Misplaced Pages

Talk:Suez Crisis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:43, 16 July 2021 editOnceinawhile (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,722 edits →Egypt and Israel← Previous edit Revision as of 18:58, 21 July 2021 edit undoSokuya (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,472 edits →Egypt and Israel: in depth explanation why to mention the cargo shipmentsNext edit →
Line 52: Line 52:


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

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

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

::The source explains how Israel consider the closure of the canal as an act of war, which is a contributor to a war {{tq|Egypt's refusal to open the Canal, according to Israel, was a violation of both the Armistice Agreement and the United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1949 and 1951.}} and
::{{tq|Egypt's restrictive measures, according to Israel, constitute an act of war in the Canal waters contrary to Articles I and 4 of the Convention of 1888, on the ground that Egypt possessed no right to take defensive measures in the Canal Zone.}} and eventually attacking Egypt in 1967 "to settle a dispute by force" proving the closure of the canal was seen as act of war, {{tq|There can be no doubt that Israel's attack on Egyptian territory on June 5, 1967, presumably to settle a dispute by force rather than by peaceful methods as provided by the Charter of the United Nations}}. So it is clear that Israel saw the closing of the canal as a reason to go to war with Eygpt.

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

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

Revision as of 18:58, 21 July 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suez Crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEgypt High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: British / European / French / Middle East / Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
British military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
French military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Template:WP1.0

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFrance Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBritish Empire
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPalestine High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconHistory
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Template:Vital article
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 29, 2004, October 29, 2005, October 29, 2006, and October 29, 2007.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

Hungary

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

Egypt and Israel

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

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

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

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

My edits were moslty regarding to the first note of Aquillion about the cargo shipments, a section he removed. On 28 March 2021, Aquillion deleted the section and stated "rm. uncited + synth; source doesn't relate this to the 1956 war". The section had a citation needed template since september 2010, so after he delete it, I added it back and delivered new sources to the section in order to answer it, such as this source that discuss in length on Eygpt and Israel's claims on the passage in Suez Canal throught the years and the tention it created between them.
In the opening page is says: Israel, since its establishment, has repeatedly demanded the same right of free passage accorded to other nations, but Egypt has insisted on denying her such a right despite resolutions of the United Nations Security Council calling on Egypt to terminate the restrictions imposed on the passage of Israeli shipping and goods through the Suez Canal. – similar to the section opening. This source also mentions the UN resoultions calling Eygpt to open the canal. UNSC resoulution 95 (given in 1951) on page 155 saying calling upon Egypt to open the Canal to Israeli shipping on the ground that hostilities had been terminated by the armistice of 1949, – which the section previously mention before the removal. And also UNSC resulotion in 1956 In 1956, when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, the Security Council passed a six-point resolution on October 13, 1956, in which it was affirmed that any settlement of the Suez Canal question should, inter alia, meet the following requirements: (I) free and open transit through the Canal, and (2) respect for Egypt's sovereignty. This resolution seems to embody the balancing principle of internationality by proposing to grant freedom of navigation without compromising Egypt's sovereignty.
The source explains how Israel consider the closure of the canal as an act of war, which is a contributor to a war Egypt's refusal to open the Canal, according to Israel, was a violation of both the Armistice Agreement and the United Nations Security Council resolutions of 1949 and 1951. and
Egypt's restrictive measures, according to Israel, constitute an act of war in the Canal waters contrary to Articles I and 4 of the Convention of 1888, on the ground that Egypt possessed no right to take defensive measures in the Canal Zone. and eventually attacking Egypt in 1967 "to settle a dispute by force" proving the closure of the canal was seen as act of war, There can be no doubt that Israel's attack on Egyptian territory on June 5, 1967, presumably to settle a dispute by force rather than by peaceful methods as provided by the Charter of the United Nations. So it is clear that Israel saw the closing of the canal as a reason to go to war with Eygpt.
The source also examine Israel calim to the right of free passage through the canal and how Israel pursue a legal position by invoking one article of the 1888 Suez Canal Convention – which the section previously mention before the removal.
It's important to give a brief explanation and background on the history of the dispute between Egypt and Israel over the canal in the section titled "Egypt and Israel". I saw Aquillion delete this whole section and tried to save it with proper citation. Sokuya (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories: