Talk:Suez Crisis

Suggestion for one of the missing citations

I would suggest using the following citation for the aftermath section of this article: Yaqub, Salim. Containing Arab Nationalism: The Eisenhower Doctrine and the Middle East. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004.

ATTN: Someone with editing priveledges.

User:DrSangChi (talk) 12:14PM, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add another link...

There is no link for People's Republic of China. [I can not do this, although i have hundreds of edits to various Wikipedia pages.]

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)

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)

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)