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.- Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
- New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.
- Assume good faith
- Be polite and avoid personal attacks
- Be welcoming to newcomers
- Seek dispute resolution if needed
Article policiesFind sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 
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 Wikipedia, 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 informationThe exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:- 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.
- 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 Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}}template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Egypt High‑importance 
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This 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.
Military history: British / European / French / Middle East / Cold War 
This 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. 
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: 
Referencing and citation: criterion met- Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
- Structure: criterion met
- Grammar and style: criterion met
- Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces: / 
British military history task force 
European military history task force 
French military history task force 
Middle Eastern military history task force 
Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}}template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
France Mid‑importance 
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This 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.
British Empire 
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. ??? 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.
Palestine High‑importance 
This 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 Wikipedia. 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. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 29, 2004, October 29, 2005, October 29, 2006, and October 29, 2007. Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 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.Why did the Americans object to Suez?
Closing discussion by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The same US administration had already supported colonialism in Korea and Iran. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
- The US fought a war to expel the colonial power (Japan) from Korea. US worked hard to make sure the Soviets left Iran in 1946. American policy encouraged decolonization in the British and French empires, and strongly opposed any use of military force to reimpose control by the former colonial powers. The Americans sympathize with the independence movement, which echoed its own independence movement in 1776. Rjensen (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- So why did they fight a colonialist war in Korea until 1953, and reinstate British colonialism in Iran? Also the Truman administration allowed the French to re-enter Vietnam after World War II. (LanceHendrickson (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC))
- tenditious lefty boilerplate. As if repelling agression by North Korea was 'colonialism'. But this is not the place to discuss that; see guidelines above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.54.29 (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. Why did Eisenhower support British colonialism in Iran in 1953, yet oppose colonialism in Egypt in 1956? (HeddieLemarr (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC))
- Britain never had a colony in Iran. The issue was restoration to power of the Shah, who was much friendlier to both the US and the UK than was the incumbent. In those days, countries look after their own current interests. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- So why did the US support British colonialism/imperialism in Iran, yet side with the Soviets over the Suez Canal? From what you're saying it seems the Americans would have supported Operation Musketeer had they received most of their oil via the canal. (HeddieLemarr (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC))
- Britain never had a colony in Iran. The issue was restoration to power of the Shah, who was much friendlier to both the US and the UK than was the incumbent. In those days, countries look after their own current interests. Rjensen (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the Americans supported British imperialism in 1953, but not in 1956? (Tgirsds (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC))
- This isn't the forum to discuss that question. This is a forum for working on positive changes to the article. Do you have changes you'd like to suggest to the article? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, but for the title question: what did US think & do? There is not a section title that mentions US. (in general, the sections overall are unbalanced imo). I can imagine a section under "7 End of hostilities", "U.S. reaction" or so. There the question could be answered. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Notes
References
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "El-Hasan2010p154" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Bickerton2009p101" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Nasr1996p40" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Alteras1993p192" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Caraccilo2011p113" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "ShemeshTroen2005p5" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Edit Request
In a previous edit of this article, I can only assume a return key was accidently pressed rather than a space key because this following sentence appears to have been put into the wrong paragraph -
- The Indian historian Inder Malhotra wrote about Nehru's role that: "So the Suez War ended in Britain's humiliation. Eden lost his job. Nehru achieved his objective of protecting Egypt's sovereignty and Nasser's honour".
Obviously that sentence needs to be moved to the paragraph before which is talking about the United Nation's and India's reaction to the Suez Crisis, and specifically about the historian Inder Malhotra's take on the crisis. At present where this sentence is placed, it sits alone and completely out of context with the rest of the paragraph. After all, it is starting a paragraph that is talking about West Germany taking sides with, and giving support to, the British and French during the crisis. The paragraph is looking at how the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, felt America betrayed its European allies, over Egypt and also Hungary. The paragraph is neither about the UN or India nor is it referring to some Indian historian's take on the crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.25.207 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans=parameter to no to reactivate your request.Remove Text regarding british plan to invade kuwait and qatar At time Kuwait and Qatar british protectorate 81.153.254.100 (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}}template. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Canal closed
The introduction needs to mention that Nasser closed the Suez Canal to all Israeli ships when he seized control of the company on 26 July 1956. Otherwise it is not clear why Israel was involved. (IssacSteinmetz (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC))
.svg)
