Wikipedia

Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 5

< Talk:Suez Crisis
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 86.137.48.126 in topic List of commanders
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Edit Request

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In a previous edit of this article, I can only assume a return key was accidently pressed rather than a space key because this following sentence appears to have been put into the wrong paragraph -

The Indian historian Inder Malhotra wrote about Nehru's role that: "So the Suez War ended in Britain's humiliation. Eden lost his job. Nehru achieved his objective of protecting Egypt's sovereignty and Nasser's honour".

Obviously that sentence needs to be moved to the paragraph before which is talking about the United Nation's and India's reaction to the Suez Crisis, and specifically about the historian Inder Malhotra's take on the crisis. At present where this sentence is placed, it sits alone and completely out of context with the rest of the paragraph. After all, it is starting a paragraph that is talking about West Germany taking sides with, and giving support to, the British and French during the crisis. The paragraph is looking at how the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, felt America betrayed its European allies, over Egypt and also Hungary. The paragraph is neither about the UN or India nor is it referring to some Indian historian's take on the crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.25.207 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Remove Text regarding british plan to invade kuwait and qatar At time Kuwait and Qatar british protectorate 81.153.254.100 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why did the Americans object to Suez?

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The same US administration had already supported colonialism in Korea and Iran. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

The US fought a war to expel the colonial power (Japan) from Korea. US worked hard to make sure the Soviets left Iran in 1946. American policy encouraged decolonization in the British and French empires, and strongly opposed any use of military force to reimpose control by the former colonial powers. The Americans sympathize with the independence movement, which echoed its own independence movement in 1776. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So why did they fight a colonialist war in Korea until 1953, and reinstate British colonialism in Iran? Also the Truman administration allowed the French to re-enter Vietnam after World War II. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
tenditious lefty boilerplate. As if repelling agression by North Korea was 'colonialism'. But this is not the place to discuss that; see guidelines above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.54.29 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Why did Eisenhower support British colonialism in Iran in 1953, yet oppose colonialism in Egypt in 1956? (HeddieLemarr (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

Britain never had a colony in Iran. The issue was restoration to power of the Shah, who was much friendlier to both the US and the UK than was the incumbent. In those days, countries look after their own current interests. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So why did the US support British colonialism/imperialism in Iran, yet side with the Soviets over the Suez Canal? From what you're saying it seems the Americans would have supported Operation Musketeer had they received most of their oil via the canal. (HeddieLemarr (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC))

Can anyone explain why the Americans supported British imperialism in 1953, but not in 1956? (Tgirsds (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

This isn't the forum to discuss that question. This is a forum for working on positive changes to the article. Do you have changes you'd like to suggest to the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree, but for the title question: what did US think & do? There is not a section title that mentions US. (in general, the sections overall are unbalanced imo). I can imagine a section under "7 End of hostilities", "U.S. reaction" or so. There the question could be answered. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Suez Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I reverted this sentence (and refs associated): "The United States were desperate to right the wrongs they felt the administration had caused in not supporting their closest ally while empowering their strongest enemy, Russia." Didn't want to say badly written...so I only pointed out that it was non-neutrally worded...and that twasn't clear it added anything but some editors opinion. Juan Riley (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...and now it is vandalism? Juan Riley (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with JuanRiley. Historians generally reject the allegation that Ike thought he made a mistake. He was proud of what he did & often said so, as in his Memoirs. Furthermore his top advisors agreed as well. Rjensen (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Rjenson, though I greatly respect your knowledge on these matters, my problem with this insertion was not the historical interpretation but the remarkably bad wording and the fact that the later "kiss and make up" is already discussed in the article. Juan Riley (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not vandalism. I agree with you about Ike. The wording is bad and does need to be reworked. It should not be one sided. Reb1981 (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
the wording is indeed bad. It's also bad history; no one except Nixon ever heard Ike say his treatment of Britain and France was a mistake--and in his Memoirs Ike took pride in what he did. In 1956 Nixon strongly defended Ike's decisions at Suez. see David A. Nichols (2012). Eisenhower 1956: The President's Year of Crisis--Suez and the Brink of War. Simon and Schuster. p. 231. So it's Nixon's credibility and integrity versus Ike's. That's an easy one. Eisenhower did in 1965 tell Max M. Fisher "I should have never pressured Israel to evacuate the Sinai" -- but he never said he was mistaken in his policy toward Britain and France, which is the topic here. Rjensen (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
closing discussion by sockpuppet of User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How did Eisenhower have more credibility and integrity than Nixon? (BarnabyCrudge (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
Nixon always had his shadow-- as shown by many studies on The Watergate episode. See especially the scholarly study Nixon's Shadow: The History of an Image (2004) by David Greenberg. Eisenhower, by contrast, was the outside crusader trying to purify American politics. see Herbert S. Parmet, Eisenhower and the American crusades (1972). Rjensen (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Do people in Iran and Guatemala agree with that? Anyway, Andrew Roberts says Eisenhower regretted his actions during the Suez Crisis. (BarnabyCrudge (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
so how does Roberts know? (ans: he's repeating Nixon) and just how do you know what folks are thinking in Iran these days? Rjensen (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Andrew Roberts said Kissinger told him that Eisenhower said he greatly regretted saving Nasser by the time of the Six Day War. The reason people in Iran have hated America for decades is because of what Eisenhower did in August 1953. (BarnabyCrudge (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
Better find a cite. Kissinger wrote a lot of candid history without saying anything like that. (see Diplomacy pp 522-49) The Iranians are told what to think--or else! Rjensen (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't think so now that Iran has nuclear weapons. I suggest you remove your racist post. (BarnabyCrudge (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC))
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Suez Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Suez Crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Suez Crisis. 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:

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) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Britain was not a superpower before 1956

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It was no longer a superpower by the end of World War I. (217.42.28.230 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC))


Britain no longer existed as a country well before WWI. It had become the United Kingdom by then. Also, define 'superpower'. One definition might be nuclear capability, in which case the UK, France and China were all definitely 'superpowers' after WWII, never mind WWI. However, the involvement of the UK in both world wars broke the Empire. Perhaps you're talking about the UK (not 'Britain') no longer being an Empire by the end of WWI?
Again though, I"m not sure that would be true until India sought and achieved independence. So late 1940s?

--98.122.20.56 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

India had been seeking independence since at least 1910. The UK's nuclear weapons belong to the United States and can never be used. Many historians have argued that the UK and France were no longer superpowers after 1918. (5.81.222.134 (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC))
Both France and UK were major parties to the naval arms limitations treaties between the two world wars which seems at first glance to counter that point. So you need to bring quality sources to any discussion of these points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The United States was the only superpower after World War I. The UK lost the Anglo-Irish War in 1921 which showed how weak it had become. (5.81.222.205 (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC))

Notes

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Request for permission for grammatical edit: "It had just undergone a major and innovative carrier modernization program. The Royal Air Force (RAF) had just introduced two long-range bombers, the Vickers Valiant and the English Electric Canberra..." should read "Britain had just undergone a major carrier modernization program..." (replacing It with Britain and removing Innovative unless sources can be provided) Lenrodman (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that "It" is a continuation from the previous sentence and refers to "the Royal Navy", so perhaps there should not be a paragraph break at that point. In addition, I propose that the US spelling of 'program' is not appropriate here and should be changed to 'programme'. Blurryman (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "El-Hasan2010p154" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Nasr1996p40" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Alteras1993p192" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Caraccilo2011p113" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "ShemeshTroen2005p5" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bickerton2009p101" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Suez Crisis. 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:

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) 04:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Very Adjective?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The phrase "very <pronoun>" is repeated very often in the article. For example, "very much" occurs five times. I believe, according to Wikipedia NPOV policy, that it is better to remove such phrases because "very" is unspecific and can be used to insert POV. For example, "The French wanted to use airfields in Cyprus to bomb Egypt" is a more neutral sentence than "The French very much wanted to use airfields in Cyprus to bomb Egypt" ImTheIP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Suez Crisis. 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:

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) 03:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Issue with the following paragraph

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find it strange how in the second sentence of the following paragraph that a quotation is used as a complete sentence. I would have attributed it to the author in question. Less subjectively, the following sentence is also apparently a quote, given the elipsis between "governments" and "engaged", but it does not begin with a speech mark.

The British relationship with the United States did not suffer lasting consequences from the crisis. "The Anglo-American 'special relationship' was revitalised immediately after the Suez Crisis."[373] The United States wanted to restore the prestige of its closest ally. The two governments ... engaged in almost ritualistic reassurances that their 'special relationship' would be restored quickly", in particular Britain's first Hydrogen bomb test Operation Grapple which led to the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement.[374]

LeverageSerious (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suez Crisis. 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:

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) 16:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add link...

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page is uneditable, therefore, I am unable to add "Sinai peninsula" as a link in the following paragraph:

"On 29 October, Israel invaded the Egyptian Sinai. Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire, which was ignored...."

Can someone able of unlocking and editing the page, please add the link requested above if possible. I had no idea what "Sinai" was, and had to look it up through Google since no hyperlink was avaliable. Sorry if this isn't the place to ask for the request...didn't know where else to go. Redpumpkin28 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

List of commanders

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Brigadier Mervyn Butler was the main British commander on the ground. (86.137.48.126 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suez_Crisis/Archive_5&oldid=1026958523"