Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Gamal Abdel Nasser has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Post-peer review comments[edit]

Thought it'd be easier to add bullets here instead of making separate sections.

  • ✓Hetata quote: was he imprisoned when he made the statement, or was he previously imprisoned?
  • ✓Consider adding back the people at his deathbed if sourceable, though not sure if Sadat's reading of the Qur'an is significant
  • ✓Significance of letting the USSR make naval facilities? If none, remove
  • ✓Karameh lauded throughout the Arab world: why? (this paragraph can also be made more concise, but I don't know the significance of its contents as written)
  • ✓Two pictures in this section is a bit much—perhaps just stick with the PLO/Jordan brokering picture
  • ✓"Israel heavily bombed key Egyptian military and civilian infrastructure": where (also more footnotes needed in this ¶)
  • ✓"Nasser's confidants insisted": what's the significance? Phrase this in terms of Nasser's intentions as interpreted by history
  • ✓"PLO's increasingly autonomous behavior": clarify—were they irresponsible or even looking to take over?
  • There appears to be a really rich history of Egyptians taking to the streets. Is this covered in any other article you've written?
No, but it might be a good idea to start an article on that subject. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓"Egypt was provided financial subsidies": for what? This sentence may not be necessary
  • ✓"half of its former arsenals": whose?
  • ✓"removing a majority of the military figures from his cabinet": were these people the same as the four officers in question? unclear
  • ✓"collusion to drag Egypt into war": worth explaining why he said this, whether it was true, what Hussein's attempt was
  • ✓"quantitative advantage": clarify
  • Qutb's "new age of ignorance" quote could be useful if explained—why did he think that and was it justified? Also what happened of the Brotherhood's sentencing Nasser to death? What did that mean, or was it a typo?
  • ✓"until withdrawing in 1967": who withdrew
  • ✓"Nasser served as one of the key figures": more footnotes here
  • ✓"effectively reducing it to his personal mouthpiece" needs more sourcing as bold claim
  • "mass pro-Nasser protests occurred throughout Syria": undue? did anti-Nasser protests accompany them or was this a unilateral military coup? This ¶ needs more footnotes
  • ✓"laws regarding the acquisition of wealth": what about them?
Rmved until I can clarify. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Nasser began sending agents from Syria into Iraq and senior Iraqi army officers began asking for support in launching a coup against Qasim" was removed—isn't this important? Nasser had a role in staging the Iraqi coup? (even when he can't stand to see "inter-Arab fighting") could be a brief two-word note that Nasser was implicated, or is it enough to say the officer had UAR support? Your call
  • "but soon decided against it": why
Aburish doesn't say and I couldn't find this in any of the other sources I've been looking through. Keep or remove? --Al Ameer (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ✓waving to crowds/masses pictures are very similar and in close proximity
  • shouldn't notes be separate from references? I only noticed one, so maybe it's worth reincorporating in a different way
  • removed "creating a Lebanese base for anti-UAR activity" as unclear
  • ✓"that country's leftist government": Syria or Turkey?
  • ✓"swelled to the hundreds of thousands": bold claims need direct citations
  • ✓"allowing Nasser to sideline former Liberation Rally leaders Gamal Salem and Anwar Sadat" was removed—isn't it important that N wanted to sideline Sadat? Also important to add why N made the National Union as it's omitted right now
  • ✓"Hussein accused Nasser of being behind two coup attempts against him": clarify—was this true? "Hussein [correctly/incorrectly] accused Nasser ..."
  • "Nasser played an instrumental role" used twice—be more specific? I paraphrased one
  • "failure to respond to Israeli military action demonstrated the ineffectiveness of his armed forces": how
  • ✓ worth reintroducing "Simultaneously, Nasser began using the most willing ulema (religious scholars) of al-Azhar University as a counterweight to the Brotherhood's Islamic influence." somewhere else?
  • ✓"his populist relationship with the citizenry was responsible for Egypt's future dictatorial governance": is this reflected in the article?
  • idea: any video footage, esp. Syria speeches, funeral
Still looking. There's plenty out there in the Nasser archive website, just don't know how to download/upload any of them, if this is even possible. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • maybe worth including his role with respect to Palestine in the lede somewhere
Not sure what you mean here, are you referring to the PLO, his general position on the Palestinians and their rights or his role in losing Palestine in 1967? --Al Ameer (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Down to 80 kB!

czar · · 04:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I suggest "fainted from emotion twice" for maximum mellifluence czar · · 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but is there a better word than "emotion" to make clear he fainted because he was distraught? Perhaps "grief"? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "emotional distress" (per the Syncope (medicine)#Other causes article), but grief works too. Use whatever the source verifies best czar · · 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

✓ --Al Ameer (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Regarding the Soviet naval facilities, should it be clarified that these were military facilities, or is it sufficiently implied? The significance is that it illustrates Nasser's increasing dependence and closeness with the USSR in the post-1967 period. If it you don't think it does, then I'll just scrap it. Unfortunately, one of the main weaknesses of this article is the lack of info on Nasser's complex relationship with the Americans and the Soviets.
I think the article actually covers this dynamic well, so give yourself a pat on the back even if you think it's undeserved. Perhaps the article can receive a combing to clarify his stature towards US/USSR alliances, but I think the article captures the ambiguities towards ideology—how N worked with "both sides" at various points until he swore off playing both sides—and N's own paranoia towards communism as a competing, internal political force that could topple him. I could go on, but I don't think the naval part is necessary here since the effects aren't elaborated. Instead this sentence can be combined with the surrounding message, something to the effect that bilateral ties grew stronger or N allied with the USSR's naval fleet—remove some detail so the War of Attrition USSR connection is noted, but minding that the specific details are not exactly significant towards his biography. czar · · 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The battle of Karameh was lauded throughout the Arab world because the Palestinian guerrillas (later with Jordanian support) put up what was seen as a good fight, inflicted significant casualties on the Israelis, and the name of the town ("Karameh") means "dignity" in Arabic, which was especially symbolic in light of Arab humiliation in the six-day war. This compelled Nasser to invite Arafat to Cairo. But I removed that part anyway. It could be discussed in its own article.
czar · · 16:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I just rewrote the part about the PLO and Jordan to be more neutral and concise, per the Dawisha source, since this is just about Nasser. The background details are many and could be found in the Black September article. Basically, the PLO (with boosted confidence after Karameh) began to increasingly run its own state-within-a-state in Jordan (kind of like Hezbollah in Lebanon, but to a lesser degree) and Hussein viewed it as an infringement of his kingdom's sovereignty. The PLO meanwhile viewed Hussein as someone selling out Palestinian rights with regards to Israel (i.e. retrieval of territory, return of refugees, etc.) especially in light on Hussein's acceptance of Rogers Plan. There were other factors, but this was the root of the tension. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The "sidelining Salem and Sadat" part is just a side note. The reason he wanted to sideline Sadat at the time was because as the editor of the party's paper, he wrote an article sharply criticizing the US at a time when Nasser was seeking to better relations with the US and seek their economic aid. He didn't want Sadat to be a liability, but in any case Sadat wasn't really sidelined. He became the Speaker of the National Assembly right after and held the post until 1969. I don't want to falsely imply that Sadat was a rival of Nasser, because he was simply the opposite. Of all the original Free Officers, Sadat was the most loyal to Nasser (while he was alive that is), so much so that other comrades derogatorily labeled him "Colonel Yes-Man". In fact the chief reason he was made VP was because Nasser's relations with the rest of his comrades (except for el-Shafei) had soured by 1970. In any case this was not an important fact, but I'll explain more on his reasoning for establishing the National Union. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • About Hussein's accusations of Nasser plotting a coup, the sources used differ, but none of them (including the ones used in the Sulayman al-Nabulsi article) say Nasser ordered the coup or had anything to do with its planning. Even the accusation that the events themselves amounted to coup attempts are disputed. More details could be found in the 3rd and 4th passages of this section of the Nabulsi article. Because the people involved were staunch Nasser supporters and the events occurred in the backdrop of Nasser's skyrocketing popularity with the Jordanian public, it was immediately determined by Hussein and his royalist aides that Nasser had a hand in it. Paranoia of coups was high among Arab leaders back then, justifiably considering the fact that there were coups all the time in the 50s and 60s, and the general public was not only very supportive of an Arab unity that trumped state sovereignty, but in their eyes Nasser was the guy who was going to achieve that unity. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Milhist A-class review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk)

Prior nomination here.

Along with a few other editors, I've been working on this article for a few years now and intend to nominate it for FAC soon. However, I would like an A-class review from this wikiproject beforehand to make sure it is ready for FA. The article's been a GA since 2009, but didn't pass it's initial A-class review in 2010. Since then, all the concerns of the previous reviews have been addressed, the article has been substantially expanded with new material and sources, and many parts have been rewritten/reorganized. Although it's still quite large (after all, Nasser was arguably the most monumental Arab political figure of the 20th-century and ruled Egypt for 16-18 years), the article's prose has been trimmed down to around 80 KB. It's second peer review (and a thorough copyedit from WP:Copyeditors) was concluded a few weeks ago and there has been additional followup at the talkpage. I looked over both the A-class and FA criteria, and believe the article now meets them both. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a massive article, so might take me a while to get through it all! First pass comments. That said, it doesn't seem overly long for such an important figure.

  • Writings; is there nothing else you can say about his writing except list the books? Is there no commentary on his writings, for example?
  • Nasser strove to keep his career separate from his family life; "strove" implies a struggle, is there any commentary on the difficulty he had achieving this?
  • Personal Life; just checking... there is no extant criticism of his personal life?

Will add more later. --Errant (chat!) 10:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • There is available English-language info on his memoirs and the Philosophy of the Revolution. My only concern is article size, but if you think it's best to add commentary, I'll add a sentence or two for each. If the alternative is removing the section altogether, I don't mind doing that either. I clarified the part about his career/family life to be closer to the source. His personal life is probably the only part of his life where there is no extant criticism, even by his biggest detractors. He certainly didn't take care of his health though and had many ailments (I assume due to genetics and chain smoking). I look forward to the rest of your review. --Al Ameer (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check

  • File:Nasser_portrait2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same for File:Gamal_Abdel_Nasser.jpg, File:NasserLawSchool.jpg, File:N-10009.jpg...actually, all works with the PD-Egypt tag - some include it, most don't
  • File:Turco-Egyptian_ka'im_makam.gif: source? What is the legal status of this design?
  • File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg: the provided source link gives a copyright notice for a non-CIA source
  • File:Egypt,_Syria_Merge_In_New_Arab_Republic.webm: licensing tag is wrong
  • File:Presidents_Gamal_Abdul_Nasser_and_Shukri_al-Quwatli_receiving_Yemeni_Crown_Prince_Mohammad_Badr_in_Damascus_in_February_1958_congratulating_them_on_formation_of_the_United_Arab_Republic.jpg: source link is broken
  • File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg also needs initial publication information
  • File:President_Nasser's_visit_to_the_Suez_front_with_Egypt's_top_military_commanders_during_the_War_of_Attrition.jpg: why does this have a CC tag?
  • File:Nimeiry,_Nasser_and_Gaddafi,_1969.jpg: this was photographed in Libya, not Egypt - check licensing and publication
  • File:Presidential_Standard_of_Egypt.svg is sourced to a redlink. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe I've now fixed the issues for all the photos of Nasser and replaced "File:N-10009.jpg" because I was unable to ascertain where it was taken (most likely Egypt, but possibly Sudan). With "File:Nasser_and_Sallal_in_Sanaa.jpg" I wasn't sure what you meant exactly, but I've clarified that the photo was taken in Yemen and adjusted the licensing accordingly. I don't know anything about the Presidential Standard of Egypt file (don't even know if it's a real thing) so I just removed it from the Egyptian Presidents Template. I also know nothing about the "Turco-Egyptian ka'im makam" file. Should I remove it as well? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually I missed "File:Nasser_cheered_by_supporters_in_1956.jpg". I removed the photo from the article for now. The photo appears to have been attributed to a source other than the CIA, but it was taken in Egypt. Does it still qualify for PD-Egypt if this is clarified? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments -- I'll try and do a full review at some stage. In the meantime, you have a series of Harv errors, which you can check by installing this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

  • All fixed. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, you could reduce the sea of blue by removing duplicate links; I'm also not a fan of little flag and rank icons, though I acknowledge they're not forbidden and some people seem to like the little pictures.
  • Generally no need to link modern-day countries, e.g. Britain, France, Israel, Syria, etc. These examples are just from the lead so you could check the rest of the article as well. Linking obsolete political entities such as the Soviet Union is fair enough though.
Nationalization of Suez Canal
  • the Egyptian people had a right to sovereignty over the waterway, especially since 120,000 Egyptians had died building it -- that figure seems much higher than I've heard elsewhere; does the source report Nasser himself using the figure?
  • Nasser himself states that figure. I put in quotes. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Pan-Arabism and socialism
  • In January 1957, the US adopted the Eisenhower Doctrine and pledged to prevent the spread of communism and its "agents" in the Middle East. -- not sure what the justification is for scare quotes around "agents"; suggest simply drop the quotes or else use the term "proponents" or some such (without quotes).
  • Nasser initiated the Helwan steelworks, which were on their way to becoming Egypt's largest enterprise -- how could he "initiate" (i.e. start) something that was already "on the way"? Suggest either he must have supported/helped it as an existing enterprise, or he initiated and it subsequently became Egypt's largest enterprise.
  • In the fall of 1958 -- could we have more specific dating for those not in the same hemisphere as Egypt?
  • The new Iraqi and Syrian governments soon sent Nasser delegations to push for a new Arab union on 14 March. -- to clarify, did they send their delegations on 14 March, or did they want a new union to be proclaimed on 14 March?
  • He received the Hero of the Soviet Union award the same year. -- I feel this needs some explanation as we've previously highlighted his supposed opposition to communism and establishment of NAN, neither of which (one assumes) would've endeared him to the Soviets.
  • Done, ehh almost. I just removed the Hero award since I don't have anything else on it to make it relavant to the rest of the text. Unfortunately, I could not find the exact date to clarify "fall of 1958." Still working on that. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not fanatical about seasonal dates so don't sweat it too much. If you can just alter the Americanism to "autumn" it'll be okay with me (other reviewers may complain when it gets to FAC but I won't)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Modernization efforts and internal dissent
  • In 1961, Nasser sought to firmly establish Egypt as the leader of the Arab world and to promote a second revolution in Egypt with the purpose of merging Islamic and socialist thinking to satisfy the will of the general populace. -- I assume what we're trying to say here is that Nasser saw himself as attempting to satisfy the will of the people? I draw the distinction because I'm sure all rulers see themselves as doing so, whether it's truly the case is another matter. For me, it would sound more neutral if we simply dropped "to satisfy the will of the general populace".
  • Nasser guided al-Azhar to create changes in its syllabus... -- I don't have access to the source but is "guided" a euphemism for "ordered"? I ask particularly because soon after you say he "forced" the organisation to issue a fatwā.
  • Sometime during this year, Nasser suffered and survived a heart attack. -- since we don't seem to have a specific date for this, and you mention it in the Personal life section (along with another such incident), I'd suggest dropping it from here.
Six-Day War
  • In early 1967, the Soviet Union issued multiple warnings to Nasser of an impending Israeli attack on Syria -- spotchecking Kadil, he describes the Soviet reports as "unconfirmed", and appears to have Nasser's man Fawzy declaring that the reports of Israel mobilising against Syria were "baseless".
  • Clarified. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Nasser transitioned Egypt from British-occupation to serving as an influential power in the developing world. -- I have a couple of concerns with this sentence after spotchecking it. Firstly the expression is quite similar to part of a sentence in the source and might be paraphrased better. Secondly as written in the article it suggests that Egypt was occupied by the British when Nasser came to power, which I don't think is quite correct is it? I gather there was British military presence and British influence, but that's not what I understand by the term "occupied". In any case I think the source gives credit to Nasser for making Egypt independent but the transition from British "occupation" seems to be mentioned in passing rather than directly credited to Nasser...
  • Egypt experienced a golden age of culture during his presidency -- "golden age" is a bit peacockish, although I've no objections if it's a quote from a source and you can attribute it.
  • Clarified the part about the transition from occupation. And attributed "golden age". It was a direct quote. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal life
  • His social status was still well below the wealthy Egyptian elite, and his resentment of those born into wealth and power continued to grow. -- I think this is the first time we've specifically mentioned his resentment of the elite (I recall us mentioning resentment of the British) and wonder if this should be touched on earlier in the article to help explain his motivations.
  • Relocated. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll rely on Nikki's image check and hope she'll be able to complete a source review as well... ;-)
  • I notice in the Al-Azhar subsection that you could consolidate references, i.e. in both paragraphs two consecutive sentences have exactly the same citation. There may not be a rule against this but I think the fewer citations one can get away with, the better the text flows.
  • Given my few spotchecks of sources suggested some issues, I think the article would benefit from a fuller spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Alternatively you could revisit the article yourself based on the sort of things I've identified so far in that respect.
  • It would be preferable if someone else could do the spotchecking other than myself. During Czar's review, I did a general spotcheck, but missed a few sections. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Structure seems logical and in line with similar bios.
  • Content-wise there's a lot of detail but I don't find it overwhelming and, while I don't claim to be an expert on Nasser or Egyptian history, the major facts presented in the article seem in line with the general wisdom as I understand it, and the tone appears mainly neutral except where queried above.
  • You have a number of duplicate links that you can check with this script. Some may be justified owing to the length of the article and the resultant space between links, but pls review in any case.
  • I've copyedited as I went through the article, so pls let me know if I've misinterpreted or broken anything. All in all, this is a mammoth effort that I hope will attract more comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I really appreciate the review and extra c/e. Czar and I had been discussing the length issue during the peer review and copyedit. We brought it down to 78 KB from 95 KB, but 78 is still pretty large. Once this review is finished (pass or fail), I plan to nominate it for FA in its present structure so hopefully size won't be a make or break issue in that process. I'm in my fall semester now and have been bogged down in study and testing (that's why I've been delayed in my replies) so I might not be able to make significant changes to the article anytime soon if something like creating a "Presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser" article would be required. As for the points you brought up above, I think I've addressed them, but someone might have to do the spotcheck if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, spotchecks are carried out by reviewers, my suggestion was that you yourself might want to revisit anything that was in the back of your mind from editing that could perhaps use some further paraphrasing or tweaking for accuracy. However there's no particular need for that if a reviewer carries out a decent spotcheck; I may not be able to myself but I might ask around as it would be good to get out of the way before you look at FAC. Anyway, thanks for making those changes; I enjoyed reading the article and hope that with further comment it will pass this review and give you a good lead-in for FAC. Pending source review and spotcheck I'm giving it my provisional support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck -- Sorry for the delay, I've ended up doing a further spotcheck myself as my preferred candidate for the task was unavailable; note that I've had to restrict myself to publications available on preview at GoogleBooks...

  • FN40: The WP article states Nasser had also felt bitter that his brigade had not been relieved despite the resilience it displayed. -- I'm sure this is correct but the source doesn't express it quite this way, rather it states that the defenders of Falluja were embittered, and they gathered under Nasser's leadership to instigate the coup of '52.
  • FN58: Okay.
  • FN59: Okay.
  • FN222: Okay.
  • FN236c: The WP article states Observers noted that the declaration signaled an important shift from political repression to liberalization, although its promises would largely go unfulfilled. The source states The March 1968 declaration signaled a second major shift under Nasser from repression to liberalization, although its most basic promises, like those of March 1954, went unfulfilled. -- First of all, if you say "observers noted" then I'd assume you meant contemporary commentators, reporters, public figures, etc. In fact this is the observation of an author in 2007. Secondly, the phrasing in the source and the WP article are a bit too close for comfort as far as I'm concerned. I'd suggest either recasting the sentence entirely or else quoting/attributing the source passage. Thirdly, isn't the source, Rethinking Nasserism, co-edited by Onn Winckler?
  • FN274c: Okay.
  • FN293a: Can't see any mention of the New Wafd Party or Jamal Badawi on the cited page.

My conclusion from the above and from a few instances during my general review when accuracy or paraphrasing of sources seemed in question is that, while I haven't discovered major problems, there are enough niggles that I think you need to walk through the article and double-check sourcing/paraphrasing yourself before submitting for FAC. I realise this a daunting task in such a large article, and you may not have added and sourced all the material, but when you nominate an article for ACR or FAC you're taking responsibility for its prose, structure, coverage, image licensing and referencing, and any problems associated with them. By the way, while I was spotchecking, I noticed a few more style points:

  • On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen, provoking riots in Cairo the next day which left 76 people dead. -- pls go through the article and ensure consistent representation of two-digit (or larger) numbers.
  • loosely-structured -- generally, double-barrelled adjectives where the first word ends in "ly" are not hyphenated, again pls check throughout.

Subject to the above style points being addressed, I'm still happy with the article as far as prose, structure, coverage, and supporting materials go but I can't help feeling that a more comprehensive spotcheck, which I can't supply, would reveal more things that need finetuning. I reiterate that this article is a great undertaking and, I think, deserving ultimately of A-Class and FA status, but I just can't support it all the way at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Ian. Thank you for being so diligent with this review. I agree that these points need to be addressed prior to the article being promoted. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Given the issues raised and the length of time it will likely take to work through I have now requested the review be closed with no consensus to promote at this stage - here [1]. This article is very good in my opinion but still needs some work to ensure it is complete. Of course there is nothing stopping the article from being re-nominated once the checks have been completed and I would be more than happy to review it again at this time. Anotherclown (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "one of the towering political figures of modern Middle Eastern history and politics in the 20th century.": How about "one of the towering Middle Eastern political figures of the 20th century" or "one of the towering political figures of the 20th century"? I'm not sure what "modern" means here.
  • "only one of two honorable Arab military actions": Not sure what this is saying.
  • "The apparent disconnect between the population and the palace": "disconnect" is informal in this context, and I'm not sure what it means here.
  • "began a struggle to reduce its influence over his activities": Not sure what this is saying ... you don't need a political struggle to change your own activities. What was the nature of the influence that he was trying to change?
  • This is a very long article, and I'm sorry I don't have time to finish it. I copyedited down to Revolution. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hey Dank, I hope I addressed your concerns. The last one about the Brotherhood will require more research since the source I use is a bit vague with the early links between Nasser and the Brotherhood. I've been busy with classes lately, but will look into other sources as soon as possible. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, everything looks good down to where I stopped, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • Technical review:
      • A couple of dab links [2]:
        • Mukhabarat
        • Nasser (disambiguation)
      • External links check reveals one dead link [3]:
        • Mass Mediations: New Approaches to Popular Culture in the Middle East and Beyond (info) []
      • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [4] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
      • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
        • {{Harvnb|Dawisha|2009|p=191}} (Multiple references contain the same content)
        • Dawisha191 (Multiple references are using the same name)
        • Aburish310 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • Images review has been completed above.
      • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [5] (no action req'd).
      • A large number of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
        • Royal Military Academy
        • 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty
        • Egyptian_Revolution_of_1952
        • Alexandria
        • Umm Kulthum
        • Helwan
        • Soviet Union
        • Aswan Dam
        • Saudi royal family
        • Khaled Mohieddin
        • Algeria
        • Palestinian Fedayeen
        • Sayyed Qutb
        • Straits of Tiran
        • Zakaria Mohieddin
        • Khartoum
        • Arab Socialist Union
        • Hussein el-Shafei
        • Beirut
        • Helwan
        • Tawfiq al-Hakim
        • Tunisia
        • Sudan
        • Abdullah al-Sallal
        • North Yemen
        • Muammar Gaddafi
        • arteriosclerosis
      • A few of the references are lacking places of publishing.
      • Will read over this today and provide a full review afterwards. Anotherclown (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Article review:
        • "Nasser received a cephalic graze wound from a policeman's bullet...", might be more accessibly worded as "Nasser received a graze to the head from a policeman's bullet..." or something like that.
        • This seems awkward: "Nasser's political activity grew more dominant throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school." Perhaps consider something like: "Nasser's involvement in political activity increased throughout his school years, such that he only attended 45 days of classes during his last year of secondary school..."
        • I am confused by what these sentences mean: " He strongly objected to the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, which stipulated the continued presence of British military bases in the country and was backed almost unanimously by Egypt's political forces.[8] Consequently, political unrest in Egypt declined significantly and Nasser resumed his studies at al-Nahda,[16] where he received his leaving certificate later that year." Why did political unrest decline if the opposition to the treaty was so widespread?
        • "In 1937, Nasser applied to the Royal Military Academy for army officer training..." is his motivation for joining the army known?
        • Suggest reordering this sentence: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938,[8] he was posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry." He would have been commissioned on graduating, then posted, not the other way around. Consider instead: "After graduating from the academy in July 1938, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the infantry, and posted to the town of Mankabad near his native Beni Mur."
        • Wording seems a little awkward here: "...Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to discover interested officers...", consider instead: "Nasser stayed in touch with the group's members primarily through Amer, who continued to seek out interested officers..." or something like that.
        • "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for unclear reasons...." → "...but was ultimately refused entry to the AHC's forces by the Egyptian government for reasons that were unclear...."
        • "He sent emissaries to forge an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood in October 1948...", wikilink Muslim Brotherhood here (it is previously linked only in the lead).
        • "...concluded that the agenda of the Brotherhood was not compatible with his nationalism...." do we know why?
        • Repetitive language here: "By then, the organization had expanded to around ninety members; according to one member..." ("member" used twice in the same sentence), perhaps reword?
        • "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and the police of Ismailia killed forty Egyptian policemen..." consider instead: "On 25 January 1952, a confrontation between British forces and police at Ismailia resulted in the deaths of forty Egyptian policemen..."
        • "...made songs praising Nasser's nationalism..." consider instead: "...wrote songs praising Nasser's nationalism."
        • Colourful prose here: "Nasser's Bandung efforts devotedly sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..." consider something like: "At Bandung Nasser's sought a proclamation for the avoidance of international defense alliances..."
        • typo here I think: "...his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat pro-Western states in the region...", consider "... his promotion of pan-Arabism was viewed as a threat to pro-Western states in the region..."
        • "...In September, Turkish troops massed along their Syrian border..." → "...In September, Turkish troops massed along the Syrian border..."
        • missing word here I think: "...and allowed broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo...", consider instead "...and allowed the broadcast of anti-colonial propaganda from Cairo..."
        • some redundancy here: "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who had already had diabetes..." → "...Amer's increasing autonomy forced Nasser, who already had diabetes..."
        • Repetitive language: "Nasser refused the call[208][209] upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers lacked competence." (specifically "lacked" twice) Consider instead: "Nasser refused the call upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers were incompetent."
        • "...causing a large exodus of Egyptians from that area....", suggest more simply: "...causing an exodus of Egyptians from that area."
        • I have no expertise in this area, so will confine my cmts mostly to prose. That said I get the feeling that the article covers the topic fairly well (other the few areas above where I have asked for some clarification) and I couldn't see any obvious issues with bias / balance etc.
        • The article covers a lot of ground and is quite large, but it seems to do so using summary style and it didn't seem to be excessive.
        • Given the nature of the subject (a major political figure) and the events he was involved in I think the article does a fairly good job of presenting these appropriately and in good faith.
        • Only possible issue I see is that the criticism section could possibly be expanded (although don't really know of major criticism that is missing given my unfamiliarity with the subject). Happy to accept it as is if this is reflective of the literature though.
        • This is an important article and I am impressed with what you have produced so far. Unfortunately I have only been able to go through it fairly quickly (working tonight and dealing with a few issues by phone), and I am not really familiar with the subject. Happy to discuss any issues that you disagree with. Will have another look once you have responded to my cmts.
        • All the best with the project. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the review and the suggestions. I believe I've fixed/addressed the points you brought up above. Concerning the technical review, the first disambiguation link is just a hatnote, but I think it's necessary to keep as long as "Nasser" redirects to the article. The one about "mukhabarat" is trickier and I'm thinking about just removing the sentence altogether. When it's used in this instance it's not describing a particular Egyptian intelligence agency, but the state of domestic espionage in general. For the prose review, I took all of your suggestions. As for criticism, it was a bit longer before, but as with many sections in the article, I reduced it per the peer review/copyedit that was undertaken prior to this A-class nomination. Everything that was rid of was redundant though. I'm sure there's more criticism of Nasser out there, but I believe the major criticisms directly related to him have been addressed. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
          • P.S. Actually, I forgot to add his motivation for entering the military academy. Will add it as soon as I can find it. --Al Ameer (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Those changes are looking good so far. Pls ping me if you can find any info on his reason for joining the Army and once you have finished adding the locations to the references and I'll have a final look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
              • Found some info about his motivations to enter the service and topple the monarchy in the Aburish book. Please copyedit the new additions if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That looks fine. I added the missing publication locations. One last issue: there is some inconsistency in the presentation of ISBNs. Some use hyphens and others do not. Can this be rectified? Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I've used a script to reformat them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Hawkeye. I've added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks to both of you. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Comments: G'day, I had a quick look and it looks quite impressive. I have a couple of minor suggestions:
    • please check for consistency of English variation. I found some US and some British spelling, for instance: "kilometre" (British), but "defense" (US);
    • repetition: "After briefly returning from Sudan, Nasser returned in September 1942.." (returning and returned);
    • "within the Egyptian Armed Forces's..." --> "within the Egyptian Armed Force's";
    • "Nationalization of Suez Canal" --> "Nationalization of the Suez Canal";
    • "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, chess, magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and classical music" --> "Nasser's personal hobbies included photography, playing chess, reading magazines in Arabic, English, and French, American films, and listening to classical music"?
    • If you wouldn't mind looking into these points, I will come back try to come back and have a more thorough look a little later. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the pointing those out. I fixed them, but for the American/British spellings, I couldn't find any other inconsistent words from a scan of the article or through searching for specific common words like "centre" or "organise". To be clear, the spelling I've used in the article is American. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
        • G'day, I had another read through today. Happy with your changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


If this article is taken to FAC, the following partial spot-check of printed sources may be of use. See the exchange here:

  • Nutting
    • ref 31 – fine
    • ref 49 – fine
    • ref 52 – fine
    • ref 60 – fine
    • ref 252 x 2 – both fine
  • Aburish
    • ref 4 – fine
    • ref 9 – fine
    • ref 18 x 3 – all fine
    • ref 23 x 4 – all fine
    • ref 26 – fine
    • ref 27 – fine
    • ref 46 x 5 – all fine
    • ref 74 x 4 – all fine
    • ref 104 – fine
    • ref 123 – fine
    • ref 136 – fine
    • ref 212 – fine
    • ref 223 – fine
    • ref 231 – fine
    • ref 250 – fine
    • ref 311 – can't find mention of the family in these pages – but the library copy I was using is a British edition and the appendixes may perhaps differ from those in the US edition used for the article.

Happy to do a wider review for FAC if wanted. – Tim riley (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I'll check out ref 311. If you have the time, can you go ahead and do the wider spotcheck? My time has been constrained these past couple months and I'm also not sure if I should be doing the spotcheck since I'm one of the active contributors to this article. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


One of the main criticisms I always here about Nasser outside the Arab world is criticism of his position against Israel. Considering this is definitely a prominent view outside the Arab world I find it odd that there is no criticism of his behavior towards Israel. Surely it wouldn't be undue to mention this sort of criticism in the legacy section? Stumink (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Six day war - Nasser was a weak person?[edit]

The "Six day war" section presents Nasser as a weak person who followed Amer, the strong man and the real leader. This is humiliating for Nasser followers, and it is not true according to other historians. The section is based on Kandil. Is he an wp:rs? Ykantor (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nasser ruled Egypt for nearly two decades and his influence extended throughout the Middle East in an unprecedented way so obviously he was not a weak leader. Your reading of the section seems to be a bad interpretation. However, the deep friendship and simultaneous power conflict between Amer and Nasser was very real. If you read the preceding sections perhaps it will give you a better understanding and background to the 1967 conflict between the two, which of course ended with Amer's imprisonment and suspicious suicide. Amer was running something similar to a state within a state. He dominated the officer corps starting in the mid-late 1950s and commanded influence within the security and intelligence apparatus. I'd rather not go into details about it since I think the article does enough to explain it. As for Kandil, he is an expert source and his book has provided the most detailed information on the military-security-political complex of Egypt at the time. If you want to bring it up for further discussion, you should take it the reliable sources discussion page.
On a different note, I'm going to revert most of your recent changes for obvious neutrality reasons as well as redundancy and irrelevance, especially considering that this article is already bloated and size has been an issue. It is opinionated/biased and simplistic to just state that Nasser was an irrational, irresponsible solitary decision maker (dictator) whose rule resulted in "all this evil" (the Suez and 1967 wars). You also repeat this "evil" line twice in the article and assert what his "mistake" was in 1967. Also, the line about Nasser saying that blocking the Straits of Tiran would result in war comes right after the sentence that says Nasser believed closing the straits of tiran would cause a war ("casus belli"). This is unnecessarily redundant. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Regarding my removal of material recently added to the article, the material goes against both WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

The line about Nasser's apparent dismissal of the number of victims of the Holocaust is mentioned in the Suez Crisis section of the article following the sentence about Nasser's expulsions of foreigners, including foreign Jews and even some Egyptian Jews. What does that quote have to do with the section or passage at hand? At best, it implies a correlation between Nasser's questioning of the Holocaust and the expulsions, but that is a correlation made by the editor instead of the sources, making it original research, which is not allowed in a wikipedia article (especially one that's been rated as a "Good Article".) In the worst case, it's just a random quote thrown into a random section. The reasons for the expulsions of British, Frenchmen and some Jews was directly related to the Suez War not the Holocaust.

As for the Six-Day War section:

Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable: On 14 May he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel, On 19 May expelled the UN peacekeepers stationed in the Sinai Peninsula border with Israel, and on 23 May closed Tiran straits to Israeli shipping.

Nasser dismissed all rational analysis of the situation and took a series of irrational decisions. The compounded effect of these decisions was that it became impossible for Nasser to slow down or back out, resulting in the Israeli preemptive strike on 5 June.

In both passages, we are taking up the role of historians instead of editors. On top of that, we are blatantly stating the Israeli point of view instead of a neutral point of view by plainly asserting that Nasser "made the war inevitable" and that Nasser was irrational and dismissed rational analysis which resulted in Israel launching a "preemptive strike." This is unacceptable for a quality article or any article. This is why it was removed. Other material that was removed was taken out because it was already mentioned in the section and therefore redundant. --Al Ameer (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yours: "We are blatantly stating the Israeli point of view instead of a neutral point of view ". It seems that you have not read it well since Ismail Fahmi and the respected Egyptian historian Ramadan wrote the passage about "Nasser dismissed all rational analysis of the situation" , and Shlaim ( An Oxford Historian who is considered anti Israeli by a lot of Israelis) wrote the "Nasser took 3 successive steps that made the war virtually ineviteable". Please check the qualification of those sources.
Concerning the supposed Israeli view, Please check Israeli Historians books and the Israely ministry of foreign affair web site. Nasser is viwed in Israel as a major enemy who wanted to destry Israel (which he openly said ) but they do not discuss whether he was rational or otherwise. Ykantor (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, for us as editors to assert that "Nasser dismissed all rational analysis" and was "irrational" and "made war virtually inevitable" simply goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We can discuss the sources all we want, but we cannot make these assertions as if they are undisputed fact. To call someone irrational is an opinion. Whether or not you find Arab or allegedly "anti-Israeli" authors to agree with the Israeli POV, saying the 1967 war with Israel being "inevitable" is something that's controversial and disputed. Furthermore, we already state (neutrally and attributively, I might add) in the "Criticism" section an almost completely identical statement to what you added to the "Six Day War" section:

"Historian Abd al-Azim Ramadan wrote that Nasser was an irrational and irresponsible leader, blaming his inclination to solitary decision making for Egypt's losses during the Suez War, among other events.[101] According to Ismail Fahmi, Nasser single handedly dismissed all rational analysis of the situation and took a series of irrational decisions. The result was the Israeli preemptive strike on 5 June, leading to an Egyptian defeat"

This article, and every wikipedia article, should state the facts plainly and if it is to state opinions and claims, they should be attributed to their sources and not be asserted as if they are undisputed facts. --Al Ameer (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:BALANCE :"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." and later:"Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view." If you have support for contradicting views, it can be added to the article together with with the "irrational" and "inevitable", which are well supported, including prominent Arab sources. Ykantor (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, you're missing the whole point even though I've repeated it several times. We cannot assert that a person was rational or irrational or declare that someone's actions "inevitably led to war". It violates the entire essence of objectivity. We're supposed to state the facts and allow the reader draws his/her own conclusions from the text. It's as simple as that. In fact, the section is far too detailed as it is, especially for a section that has a much larger "Main article" (i.e. the Six Day War) where a reader could find far more information and context about war, the lead up to it and the aftermath. Also, like I said above, you already added most of this same information in the Criticism section so having it twice is just redundant. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if you read again my quote of Wikipedia policy, it is clear that the article is supposed to include all the important and supported views , provided they are not fringe views. However, This indeed can be a wp:pov, so if yo have important and supported opposite views, it should be added to the article in order to balance the wp:pov.
-Yours: "We're supposed to state the facts and allow the reader draws his/her own conclusions from the text". So, how come that you have not proposed to delete the next sentence (and similar sentences) from the article ? "According to journalist Lamis Andoni, Nasser had become a "symbol of Arab dignity" during the mass demonstrations". BTW this is a clear wp:pov. Ykantor (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
In the Criticism section we noted that Muhammad Abd al-Azim Ramadan and Ismail Fahmy, known pro-Wafd critics of Nasser, assigning the blame on Nasser for the war and Egypt's defeat, the same sources and criticisms that you added to the Six-Day War section. The point you constantly seem to be missing is that we cannot make assertions and that this section should remain as fact-based and neutral as possible and not littered with criticism of Nasser by known critics, Arab or non-Arab. The previous version of the section did not assert blame on Nasser or Israel, but it illustrated the confused state of military leadership in Egypt, the rivalry between Nasser and Amer, the successive and arguably reckless moves by Nasser and other actors, the shifts in rhetoric in the lead-up to the war and Israel's invasion.
At this point, your editing has become disruptive as you continue to insist on reinserting non-objective material into a section that is fact-based and neutral. In one of the more audacious sentences, we write that Nasser "made the war inevitable" as if we're absolving Israel, which is the party that literally fired the first shot and launched an invasion of Egypt. We outright blame Nasser for the war three times in this section. This is ridiculous. As for Andoni's statement, you're right: it is a POV. That's why its quoted and attributed to Andoni and placed in a section where we discuss Nasser's legacy. Any POV that is not quoted or attributed should be removed or at least amended to meet wikipedia and GA standards. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
yours: " We outright blame Nasser for the war three times in this section. This is ridiculous.". This is the opinions of a lot of wp:rs as seen in the next section. Moreover, Nasser himself realized it before he decided to close the Tiran straits. Ykantor (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, you can bring all the sources you would like that support your position. We still cannot make this assertion as if it's an uncontested, non-controversial fact. Take a look at the section before you made the changes to it, specifically this passage: "On 21 May, Amer asked Nasser to order the Straits of Tiran blockaded, a move Nasser believed Israel would use it as a casus belli.[ref] Amer reassured him that the army was prepared for confrontation,[ref][ref] but Nasser doubted Amer's assessment of the military's readiness.[ref] Moreover, Amer anticipated an impending Israeli attack and advocated a preemptive strike.[ref][ref] Nasser refused the call[ref][ref] upon determination that the air force lacked pilots and Amer's handpicked officers were incompetent.[ref] Still, Nasser concluded that if Israel attacked, Egypt's quantitative advantage in manpower and arms could stave off Israeli forces for at least two weeks, allowing for diplomacy towards a ceasefire.[ref] Towards the end of May, Nasser increasingly exchanged his positions of deterrence for deference to the inevitability of war,[ref][ref] under increased pressure to act by both the general Arab populace and various Arab governments.[ref]"
The section as it stood stated that Nasser knew the blockade of Tiran could provoke a war (casus belli) and by the end of May he considered a war with Israel to be inevitable under the increasing pressure from the public and Arab government (a pressure which he helped stoke). We stated this in an objective, strictly factual way and focused on Nasser's decision-making. Nasser is not being absolved of blame and he is also not being blamed. With the changes you have introduced, we are filling this section up with redundant statements that blame Nasser outright for the war. This is a violation of NPOV and no matter which way someone would like to spin it, it's not going to stay in the article. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that your version is supported by Kandil (only?) while I have quoted plenty of wp:rs. As we have to adhere to the rules, According to WP:BALANCE :"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.", as it is already quoted here. Hence the article should reflect both versions, but "assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Ykantor (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The info is not just supported by Kandil. However, there's no issue with introducing additional scholarly sources and text supported by those sources. The issue is with asserting viewpoints and filling the section up with such assertions. In other words, it's how we write it not just what we write. Either we find a formula where we can quote and attribute the "inevitable" viewpoint to the sources and add the counter-viewpoint or we can just state the facts plainly as the section previously did. The current state of the section is non-objective, biased and must be revised. Also, the viewpoint of Mr Fahmi which states that Nasser was irrational and his policies were catastrophic should be relocated to the Criticism section. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
yours: "The info is not just supported by Kandil". As you do not supply (yet?) additional sources to support the view that Nasser steps did not make the war inevitable, it seems that the that the other version (his steps made the war inevitable) is the better supported version and should be returned to the article. As we have to adhere to the rules, According to WP:BALANCE :"Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Ykantor (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Ykantor, I don't necessarily disagree with the argument that Nasser's steps significantly contributed to the outbreak of war. Kandil doesn't seem to completely disagree with this argument either, by the way. But that's not the point. You and I could also bring several scholarly sources that say Israel made the war inevitable by diverting the Jordan River waters, attacking the West Bank, antagonizing Syria, etc. But that's not the point either. Both parties obviously share the blame. After going in circles about this for so long with you, it seems you cannot understand the fundamental purpose of NPOV. We cannot assert blame ourselves, no matter how many sources we bring. If a thousand refs say somebody is a jackass, that fine, but we can't make that assertion ourselves. It's as simple as that. The fact that you can't see how literally writing "Nasser made the war inevitable" and "Nasser's actions caused an Israeli preemptive strike" and "Nasser was irrational" are opinions and not facts makes me question your intentions. The text as it's written right now (please read it) is neutrally-worded, factual and doesn't make Nasser into an innocent party. Far from it actually. As for Israel, all we write is what happened i.e. after the blockade of Tiran, withdrawal of UNEF, deployment of Egyptian troops to Sinai, the blistering Egyptian rhetoric, Israel attacked Egyptian air fields and occupied the Sinai. What is wrong with this version? It's actually skewed closer toward the Israeli POV. The only material you want to restore are biased statements. Why must you insist on making a fair, neutral and factual section into a biased, opinionated and redundant mess? --Al Ameer (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that Israel provoked Syria during the escalation years before the war. the provocations were Israeli tractors that plowed the De Militarized Zones. As expected, the Syrians responded with shooting it. Actually, Ben Gurion reprimanded Rabin for needlessly raising the tension during those years
- The crisis started about 3 weeks before the war, when Nasser massed his army in Sinai. Nasser decisions and speeches during these 3 weeks, are the direct reasons for the war eruption. Eshkol, Israel's prime minister was very cautious . Actually, some [wp:rs]] assess his peaceful and weak reactions as convincing Nasser that Israel is frightened and possibly weak. Nasser crossed the Israeli red lines (closing the straits, massing his army near Israel) , and the Iraqi and the Jordanians crossed another red line (the Iraqi army was advancing in Jordan toward Israel). Had Nasser retreated from those red lines the war could be avoided.
- Facts Vs opinions. Unlike your statement, Wikipedia accepts opinions and interpretations, provided they are supported. Actually, the 6 day war section's first sentences have some interpretations.
- Npov. As said at wp:balance , the "inevitable" view should be added to the section, in parallel with an opposing versions.
- While reading again the section, it seems to have some problematic text.
  1. "Nasser still felt that the US would restrain Israel from attacking due to assurances he received from the US". can you elaborate it?
  2. "Without Nasser's authorization, Amer used the warnings as a pretext to dispatch troops to Sinai on 14 May"
  3. " Earlier that day, Nasser received a warning from King Hussein of Israeli-American collusion to drag Egypt into war.[208] The message had been originally received by Amer on 2 May, but was withheld from Nasser until the Sinai deployment on 14 May.[208][209] Although in the preceding months, Hussein and Nasser had been accusing each other of avoiding a fight with Israel,[210] Hussein was nonetheless wary that an Egyptian-Israeli war would risk the West Bank's occupation by Israel". Is this important? Nasser deliberately crossed well known red lines. So such a warning would not matter for him.
  4. " Since General Rikki refused, Nasser decided to ask instead that the UN forces be withdrawn only from specific locations." There are other versions. Also, too much text for some technical points.
  5. " he also reassured both powers that Egypt would only act defensively" Egypt planned to attack Israel at 27 May. A the last minute, the U.s and the Soviets warned Nasser. Only then Nasser promised to act defensively.
- to be continued. Ykantor (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- yours: "The only material you want to restore are biased statements. Why must you insist on making a fair, neutral and factual section into a biased, opinionated and redundant mess?". This is a good question, the reply is in wp:npov:"Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity" i.e. A neutral view is different from a parity between the sides. If I understand you well, you believe that both sides (Israel and the Arab states) share the blame. My opinion is different, and supported by significant number of wp:rs, including Arab sources. During these 3 weeks crisis, Israel has repeatedly tried to de-fuse the tension, while Nasser and other Arab states deliberately crossed the well known Israeli red lines. Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since there is no response, I plan to re introduce the supported deleted text into the article Ykantor (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, I haven't logged on because I've been on vacation. You are insisting that the section should use the pro-Israeli POV, which puts the blame of the war on Nasser and his administration's actions (i.e. Tiran, UNEF withdrawal, rhetoric), minimizes Israel's actions in the preceding weeks, months and years and basically justifies Israel attacking and invading the Arab countries (the "pre-emptive strike") instead of a neutral POV which just states the facts as they played out and of course which concentrates on Nasser's actions because this article is about him and not the other actors in the '67 war. This talk of parity is BS. What you're proposing to add is the pro-Israeli POV, plain and simple. Keep in mind, that what's in the section now is far from the pro-Egypt/Arab POV as it does not mention Israeli provocations, only the June attack obviously. So the issue of balancing is moot too. The section is already balanced. This is not the place for a debate about which parties carry the bulk of the blame for the war.
And yes there is too much context, which brings me to your point about General Rikki. I never added anything about Rikki nor have I ever heard of him. I agree that this is an unnecessary line which should be deleted.
As far as Nasser promising the USSR/US to act only defensively "at the last minute", I don't know what to say to that. Do you want this line removed or something? And if so why? It seems relevant.
I have no serious issue with removing the bit about Hussein and Nasser. It's purpose was only to serve as context. However, in the same vein, your recent additions about Mohieddin serve the same purpose and are not terribly important and should also be removed. And in any case, it's not proper to italicize sentences in the article as that is also POV because its intent is to draw attention to that particular sentence.
As for Amer using Hussein's dispatch as a pretext to dispatch troops to Sinai w/o Nasser's authorization, that's simply a fact backed by the Kandil source. If we remove the bit about Hussein's dispatch and now Mohieddin's opinion, then the text of this particular tidbit could be adjusted. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


Please keep this section for quotes only.

-The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, Avi Shlaim, ‎William Roger Louis - 2012 , page 7, 106

Nasser responded by taking three successive steps which made war virtually inevitable: he deployed his troops in Sinai near Israel's border, he expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from Sinai, and, on 22 May, he closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. [1]

-Gordon2012,Nasser: Hero of the Arab Nation, p68

Nasser responded on 18 May, demanding full withdrawal of UNEF forces. After that, the rush to war was unavoidable'....(4 June) Iraq joined the Egyptian= Jordanian defense alliance and other front line states- Algeria, Libia, the Sudan and Kuwait- reportedly began mobilizing troops to join the coalition [2]

-Gluska2007page-xv, The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy 1963–67

The dynamics of the situation- the mass psychosis, concentration of forces and Egyptian blockade of the Tiran straits- renderd war inevitable- [3]

-John W. Young, ‎John Kent - 2013 , International Relations Since 1945 - Page 265, -

When Nasser insisted on the withdrawal of UN peacekeeping forces from Sinai on I 6 May fears of a major attack appeared to be confirmed. Nasser ... His determination to crush the Israelis was further demonstrated by his blockade of the Straits of Tiran on 23 May after the UN forces had left, which made an Israeli response unavoidable'; hence the surprise Israeli attack on Egyptian and Syrian airfields [4]

-Mark A. Tessler - 1994, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Page 392. -

Yet in taking this step, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders understood that it would be considered a casus belli by Israel. ... Indeed, a number of senior Egyptian officials rightly concluded at the time that closing the strait to Israel made war inevitable.[5]

-Zaki Shalom - 2012, The Role of US Diplomacy in the Lead-up to the Six Day ... - Page 123, -

‎ . ... Nasser's decision to blockade the Straits of Tiran seemed to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. [6]

-Malcolm H. Kerr - 1975, Elusive Peace in the Middle East - Page 283, - ‎

By demanding recall of the UN Emergency Force, declaring a blockade of the Straits of Tiran, and moving his army into Sinai, Nasser had made "the war nobody wanted" almost inevitable [7]

-Yaacov Ro'i, ‎Boris Morozov - 2008, The Soviet Union and the June 1967 Six Day War - Page 126, -

Later on at the ... In the course of the discussion it became known that the closure of the straits applied specifically to tankers transporting oil to Israel. The General Staff rapidly came to the conclusion that this Egyptian step required Israel to declare war at once, without waiting for further developments. Assuming that war was inevitable, the DMI was immediately requested to [8]

-Eric Hammel - 2001, Six Days in June: How Israel Won the 1967 Arab-Israeli War - Page 29, -

‎ It just so happened that the bluff President Gamal Abdel Nasser commenced on May 13, 1967, ensured that the inevitable war would commence sooner rather than later. By the time Nasser decided, and from then on, all the rest was byplay [9]

-Burton Ira Kaufman - 1996 , The Arab Middle East and the United States: inter-Arab ... - Page 54, -

In closing the strait to Israeli shipping, Nasser turned an increasingly dangerous situation in the Middle East into a full-blown diplomatic crisis and probably made a third Arab-Israeli war inevitable. [10]

-Anita Shapira - 2007 , Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography - Page 309, - ‎

On 23 May Nasser seized Sharm al-Sheikh and closed the Straits of Tiran. War looked inevitable. [11]

-Kenneth Dombroski - 2007, Peacekeeping in the Middle East as an International Regime - Page 67, -

‎ UNEF was not an international security garantee, but a trip-wire. Removal of that trip-wire signaled Israel that it was on its own. War was inevitable; the only question remaining was who would strike first. [12] Ykantor (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ngaire Woods (1996). Explaining International Relations Since 1945. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. pp. 219–236 ch. 10. ISBN 978-0-19-874195-4.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Joel Gordon (1 December 2012). Nasser: Hero of the Arab Nation. Oneworld Publications. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-1-78074-200-7. Nasser responded on 18 May, demanding full withdrawal of UNEF forces. After that, the rush to war was unavoidable'....(4 June) Iraq joined the Egyptian= Jordanian defense alliance and other front line states- Algeria, Libia, the Sudan and Kuwait- reportedly began mobilizing troops to join the coalition 
  3. ^ Ami Gluska (12 February 2007). The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War: Government, Armed Forces and Defence Policy 1963–67. Routledge. p. xv. ISBN 978-1-134-16377-9. The dynamics of the situation- the mass psychosis, concentration of forces and Egyptian blockade of the Tiran straits- renderd war inevitable. 
  4. ^ John W. Young; John Kent (7 February 2013). International Relations Since 1945. Oxford University Press. pp. 265–. ISBN 978-0-19-969306-1. 
  5. ^ Mark A. Tessler (1 January 1994). A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Indiana University Press. pp. 392–. ISBN 0-253-20873-4. 
  6. ^ Zaki Shalom (2012). The Role of US Diplomacy in the Lead-up to the Six Day War: Balancing Moral Commitments and National Interests. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 123–. ISBN 978-1-84519-468-0. 
  7. ^ Malcolm H. Kerr (1 January 1975). Elusive Peace in the Middle East. SUNY Press. pp. 283–. ISBN 978-0-87395-305-4. 
  8. ^ Yaacov Ro'i; Boris Morozov (2008). The Soviet Union and the June 1967 Six Day War. Stanford University Press. pp. 126–. ISBN 978-0-8047-5880-2. 
  9. ^ Eric Hammel (1 March 2001). Six Days in June: How Israel Won the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. Pacifica Military History. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-890988-26-5. 
  10. ^ Burton Ira Kaufman (1996). The Arab Middle East and the United States: inter-Arab rivalry and superpower diplomacy. Twayne Publishers. ISBN 978-0-8057-7911-0. 
  11. ^ Anita Shapira (5 November 2007). Yigal Allon, Native Son: A Biography. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 309–. ISBN 0-8122-0343-7. 
  12. ^ Kenneth Dombroski (21 November 2007). Peacekeeping in the Middle East as an International Regime. Routledge. pp. 67–. ISBN 978-1-135-86081-3. 

chance of war- Nasser , Heykal, Hussein[edit]

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences Avi Shlaim, ‎William Roger Louis - 2012 - ‎H According to two of those present at the 22 May meeting, Nasser said then that the blockade would make war 100 percent certain – although in his speech of 23 July, Nasser claimed his actual estimate at that time was 50 percent to 80 percent. [1]

- Following Nasser's speech of May 26, one of his close allies, Mohammed Heykal, wrote in the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram that an armed clash between Israel and Egypt was `inevitable. It would come because of the inexorable logic of the situation: Ykantor (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

- Jeremy Bowen,Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East, 2012,pages=66,67; (p.66 )"He tried to convince Amer and Nasser that Israel was too strong and that they were risking a disaster. Don't worry, they told him. We know what we're doing. Nasser and Hussein were fatalistic. Both of them said, apparently sincerely,that whether, the battle was lost or won, they could not shy away from the fight. Arab dignity demanded nothing less. (The CIA commented that 'dignity has unquestionably become an overriding priority in the scale of Arab considerations'.)...(p.67)... Hussein, though, was not deluded by his new fans ... 'I knew that war was inevitable. I knew that we were going to lose." [2]

Unneutral, and the respective POV of those authors. It could be mentioned that some historians argue that Nasser made it inevitable, but I know that there are several authors who feel it was inevitable because Israel's policies towards the Arab world. It would never end if we did it that way. --TIAYN (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Avi Shlaim; William Roger Louis (13 February 2012). The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences. Cambridge University Press. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-107-00236-4. 
  2. ^ Jeremy Bowen (27 September 2012). Six Days: How the 1967 War Shaped the Middle East. Simon and Schuster. pp. 66,67. ISBN 978-1-4711-1475-5. (p.66 )"He tried to convince Amer and Nasser that Israel was too strong and that they were risking a disaster. Don't worry, they told him. We know what we're doing. Nasser and Hussein were fatalistic. Both of them said, apparently sincerely,that whether, the battle was lost or won, they could not shy away from the fight. Arab dignity demanded nothing less. (The CIA commented that 'dignity has unquestionably become an overriding priority in the scale of Arab considerations'.)...(p.67)... Hussein, though, was not deluded by his new fans ... 'I knew that war was inevitable. I knew that we were going to lose" 

lede disagreement[edit]

From Al Ameer to BoogaLouie (me), pasted from talk page:
Hi, regarding your changes to the lead of Gamal Abdel Nasser, I reverted them because they repeat what's already stated in the lead (not just the body of the article). The lead is already quite long, and if anything it might need to be shortened a bit (without sacrificing important info or structure). I understand your intention here, but the summary-within-summary is unnecessary and makes the lead even longer than it should be. Also, there's too many generalities and contestable descriptions in the summary you added, but that's another matter.

Reply to Al Ameer:
Here is the problem. We have a six paragraph lede with details on constitutions, presidential terms, summits, domestic policies, foreign policies, etc. But Abdel Nasser has been dead for 45 years and many people searching his name on the internet are not Egyptian or even Arab and do not know who he is. We need a quick description of why Abdel Nasser was famous. which I believe is a policy of WP:LEDE --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand the intention, but it just repeats what is said a passage, or two, or three below. However, looking at other similar articles with GA status, your point is justifiable. I might trim the rest of the lead a little bit to make it smaller, but won't remove the summary you added. However, I will remove some of the generalities or misleading descriptions I mentioned above. For example, "pro-Western" monarchy is misleading, because it wasn't overthrown for being friendly to the West, and in fact Nasser had tacit Western backing or approval for the coup and did not adopt unfriendly policies against the West until 3-4 years after with the Czech arms deal and Suez. Also, while we could reasonably say that he intervened in the Yemen War, we can't say he "intervened" in the Six-Day war because it doesn't make sense. I went ahead and made the changes and threw in the union with Syria since that represented an important bench mark of his rule. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, no protest here. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Most people in the West only knew about Nasser because of the Suez Crisis. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC))
That's debatable, but even if completely true, what's your point? The lead is supposed to sum up the major aspects of the article in a succinct and comprehensive manner. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Suez should be mentioned prominently as afterwards few heard anything about Nasser until 1967. (CharltonChiltern (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC))

Responding to an IP's recent edit, the lead intro passage has been discussed above. Also, what "massive Soviet intervention in the Middle East" did Nasser "sponsor"? Nasser pursued a neutralist (although arguably Soviet-leaning) policy in the Cold War until 1967 when he abandoned that path and entered into far closer relations with the Soviets. However, he did not sponsor any Soviet interventions into the Middle East. The only thing that would be remotely close to that was his request for Soviet advisers and a Soviet restock of Egyptian arsenals after the '67 losses. Please rely on neutral, scholarly sources for this kind of information. Also, we're intent on keeping the lead short (it already long enough as is). Adding details about Nasser's 1956 inauguration is unnecessary. It's sufficient to say that after ousting President Naguib in 1954 he officially became president in June 1956. The referendum that confirmed him was likely a sham, Nasser was not a democrat and we don't mention the other referendums (also likely shams) that confirmed Nasser in power in the 1960s. That's not to say Nasser's popularity wasn't of legendary proportions. The lead should remain as brief summary of the article body. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede is far too long and the first and second paragraphs contained identical information. The first para should just be a brief summary. Nasser helped sponsor the Soviet interventions in the Middle East in an attempt to install like-minded regimes in the surrounding countries. He was almost entirely dependent on the USSR for military and financial aid. It was the Soviet Union that armed Nasser's forces from the very beginning of his presidency in 1956. ( (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC))
I don't disagree that the lead is longer than it needs to be. In the discussion above with User:BoogaLouie, I made my view about this clear. However, as you can see we came to an agreement after I noticed that many Good articles have similar introduction structures. If anything, we could reduce or remove the redundancy in the lead paragraphs that come after. As for the intervention statement, it is wholly inaccurate (not just simplistic) to say that Nasser sponsored massive Soviet intervention in the Middle East. Buying weapons does not equal intervention. Also, Nasser bought his weapons from Eastern European Bloc nations like the Czechs and Yugoslavs (he may have bought from the Soviets in the early years as well), and not until 1967 did he establish very strong military ties with the Soviets. But none of that equals to sponsoring massive Soviet intervention in the Middle East. Politically speaking, Nasser charted a neutralist course akin to India's Nehru and Yugoslavia's Tito, which arguably leaned more to the Soviets instead of the West. But again that does not translate into what you keep reinserting to the lead from multiple IP accounts. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph definitely needs to be only one line as it is supposed to be a brief summary, not exactly the same as the second paragraph. All the weapons Nasser bought from Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia came from the Soviet Union. The USSR funded and armed all the Nasser-inspired revolutions, uprisings and wars in Arab countries after 1956. Nasser was not neutral at all in the Cold War, which is why Nixon regretted the US intervention in the Suez Crisis. ( (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
Like I said, discuss here before removing the agreed-upon intro passage. Buying weapons is not the same as massive intervention, your explanation of USSR involvement in the M/E is both inaccurate, simplistic and not focused on Nasser. The source you're using is a recent editorial piece in the New York Sun which is written in generalities. The situation was far more nuanced in reality, Nixon wasn't president during Suez and you are being purely disruptive. I'm tired of continually reverting your unhelpful changes and giving you the same explanation as to why each time. I'm requesting a lock on this page for new and unregistered users. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The lede is far too long and needs to be shortened. Nasser was pro-Soviet throughout his presidency despite claiming to be neutral. The USSR funded his foreign policy after 1956. Eisenhower also apparently regretted his actions during the Suez Crisis, he even considered invading Syria in September 1957 to prevent the country falling to a Nasser-inspired, Soviet-funded revolution. (Fghf12 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
You're right about the lead being too long, but right now my main issue with your edits is not the deletion of the lead's intro. You continue to insert that Nasser sponsored the Soviets in the M/E, which flies in the face of the sources which assert that Nasser chartered an independent foreign policy, at least until the '67 war, after which he quit trying to play the superpowers off of each other. Also being pro-Soviet is not the same as sponsoring the Soviets. Your view is that of the CIA which feared Nasser was basically a Soviet agent, a view which was of course incorrect. For right or wrong, Nasser persecuted communists in Egypt and one of the main reasons for the 1958 unity with Syria was to prevent a feared communist takeover of that country. In fact, the US supported Nasser then. Nasser's conflict with the Soviets and their communist allies in the M/E continued until at least 1963, during which Nasser's main rival in the region was the pro-Soviet President Qasim of Iraq. I can go on and on, but I really don't need to because the source you're using is a recent editorial piece from the NY Sun that only mentions Nasser in passing. This article relies on scholarly sources. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Nasser was no more independent in foreign policy than India's Nehru. Both were pro-Soviet throughout their premierships. (Fghf12 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC))
I don't know much about Nehru's foreign policy other than he championed neutralism. As for Nasser, your assertion is flat-out incorrect. It is certainly arguable that his foreign policy became pro-Soviet in his later presidency, but in general his Cold War politics was characterized by an independent third-way policy with Egyptian (and to a secondary degree, pan-Arab) interests prioritized first and foremost. He was not an agent of Soviet expansion, he was not a sponsor of the Soviets, hid did not back any Soviet interventions in the M/E. He did buy arms from the Soviets and the Eastern bloc (because the Western powers wouldn't sell him any according to his conditions) and he cultivated ties with the Soviets (and with the US to a lesser extent).
I see that you removed the lead's intro. I will not make a big deal out of this for the time being because I too found the lead to have been lengthy and redundant. Maybe in the near future, we'll restructure it differently. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Nasser was clearly pro-Soviet from the beginning, which is why he publicly thanked Kruschev after the Suez Crisis and not Eisenhower. Nasser has been correctly referred to as the Fidel Castro of the Middle East. (Fghf12 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gamal Abdel Nasser. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gamal Abdel Nasser. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)