Talk:Dreyfus affair

message: NOTE -- The article was entirely replaced in March 2013 by a translation from French Wikipedia (see first item below).  Older discussions relating to the previous text can now be found in /Archive 1.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreich (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

message: I saw the flag posted for the length of article. I agree this article is long however it is translated from the French which is slightly longer yet is not flagged.
The Dreyfus Affair was a complex affair over many years and does not really lend itself to a short article. If this article is too long then the same must apply to the original French article. There have been previous discussions of the article being too short, leaving out important facts, not properly referenced etc. This translation is well referenced using a diverse range of references as well as supported by a large historiography. I believe this is a substantial improvement on the series of sub-articles which are currently present which are derived from a single source. This article could be split however the Dreyfus Affair was a single complex story with a beginning and an end: I believe splitting the story damages the continuity.
I have shortened it by removing the Tour de France section which is not really relevant as the same facts are mentioned under the Tour de France article for which I have added a link. It could also be shortened by reviewing duplication in the Header and first sections however this would not yield a significant reduction in size.
I would be interested in any discussion on the length of the article and whether or not there is any consensus on what the length should be. 
Samrong01 (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read Wikipedia:Article_size. The target size of an article should be "about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes." quoting that page. This current article is about 4 times the target size, with 167 kB. As recommended on that page, content should be moved from this page to sub-pages, which conveniently already exist! The goal here is to make an encyclopedic article someone who has never heard of the subject before would read in one sitting to get a general idea of the subject. Right now it is much too detailed. Ahalda (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Article 

message: The caption of :File:003 Bordereau recto.jpg on this page reads "Photograph of the bordereau dated 13 October 1894. The original disappeared in 1940". However, the image file page lists a date of 13 October 1994, with the source being the French National Archives. Something seems wrong here. Did the bordereau disappear in 1940 or not? Is the date on the image page wrong? Knight of Truth (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the bordereau was lost between 1900 and 1940. It was officially last seen during the Dreyfus trial in Rennes (aug-sept 1899). It is unsure that it was still in the archives during the period 1900-1940. Marcel Thomas, who was chief archivist at the french National Archives, wrote in his book that the bordereau, along with the Petit Bleu, both were destroyed in 1940, in his book The Affair without Dreyfus. So I used this reference for my caption. But I admit the hypothetical status of this statement. So the :File:003 Bordereau recto.jpg is a photo taken by Tomps on the saturday october 13th 1894,just two days before Alfred Dreyfus' arrest.--Van nuytts (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bordereau image

message: I am not a Wikipedia expert, so I don't know if it is possible to collapse the older parts of this Wiki Talk discussion that relate to the older version of this article -- but I think that would be helpful to those discussing the current (French translation) version.  Maybe someone with better Wikipedia skills can do this?
That said, I would like to offer my appreciation to the person who drafted the original French Wikipedia article, and to the person who then took the time to translate the article into English and post it here.  Thanks to both of you for making this information available on Wikipedia!
Yes, the article is long and convoluted, but the complexity and length of the subject itself seems to be the cause of this -- not the author and translator.  I especially appreciate seeing the lengthy list of sources listed at the bottom of the article.
There is a problem (mentioned previously in this talk discussion) in the section titled Social consequences where, within the same paragraph it states that the circulation of the press had limited impact, but then later states that the press had strong influence.  Here's the text:
This being said the role of the press was limited by the size of circulation, important in Paris and to a lesser extent nationwide.[220] The entire run of the national press appeared to revolve around four and a half million copies which made their real influence relatively strong.
I think that the intent of the original author may have been to say something to the effect that; "While the press had a limited circulation of 4.5 million copies within the country, and copies were primarily distributed within the capital city of Paris, it's impact on the entirety of French society and public thinking was immense."  Perhaps the author may have been trying to indicate something else -- possibly; "The impact of the press, while large in Paris, would likely have been much greater if the whole of France could have been informed."
I am not updating the text myself as I do not speak or read French well, and so cannot be assured of the original intent by looking at the source materials.  Perhaps the original author of the French article and/or the translator can make the changes????
I hope this helps.
I have carefully reviewed the translation of the text under Social consequences and have made some changes in the article. Nevertheless I feel that the original text was a correct rendition of the original French. However I think what was written perhaps did not precisely reflect the intention of the author - e.g. the author said "and" (et) when I think the sense was meant to be "but" (mais) and I also tried to reinterprete "ce qui". However if the author disagrees with my interpretation then this edit should be reverted.
Samrong01 (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Wiki Talk discussion needs to focus on the current article -- not old versions, and some observations.. 

message: I really do respect the time and energy it took to translate the French Wikipedia page into English, but unless this page can be completely re-written by a native English speaker, it should be reverted.  
I will try to sum up the problems as succinctly as I can:  Many sentences in the current article lack the necessary syntax to qualify as simple declarative sentences.  Numerous additional clauses within these ungrammatical sentences are improperly separated, not punctuated correctly, or not connected with the correct conjunction; in some cases clauses are strung together so poorly that one must make a tremendous effort to try to understand what the original French entry was intended to communicate to the reader.  The subject and object of sentences is often obscured, making it difficult to correctly associate adjectives, adverbs, and even verbs.  Prepositions are often missing, pronouns are ambiguous, tenses change capriciously, and the difference in connotation between English and French words deprives this article of the neutrality which would be possible with more precision of language.  There are several places where French or Latin terms are non sequiters, including "non-sequiter."
 
There is also a quality of inaccurate literal translation, or idiomatic incompatibility, which has made this article very difficult to wade through.  French idiom has not been properly rendered into English idiom, and where English idioms have been used, they have not been used correctly, and they do not work.  I hesitate to cite examples for fear of excluding the best ones, but here is one paragraph that is as good as any other, chosen amongst many:  
"The Dreyfus Affair occurred within the context of the annexation of Alsace and Moselle by the Germans, a wrench that fed the most extreme nationalism. The traumatic defeat in 1870 seemed far away but a vengeful spirit was always present. Many players in the Dreyfus affair were also Alsatian."
I'm just guessing that the translator is trying to use wrench in its particularly idiomatic English sense of "a monkey wrench," but maybe he is trying to use it in the less common "wrenching away" (of Alsace and Moselle).  No matter how he meant it, it just comes out as nonsense, especially with the mixed metaphor of the "the most extreme nationalism" that was "fed" . . . by a wrench.  A more nuanced problem with this paragraph is that in attempting to place the Dreyfus Affair within "the context of the annexation of Alsace and Moselle by the Germans," it not only fails to explain the significance of the Franco-Prussian War 20 years earlier, it fails to even mention it!  I concede that it is covered elsewhere, but as a stand alone paragraph, why attempt to make the connection without succeeding?  Yes, you can link on "traumatic defeat" and be taken to the Wikipedia article on the "Franco-Prussian War," but why link it this way?  Why not put the Dreyfus Affair "in the context of" his Alsatian heritage and the loss of these German speaking territories at the end of that war--and why not just use the term "Franco-Prussian War" for the link?  Would I be correct in guessing that "the traumatic defeat" (in French) is synonymous with the Franco-Prussian war to native French speakers, just as the English refer to the same annexed territory as "Alsace & Lorraine (or Alsace-Lorraine)"?    
There are scores of examples of this kind mangled English in this article, and I don't even know if it can be cleaned up.  I rewrote the entire introduction (only), both to improve the English and to clarify and correct the timeline and facts, but in the process of signing back in to the talk page, I didn't copy and save it, so I lost it into the ether.  It shouldn't take long for me to rewrite it and post it here for comment.  My only concern at this point is that with a better introduction, more people may read further, only to become frustrated by the problems I have described.  
RichardCraft (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Can the French Translation Version Be Improved?

message: Here is my proposed rewrite of the introduction, I welcome any comments or criticism (the links don't show up in this copy and paste):
The Dreyfus affair (French: l'affaire Dreyfus, pronounced: [a.fɛʁ dʁɛ.fys]) was a divisive political scandal in France, beginning in 1894 with the accusation and conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus for espionage and treason, until his exoneration, reinstatement and promotion to Major in 1906.  Dreyfus' Jewish and Alsatian heritage were significant factors which elevated these events to the world stage, where French politics played out in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-71, and the lead up to World War I in 1914.  The affair is often seen as a complex interweaving of numerous historical strands into a galvanizing event that can alter the political and cultural landscape for decades[5], as well as a modern cautionary tale of injustice[2] for reasons of state.  It remains a striking example of the miscarriage of justice and cover up, in which the press and public opinion played major roles.
The affair began in November 1894 with the conviction for treason of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent. Dreyfus was tried and convicted by secret military court of having communicated French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris and sentenced to life imprisonment in the penal colony at Devil's Island in French Guiana.  Two years later, in 1896, Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart was appointed chief of army intelligence.  In his reinvestigation of the evidence, he concluded that the guilty officer was a Major named Walsin Esterhazy. Picquart attempted to re-open the case, but was rebuffed by his superiors who attempted to cover up the wrongful conviction. Picquart was reassigned to Tunisia, but not before he had raised enough questions to bring Major Esterhazy before a military court, which unanimously acquitted Esterhazy after the second day of his trial. 
In preparation for a possible new trial of Dreyfus, forged documents had been added to the Dreyfus military file, and Dreyfus was accused and charged with additional counts of espionage and treason.  Word of the military court's framing of Dreyfus and of the attendant cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J'accuse, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by the notable writer Émile Zola. Activists on both sides put pressure on the government, and in 1899 Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. 
The ensuing political and judicial scandal divided French society.  On one side were the "Dreyfusards" who supported Dreyfus, such as Anatole France, Henri Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau; on the other were the anti-Dreyfusards who condemned him, such as Edouard Drumont, the director and publisher of the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole. The Dreyfusards were mostly anti-clerical and pro-republican, and they eventually prevailed over the "anti-Dreyfusards," who were primarily pro-army and mostly Catholic.  
The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence, but in return for an admission of guilt, Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free.  This prevented his exile to back to Devil's Island, and allowed him to remain in France to appeal his convictions.  Over the next six years, the cover-up and wrongful convictions were eventually exposed, and Dreyfus was formally exonerated of all charges, and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
The Affair became emblematic and symbolic of the deep divisions in French politics which reverberated for decades.  The conviction was a miscarriage of justice[3][4] based upon anti-Semitism and the perception of divided loyalties in the social context of anti-Semitism and hatred of the German Empire following its annexation of Alsace and part of Lorraine in 1871. According to the modern historian Katrin Schultheiss:
"The enduring significance of the Dreyfus Affair as a subject of historical inquiry lies in its manifest embodiment of multiple narratives and multiple strands of historical causality. It shows how longstanding beliefs and tensions can be transformed by particular circumstances and by particular individuals into a juggernaut that alters the political and cultural landscape for decades. In the interest of increasing our understanding of both past and present, the complexities of that transformation should be recognized and analyzed rather than packaged for moral or political usefulness."[5]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardCraft (talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add it ASAP. The current intro is strikingly unclear and unhelpful. chocolateboy (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Just a few points about the rewrite:
*1. In paragraph 1 it mentions the "world stage" but actually the case did not even get national attention until 1898. Perhaps insertion of the word "eventually" might be considered.
*2. "...a galvanizing event that can alter the political..." - should this say "...a galvanizing event that altered the political..."?
*3. No mention of the Supreme Court in Dreyfus obtaining his pardon. In fact the military court never pardoned Dreyfus. You might consider incorporating the penultimate paragraph of the Summary of the Dreyfus Affair here.
The section "Summary of the Dreyfus Affair" is the translation of the French introduction so I would suggest that perhaps your new introduction should also replace this section thus reducing the size of the article. I believe all of the points in this section, except about the Supreme Court, are covered in your new introduction. When I did the translation I could not reconcile this section with the original introduction so took the easy way out and left them both there.
Samrong01 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Rewrite of Introduction

message: Riots of 1898 are the backdrop of part of Charles Theodore Murray's Mlle. Fouchette, a novel available free online.
71.163.117.143 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary reference 

message: This article is poorly written, subjective, and contains numerous instances of rhetoric and assumptions about the reader's perspective.  It should be entirely re-worked by a professional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.137.1 (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fundamental Problem of Perspective 

message: This article has a tremendous amount of information, but most of it is translated from French and not neutral in tone.  Additionally, many of the sentences have a very convoluted structure, which degrades readability.  I can't do this whole thing at once, but I've started editing the article in accordance with the following principles:
* Remove unneeded commas
* Simplify sentence structure
* Consistently use past tense where appropriate
* Remove overly wordy phrases or unnecessary modifiers
* Ensure the article is neutral in tone
* Edit sentences where the subject is unclear or passive voice makes it impossible to know who is taking action
I've already edited the summary accordingly; time permitting I'll keep going.  The article as a whole probably needs to be reorganized and trimmed down (it repeats itself a good bit), but for the moment I'm focused on making it a better-written article, rather than updating or reorganizing the content.
TheRotarynotion (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning a thorough edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dreyfus affair. 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/20060906115600/http://crisismagazine.com:80/may2002/book1.htm to http://www.crisismagazine.com/may2002/book1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070513184308/http://www.ecfs.org:80/bome/cities/paris/hband/Rous/dreyfus2.htm to http://www.ecfs.org/bome/cities/paris/hband/Rous/dreyfus2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201013758/http://www.dreyfus-affair.org:80/ to http://www.dreyfus-affair.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130050731/http://www.georgewhyte.org:80/ to http://www.georgewhyte.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Sources section seems horribly complex. Any way to make it less so? — Iadmc♫talk  11:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to expand: there is "Sources", "Other reference material" and "References". This feels a bit over-much... I've moved the sections around a bit so that the "Sources" and "Other reference material" are next door to the citations in "References". Are the books in "Sources" all cited? If so, do we really need that section? If not, we have no way of knowing how those not cited were referred to nor for what purpose. What is the "Other reference material" section for? Thnks — Iadmc♫talk  11:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dreyfus affair. 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/20131111090646/http://www.herzl.org/english/Article.aspx?Item=520&Section=491 to http://www.herzl.org/english/Article.aspx?Item=520&Section=491
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://crisismagazine.com/may2002/book1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ecfs.org/bome/cities/paris/hband/Rous/dreyfus2.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dreyfus-affair.org/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.georgewhyte.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dreyfus affair. 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  tag to http://www.judaicultures.info/histoire-6/Dans-la-Modernite-du-XIXo-s-a-nos/article/l-antisemitisme-dans-l-armee-l
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111947/http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Specials/Wilde/Maguire.htm to http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Specials/Wilde/Maguire.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The title does not capitalize the second word, and yet it is capitalized in the very first sentence of the intro! Please, correct.--Adûnâi (talk) 07:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The version with two capitals is somewhat more common than just the first word capitalized.  That would militate for renaming the article itself. Mathglot (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, according to the n-gram the upper-case form has emerged, since around 1967, as the common descriptor. In 2008, when n-grams became extinct, the upper-case was continuing to lengthen its prominence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization (Dreyfus affair vs Dreyfus Affair) 

message: I am not a perfectly fluent English speaker, yet I feel perplexed before the English translation of Anatole France’s speech at Zola’s funeral. By comparing with the French source, one can find many mistranslations. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an automatic job.
* The very first word, “Before”, looks like a word-to-word translation of “”, which in this context means “Having a duty to [do something]”, “As I must [do something]” (the present participle of ).
* Further on in the first sentence:
: 
: Grammar is broken and, in fact, the translation contradicts the original speech:
: 
: which would rather translate (inelegantly) to:
: 
* The part that puzzled me the most is the following:
: 
: The grammar looks deficient and the meaning unclear: “then” should be “when“, and the two lines joined.
* “Envy him”, translation of “”: not sure what is the best English translation, but unlike the English verb envy, the French verb  does not convey the idea of hatred or resentment.
* A missing word: “a vast work and a great act.”
* “his destiny and his heart gave out the greatest”, translation of “”: maybe it’s valid English but I do not understand it, so here is a literal translation, just in case: “his destiny and his heart gave/owed him the greatest fate.”
* A wrong pronoun: “It He was a moment of human conscience.”
I would gladly fix the translation myself, but I would prefer that a fluent speaker checks and improves my English. Or, even better, there surely are professional translations out there already…
Besides, I share the opinion expressed multiple times in this talk page, that this article is sprinkled with non-neutral sentences whose aim is to emphasize the injustice. At times this looks rather childish (emphasis mine):
Maëlan 14:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Zola’s funeral oration 

message: My family has always said that a side was Italian. My fathers side to be precise. Our last name was originally “Dreyfus” later to be changed to “Dreyfuse”.  So what I’m curious about is, is this one of my relatives? I’ve been doing a lot of “self discovery” and this is where my direction has taken me. Layciedreyfuae (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , Wrong venue for this; please see your talk page for response. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation