Talk:Suez Crisis/Archive 1

message: I noticed there was not a single mention of Lester B. Pearson, the Canadian diplomat, in the entire article about the Suez Crisis.  Pearson, who later became the Prime Minister of Canada, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in helping to solve the crisis.  It was Pearson who organized the United Nations Emergency Force, and Canada had the single largest contribution to the force of all the member countries.
I feel that this is an unwarranted omission and should be included in the article.  Considering that Pearson won a Nobel Peace Prize for this contribution, its a puzzlement that nothing was said about him.
:I agree that Pearson is important but he did not invent peacekeeping in the matter of Suez, as is alleged here. The UN had conducted earlier peacekeeping missions. --Ggbroad 20:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lester B. Pearson 

message: I removed for being confusing (presumably to everyone who is not a member of the Royal Marine Commandos) and unencyclopedic:
:As the Royal Marine Commandos moved inland, their war generals remarked, "I'm gonna knock ya.....right out boy." 
And removed the last 7 words from this line, for hyperbole:
:The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but a political disaster, and finished Britain as a world power.
Tempshill 16:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed 2 things 

message: Jewboy, you gotta be kidding me! An article about an attack on egypt fails to mention egyptian casualties, but talks about the "plight" of jews? What a load of BS! That's like an article about holocaust talking about the plight of germans while ignoring the killing of jews. Like it or not, this isn't the israeli propaganda ministry website.
:As legitimate as your point is, as well as your sympathy for the Holocaust, let's all try to think before using certain terms... Dpr 01:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  casualties 

message: "Eden's resignation marked, at least until the Falklands War, the end of the last attempt Britain would ever make to establish, as Scott Lucas writes, 'that Britain did not require Washington's endorsement to defend her interests'." 
Establish what? Someone with knoweldge on this topic should fix this bit.
:Never mind. The grammar was a bit unclear. I see it now. Maybe get rid of "the end of the" since it's not really necessary?
Correction: Many Jews started to leave Egypt voluntarily for Israel encouraged and financed by the Jewish Agency. One must here mention the infamous Lavon affair in which Israel used Egyptian jews to carry out clandestine operations inside Egypt. The terrorist acts were designed to scare the Egyptian jewish community into migrating to the new state east of the suez canal. I know of no evidence that Egypt expelled its own jewish citizens. A vibrant jewish community still exist in Egypt today. HAE
:Actually, the Lavon affair was about discrediting the Egyptian government so that the British wouldn't give up the Suez Canal.  And the Egyptians did indeed expel tens of thousands of Jews in the wake of the Lavon affair, and imprisoned at least 1,000. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Nasser was able to blockade the canal with 40 ships, because the british bomber pilots failed miserably. They were only trained in dropping A-bombs post-WWII where a mile on or off doesn't matter and so they couldn't score with required accuracy to sink the ships outside the canal using conventional gravity bombs. This was great public shame for the RAF and hotly debated afterwards, as the entire conspiracy fell through because of this fiasco.
The article should clearly mention that Eden prime minister was a notorious drug, abuser high on methamphetamines and whatever common he saw between Nasser and Hitler was the imaginary projection of his own sick mind, nothing of reality. Eden was heavily drugging himself ever since the early 1930s and should have been removed from politics due to mental instability long before.
The article is totally biased. The land which "palestinians infiltrated" was their own birthland, from where jews expelled them forcibly. So the holyland arabs were right because that was the land of their ancestors. They were living there for 1500+ years, they were living there even before Prophet Muhammad started to spread the word of Allah, when they adored animisic totems!
It should also be mentioned in the article that Nasser didn't steal the Suez Canal, the nationalization law prescribed how the canal company members will receive compensation for their lost investment. Of course after the aggressive 1956 war, noone could expect compensation any more, as they committed a serious crime against the nation of Egypt.
The personal role of Mr. K. should be more emphasized and his famous "means of total destruction" remark on soviet H-bomb and ICBM mentioned. 195.70.48.242 15:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The west is guiltier than you think! 

message: ref above note about Mr K and his threats to obliterate London and Paris.
The Chevaline page on UK nuclear history has attracted the attention of a defender of Mr K and the former USSR's absurdities. A ref to Mr K's threats in the context of UK weapon development has been repeatedly vandalised by a bully who wishes to coerce others in agreeing to obliterate any reference to the threat from the USSR real or imagined that informed UK government weapons policy. External references were then supplemented by a citation to the Suez Crisis page and the Nikita Khruschev page, but these have been rubbished by him too. I fear that the reference to your page may have diverted his attention to you also.
In the 1980's when I was an elected officer of CND these 'Friends of the Soviet Union' were a pain in the ..... but couldn't be expelled. They were a source of embarrasment to CND and undermined its efforts then. The world moves on, but some people never do. If the vandal turns to your pages you'll know it when it happens, so no names here.
:Brian (User:Brian.Burnell), why don't you stop your extreme uncivilness and POV insertions? You must source properly! --maxrspct in the mud  20:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess that the person referred to has broken cover and IDed himself. How sad. Brian.Burnell 21:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal alert 

message: A BBC documentary (Suez: A Very British Crisis) just quoted Egyptian casualties as 650. But this article states 1,650.  The BBC is generally accurate.  Which is correct? 84.153.87.177 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty Figures 

message: Added 'Major Political Defeat for Britain' in the battlebox. Given the importance of this campaign in the decline of the Empire, it is certainly worthy of mention in the synopsis. Psidogretro 19:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Defeat 

message: Summary: Cold War Nuclear Blackmail Shaped the Suez CrisisAction Required: someone who knows the surrounding history should boil these comments down to a short sentence, an aside. In 1957, Britain's colonial power was not just down, ICBM atomic missile power was also up. 
My father was a CIA Case Officer in Frankfurt, Germany during the Suez Crisis. I remember my childhood anxiety on a frightening day when the adults around me acted strangely. Mothers were whispering to each other about diaper changes, "days of baby food". There was a port in France, people were frantic to learn which one, there would be a trip. Copies of long-neglected mimeographed lists were found -- never drive with less than half-a-tank of gas, it said, always carry two full 5-gal cans in the trunk. It would be a long trip.
Dad took most secrets with him to his grave, but one day much later he talked to me about that day during the Suez Crisis. A contact known to the CIA had walked into the Frankfurt station. He was thought to have access to at least some members of the Politburo, or to those who knew their deliberations. But he had no official Soviet status. He was probably not a KGB agent, and yet he wasn't appealing to recruit as an agent for our side either, because he seemed put in place by the Russians, he seemed part of some game, not a clean walk-in. On that day, the man had walked into the CIA station in Frankfurt and said he carried a simple message from the highest levels of Soviet leadership: if the United States did not pressure her French and British friends to pull the Suez Expeditionary Force out of Suez immediately, Soviet nuclear-tipped Intermediate Range ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) would rain down on every major US base in Western Germany.
Dad was amused at first to see how that day looked to a child. He seemed most intent on impressing upon me the ambiguity of the situation. The threat of nuclear annihilation was both real and ambiguous by design. It would be easy and plausible for the Soviet Union to deny that it had anything to do with the wildcatting agent who pursued his crazy acts without their knowledge. Yet it was the judgment of the CIA Station in Frankfurt that the threat was real and a probe of American resolve. For this reason, all dependent families were immediately instructed to prepare for travel from German bases to the French coast for evacuation from Europe. 
Is any of this known? Perhaps if no one can confirm it, it's worthless. I would like to see the story preserved because it enriches the Suez Crisis dialog and, more importantly, it is a concrete example of nuclear blackmail during the Cold War. Some would like to think the Cold Wall is a mental construct of disturbed minds (paranoia, delusions, whatever). The Cold War was a real conflict that deployed real power.
I don't know what more I can add to this, but I can be reached at jerry-va at speakeasy dot net. 
Jerry-VA (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Comments 

message: why not? since khrushchev threatened to attack us with nuclear bombs. Shame On You 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ain't part of cold war? 

message: operation musketeer/mousquetaire reads like the british were commanding or infiltrated among the french units. actually the british and french had two different targets and zones. i've watched a documentary telling the RAF raids missed their targets... while the french mirage IV didn't, maybe because the french were still in war since 1946 in indochina, following in algeria. the documentary told the us president put the pressure on Eden, threatening to devaluate the pound sterling, the public opinion was against war in england too. the french were already in war in algeria by that time, so it did minor change (the communists were against as ever) compared to the situation in uk. due to the us pressure, Eden had to withdraw his troops, but he didn't warned his allies france and israel! the french troops advance was blocked at some point by the british positions. this perfidious move from both the uk and us changed the look of the french on the cold war allies (see the help in indochina). hence the french atomic bomb, quit from NATO and fuck off for irak in 2002. i mean this article reads from the uk pov as ever. the documentary i've seen spoke as the French-English operation... Eden came the second day only at Sèvres, Israel and France had already have a discussion without the british. according to the documentary Eden was clearly against the invasion from the beginning even though his hatred for Nasser. the french were already in war so it was different. israel was close to france, france was close to britain, but there was a tension between britain and israel by that time. i mean maybe the british role is overrated and its sudden retreat (thanks to uncle sam) without warning underrated. it had strong backeffects however. the doc said it was because of suez that britain lose its colonial empire and submitted itself to the us until today. suez explains de gaulle's position against both the uk and us. doc said nuclear targets where everywhere on the map, it included the two of them. it was a major diplomatic crisis indeed. from the french pov it had a strong impact on the french commnding officers since the military operation was a succes but politicians wasted everything turning a military victory into a defeat. it happened before in indochina, the us felt the same in vietnam. and it happened after in algeria hence the generals upheaval (see the 1961 coup or putsch as you like). finally the french governement acted against the army in algeria toon hence the cease fire and retreat, and the OAS renegade organization. feels strange how the us don't use the experience of the french and finally experience the same failure. indochina became vietnam, and algeria is the same as irak. by 1958 the french had pacificated the revolution, but it lasted with terrorism, and finally civilian opposition and pressure see what's happenning in irak, it's all the same. it will end the same. [tv doc: L'affaire de Suez, le pacte secret - 2006 now available on emule] Shame On You 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually the british were commanding the operations. a french official "assisted" each british commander for each arm ground, aerial, airborne, etc. learn this in the archive news. wasn't in the doc. supreme commander was british General Keightley (he's dressed in white reviewing french paras in an archive video posted here), french comander was admiral Barjot. i guess the original invasion map was designed by israeli COS Moshe Dayan and french COS Challe, since the british delegation was of diplomats not strategists during Sèvres. so the british could had negociated execution role as a counterpart. this is only a supposition though. Shame On You 22:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh.. typical of the British get others to do the difficult and dirty work and then walk in. The Israeli operation GUARANTEED a successful military landing for the former Imperialists. Uncle Sam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.81.43 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, the Egyptians were holding back the Israelis in the mid-Sinai, until the Anglo-French attacks began two days after the Israeli attack. Nasser withdrew his air force from operations. The EAF was sucessfully engaging the IAF over Sinai, but they could not fight the British air power in comparison. So the Israelis advanced across Sinai with no Egyptian air attacks, AFTER the Anglo-French air attacks. I will add to the aviation aspects of this article, with references, in future.IAC-62 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  uk in its glory -even in its fall- as ever 

message: according to french news, nasser was supposed to not nationalize the canal built by the french until 1968 as agreed by a treaty involving egypt and britain too. LES ACTUALITES FRANCAISES, AF - 01/08/1956
the archive news video shows a meeting at downing street between Lloyd (foreign affairs secretary), Murphy (an american politician) and Pineau (foreign affairs minister). comment says in 1954 by signing the evacuation of the canal by the british, the regime of the canal was garantee until 1968. so what  nasser did was a violation of the egyptian-british treaty of 1954.
Shame On You 01:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing infos on nasser's violation of treaty of 1954! 

message: damn i have too much archive videos now. i will move some in the operation musketer article and others in the operation amilcar.
*Occupation of Port Fouad & Port Said 14/11/1956 >>  views of french at port fouad and british at port said.
*Anglo-French landing in Egypt 14/11/1956 >> views of fleet near port said, french landing in port fouad, brits in port said 
is it me or it looks like a colonial expedition? :)
they thought it would be ok and nobody would notice them... LOL
Shame On You 03:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: additionnal material (from the french ministry of defense archives), comments and scipted notes are useful for the article.
*"The Free Word & Egypt" directed 2 jan 1957, shows brits & french at port said and port fouad in november 1956, borrows from National Audiovisual Institute's rushes. + useful infos about the video's background Shame On You 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  videos 

message: the french landed in port fouad on november 6th, invasion was called "egypt expedition" (expédition d'Egypte), 2eRPC airborne unit embarked Nord-2501 on november 5, 10eDP (10ème Division Parachutiste)  embarked ships from Algiers on october 22 1956.
source: defense archives www.ecpad.fr, keyword "suez" 
Shame On You 16:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline notes 

message: it should be noted in the article isn'it?
french news said egypt civilians were warned about dangerous zones to evacuate long before the dropping  operations - hence some egyptian troops had run away. also before the agnlo-french retreat and the end of of the egypt expedition, the french gave food (army supply) to the civilians. pic dec.19 1956 + detailed note (report #947)
Shame On You 17:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  free world gentlemen invaders... 

message: 1st: 1st wave of airborne enters in action, 2nd Anglo-british fleet (named "Task Force") delivers marine infantry through landing craft, while LVT Alligator bring LST (Landing ship tank) on the Port Fouad beach. 
departure from cyprus nov.4: 2eRPC briefing/operation telescope launch full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #887
operation musketeer nov.5: port said south full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #886
:2eRPC had to meet the british panzer unit at port said (brit tank models were "Centurion").
operation musketeer nov.6: port fouad full report with live pics & comments in french ops report #868
 
Shame On You 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  operation telescope 4 nov + operation musketeer 5-6 nov details 

message: oct.22: departure of Gen. Massu's 10e DP from algiers - full report w/pics + report #663 
Shame On You 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  units from algiers & french government's goal 

message: british's unilateral cease fire on 6th november, 
completion of anglo-french forces withdrew on december 22nd 1956.
report #947 (nice introduction to the crisis' background) Shame On You 23:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  end of Anglo-French ops 

message: I feel the following point needs clarification, for me at least. The British stake in the canal was purchased from the Egyptians as the article says, but it says nothing of the British stake in the canal after nationalisation. What I am trying to understand is, were the British out of pocket (without the canal as an asset or money as payment) after the nationalisation or were they reimbursed financially? Did the nationalisation then amount to stealing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.19.9 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually the suez canal which is a french work -the british were against from it's very beginning!- due to sir Ferdinand de Lesseps (see the great German documentary "Durchbruch Bei Suez"!), was exploited not only by the brits but also by the french leaving only 3% to the egyptian. recently i've watched a bbc documentary ("The Other Side Of Suez") about the suez crisis, the british focused on, sir Eden and just forgot to speak a word about the french... an excellent doc is "Affaire de Suez, le pacte secret". all of which were broadcasted on TV and are now available on emule. Shame On You 18:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. This I never imagined there was this much intricacy to the economics behind the Suez Canal. But I cannot help but wonder if this really belongs in the Suez Crisis article, or in the Suez Canal article... Screen stalker 23:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A point of clarification 

message: 650 KIAs are casualties only in fighting with British/French troops. This figure comes from The Suez Crisis of 1956 article, which deals only with British operations. On Sinai front Egyptians had about 1000 additional KIAs (can't provide link right now). 195.248.189.182 20:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian casualties 

message: I have placed a POV template on this section.
Some of the problems:
* States that the "closing of the canal" was one of the events that "contributed most" to the crisis, and then devotes considerable space to discussing this issue. But that interpretation is not at all supported by the literature I have read on the subject.
* Fails to mention Nasser was legally entitled to nationalize the canal and that he agreed to fully compensate shareholders.
* The next section deals with "Arab economic and military pressure on Israel" which in fact had little effect on the Israeli economy. Indeed this alleged major reason for the crisis doesn't even warrant a mention in most accounts. Yet here it gets a substantial section to itself which has been promoted to near the top of the list of reasons for the war. 
:: (response from anonymous user): -eygipt's mass of forces ont he borber caused the israeli's (wether by correct line of thought or not) to draft a large amount of the male population of israel, thus causing the "economic and military pressure on israel". so yes, there was a large amount of pressure, and there had been an estimate, that continued holding of the drafted soldeirs would cause the israeli economey to colapse within a month or two. 
* Mentions the attacks by the Egyptian fedayeen but fails to mention the punitive operations carried out by Israel in the same time frame.
* "Egyptian arms deal" section fails to mention that following Nasser's arms deal with the USSR, Israel concluded a similar arms deal with France, thus restoring the balance of power.
* The main reason for the attack on Egypt - fear of Nasser's growing power and influence - gets no more than a couple of lines in the middle of the section. Redundant due to recent additions, see update below. 
* "Anglo-Franco-American diplomacy" section implies that Nasser refused to compromise, and that negotiations were over. IIRC neither statement is correct.
* "Protocol of Sevres" section says Britain and France "enlisted Israel's support" for the war, implying the war was primarily their brainchild. But Israel was a prime agitator for the war. Ben Gurion wanted an even bigger war, against all the surrounding Arab states. So the account given here is misleading to say the least. Gatoclass 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed two sections as not sourced and/or not notable on subject : A New Type of Warfare and Arab economic and military pressure on Israel..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastboy (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on events leading to the crisis 

message: "...Egyptian liberty to close the canal implied Israel's right to traverse the Suez Canal..." surely the word should be contravened?
IceDragon64 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't understand this: 

message: "The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view"
As I understand it, british troops didn't make it further then about 20 miles down the length of the canal (see, e.g., http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/20_21_century/3037501.html?page=3&c=y, and others - some sources seem to say no more then 10 miles).  I don't see how that can be called "highly successful" in any way.  Israel's operation in the Sinai to destroy the Egyption army there might be called successful, but that's about it.
Is there something I'm missing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.212.74 (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of hostilities question 

message: On 3 20 November F4U-7 Corsairs from the 14.F and 15.F Aéronavale taking off from the French carriers Arromanches and La Fayette, attacked the Cairo aerodrome. Nasser responded by sinking all 40 ships present in the canal, closing it to further shipping until early 1957.
I think that is suppose to be "On 3 November 20 F4U-7...." but i have no expertise in this area what so ever so i am refraining from changing anything.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best I can find is this, which says "On November 3rd, heighteen [sic] aircraft". It makes no mention of Nasser responding by sinking shipping. I'm inclined to just remove the "20" bit, since it isn't essential to the narrative in any case. Franamax (talk) 03:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentance makes no sence 

message: From 1948 and more and more frequently, groups of Fedayeen, suicide bombers, that have been attacking Israeli targets, were based in the Gaza strip, where the Arab National Movement had a lot of support among the populace. In order to stop the attacks, Moshe Dayan ordered a takeover of the Gaza strip. The invasion succeeded, and Gaza strip has fallen under Israeli control, and attacks indeed ceased. Ironically, in the peace treaty between Sadat and Begin, Sadat refused to recieve back the strip, despite Begin's requests.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.129 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An important reason is clearly understated here- the reason for Israel's attack on the Gaza strip 

message: There is a sentence briefly describing, and linking to, the Kafr Qasim massacre. The sentence is relevant to the article as a whole, but not the section it's in: Anglo-French Task Force, in a paragraph describing prewar preparations. As to where to put it, I'm torn between the earlier section describing the Israeli Operation Kadesh (given that it's a technical description of military operations, it doesn't quite fit) and Aftermath (putting in a sentence or two on the effects on Israeli politics). Any suggestions?
Vonschlesien (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put reference to Kafr Qasim massacre? 

message: I don' see any mention of "Some historians consider this the exact moment that the British Empire ceased to exist." in this article.
As per the movie: I O U S A [A 30 minute highlight which can be seen here at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQTdZNXLecM (This section can be found at 20:25)].
America's top 5 trade deficits (2007)
Number 1 China, at 262 billion.
Ikip (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie: I O U S A 

message: I think there should be a third column for the UN force that was situated on the suez. Seeing how they were a crucial element to this entire event.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.32.195 (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beligerents 

message: This article is far too long and not concise enough for an encyclopedia. The article has 14 pages including 8 pages of introductory and background material before we even reach the section about the actual crisis.
An example from the article:
: For example, on 31 October 1952, a cargo of meat was confiscated; on 2 September 1953, 500 tons of asphalt and a number of Israel-assembled cars were detained; on 4 November 1953, two boats destined for Italy were removed; on 28 September 1954 a shipment of 93 tons of meat, 42 tons of plywood and 30 tons of hides was confiscated, and the crew thrown in jail. On 8 July 1955, a Dutch ship was detained en route to Haifa. Part of its cargo was confiscated. On 25 May 1956, a Greek ship en route to Eilat was detained in the Suez Canal with a cargo of 520 tons of cement. The crew was not allowed ashore for three months despite a severe shortage of water and the spread of illness.
It's not necessary to list the details of the cargoes of those ships.
The above paragraph lists details of things which are not even part of the crisis, which is what this article is about.
I will delete excessively detailed or superfluous material.
Twerges (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is far too long 

message: In this newreel they said 30,000 Egyptian POW has taken
please fix it!
here is the link
0:30-0:40
0:30-0:40  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.214.155 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egyptian POW 

message: lacks infos on
*landing training in algeria,
*Operation Amilcar and
*objectives change and hesitation between french and british about just getting back the suez canal or overthrowing Nasser hence Operation Musketeer Revised (opération mousquetaire révisée).
*also the French paras were dropped over the south of Port Said not only Port Fouad. the article only mentions the british.
*the beaches where the french landed were mined but the egyptian had left when they saw the invaders so the remote controlled claymore did not made casualties.
Shame On You 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lacks infos 

message: This conflict is presented far too much from the British - and to a lesser extent Western - POV, especially in the "Events precipitating the crisis" section. I have therefore added a tag to that effect. Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the instigator, Britain is perhaps as relevant to the conflict's roots as Egypt. Reading through, I don't see a particular over-coverage of British reactions to Nasser, so hopefully it improved since 2008. I removed the template. If you feel otherwise, you can re-add it and we can form new consensus.  dmyersturnbull   ⇒ talk 03:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overcoverage of British perspective 

message: "On 30 October, in the morning, Britain and France sent ultimatums to Egypt and Israel."
Could this be clarified a bit? It doesn't say at all what ultimatums were sent. (and why to Israel, if they were working in concert with them?)
--Agamemnus (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q for "Anglo-French Task Force" section 

message: I added some citation needed tags to the final section. The material is probably fine, but the addition of sources is needed to change it from an essay to an encyclopedic article—or, a "collection of sources". The final section needs expansion anyway. There sould be subsections added for the aftermath regarding the various countries involved. If the article is getting too big, it could be split out. However, Suez had far-reaching consequences for the major powers of the world, and this is not well-captured in the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed  tags in final section 

message: I have recently been reading  "Reflections on a Partnership" by Henry Kissinger he is of the view that the US made a major mistake in betrayinghttp://www.jstor.org/pss/2618470 Great Britain over Suez, ramifications of which he feels is felt all over the world today, I think the opinion of someone like Kissinger whose gravitas and reputation needs no introduction deserves mentioning. In fact it is rather odd he hasn't been mentioned in this context.
'Eisenhower himself later stated privately that he regretted his opposition to the combined British, French and Israeli response to the Crisis.[59] After retiring from office Eisenhower came to see the Suez Crisis as perhaps his biggest foreign policy mistake. Not only did he feel that the United States weakened two crucial European Cold War allies, but he created in Nasser a man capable of dominating the Arab world'.
While this paragraph mentions Eisenhowers 'regret' I feel that a much stronger emphasis should be put on US views regarding the issue/
Also: Aftermath: Britain: greatly accelerated decolonisation and sought to recapture the benevolence of the United States. Where did that come from? There is no mention in the BBC article of Great Britain seeking 'benevolence' of any sort from any country...needs a proper citation.Twobells (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath: Kissinger 

message: Surely the Suez Crisis began on 26th July 1956 and the actual military operation in late October/November was the Allied response? (92.7.8.72 (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of crisis 

message: This article makes no mention about the UK fuel shortage and the lengths people would go to simply to obtain petrol.
Waiting by the troopship at Southampton to embark for Cyprus, each man going on board was given his own "Manual of Military Law", a shaving brush and saddle soap.  No sign of arms, ammunition, food, fuel etc
As was well known at the time, thanks to the Russians, the Egyptians had plenty of weapons and ammunitionAT Kunene (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  just an ordinary conscript 

message: I removed some unsourced or poorly sourced and POV content from the intro - currently just replaced it with a very brief statement to maintain continuity but will return in a day or two to add a more appropriate summary. Gatoclass (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't just add material that you think is appropriate. Everything in Wikipedia has to be cited to reliable sources. Please read WP:V. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Part of it is cited, but to an unreliable source. Most of it is uncited, and I've been unable to verify any of it in other sources. That's why I deleted it. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

text: It's not remotely reliable enough. The article doesn't even have a byline. There is a wealth of quality sources for an article like this, we don't need to be relying on anonymous articles peddling dubious information from a political website. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HantersSpade and the 92 prefixed IPs are sockpuppeta of , HantersSpade has now been blocked. O Fenian (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick fix to intro 

message: Many people nowadays often ask me why Israel was involved in the Suez Crisis. It is vital that the article mentions the primary reason - the fear that Nasser was preparing to launch an attack in March or April 1957, using weapons supplied by the Soviet Union. (HantersSpade (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an oversimplification. By the time the invasion was actually launched, military parity had been restored courtesy of arms shipments to Israel from France, which had restored the balance of power. I'm a bit rusty on this topic though, I am going to have to brush up on the topic a little before adding more to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: HantersSpade and the 92 prefixed IPs are sockpuppeta of , HantersSpade has now been blocked. O Fenian (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: The Suez Crisis began on 26 July 1956 when Nasser nationalised the canal, it was the Tripartite Aggression/Sinai War which began on 29 October 1956. Eisenhower knew that Britain and France were almost certain to use military force in response, which is why there were frantic attempts to find a diplomatic solution throughout the summer. Nasser himself admitted in late July 1956 he did not know whether Britain would attack first, or Israel. (RodneyVanderhorst (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major mistake in article 

message: Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, cargo shipments to and from Israel had been intercepted, removed, or destroyed by the Egyptians while attempting to pass through the Suez Canal.[citation needed]
For the citation, I've found a document coming from the United Nations Treaty Collection: 
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art51/english/rep_orig_vol2-art51_e.pdf
Starts with the heading "1. Decision of 1 September 1951 in connexion with the Palestine question" on page 6 and continues through all of page 7. I need someone else to approve & apply the edit as I am not authorized to do so.
SomethingWycked (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New citation 

message: User:Oneiros seems to think this article should follow WP:A-A as far as archiving goes. Given that this is simply one editor's view, not even an essay, and carries absolutely no weight, can Oneiros explain why anyone should even pay attention to it, much less be bound by it? Of what value, for example, are the threads started by the sockpuppet of a banned editor? Also, can Oneiros explain why he removed the helpful search box I added beside the Table of Contents? Jayjg (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I could. But can you explain why you want different parameters? Are these magical or set in stone? I removed the search box because it's redundant: Talk header already provides a search box - I said so in my comment.--Oneiros (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The parameters are designed to ensure that editors and Wikipedia users don't waste time responding to dead discussions. That's why the added box is there too, because it's more visible and easier to find for Wikipedia users. The whole point is to make the page as useful as possible for the user, not to waste their time. So, do you now have any answers for my questions? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The archive box clutters the page, it's unneeded and redundant. Your parameter set archives frequently and leaves very few threads on the page. The goal of archiving should not be to get the talk page as empty as possible as fast as possible, but to keep a reasonable number of threads on the talk page to allow occasional visitors to the talk page the opportunity to respond. That's why my proposet set archives more seldom but in larger chunks.--Oneiros (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't "clutter the page", because it occupies otherwise empty space across from the Table of Contents. There is no value to having threads on the page if the discussions in them are dead; the value of threads is for editors to use them for active communication. They're not just there to "fill" something or make it look pretty. When an occasional editor comes along and responds to a discussion that has been dead for 10 months, it isn't an "opportunity", it's a waste of his/her time, because the issue has long been resolved, and the participants are likely gone. Again, the purpose of a Talk: page is to promote active discussion; if there is lots of active discussion, there will be lots of threads. Keep in mind, we're not talking about archiving after a few days or even weeks, but only after a discussion has been dead for several months. Jayjg (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced, but I don't care anymore. Go ahead, do as you want.--Oneiros (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving