Talk:Harki

Revert deleted references to Harkis as "Muslim" auxiliaries

An editor has deleted all references to Harkis as Muslims. I have reverted the deletions because, until the end of French rule in 1962, Algeria was officially part of France and approximately one million Algerians were of European origin. The noun "Harki" is a generally accepted designation for (i) Muslims who served as auxiliaries with the French Army during the Algerian War and sometimes by extension (ii) those Muslims who supported French rule. The European pied-noirs served in separate auxiliary and regular units within the French forces and were never known as Harkis. To delete the adjective "Muslim" from this article serves no purpose except to confuse the history of this period. 192.188.71.2 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I included mention of the Evolvé segment of the Algerian Harki population. Evolvés are North Africans whom converted to Christianity from Islam and/or adapted most culturally European French elements, thus the term meant these Algerians/North Africans changed national and cultural identities from their conversion into Roman Catholic Christianity and allegiance with France.

If you want a reliable source for my claims of this subgroup of Harki, consult the 1979 Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, it had a small description to the Evolvés of North Africa. But 5 percent of North Africans under French rule were Christian and they refused to "return" to the Islamic faith after independence.

Evolvés are sometimes included with the Harki by the Algerian government whom treated them lesser as political refugees without the right to return to Algeria, and the Evolvé are among the Algerian-French community, but are thrown into the primarily Muslim Harki because of their ethnic origins.

The Harki indicates not all Algerians were against France, nor they are entirely Muslim (although 90-95 percent of Algerians are) and you find a small porportion of Harkis or Evolvés were present in Metropolitian France for over a century (note the large North African communities of Marseille and Montpellier). + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit reason

Edited section "After the war". Deleted segment "have been held" for grammar

Original line "Recently, the French government of Jacques Chirac acknowledged these former allies, holding public ceremonies have been held to commemorate their sacrifices, such as the September 25, 2001 Day of National Recognition for the Harkis."

After edit "Recently, the French government of Jacques Chirac acknowledged these former allies, holding public ceremonies to commemorate their sacrifices, such as the September 25, 2001 Day of National Recognition for the Harkis."

Alternative edit "Recently, the French government of Jacques Chirac acknowledged these former allies. Public ceremonies have been held to commemorate their sacrifices, such as the September 25, 2001 Day of National Recognition for the Harkis."

Suggested edit "holding public ceremonies to commemorate their sacrifices such as the September 25, 2001 Day of National Recognition for the Harkis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.133.149 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828175921/http://www.harki.net/ to http://www.harki.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

March 2023

Moved from User talk:M.Bitton

 – M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was the one who did the editing, and no, they were not translated but my own English itself. I am not used to the Wikipedia writing style, so maybe that was a problem. I am frustrated to see my editions gone, but hope the new sources that I added up to the article makes a change anyway.

I agree with your comments on the style, and also on that I must have been more respectful towards the cumulative nature of the article. Maryahere (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello M.Bitton. Just a message to advise that I intend to restore the material that you have deleted from this article. The reason is that the passages taken out have been contributed by a number of editors over a period of 15 years and are I think grammatically and stylistically superior to the large addition just made by an unnamed editor. Though I would acknowledge that much of the latter is well sourced.

My intention is to relocate passages, data and source references from the "new" sections into the original article where this does not mean duplication. The new material was simply too extensive and (to a certain extent) clumsily worded to be edited as a single exercise. Buistr (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Follow up to the above. I notice that you made improvements to the new contributions while I was preparing the above note. In order to avoid any appearance of edit-warring I will hold off making any further revisionary changes until you have completed these. Hopefully we can end up with a updated, balanced and coherently written article. Regards Buistr (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Buistr: I removed a recently added opinion piece and content that was repeated twice. I agree that the recent change has messed up the article, so I suggest we revert to the stable version (4 March) and try to salvage whatever is salvageable from the recent additions. What do you think? M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• M.Britton: Yes, I'm in complete agreement. Regards.

Buistr (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)