Talk:Dreyfus affair

NOTE -- The article has been entirely replaced (see note 40). Talk topics 1 through 39 relate to the older now non-existent version, and so should be skipped as they are no longer relevant. This comment is not part of the original topic 1, which follows below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phreich (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A Fundamental Problem of Perspective

NOTE -- The article has been entirely replaced (see note 40). Talk topics 1 through 39 relate to the older now non-existent version, and so should be skipped as they are no longer relevant. This comment is not part of the original topic 1, which follows below.

A Fundamental Problem of Perspective

Dreyfus was not convicted of being a Jew, he was convicted, wrongly, of treason. Though the issue was certainly taken up many for whom the persecution of the Jews was a primary goal, the fundamental issue of the case for late nineteenth century France was not the status of the Jews but the unquestioned honor of the army vis-à-vis a hostile Germany. The article as it stands places far too much emphasis on the anti-semitic background of the case and far too little on the the political context, particularly the all-important status of the army in the Third Republic and the ongoing external threat from Germany. The result is a mess, doubtlessly well-intentioned, but a mess nevertheless.

Ludwig X (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, I completely agree with your assessment of the article. Although, I would add that I sincerely question your assumption that the results were well-intentioned. I don't believe that your contention was ever, nor will ever be, considered. I only say this because I've noticed that in each and every article I've read here at Wiki, over the past several years, related to Judaism, and/or Jewish groups in general, the words anti-semitism, and anti-semitic, are always systematically sprinkled throughout. This well-worn Jewish insistance that each and every opponent is motivated strictly by bias and prejudice is, not only exclusive to the Jewish groups, but quite often ill-contrived at best. I personally believe it's time to leave the obligatory Jewish apologetics behind us, and present any and all Jewish articles in the same unbiased light in which we present those of the many other ethnic, religious, and political groups. Given the obvious protective bias that Wiki holds for the Jewish diaspora, I've been extremely careful here not to be entirely too critical of the group. I've also been careful not to move beyond the facts. So I guess we'll see if Wiki will allow the same criticism of articles relating to this group that we see of the other groups. If not, the anti-semitic police will simply cut my edit with the same rusty sword that I'm certain has cut so many before. Thank you. Jason532012 (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but historians have analyzed this incident with a fine-toothed comb over the years, and to ignore the anti-semetic aspect of the case would be a failure to document what happened. The remarks of "bias" are just one's personal opinion. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Bach

Can someone qualified perhaps edit this so that it does not resemble a report by someone who has read a single book by General Bach? In the historian's profession, thoroughness of citation is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.241.6 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

J'accuse

Is there a particular reason why J'accuse redirects to here? At the very least, there should be some sort of disambiguation page (I would so myself, but its beyond my actual Wiki skills), given that J'accuse is also the name of four different anti-war movies (at least one of them quite famous). See here - http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=J%27accuse

Good point, though one would probably note that the book about the Dreyfus affair is the most famous of these. Perhaps someone would care to write the articles regarding the movies in question.--24.21.45.224 18:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, as I understand it, the phrase *originated* as the caption and beginning of Zola's letter, which is doubtless why the phrase, otherwise unadulterated, directs to this page. Nonetheless I'm pleased to note that a disambiguation page has been created. Mia229 (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

2.7.07

Questions about placement of sidebar on Anti-semitism.

Why is the anti-semitism box tacked onto this article? Obviously, the Dreyfus affair was an attack on a military man for his jewishness, so I am not questiioning the bigotry of the events in this page, it just seems that a couple different boxes would easily fit alongside this article, including french history, french military history, french scandals, etc, etc.

The detailed sidebox on anti-semitism seems like overkill, or else someone is capturing wikipedia pages to make a political point.

Any response? I agree. It creates a stridency that is really counter productive . France had its share of loony anti-semites that became very vocal during the Dreyfus Affair. True enough. But the French political Left and Center rallied behind people like Zola and Clemenceau to redress this awful miscarriage of justice. Remember the French Left won the general elections in the early 1900's largely in reaction against the lunatic behavior of the extreme right during the Dreyfus Affair..... Let us remember the agony the Dreyfus family had to go through during a whole decade.... Indeed,during their lifetime.... the Dreyfus family did resent being used as a political football by both sides. Let us respect their memory. Signed: Gerard . P.S.: Another point: the most recent and most informative books released on the Dreyfus Affair are in French and no one, except for a few scholars, has read them outside of France. These books , both recently published in France, are " Un secret bien garde.Histoire militaire de l'Affaire Dreyfus " by Jean Doise(1994) and " L'Armee de Dreyfus " by General Bach (2004). The latter author (Bach) is a French general officer ,now retired, who directed the French military archive system at Fort de Vincennes,near Paris .That top position gave him full access to the most secret files related to the Dreyfus Case. As to Jean Doise, now deceased,he was THE archivist and military historian attached to the French Army's General Staff during nearly his whole career. Doise published his book ( the title "Un Secret Bien Garde" translates into "A well kept secret ")immediately after his retirement in 1993. I have dissected those two books because I speak and read French fluently. They obsolete everything else in print when it comes to the early phases of the Dreyfus Affair. ( P.S. comment added on 10/5/07).

I think it's placed in the Antisemitism sidebar just because it's a prime example of it--sure, it fits under French history, but so do a lot of other things...

If we can have it linked to more than one sidebar, then we should link it. As it stands, this is still a prime example of antisemitism. And antisemitism is a pretty darn-big force in history, I'd say...though that could be because we've just covered it in history. The Antisemitism bar should include Drumont's "Jewish France" or something else he wrote...he was pretty big. Sorry for the ramblin'. 24.16.140.208 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Racism has been a pretty big thing in history too, and, unlike Jewish practices like exorbitant ursury, which has been the basis of much of anti-semitism throughout history, has been systematically unfounded. Yet we do not see the term sprinkled in every article where a black person is unjustly persecuted. Jason532012 (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages, the term "usury" was employed as a frequent accusation against Jews, as a group (and as an excuse — *not* a "reason" — for their horrible treatment by the Church, Christian secular leaders, and ordinary Christians); however, it did not share its meaning in today's English: it simply meant charging interest (*not* excessive or "exorbitant" interest) on a loan. This was against the laws of Mediæval Catholicism; since Christians weren't going to loan money without at least some chance of making a profit, Jews filled the need (there were always people — and governments — who needed to borrow money). The interest charged was not in general excessive, nor would it form such a "basis" as you claim, even had it been. (It would be comparable to suggest that since organised crime has sometimes been committed in the United States by people of Southern Italian ancestry, it would therefore be acceptable for Americans of other ethnic backgrounds to conduct pogroms against Southern Italian-Americans, or for the American Congress to pass a law banning all Southern Italians from coming to the States and ordering all those present to leave or be arrested, regardless of their involvement in organised crime.)

Your implication that all the abuses inflicted on Jews (frequently en masse) throughout European history have a reasonable "basis" in the Jews — or, in the case of Alfred Dreyfus, their *ancestors*! — not following a particular law of the Mediæval Catholic Church is, frankly, galling. (BTW, others — in case you aren't familiar with Mein Kampf or Martin Luther's Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen — have given other "reasons" for their anti-Semitism, so your "throughout history" claim is bogus anyway.) Mia229 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about Jason. He's been blocked for persistent sockpuppetry and horrible comments like those above. So he won't be responding here either. Best thing to do in these nutjob cases is ignore the haters and don't bother wasting your time on them. --Activism1234 03:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

General quality

This article is quite poor (I've seen a documentary on TV on that that was very good). Unfortunately, I have to say that many important things are missing, many facts are inaccurate and many statements misleading. I don't have any time to correct it, but please don't make it a "featured article" unless you rework it entirely. Herve661 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a lenghty, detailed and IMO excellent article at its place. Stammer 07:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is still there, as the "Dreyfus Affair series". The lnking to the main article is suboptimal, but at least it's not gone. Stammer 06:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Older talk

Tone of this article is not very neutral. It would be better if the most problematic statements were reformulated a bit. Taw 10:59 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

---

62.104.214.93 has deleted a large amount of content from this page, giving as reason: "deleting content stolen from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=482&letter=D ". However, the http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ asserts that its site is the public domain content of a 1906 encyclopedia. Therefore we have not stolen the content. So I've restored it. -- Tarquin 20:23 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

---

This is not an encyclopedia article, it's more like a novella. It's the largest article on Wikipedia, but probably deserves only to be a one-pager here, a century later. Seeing that it mostly came from a 1906 Jewish encyclopedia explains this; being of recent history, all of these minute details were likely known by most of these readers at the time, and perhaps this meticulous story was expected.

Astonishingly, I found it necessary to add to this monster: the "Dreyfus' pardon" section. After wading through this whole thing the tension was killing me. "So what happened to him???" The sentence is quite incomplete in details, but I can't bear to add even more.

Indeed, I think that the whole series is far too emotional, like a novel or a CourtTV recount of famous crime cases. This is not encyclopedia material. Also, the articles plays up the importance of anti-Semites, while passing quickly over the fact that many non-Jews fought for Dreyfus. David.Monniaux 08:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm suprised this has become a featured article. It's rather short. I take it it was somewhat larger at some point. Shouldn't this be merged with Alfred DreyfusMintguy (T) 12:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) ... (later edit) ... ahhh I see it's part of a larger series. Hm.. Mintguy (T)

..(still later)... I'm not sure we should have this as a featured article on the main page, when the last chapter is missing! Mintguy (T) 12:44, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did a lot of work on this at one time, mainly "translating" into simpler, more modern English. One of the things I did at that time was to transfer all the biographical stuff into a separate article called Alfred Dreyfus, which didn't then exist. That action seemed to me to be in keeping with the general policy of cutting down long articles into their constituent parts. Actually, I'm quite glad to see that someone's taken a bolder approach. Deb 15:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that statues or monuments to Alfred Dreyfus are still vandalized today, as of 2004? Or was this information copied from decades-old news? David.Monniaux 07:38, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the early entries copied from the old encyclopedia, it appears that the mention of vandalism was not there, and someone added it later. So I would not remove it: it was likely added by someone with some specific recent evidence in mind. --Shibboleth 04:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Corrections required?

The sentence where it is mentioned that Dreyfus was pardoned in 1899 needs clarification. This is because his reinstatment in the French army and subsequent awarding of the Legion of Honour actually took place in 1906, when he was completely exonnerated and found innocent of all the charges. The way the sentence reads at the moment, his reinstatment and awarding of the Legion of Honour appears to have taken place in 1899; this should be corrected. ???? by an unknown

"Fearing that the sometimes anti-Semitic press would learn of the affair and accuse the French army of covering up for a Jewish officer, the French military command pushed for an early trial and conviction. By the time they realised that they had very little evidence against Dreyfus (and that what they had was not at all conclusive), it was already politically impossible to withdraw the prosecution without provoking a political scandal that would have brought down the French government."

This sounds very apologistic for the french army command to me. I just saw a documentary which gave a quite different view, for instance that the press indeed earned of the affair and thus there was some pressure on the army to become open up the court martial. I don't know if there is hard evidence for this, but the report hinted that Henry deliberately leaked details to the newspapers. And it should have been apparent for the prosecution BEFORE the trial that there was insufficient evidence. Yet I don't see why an aquital of Dreyfus in a trial that showed his innocence should have brought down the government. Most of that TV report was based on facts, whereas the parapragh above seems to be pure mindreading. Who knows what thwe conspirators thougt or feared??? Sadly, I don't have the time to work on Wiki now, else I would correct this and some other inaccuracies. 81.14.149.12 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, I don't know if this particular instance is based on fact or not, but there are plenty of ways to know what people who lived a hundred years ago thought and/or feared. Because people write things, and some of the things that people write survive, and historians can go and read them. Now, this particular case may be wrong, but there's nothing inherently wrong with describing what someone was thinking - often times people leave evidence of what they were thinking. john k 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current article states the danger that withdrawing prosecution would have "brought down the French government" as though it were a fact. I'm going to correct that now. 128.252.188.62 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the Dreyfus affair

I had never heard of this before reading "misunderstood the Dreyfus case" in an unrelated text. This is a great page, it discusses the policital climate, and public feelings towards Dreyfus. Some things it doesn't do:

Explain the circumstances surrounding his arrest and charging (who what where when how and some sort of why)

Give detail surrounding the "political scandal".

Explain why the anti-semetic feelings in France are relevant. The article talks about banking but I dont understand how everything fits together. Did Dreyfus upset jewish people? how? was he a scapegoat? for what? I have NO idea after reading this.

I'm sorry, I know this is a featured article, and I know I am being harsh. But for someone who is learning about the topic for the first time, it left more questions than answers.

--Uncle Bungle 23:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, Dreyfus was Jewish. He didn't upset the Jews, he upset the anti-Semites who were all-too-willing to believe a Jew was a traitor. This article is not the place for a full discussion of European anti-Semitism. —Tkinias 11:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Simple English

I made a Simple English summary of this simple:Dreyfus Affair, as this 5 page article is really complicated. Please tidy it up for me, I am not totally sure of its good content-ness.

I made some fixes at simple:Dreyfus Affair and added mention of anti-Semitism (which needs its own article). It's not easy to discuss simply, but without anti-Semitism the whole Affair makes no sense. —Tkinias 11:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Marquis deMores?

Is this the same Marquis deMores that came to western North Dakota in the late-1800's? That Marquis de Mores named a town there after his wife, Medora. He was a contemporary of Theodore Roosevelt when TR was in the Dakota's also... Anyways, the Marquis tried to build a meat-packing facility there and failed. IIRC, then he went back to France circa 1900...

Way, way too long

I was interested in finding out just what the Dreyfus Affair was about -- instead I got lost in 30 pages of minutiae. There should be a 1-page precis of what happened, in brief. Not a blow-by-blow account, not an analysis of anti-Semitism, not Dreyfus' bio, just a very brief summary of the events and their political significance. Is anyone up to writing this?

In the introductory paragraph it is not clear whether the right wing were the dreyfussards and left wing the antidrefussards - or the other way around. Please rewrite, whoever knows which way it goes. Maybe you consider it too obvious, but I still have no idea. dawgĐ

'It was not divided between a "dreyfussards left" and an "antidreyfussards right". You could find dreyfussards/antidreyfussards on both sides : Picquart was rightish and Dreyfussards for instance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.133.145 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Way way too short!

I think a little more on the arrest and pardon section plus some "mainarticle" links.

"to stop the campaign against Jewish officers until further orders." What does this mean? Rich Farmbrough. 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Far too short. Some of the older information should be slowly reintroduced, in moderation, as to avoid overly large amounts of detail. If there is that much detail, has anyone tried of adding new articles? Thank you for any help expanding this article. 66.65.197.38 06:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl

It is significant (and good) to see an accurate if slightly controversial (to some) reference to Herzl in this article. I studied the history of Zionism at university, and I too have long held the belief that this affair had a very minor impact on Herzl, and that he may have later exploited the matter for his own ends. He did indeed think initially that Dreyfus was guilty and showed almost no concern for the case, yet later wrote that Dreyfus was innocent not because the charges were part of an anti-semetic conspiracy (even though that was indeed the major factor), but because, as a Jew holding an office of responsibility and public service, he could not possibility have commited any crime in the first place: he wrote "A Jew who, as an officer on the general staff, has before him an honorable career, cannot commit such a crime . . . The Jews, who have so long been condemned to a state of civic dishonor, have, as a result, developed an almost pathological hunger for honor, and a Jewish officer is in this respect specifically Jewish." Source of quote: biography of Herzl (based on that by Alex Bein) included in a translation of Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") (Dover Publications; ISBN 0-486-25849-1) 195.92.40.49 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Review of the Dreyfus Affair

The author of the Wikipedia article on the Dreyfus Affair in 1890s France intends to persuade his audience of the extreme anti-Semitism of this time. By describing the Dreyfus conviction as “wrongful” at the very outset of the article and going on to say “they had very little evidence against [him],” the author assumes that the military had anti-Semitic, unwarranted mal-intentions, forgetting that the vast majority of France was convinced of his guilt early on in the 1890s. Though the extent of Dreyfus’ innocence and honor is in little doubt today, I believe the author may be making him out to be more of a hero than simply a man at the mercy of the system in the violent and politically-charged atmosphere of France in the 1890s. The author points out that the creator of the famous newspaper headline “J’Accuse!” was the “French statesman and journalist Georges Clemenceau,” but neglects to remind his audience that Clemenceau was a radical political activist at the time. At the same time, while emphasizing the corrupt state of affairs surrounding Dreyfus’ conviction and subsequent pardon, the author perhaps overemphasizes the heroic nature of Dreyfus’ character by the very inclusion of such information as, “He was also made a knight in the Legion of Honour. Dreyfus served behind the lines of the Western Front during the Great War.”

While the Dreyfus Affair certainly was a dramatic event in French history that encompassed all of society, I think the author may be over-romanticizing the whole thing. It’s hard to believe that the Dreyfus affair alone successfully pushed the far right to the fringes of French politics, prompted legislation toward the separation of church and state, and indirectly started the Zionist movement. Despite the relative importance of the Dreyfus Affair in French history, it’s a bit of a stretch to assume other factors weren’t involved in these “consequences” of the Affair.

For all of his shortcomings, I am thoroughly convinced of the centrality of anti-Semitism at the heart of the Dreyfus Affair. The conviction of anti-Semitic sentiments in France at the time is indisputable, as evidenced in the countless pictures, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and even champagne bottles depicting Jews in a less-than-flattering light. The Dreyfus Affair surely was a major event in French history that provoked a political scandal spanning several years, and yet I have some trouble linking it to the eventual Zionist movement with calls for an independent Jewish state, as the author suggests, without much supporting evidence (though he goes on to refute this claim, which leaves me wondering why he included it at all).

The author does list a number of external links and books for “further reading” on the subject, however, I believe they are quite inadequate to support his claims for a number of reasons. First, they are largely outdated (with the oldest at 1955 and the most recent at 1999). Second, a mere glance at the titles reveal that they would be insufficient to substantiate his claims about the consequences and aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair.

While I appreciate the short, concise nature of the article, I believe the author fails to provide enough citations and supporting evidence in general, but especially about the consequences and aftermath of the Affair. That being said, I think the article is structured in an organized, logical manner with the minor exception of the final section, entitled “Discussion of Theodor Herzl.” The Jewish-Australian’s eventual work in the Zionist movement, while related to the anti-Semitic topic at hand, seems rather out of place in the context of the rest of the article which strictly deals with the events surrounding the Dreyfus Affair in 1890s France.

Articles are based on referenced Reliable Sources. Personal opinions are for blogs and what-not, not the Talk Pages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A Review of “The Dreyfus Affair”

The author of this article, besides trying to provide information about the Dreyfus Affair, is attempting to persuade readers of the historical significance of the Affair as a force that divided citizens of France and an event that had a great impact on the course of French politics. The author spends most of the article detailing the events of the Dreyfus affair, but equally important is the splitting of the country into Dreyfusards and anti-Dreyfusards, and the political implications of the Affair. This article on the Dreyfus Affair does a good job overall at detailing not just the events of the Drefus Affair, but also the aftermath and consequences of the Affair.

The author assumes that the main reason for the framing of Alfred Dreyfus and the polarization of the French people was that Dreyfus was Jewish. While this is entirely possible, the author provides little evidence regarding the history of anti-Semitism in France, or the reasons why the French government targeted Dreyfus in particular. It would be useful to have some background regarding the treatment of Jews in France before the Dreyfus affair. The way the author has presented the information, it appears that Dreyfus was framed either simply because he was Jewish, or, instead, for no reason at all.

The most convincing aspect of the article is the author’s assertion that the Dreyfus affair had strong and long-lasting effects on French people and French government. The author makes direct connections between the conviction of Dreyfus and the future political struggles between the far right and the moderate liberals. The author also ties in that anti-Dreyfusards made up many of the members of the Vichy government as well as tying in the relation of Theodore Herzl and the Zionist movement. The article, subsequently, is a very good indicator of both short-term and long-term effects of the Dreyfus Affair in France.

The least convincing aspect of the article is the author’s arguments regarding the real forces behind exposing Dreyfus’ innocence and the problems with his conviction. The author asserts that the real individuals responsible for exposing Dreyfus’ innocence were Dreyfus’ own brother Mathieu, the journalist Lazard, Colonel Picquardt, and Scheurer-Kestner. The author admits that writer Émile Zola has been given most of the credit for exposing Dreyfus’ innocence for his “J’accuse!” article in L’Aurare, but he provides no arguments to support his claim that Zola is not the main figure responsible for helping to clear Dreyfus’ name. The article only scarcely addresses any of the work done by the other figures mentioned by the author to help clear Dreyfus’ name, so the author’s assertion that Zola was not actually the most important person to help prove Dreyfus’ innocence is not supported adequately.

The sources used by the author of this article appear almost adequate, but many of the sources are a half-century old or more, but perhaps some more current information might be useful. The author used a total of seven sources, and besides the lack of any very current sources, the list of references appears to be thorough. Although there may not have been any tremendous breakthroughs regarding the Dreyfus affair in the last few years, if the author cited sources that are more current, the reader could be sure that the information given in the article was completely current.

The writing style of this article is rather simple, and, as a result, there is not an immense amount of depth on the subject matter. On one hand the article is easy to understand, however it is not extremely complex and leads one to wonder if the author has left out anything. It is also difficult at times to follow the timeline of the events of the Affair, and it would be helpful if the author had given a better sense of the flow of the Affair. In addition, even though there is a link to an article just on Alfred Dreyfus, having a little more background on the man himself in this article would have been helpful. This article on the Dreyfus Affair is generally well-written and gives a good description of the Affair and its aftermath in France, and is useful for anyone trying to get a general understanding of what the Affair was and why it is a significant moment in French history.

Review of the Dreyfus Affair

Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a Jewish officer in the French army when he was accused of treason for transferring important information to the Germans. The article describes the background and the effects of this affair, and asserts that it pervaded everyone’s life in Paris and divided the country into two separate entities. The author attempts to convey the message that everyone chose one of two sides, which were simplistically labeled Dreyfusards versus anti-Dreyfusards. According to this article, no one was free from the affair’s political debate and most of the passions were solely due to anti-Semitism. The impact of this was extreme because it created factions between the right and the left, contributed to the unfair treatment of the Jewish people, and also created movements and literature calling for the end of the injustice surrounding the affair.

The author assumes that the conviction of Dreyfus was “wrongful” and that he was only accused because he was Jewish. He does not describe the history or extent of anti-Semitism in French history or the degree to which it affected Dreyfus’ fate. Also, when the military realized that enough evidence was present to fairly accuse, they could not withdraw the prosecution because it would cause the collapse of the French government. The scandal, therefore, affected all aspects of life, according to the author, its aftermath lasted decades, and the affair was the reason for the liberals’ increased power. The article additionally assumes that Dreyfus was exonerated from his charges and received a pardon from the president of France without any explanation. The author fails to explain that information continued to be given to the Prussians after Dreyfus was sentenced to Devil’s Island and that this evidence allowed Dreyfus’ acquittal. Rather, it is only assumed that Dreyfus’ conviction was due to anti-Semitism and injustice that was almost inevitable since both the right wing, which supported the Church and anti-Republican feelings, and the left wing, which supported the Republic and were angry with the Church, co-existed within one country. These sides were able to define themselves more clearly by either supporting or denouncing Dreyfus.

The author of the article convincingly describes the major impact of the Dreyfus affair and the chaos it created in the country. In describing the aftermath of the affair, the author actually recounts a dual between the authors of a journal titled “La Libre Parole” which accused French Jewish officers of also being traitors. These men were challenged to a fight by a Jewish captain named Cremieu-Foa who felt personally attacked, and the subsequent dual and chaos resulted in the captain’s death. The author does an extremely good job describing how the event greatly affected every aspect of life since the terms anti-Dreyfusards and Dreyfusards remained for decades after the affair even though Dreyfus was pardoned. The article clearly describes the chaos present at this time with specific cases of conflict and division between the people as they were becoming aware of the presence of anti-Semitism and injustice.

The explanation behind accusing Dreyfus does not seem to be sufficiently convincing. The article does not explain the content of the letters and also does not set forth the reasoning or history at this time which accounted for the threat of espionage to France. The author also fails to describe how widespread anti-Semitism was during this time and why it constituted such a hot topic for debate. The reader wonders whether prejudice was present before the Dreyfus affair or whether it served merely as a tool to define the separation between those who were for the Church, monarchy and anti-republican ideas versus those who wanted freedom of ideas and religion in a Republic. The author does not clearly explain the extent to which the whole Jewish people were affected and if this prejudice continued after the Dreyfus Affair. The author additionally does not explain why the affair was a scandal or why Dreyfus was later excused from his convictions. There is no mention in the article that the treasonous material continued to appear even after the imprisonment of Dreyfus. This material would portray more clearly that Dreyfus was accused because he was Jewish in a powerful position, which caused resentment.

The article does not directly cite any sources to support the author’s claims. Sources would have provided a more coherent argument explaining the division in France and the history of the time that caused the affair to occur. The article does, however, provide a very cohesive list of films, external links, and further reading that would help the reader to better understand the topic and to understand how the subject pervaded all aspects of life and divided the opinions and people of France.

The article coherently describes this major event in French history and provides sufficient information about its impact, the specific people involved, and its aftermath. It ends, however, with a discussion of Theodor Herzl that is randomly placed and which ruins the flow of the article. Herzl wrote about the aftermath of the affair, but information about him and his ideas are misplaced and do not stem directly from the section explicitly termed “Aftermath.” Herzl supposedly was deeply affected by the injustice and anti-Semitism revealed by the affair and subsequently called for the creation of a Jewish state. Historians later discovered that Herzl and other Jews initially were convinced of Dreyfus’ guilt and promoted the Jewish state even before anti-Dreyfuses appeared. The Dreyfus Affair, therefore, did not affect this call for a separate Jewish homeland, which was instead the result of other factors. This information seems unnecessary because the Dreyfus Affair did not affect this development or the feelings held by the Jewish people. Also, the author does not present the information that Jews did not even side with Dreyfus initially until the very end of the article. The affair was clearly much more complicated than simply Jews versus the rest of the country.

The Dreyfus Affair portrayed a chaotic time during French history in which a Jewish officer was unfairly accused of treason in an incident that went further than anti-Semitism. It was instead a time of political division and chaos, and the affair was used to define the different opinions of the French. In order to understand the intensity of the debate, I would have wanted the author to include more examples of how people were affected by the event. Also, I would have liked a comparison to an event in recent history in order to see how significant it was and how it greatly divided the people, in order that it can be understood as “one of the great commotions of history.”

TfD nomination of Template:Dreyfusaffair

Template:Dreyfusaffair has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Note that theis is NOT the template currently used in the article. SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

The whole series was copied from the "Jewish Encyclopedia". It includes things such as judging that such or such officer was a "honest soldier" but "narrow-minded" - seriously, this cannot fit within a neutral point of view! In addition, the articles contains conclusions expressing political points of view.

The whole bunch of articles would need a thorough rewriting by someone with access to more sources about this affair than just this encyclopedia... David.Monniaux 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Conviction and pardon

I've corrected (I hope) many grammatical and spelling errors and added some wikilinks in this section. There are still far too many commas in my opinion, even though I tend to overuse them myself. We need an Enlish teacher. Dan D. Ric 10:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the section runs way too long. - Quirk 12:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel Hubert Joseph Henry

I don't know enough about this subject, but I think Henry should be added to this article: "In August 1898, Lieutenant Colonel Hubert Joseph Henry confessed that as Picquart’s successor as head of intelligence he had forged documents implicating Dreyfus; he was arrested and committed suicide in his cell." from encarta Dreyfus Affair entry --Rajah 07:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Problem

There's a large gap after Scandal and aftermath. Someone should close the space between the header and the text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.169.47 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Tried to copy edit this article but failed

This article appears rambling and repetitious. I feel there is too much obscure, unverified detail that detracts from the story line. Sorry that I could not continue copy editing beyond the first few sections. Sincerely, Mattisse 02:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Jayjg, why are you removing the only source that talks of the antiseitism caused by the Dreyfus affair?Bless sins 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and this article is about the Dreyfus affair, not really a place to POV-push trivia about the Arab press. I know it's very important to you to show how wonderful and non-antisemitic Arabs are, but please save that for more appropriate place - preferably your blog. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any source for the suggestion that the trial was motivated by antisemitism, or that antisemitism had anything at all to do with the affair?124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon's Concordat, "cause" of French anti-Semitism?

I removed this sentence. The way it goes, it seems that large sectors of French Catholics were anti-Semitics because of Napoleon's Concordat. At the very least, this needs some source, and I doubt any serious historians would be so simplistic as to attribute anti-Semitism to this sole, official act, in a nation which has been considered since ages the "daughter of the Church"... Here is the controversed sentence:

Most of the anti-Semitic sentiments stemmed from large Catholic factions within French politics that resulted from Napoleon's Concordat with Pope Pius VII in 1801 which gave the Catholic Church official support from the French state.

Let's work on this a bit more! Tazmaniacs 12:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reaction in the Middle East

I removed this section in accordance with WP:Bold and am mentioning it here to avoid cries of vandalism. It was clearly tacked on, not a part of the article in flow nor structure, and completely unrelated in topic--the Dreyfus Affair deals with France, not the Arab world nor other non-French countries. I have the impression that somebody wanting to portray Arabs as "good guys" in treating Jews fairly added it at some point; giving off this impression isn't a good thing! For the sake of having records, I've posted it below:

In the Middle East, the Muslim Arab press was sympathetic to the falsely accused Captain Dreyfus, and criticized the persecution of Jews in France.

If somebody wants to add it back in, please explain why you feel it belongs and re-write first; I will revert anyone who reverts without comment. Alternator 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a section on the reaction to the Dreyfus affair outside France than it would fit nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.125.116 (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The comment is about the Arab reaction to the Dreyfus affair. There is nothing wrong with mentioning international reactions to a local event.Bless sins (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Current text:

The Jewish-Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl was assigned to report on the trial and its aftermath. Soon afterward, Herzl wrote The Jewish State (1896) and founded the World Zionist Organization, which called for the creation of a Jewish State. For many years it was believed that the anti-Semitism and injustice revealed in France by the conviction of Dreyfus had a radicalizing effect on Herzl, showing him that Jews could never hope for fair treatment in European society, thus orienting him toward creating a Jewish state. Herzl himself promoted this view.

I'm waiting for the missing next sentence:

In fact, this is now known not to be the case, after recent finding by yadda yadda yadda..

Otherwise the current phrasing stinks. jnestorius^(talk) 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Section on the Collusion

This page would be improved with a discussion of the progress of compromised evidence (beginning with the over-eager attribution of the "Scoundrel D." letter, mentioning Henry's forgeries used to bolster the evidence against Dreyfus, all the way through "the collusion" where Henry, Paty de Clam and other members of the Statistics office (the French intelligence service), acting on what they believed was the behalf of Gonse and de Boisdeffre, actually made contact with Walsin-Esterhazy to warn him that he was suspected of treason and thereafter worked to protect him from prosecution.

I'm especially disturbed by the uncountered argument that Esterhazy was working for the French all along. The man's own correspondence shows that he was in debt, bitter toward the French government for denying him promotion, and in the pay of the Germans. Not only that, but if he was slipping the Germans bad information, it certainly wasn't with the knowledge of French intelligence, the Minister of War or the President, otherwise they would hardly have acted with such panic when the bordereau was discovered.

Jbkenney (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did read a historical book (I don't remember the title though) which thesis was that the whole affair was an intoxication of the german services made by French intelligence, using Dreyfus as a sacrificed pawn. I don't have the historical knowledge to validate or deny validity to this thesis, but shouldn't it be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.83.17.143 (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit

This article was flagged for re-edit a year ago. I undertook part of the task, focusing on the following:

• made a major run at editing style, punctuation, excess modifiers, etc.
• corrected spelling
• attempted to arrange events in chronological order
• grouped events where appropriate
• changed monolithic headings to subordinate structure
• added headings where needed
• created references where they were obvious

The original section titled Background mostly discussed anti-Semitism with one paragraph discussing Dreyfus' family. I created 2 subordinate sections, titled Anti-Semitism perspective and Family.

What I did not do:

• made no effort to judge content (no additions, no deletions)
• made no effort to address some of the issues above (Dreyfusards, etc.)

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

granddaughter in a gestapo-prison

The link to the floridamuseum in note 12 does not work anymore. Instead of this I found this link of The World Federation of Jewish Child Survivors of the Holocaust. According to that Madeleine Dreyfus, a born Kahn, was incarcered by the Germans, but survived and worked after the war as a psychologist. I assume this version is the right one. Your opinions to this. please. --Orik1949 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mystery already solved. Look at the lemma.--Orik1949 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you discovered. The cited line claimed she, "Was sent to Auschwitz, where she was murdered."

My real problem is with the word, "Murdered." (I realize that this is a cited line, but it still bothers me.) It seems to indicate that there were special circumstances that set her apart from the other six million people who were murdered in the death camps--as if some Vichy assasin sought her out to do her in. I'd really like to know what the actual circumstances were. It's clear that she died there, I am not refuting that as that much is well documented and commemorated.

The small (unsubstantiated) bits I've been able to find seem on the surface to contradict the murder accusation.

"On her arrival at Auschwitz, Madeleine was assigned to a work group, laboring at an excavation near Birkenau, but she soon fell ill with typhus. When she died in January 1944, she weighed less than 70 pounds."

Again, here we have no specifics. Did she die from typhus, or did it just make her too weak to fight off the murderer?

Any information appreciated. --Vitki1963 (talk 05:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Date

The date of the first conviction in the current version of the article is said variously to be November, 1894 and December, 1894. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.249.165 (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Please consider adding this external link to the entry on Dreyfus

• The Diary Junction Blog Pikle (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwieldy - a case of abridgement and readability vs the inclusiveness of history?

As an encylcolpedia article/topic, this series of articles is rather unwieldy for the reader. The many different pages include a lot of uynnecessary duplication (particularly that for J'accuse), while the series as a whole seems to be an exposition of almost all known information on the subject rather than forming a sensible encyclopedia article. I know that Wikipedia isn't paper, but surely it makes sense - in any area of the encyclopedia - to keep topics readable and accessible rather than pack them with minutiae that at times serves to get in the way of the main thrust. Serious scholars shouldn't be using Wikipedia anyway, and those who wish to read further on the subject should be able to look at the sources cited and follow up of their own accord.

There's no need to basically paraphrase history books when summarising will do.

94.195.129.125 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Something missing in the Dreyfuss Affair: Dreyfuss' Exoneration

Dreyfuss' exoneration is never explained adequately here which is almost a copy of a 1901-1906 Jewish encyclopedia. There is nothing specific on Dreyfuss' eventual exoneration in 1905/1906 or the events which led to his exoneration. This article stops at 1902....at which time Dreyfuss is still convicted as a traitor. What did the Dreyfusards do from 1902 to 1906? Nothing is mentioned again. One would have expected a slightly higher standard here explaining the facts surrounding his eventual exoneration. Picquart's exact role here is not mentioned either except that he later became Minister of War. This is a big noticeable gap sadly for such a monumental affair. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This site gives some very minimal information about his eventual pardon and some information not found in the wikipedia article. Maybe someone can expand on it. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary style

This article has blank and empty sections, forcing the reader to scour lengthy subarticles and rendering this article incomplete. To comply with standards, summaries of these subarticles should be included in this article. This article is currently incapable of providing a medium-level overview of the affair, it barely, perhaps selectively, covers the basics and then prods in-depth examination without any helping hand. 168.103.124.101 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. In particular the sections Investigation_and_arrest, Trial_and_conviction and Resolution contain only a main link.

And these main articles are similarly unhelpful. Investigation and the arrest of Alfred Dreyfus [1] has a lead which is badly off-topic, Trial and conviction of Alfred Dreyfus [2] has a lead that at least addresses the topic but not very well, while Resolution of the Dreyfus Affair [3] has no lead at all. Andrewa (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Where is the D?

According to the page Investigation and the arrest of Alfred Dreyfus, the bordereau ends with the initial 'D'. But the image of the bordereau included near the top of this article does not actually show that. There's just a dash, even when viewed at original size. Consider the photo at fr:Affaire_Dreyfus#Origines_de_l.27affaire_et_le_proc.C3.A8s_de_1894, which is claimed to be a photo of the original, now lost, bordereau. The latter part of the letter is somehow imprinted upside-down on the top. Still, no D. This must have been addressed somewhere, but if it has been addressed here, I haven't found it, so hopefully it can be made more prominent. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 07:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There may be some confusion about which bordereau has the D. The famous bordereau from Esterhazy did not have a D but another bordereau from the secret file which was called the Canaille de D ("Scoundrel D") did have a D. In French this is also referred to as a bordereau because bordereau simply means a note and in French is applied to any note in the case. When translating from French I have kept the word bordereau to refer only to the one written by Esterhazy and when referring to other notes I have translated as slip or note or to what the other note may be known by (e.g. the "petit bleu" or the "faux Henry"). It was also known that the German Embassy dealt with a spy they knew as Dubois. Samrong01 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Subarticles

The disorganization, as mentioned before, needs to be rectified. Having subarticles is fine, but there's no reason why sections should have a redirect without a short summary of the subarticle. In order to get the entire story of the Dreyfus affair, I shouldn't have to open up six subarticles. The summaries for each section should be sufficient for an average reader to obtain a decent understanding from.

I have gone ahead and tagged the article. I sincerely hope someone will spend some time and rectify the situation. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 16:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made a start by simply deleting the empty sections, replacing them with content copied directly from Alfred Dreyfus and moving the sub-article titles to the "See also" section. Ideally (leaving aside the issue of referencing) the current content of the new section should be merged with the lead (which currently says the same but in slightly more detail) and the lead should be re-written to summarise both the "affair" and "aftermath" sections. Scolaire (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WE REALLY REALLY NEED TO MAKE THIS BETTER.

I really love this topic and the Article, but we need to make it better. It should be merged with Investigation_and_the_arrest_of_Alfred_Dreyfus, Trial_and_conviction_of_Alfred_Dreyfus, Picquart's_Investigations_of_the_Dreyfus_Affair, Others_look_into_the_Dreyfus_Affair, The_public_scandal_of_the_Dreyfus_Affair, and Resolution_of_the_Dreyfus_Affair

Or at least like Dreyfus Affair, Investigation and Arrest, Trial and Conviction, and Resolution we mix together. Than we can merge the other ones once we organize that.

I really want to help this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Joker16 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Secret File available online

The military secret file of the Dreyfus Affair is available online since last week : http://www.affairedreyfus.com

See also the New York Times : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/world/europe/files-on-dreyfus-affair-released-online.html?ref=world&_r=0

--Van Nuytts (talk) 11:40, 10 March 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)

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)