May or may not be worth considering, I don't know. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw those too - I looked at the German Wikipedia entry and it claims the name comes from the Black Feet Indians in a Tin-Tin comic. While it does not cite this, it has a fairly long Bibliography of French books. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an I.P. continues to add a criticism of the the origin. I've tried to bring him into a conversation about it and see if he may be interested in working on the article (always can use more help). We'll see. Actually, I've read a plethora of explanations regarding the term's origins. Honestly, it is so conjectural that I've considered completely removing the section. What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that it's an important part of the article. You should give the best-referenced account that you can of the origin of the term, mentioning other explanations. You won't please everyone, but you musn't be bullied by them either.Brianboulton (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is continuing, with further attempts to insert criticism into the article text. I am transferring the issue to this review page. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism about the two explanations included in the text (inserted into text 8 May, transferred to discussion page, reinserted in article 9 May)

1. If the first were right, indigenous population would have used the term continually since the origins to 1962. But they've still have named Europeans "Roumis", making reference to Romans, who occuppied North Africa during centuries.

2. Another clue is the term metropolitan French people, especially in the Army, used to name Algerian Europeans to laugh at them: "Arbicot", when they name Muslims "Bicots".

3. The story of sailors have something true but only a couple of historiography papers may be taken into account: since most sailors working in the coal roams of ships sailing between Algeria and France were natives of Algeria, one has found in old logbooks it was question of "these black feet who soil the deck..."

4. The story of "colonists" who were supposed to wear polished shoes is amazing. Most, most people who settled in Algeria first were not colonists: a colonist is somebody who owns a property and exploit it. In 1956, the famous sociologist (left wing and former Resistance soldier) Germaine Tillon made a precise study of Algeria population: only 2% of Europeans were "colonists", much less than in metropolitan France. Most settlers were very poor people who came in Algeria as they could have gone to the USA as well. Therefore they were far to wear polished shoes...

5. In fact the only serious thesis comes from the news magazine "L'EXPRESS", very involved in favor of the independence. An article written in the mid fifties described sarcastically Europeans of Algeria as lazy rich people who were exploiting muslim natives ; and the author compared them with the Black Feet American Natives, supposed (according to famous cartoon author Hergé in his album Tintin in America) to take benefit lazily of oil laying under their lands, playing cards and drinking...

The term Pied-Noir was therefore imagined by some metropolitan French intellectuals to laugh at French of Algeria. Quick to retort, the Algiers Students Union took the term as a challenge. But nobody among the population used the term which was discovered once back to metropole in 1962. Europeans of Algeria named themselves Algerians like an American born in Texas would say Texan or they more simply used the City from which they were native: Algerois for Algiers, Oranais for Oran, Constantinois for Constantine ; like an American born in New York would say a NewYorker

It was and still is a very pejorative term as Neger for instance to name African Americans

Thank you for your input on Pied-Noir. Could you please provide some sources for your claims? See WP:RS and WP:V? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What justify to have my text about "Pied Noir" (term origin) removed? As it's already written in the former version, the explanations given are criticized by an author. What I add clarify this criticism with robust arguments. Moreover the topic is grave since he is about the honor and the memory of a community. What would be your reaction, Brian, if an article about English people were naming them for instance "Rosbifs" (current nickname used in France) ?I have like you an academic background, especially in contemporary History I studied at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po) ; and I am a French born in Algeria amid a family settled there for six generations. My grand-father was speaking and writing academic Arabic and he knew a good deal of South Algeria tribes, able to speak their langages. He never heard somebody use this term.
"Pied Noir" before hostile French metropole intellectuals took it for denigrating us. Nobel Prize Albert Camus is quoted in the article: You can read all what he wrote and you cannot find this term ; same thing in archives and people correspondance. I deem therefore it's fully justified my insert to be still published in the Wiki article. Best Regards O. Cazeaux --Mauvaisegraine (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Mauvaisegraine[reply]
You have the right to make all the points you make, but you should not place them in the body of the article. Discussion pages are provided for that purpose. Your comments are being taken seriously, though you have been asked to provide sources for your claims. The article's main editor is also anxious to engage with you. But please let this be through the article's discussion page. (Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you respond Brian and just remove my text unfairly? I'm not anonymous and have like you academic background. Please therefore have a discussion with me before to remove text, having in mind that using a pejorative term to name a community may be a motive to suit ; and because I the honor of my fathers is a very important point for me, I don't exclude to take legal action against any medium denigrating us. Mauvaisegraine--Mauvaisegraine (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[1][reply]
I have not deleted your criticisms, I have placed them where they can properly be considered - on the article's talk page. I am trying to promote discussion of these points with the article's editors. By insisting on placing your material in the article you are preventing this discussion. I assume you want your points considered, so please work within the process. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What game are you playing Brian ? I imagined British people more polite and fair. Your attitude is far from a gentleman's one. You don't know what "Pieds Noirs" sense of honor is. We are fighters and so I am. I will therefore put back my text about term origin day after day. But if you are brave enough, possibly you could explain what motive your will to erase information concerning a community you don't belong to and upon which you have no specific expertise ? Is it because you don't like all the Europeans who have settled abroad ? In Algeria there never was segregation between French and Natives. Everybody was entitled to take the same buses. But not in many South USA states, still in the sixties. You should play the censor about Wikipedia articles devoted to the USA, shouldn't you ?--82.255.86.9 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Mauvaisegraine[reply]
Let me explain once again. I am sorry that you have taken such personal offence at my action in transferring your criticisms to the talk pages. I assure you I have nothing against you personally, or the French-Algerian community. I am not a contributor to this article, I am simply trying to review it, as part of the peer review process. It is your practice of inserting your criticisms without discussion into the body of the article which is objectionable, however justified these criticisms may be. I have put them on to this page, so that they can be properly considered. You should be in a civil discussion with the main editor about these points - that is how Wikipedia works, not by bluster or threats. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(UNDENT) I didn't see this discussion earlier as I posted notes on the talk pages. I only came here now as I was getting set to being editing the article. Anyway, Mauvaisegrain, the only issue here is sources and verifiable, reliable information. We are not questioning the validity of your edits--they very well may be accurate. However, the problem is that on Wikipedia, information is required to be sourced to a reliable publication. This is the prime reason your edits are removed, although we would have to work on tone and formatting as well. For Wikipedia to be considered a reliable encyclopedia, a user has to be able to verify the text on one's own. Also, if someone becomes interested and would like to learn more, s/he needs to be able to know where to look. This is why we require claims to be sourced. I posted this on your talk page, as well.Lazulilasher (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categories