Talk:Dreyfus affair

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)

Completion of Translation from French Wikipedia

I have now completed the translation of the French version of The Dreyfus Affair into English and completed the loading of text with references, linkages, and lists of supporting texts.

The French version was at least four times longer than the old English version and extensively researched across mostly primary French sources making it a very high quality piece of work. Because of this the new text is almost all from the French as I deleted repetitious text from the English version. I have left any English text which contains information not present in the French version.

My starting point was Google translate however the quality of this is execrable and I used this only as a framework. Probably not a single sentence generated by Google remains and probably less than 50% of the words.

The main difficulty was a lack of a clear series of steps from Wikipedia of what needs to be done - especially I still can not figure out Templates - what templates are available and how to create one. I wanted to use some templates from the French wikipedia but could not find the equivalent in the English wikipedia. See the text of the exchange between the judge and the lawyer for Zola at the Zola trial - this is supposed to be a dropdown box but apparently the template boite in French does not translate to box. I would also like to use the French template plume but there seems to be no equivalent.

Now anybody may examine my text and tear it to pieces. I hope it addresses many of the problems previously raised with the English article and provides a thorough, comprehensive and well-researched article in English.

I have also added a link and notes for the release of the secret file by the Ministry of Defence on 6th March 2013.

Some notes on translations: The tribunal that tried Dreyfus in French was a conseil de la guerre literally a Council of War or War Council. I have decided on translating this as Military Court although Court Martial was an alternative considered. I would welcome comments if there is a better translation.

Generally proper names are untranslated although Ile du Diable is rendered as Devil's Island but Iles du Salut for example does not translate well into English.

I have translated the names of French reference books however have indicated the language of each reference in the Sources. I have not researched how many French books have been translated to English but I would expect quite few. Obviously all primary sources are in French.

For the the famous documents I have retained the French name - the bordereau [slip], the petit bleu [little blue], the faux Henry [fake Henry].

I welcome positive and negative comments on the translation.

Note that the French article was not part of the Jewish anti-semitism series therefore I think it may be appropriate to remove this logo. I have not done so and would suggest discussion on this point.

I also take the view that as the French version is closest to the primary sources, it would not be very useful to also translate the German version. Other views (especially from German speakers who have read the German text) would be of interest. Samrong01 (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The language of the article suffers from being a translation, and do not flow very evenly. Some sentences are peculiarly worded:

• I can only assume it is the French sentence structure that has been retained. It may be appropriate sentence structure in French, but not in English.
• Key structures of French society and court system are not explained. This may not be a problem in the French version, where the reader presumably know some of the social background, but it makes the complex court proceedings very hard to follow for a non-French audience.
• The tense is variable, shifting between the present and past tense.
• Some phrases are not translated, particularly "bordereau". This makes it difficult to comprehend the content for readers only interested in sections of this (very long) article.

While I assume the translated article is a wast improvement over the original English one, it really need to be cleaned up by someone proficient in the English language. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your constructive comments on my translation of the Dreyfus Affair. Some of your comments highlight the conflict in getting an accurate yet readable translation. In regard to your specific points:

1. Yes I agree the sentence structure is a problem in places. In French very long sentences sprinkled with commas are normal and this was particularly the case in this article. In some cases the meaning of the original author was not clear at all. I would very much like a review by another translator to refine the translation of these long and convoluted sentences. I feel that doing it myself would not achieve the desired result and may be no better.

2. I agree some familiarity with the French legal and societal structures is desirable however with the article already very long feel that this should be best done in a separate article.

3. French is much more casual in the use of tense than English so this and other historical articles are all in present tense in French. I have tried to translate all in past tense in English, which is more strict with tenses, however if I have left any in present tense this is a mistake and should be corrected.

4. The original French used the word bordereau to refer to many different notes as this is the simple meaning in French. In the Dreyfus Affair one specific note was widely known in English and French as the bordereau and I have been strict in referring only to this paper when retaining this word. I have tried to retain other French phrases only where they are well-known in relation to the affair to English readers however if anyone feels the article would be improved by their translation then please feel free to do so.

Overall I would prefer not to make any further changes myself and hope that another translator could review and improve where necessary.

Samrong01 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to translate articles to English myself (my first language is Norwegian), and I find it very tiresome. I can only image what translating an article of this length must have been like, I fully understand your hesitation in fixing it up. Ideally a native English speaker should review this. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Length of Article

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)

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)

Bordereau image

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)

An interesting question and I have done some research on it. According to the Dreyfus website the document is a reconstituted document from Service Historique de la Defense so the photo must be of the reconstituted document. I have found no specific mention that the document was lost in 1940 so would be interesting to know from the original author - Mr van Nuytts from the French Wikipedia - the source of this statement. There is a clearer picture on the above website. The photo on Wikipedia called Bordereau.jpg (used in the Esterhazy article) is in fact NOT the bordereau but a hand-written transcription - note that it says "Tenor of the Bordereau" at the top which is obviously not part of the original.

Samrong01 (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

Terrible article

French historian here, wanted to note that many of the older objections on this page are important and haven't been corrected. The article is a bit too long, has too much minutia, and (worst of all) is terribly written. Many of the paragraphs make little sense, and even contradict themselves (for example, in the "Consequences" section claims that French newspapers had a limited influence due to their small circulation, and then the very next sentence says their influence was large.) The anti-Semitism aspect is important, but is overemphasized and misleadingly cast as the central issue in the affair (see "A Fundamental Problem of Perspective" above.) I'm not going to accuse the article of a particular bias, but it's marked throughout by a moralizing tone that is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I wish I had time to rewrite it, but urge anyone with the inclination to give it a try. It's an important subject that is worthy of much better than this. LeVoyous (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@LeVoyous: we would, of course, welcome your help in making the article better. I notice from the discussion above that the article was expanded by translation from the French Wikipedia version, and some of the paragraph flow issues you raise may be related to that. This is an all-volunteer effort with no deadline and an effectively unbounded scope, so there always will be ways to improve. Thanks for taking the time to create an account and provide feedback! VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@LeVoyous: This is a very unconstrutive and poor analyze of this text, moreover coming from a "french historian". I am the main writer of the original article in french, and I can say that the translator has made an outstanding work out of the original article.

I've nerver read any critique of you on the french wikipedia page for [Dreyfus] Very surprising.

I completely disagree with your opinions and maintain that antisemitism is at the center and the origin of the Dreyfus affair. I used good sources to write this.

What would be great, instead of affirmations, is to direct us to a source saying the contrary of the previous statement. That would be very interresting.

Regarding style, my mothertong is french, so I have no idea of the level and quality of this translation. So far I consider it to be very good and at least very true.

--Van nuytts (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for the time and trouble it took to translate this article from the French version of Wikipedia, and in the spirit of improving entries, I must confess that this entire article is almost unreadable by a native speaker of English. Without going into the specifics, I would prefer to write under a new thread, and see if I can stimulate a discussion. I will post under "Can the French Translation Version Be Improved?" This should appear directly below the last headline "This Wiki Talk discussion needs to focus on the current article -- not old versions, and some observations.." RichardCraft (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The headline of this section of the conversation is unfair. The English leaves a lot of room for improvement, but after the public release of all the secret documents relating to the Dreyfus Affair by the French Government earlier this year, as well as the publication of "Le dossier secret de l'affaire Dreyfus," (Gervais, Peretz & Stutin), history had to be rewritten. It appears that the French Wikipedia article had been updated with some of this new information, and Samrong01 obviously went to a great deal of effort to translate this into English--even though his first language is Norwegian and he had to use online translators to render the article in English. I have tried to translate from other languages into English using the exact same method, and have failed miserably at both syntax and idiom. Imagine trying to translate the current article into Norwegian, as non-native Norwegian speaker! I have nothing but respect for the effort of Samrong01. RichardCraft (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

This Wiki Talk discussion needs to focus on the current article -- not old versions, and some observations..

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)

With the greatest respect for the time and trouble it took to translate this article from the French version of Wikipedia, and in the spirit of improving entries, I must confess that this entire article is almost unreadable by a native speaker of English. Without going into the specifics, I would prefer to write under a new thread, and see if I can stimulate a discussion. I will post under "Can the French Translation Version Be Improved?" This should appear directly below this headline "This Wiki Talk discussion needs to focus on the current article -- not old versions, and some observations.." RichardCraft (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Can the French Translation Version Be Improved?

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)

Mr Craft may well be correct in describing the quality of the translation however the examples he has chosen are puzzling. Why would a reader take the meaning of "monkey wrench" when obviously the meaning is "wrenching away"? There were other alternative words to use here but I thought this word was appropriate. He also says that he rewrote the introductory section due to the poor English however the introductory section was a portion that was not translated from French but is the original English from the article as it was before. I wrote the introduction from French in the "Summary of the Dreyfus Affair" section. I did not like to delete the original text but could not see how to successfully merge them. He is most welcome to revert to the pre-translation version rather than make improvements himself if he thinks this is better. Samrong01 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive and helpful reply! Instead of reversion, I wonder if we could work together to improve the English translation. I do not like the idea of undoing all the work and scholarship you have put into this article. I would not have guessed that the introduction had not been translated; perhaps if I started there, as I had planned, we could see if my rewrite was an improvement?

As for the example I chose, most native English speakers would indeed construe the reference to wrenching as "wrenching away," the problem here is more one of syntax and mixed metaphors. Here is how I would rewrite that paragraph only to improve the English:

"The Dreyfus Affair occurred within the context of the annexation of Alsace and Moselle by the Germans, an event which caused extreme nationalism in France. The traumatic defeat of the French in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71 had occurred 35 years earlier, and the national desire for vengeance remained. Many of the players in the Dreyfus affair were also Alsation."

That is just an improvement in the translation. Here is how I would actually rewrite this paragraph:

"The Dreyfus Affair was an indirect consequence of extreme nationalism which had been building in France since its defeat by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-71. The border regions of Alsace-Lorraine had been ceded to the Germans in the Treaty of Frankfort, and many in France were suspicious of perceived divided loyalties of the citizens of these regions. Dreyfus, as well as many of the other participants, were Alsations."

Once again, thank you for your reply, and I will post a rewrite of the introduction under a new header shortly. RichardCraft (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of Introduction

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)

@RichardCraft: Please add it ASAP. The current intro is strikingly unclear and unhelpful. chocolateboy (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@RichardCraft: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)

Literary reference

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)

A Fundamental Problem of Perspective

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)

Beginning a thorough edit

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)

Agreed. I nominate this sentence for revision: "Cavaignac had the honesty of a doctrinaire intransigent" I can't tell whether this is supposed to be positive or negative, or even means anything at all. It sounds like bad journalism, but it may have some point. Currently, it is not NPOV and not even understandable. Martin Turner (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

As was stated above by User:RichardCraft in 2013, much of the article is almost unreadable. It needs thorough rewriting. It is not just awkward, I simply do not know what many sentences are saying. Not a few sentences, perhaps 25% of them. I am confident most educated English readers would agree. I plan to make a long list of sentences that need to be rewritten. Ttulinsky (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Referencing style

The Sources section seems horribly complex. Any way to make it less so? — Iadmc♫^talk  11:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization (Dreyfus affair vs Dreyfus Affair)

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)

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)

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)

Translation of Zola’s funeral oration

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.

List of translation errors I found

• The very first word, “Before”, looks like a word-to-word translation of “Devant”, which in this context means “Having a duty to [do something]”, “As I must [do something]” (the present participle of devoir).
• Further on in the first sentence:

[…] those men bent on the destruction of an innocent man and who, after feeling lost, was saved and overwhelmed with the desperate audacity of fear”

Grammar is broken and, in fact, the translation contradicts the original speech:

[…] ces hommes acharnés à la ruine d'un innocent et qui, se sentant perdus s'il était sauvé, l'accablaient avec l'audace désespérée de la peur

which would rather translate (inelegantly) to:

[…] those men bent on the destruction of an innocent man and who, as they were feeling that they would be lost [or: doomed] if he was saved, overwhelmed him with the desperate audacity of fear

• The part that puzzled me the most is the following:

How to depart from your sight then I have a duty to show you
Zola rises up weak and disarmed against them?

The grammar looks deficient and the meaning unclear: “then” should be “when“, and the two lines joined.

• “Envy him”, translation of “Envions-le”: not sure what is the best English translation, but unlike the English verb envy, the French verb envier 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 “sa destinée et son cœur lui firent le sort le plus grand”: 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):

The article [Zola’s J’accuse] contained numerous errors, exaggerating or minimizing the roles of one or another of the figures involved. but Zola never claimed to be a historian.

Maëlan 14:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Relation

New user asking a ref desk question.

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) There are a number of Dreyfus families, possibly connected, possibly not. You will need to do a lot of research to make a connection with your own family, but there seems to be no (major) Italian connection with regard to the ancestry of Alfred Dreyfus (This is probably not the place to discuss this matter.)Bkesselman (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Layciedreyfuae, Wrong venue for this; please see your talk page for response. Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)