Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

"Post Egyptian revolutionary period" do not present a 'world view'...

Hi peoples, been a hiatus for me for some time and im in the process of essay's for Uni and was checking some info to gather references etc, and came across this notice which is still here from 2011...8 years ago.

Is anyone still of the view that it requires editing? I'm studying History (modern military and political) and im not sure the notice is quite...reflective of the information contained. I've not examined the section in minutia but it doesn't come across as completely biased from what ive read...

Anyway if someone wants to open the discussion ill allocate some time. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 07:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Issue with assertion

I take issue with the statement: "Historians conclude the crisis "signified the end of Great Britain's role as one of the world's major powers".[23][24]"

It does not matter if the statement is referenced if it is wrong! Are both references to the same quotation? Which is the original one? Who actually made the assertion?

1) The statement implies that all historians without any exception hold this view. Do they?

2) The country is the United Kingdom, only informally "Great Britain".

Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

In the Aftermath section, the word "boasted" instead of wrote, describing Khrushchev's memoirs is an obvious tell for bias however more than the one word needs to be changed because the obvious tell cannot possibly be the only bias in the section, and obvious, western bias is preferable to subtle, western bias.

• To be very formal it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 07:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• To address your first question: Most historians usually hold the view that Great Britain had a diminishing role as one of the world's major powers. The use of the word "signified" is appropriate here because some historians think of the Suez Crisis as either a harbinger, symbol, or cause of Britain's role. User:DrSangChi (talk) 12:06PM, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

"Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire....."

In the lede, the sentence "Britain and France issued a joint ultimatum to cease fire....." seems vaguely misleading, as it could read to imply that Britain and France actually wanted a ceasefire, which they probably did not. NickCT (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

Caption Jason (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I want point France drop down four 106 mm recoilless gun cannon . Or you can just put down area of weapons that Israel used during Sinai crisis. France according to Leslie Stien drop down 106 mm recoilless gun cannon Workside The making of modern state of Israel 1948-1967,Leslie Stien page 192. copywriten 2009

I am sorry, can you please explain what you think you have just asked?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

A new article about the war: https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/article-details/5f6900135c1dab00193d210a Kobby.barda (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your suggested edit is?Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You can suggest specific edits on the form "Please change x to y" – Thjarkur (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done – empty request Cool link, but what do you want us to do with it? Feel free to open up the request when you have a specific change. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor above is the author of the link. The paper is a "working paper", so not peer reviewed yet. Once finished, it could make for an interesting addition re the Suez Crisis's role in creating AIPAC. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, Ohhhh, yikes. Might be a WP:COI violater. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

MiG nitpicking

Not sure how to link where but there are MiG-15s and Il-28s listed on the UK/Fra/Israel side in the summary, they should be on the Egyptian side.

Also down in "Air operations, first phase", "Eight Egyptian MiG-35s attacked the Israeli aircraft" seems fairly unlikely on account of the fact that MiG-35 entered service in 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.211.47 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Hello. I'd like to amend the line that says "and the Soviet Union may have been emboldened to invade Hungary" to ". The US's opposition to the attack on Egypt may have been emboldened to invade Hungary"

The reason I want to do this is that the attack itself scared the Arab states and their Soviet allies. What emboldened them was the US's avowed opposition to imperialism. The article itself implies this in the Aftermath section. Bacon Man (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seagull123 Φ 13:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Typo

1st line, 2nd paragraph: "General Nassar" -> "General Nasser". Could someone change it please? 195.38.112.245 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Al Ameer (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Protocol of Sevres

please change ((Protocol of Sevres)) to ((Protocol of Sèvres)) 2601:541:4580:8500:D953:611:9F7D:634A (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. Al Ameer (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Closing edit request P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Changing wording in first sentence about regaining “Western control of the Suez Canal“ to be more clear about Western powers instead of “the western side of the Suez Canal“

Hi, I like Wikipedia. I was curious about asking about this since there is a blue lock and I can’t edit the article anyway. I think the sentence, “ The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser, who had just nationalised the canal.” Is not inaccurate according to the sources.

But I was thinking it is confusing to use the word Western control of the Suez Canal, because to me, if there wasn’t a link to clarify it meant “the western world” I’d assume it meant Controlling the Western side of the Canal. This might be confusing for some readers especially folks who don’t automatically associate “Western” with that meaning.

I was thinking, some suggestions could be. “Their aims were to regain control of the Suez Canal” The previous sentence mentions Israel, the UK and France doing it so it might be applied that those are their aims.

Also “The aims were to regain control of the Suez Canal and to remove Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser” That way it is not confusing. I don’t know that all English users necessarily associate the word Western with “Western World.” Not that I have any survey or data on that. Not that it isn’t okay to use words that aren’t known by everyone as long as it becomes clear. I have over thought this.

Thanks for your time! Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Took a stab at it. nableezy - 23:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Shouldn't there be a disambiguation to 2021 Suez Canal obstruction? It's another type of Suez crisis, in a sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.79.51 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

no, as this is the name of an event, not a description.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

Add

Not to be confused with 2021 Suez Canal obstruction.

at the top of the page. Based on the pageviews analysis for this article, Suez Crisis, there is a noticeable spike after news broke of the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. It is reasonable to say that at least some of these pageviews can be attributed to confusion between the two, given that some news outlets are reporting the 2021 Suez Canal obstruction as the Suez Crisis or the Suez Canal Crisis (which redirects to this article). Examples: Reuters, MSNBC, Financial Times, The Independent, South China Morning Post, France 24. 142.114.203.221 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hungary

Please change "and the Soviet Union may have been emboldened to invade Hungary" to ". The US's opposition to the attack on Egypt may have emboldened the Soviet Union to invade Hungary" I requested this a month ago but my comment in the Talk section was deleted. --Bacon Man (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Egypt and Israel

I have several issues with this version of the Egypt and Israel section:

• The entire first paragraph is still WP:SYNTH. As far as I can tell, none of the sources present the complaint that cargo shipments to and from Israel had been subject to Egyptian authorisation, search and seizure while attempting to pass through the Suez Canal as a reason for the the war; the sources present present it as its own legal or territorial dispute. Yet it's presented as if it was a major cause, taking up half the paragraph. We would need a source directly stating that in order to include it there at all to avoid WP:OR. Neither of the sources in the second paragraph (which discuss the war) mention it at all; one of the new sources notes that shipping to Israel was shut down as a result of the war, but studiously doesn't list it as a cause.
• Stating that In late 1954, Nasser began a policy of sponsoring raids into Israel by the fedayeen, who almost always attacked civilians misuses and misstates the source. The source says that Nasser allowed the raids rather than sponsoring them; makes it clear he had previously opposed them, says that he changed directions after an unprovoked attack by Sharon; and makes it clear that a major contribution factor to tensions was Sharon's... here, I'm going to quote the source directly from a page earlier: "Generally the first years after statehood were quiet, until Ariel Sharon was given free rein. Sharon's ferocious attacks, almost all against civilians, had a profound psychological effect on both sides. His group was ruthless, racist, and arrogant, and they created or invented provocations in order to go into action." It does says that the fedayeen's attacks were also almost all against civilians, but it specifically draws a connection with Sharon's attacks, so it's misusing the source to state one and not the other; and that wording is WP:SYNTHy in that it both directly blames Nasser alone for it and it presents it as one of the primary reasons for the war, neither of which are stated in the source (again, it is mentioned only in passing and directly as comparison to Sharon's own attacks on civilians.) I'm not saying we should go into that entire back-and-forth (going down that road we would end up summarizing the entire history of Israel in that section), but at the very least pulling out only one side of it is misusing the source.
• Almost none of the statements cited to Vatikiotis are supported by it. It talks largely about the practical reasons Nasser's position on Israel changed and very little about his desires to "win laurals" or the like; in fact, it specifically dismisses the argument that his reasons were irrational, and states that the main cause was that, in 1955, he came to see Israel more and more as a a serious threat to Egypt's projected economic and political role in the region.

Rather than turn the section into a litany of grievances between Egypt and Israel (let alone a one-sided litany as it was before), we should pare it down to the barest, most dry facts that are directly supported by the sources. At least according to the source we're currently using, that means that the key point is that Nasser's policy towards Israel changed dramatically after Sharon's 1955 attack. If we want to state something else (especially if we want to state that Egyptian control over the canal was a contributing factor), we need more or different sources. --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sokuya: you have crossed 1RR. Please self revert, and then discuss here. Perhaps you can start by addressing Aquillion’s comments here which relate to the text that you have been trying to add in. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My edits were moslty regarding to the first note of Aquillion about the cargo shipments, a section he removed. On 28 March 2021, Aquillion deleted the section and stated "rm. uncited + synth; source doesn't relate this to the 1956 war". The section had a citation needed template since september 2010, so after he delete it, I added it back and delivered new sources to the section in order to answer it, such as this source that discuss in length on Eygpt and Israel's claims on the passage in Suez Canal throught the years and the tention it created between them.

In the opening page is says: Israel, since its establishment, has repeatedly demanded the same right of free passage accorded to other nations, but Egypt has insisted on denying her such a right despite resolutions of the United Nations Security Council calling on Egypt to terminate the restrictions imposed on the passage of Israeli shipping and goods through the Suez Canal. – similar to the section opening. This source also mentions the UN resoultions calling Eygpt to open the canal. UNSC resoulution 95 (given in 1951) on page 155 saying calling upon Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping on the ground that hostilities had been terminated by the armistice of 1949, – which the section previously mention before the removal. And also UNSC resulotion in 1956 In 1956, when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, the Security Council passed a six-point resolution on October 13, 1956, in which it was affirmed that any settlement of the Suez Canal question should, inter alia, meet the following requirements: (I) free and open transit through the Canal, and (2) respect for Egypt's sovereignty. This resolution seems to embody the balancing principle of internationality by proposing to grant freedom of navigation without compromising Egypt's sovereignty.

The source explains how Israel consider the closure of the canal as an act of war, which is a contributor to a war Egypt's refusal to open the Canal, according to Israel, was a violation of both the Armistice Agreement and the United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1949 and 1951. and

Egypt's restrictive measures, according to Israel, constitute an act of war in the Canal waters contrary to Articles I and 4 of the Convention of 1888, on the ground that Egypt possessed no right to take defensive measures in the Canal Zone. and eventually attacking Egypt in 1967 "to settle a dispute by force" proving the closure of the canal was seen as act of war, There can be no doubt that Israel's attack on Egyptian territory on June 5, 1967, presumably to settle a dispute by force rather than by peaceful methods as provided by the Charter of the United Nations. So it is clear that Israel saw the closing of the canal as a reason to go to war with Eygpt.

The source also examine Israel calim to the right of free passage through the canal and how Israel pursue a legal position by invoking one article of the 1888 Suez Canal Convention – which the section previously mention before the removal.

It's important to give a brief explanation and background on the history of the dispute between Egypt and Israel over the canal in the section titled "Egypt and Israel". I saw Aquillion delete this whole section and tried to save it with proper citation. Sokuya (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There is information on a separate wikipedia page that would enrich the coverage of this section: "The Lavon Affair was a failed Israeli covert operation, codenamed Operation Susannah, conducted in Egypt in the summer of 1954 ... Egyptian Jews were recruited by Israeli military intelligence to plant bombs inside Egyptian-, American-, and British-owned civilian targets: cinemas, libraries, and American educational centers. ... The attacks were to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian Communists, "unspecified malcontents", or "local nationalists" with the aim of creating a climate of sufficient violence and instability to induce the British government to retain its occupying troops in Egypt's Suez Canal zone." 141.157.226.108 (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

In the subchapter "Air operations, first phase" It says Egyptian MiG-35's sortied, however the MiG-35 first flew in 2007 so obviously it couldn't have taken place in the suez crisis, however this is probably just a typo and they meant MiG-15 instead of MiG-35. 98.26.67.233 (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 01:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

In the "Egypt and Israel" subsection, the word "unprovoked" should be removed. The wiki article for the operation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Arrow) describes a clear casus belli: "On February 25, 1955, Arab infiltrators murdered an Israeli civilian in the town of Rehovot.[5][6][7] One of the militants who was pursued and killed by Israeli forces was found to be in possession of documents linking him to Egyptian military intelligence.[5] Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion and Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan demanded a harsh response directed against those believed to have sponsored the atrocity. Prime Minister Moshe Sharett was more hesitant but demurred." 141.158.55.225 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources quotes Sharett saying "who would be foolish enough to believe that such a complicated operation could 'develop' from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit from an Egyptian unit?" and later says the attack had no provocation. nableezy - 16:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2022

In Israel, the Suez Crisis is known as the Sinai Campaign not the Sinai War.

Source: Sinai Campaign pickle (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Sinai Campaign is mentioned in the footnote. DigitalChutney (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It is already mentioned in the footnote. Please establish a consensus if you wish to change the lead text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

Hello! In the war summary template on the top of the article, there's a glaring error that lists the British and French as operating Soviet-built aircraft. I highly suspect the entire offending segment, ostensibly conveying information about Coalition aircraft strength, is actually using information mostly or entirely relating to Egyptian Aircraft losses. I think it should be deleted. The offending section reads as such:

"Anglo-French air campaign: 45 MiG-15s, 40 Vampires, 32 Meteors, 49 Ilyushin Il-28s, and more than 100 other aircraft[8]"

The British and French obviously did not use (or have) dozens of Soviet-built MiG-15s and Il-28s during the Suez Crisis, but Egypt did. Later on in this article, the Egyptians are also mentioned as using British-built Meteors and Vampires in combat and suffering losses. While these were indeed British-built aircraft, the parts of this article describing Anglo-French airstrikes do not describe them using Vampires or meteors at all (instead using more modern Sea Hawks, Wyverns, F4U Corsairs, and F-84s). Thus, I doubt the British (or French) used them (either at all or in significant numbers) in the Suez Crisis, though I do not have a source explicitly saying this. However, Israel did operate Meteors in this conflict. Thus, most or all of this aircraft information is either outright wrong or probably relates to the Egyptian forces, instead of intermingling Coalition and Egyptian aircraft information.

The source for this information has the subtitle "Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures" and, later on in this article, the Egyptians are implied to have 150 MiG-15s and 50 Il-28s in service just before the war started (although the Il-28 wikipedia article says Egypt actually had 70). If you add up the numbers in the offending section, it lists 166 specific planes plus "more than 100 other aircraft" which is similar to the "215+ aircraft destroyed" already listed under Egyptian losses. Thus, while I do not own that book, I highly suspect that this information is actually listing Egyptian aircraft losses, rather than coalition or Egyptian air strength. However, I do not know if the Meteor losses include Egyptian losses alone, or Egyptian and Israeli Meteor losses combined. Lastly, it would make sense that Il-28s suffered a much higher loss rate than MiG-15s, as Il-28s were a priority target for Israeli airfield strikes, so while I cannot verify these numbers, they do pass the smell test if they are referring to Egyptian aircraft losses (for whatever that is worth).

I suggest the offending section simply be deleted.

Thanks! Zwifree (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading the article, it looks like the MiG-15s and Ilyushin Il-28s were used by Egypt, so this may be just a formatting issue. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2022

A really awkward error (most likely a formatting error) in the template at the top of the article has gone unchanged for several months. I suspect someone is griefing the article or there is just confusion about what the issue is. I don't mean to be rude, but I've attached a picture to this edit request unambiguously highlighting the issue.

Specifically, I recommend you delete the part that says: "Anglo-French air campaign: 45 MiG-15s, 40 Vampires, 32 Meteors, 49 Ilyushin Il-28s, and more than 100 other aircraft[8]". Based on the research I outlined in a much longer edit request, this information almost certainly refers to Egyptian Aircraft losses, not coalition air strength. The statement that Britain and France operated dozens of Soviet-built/designed MiG-15s and Il-28s is comically inaccurate. However, the template already lists Egyptian aircraft losses, although in less detail, so I recommend you simply delete this information instead of moving it. Zwifree (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The principal targets [of the campaign] were Egypt's air bases, at which were deployed 45 MIG-15s, 40 Vampires, 32 Meteors...

 Done Incorrectly placed(and confusing) air-strength figures removed from infobox. Regardless of the error, it seems unusual to have aircraft-specific air strength in the infobox. SpinningCeres 21:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

References

USSR (Soviet Union) and Hungary

During the Suez Crisis, multiple events happened in the USSR’s satellite state of Hungary as under Imre Nagy, given that he took over from a deeply unpopular leader, Forced democratisation during the Hungarian Revolution.

This allowed for some pretext for Former Premier, Nikita Khrushchev, to command the armed forces to invade Hungary, Removing the Revolution while using the Suez crisis as a Distraction.

I doubt that it would be useful to include with these articles but it would be important to know with some historical context of the Suez crisis. 83.47.39.63 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure this has any relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)