Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Expansions and Changes

Some information I found sometimes contradict with Aburish so I'll list what I found here for comments. From Hussein, Adel (2000). Egypt and the Egyptians (1 ed.). Amado Publishing. ISBN 9775411173. :

Page 107

1. Because his father was a postal worker he lived in multiple cities and therefore Nasser attended many schools.
2. When he was eleven he attended Helwan high school for one year.
3. They moved back to Alexandria and he attended Ras el Tin
4. He returned then to Cairo to finish high school in 1936 and receive the school bachelor.
5. He wanted to attend military school but wasn't accepted so he changed to law in Cairo University. Five months later the military academy needed more students so Nasser was admitted.
6. He graduated in 1938 and was assigned to 5th Infantry Regiment of Fusiliers in Makbad where he met Sadat and Zakaria
7. 1940 he was transferred to 3rd Infantry Regiment to Sudan where he met Amer.

There is a lot more info but what for now?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anything that contradicts what Aburish writes, although some of the points (4, 6, and 7), he just doesn't mention in the book. Actually, for Nasser's early life and military career, Aburish doesn't often get into the details, but concentrates on how certain things had shaped his future. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nasser and his generation

This book has a lot of information about Nasser's childhood. It doesn't however mention that he ever attended a Qur'aninc school. Is this certain from aburish?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Aburish mentions it a lot. It might not be a Quran'ic school per se (although that's what Aburish writes), but the school taught local children the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad and the sahaba and it was headed by a sheikh. He also uses one of Nasser's Arab biographers (Tikriti) as a source for one of the statements relating to the school. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A little expansion

Section "Birth and childhood" now starts with info about his father and ancestors. How should it be retitled? And I'm not sure starting with "Gamal's father" would be a good paragraph start. Also the sentence "He was the first son of Fahima Hamad and Abdel Nasser Hussein who later brought Izz al-Arab and al-Leithi." could need a second opinion. Tell me what you think...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Aburish also has some info on the family's ancestry (I remember he says they claim to be descended from the Hejaz). I'll read more into it later when I'm at home. So this area could be probably get beefed up by a sentence or two. Anyway, how about we get rid of "Birth" and divided it into two subsections: "Ancestry" and "Childhood". As for the sentence, it could be structured better, but I have nothing to say the info is inaccurate. Perhaps replace "brought" with "bore"? On a side-note, I should tell you that I won't be able to edit this article much until Monday because I'm not home currently and that's where my book is. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Life Magazine about Nasser

Google has digitized issues of Life Magazine and now there are many resources detailing Nassers political career through western eyes...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I'll start reading through them now. By the way, what's next as far as work on the article is concerned? Legacy section or should we continue to improve the Death and funeral section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I wanted to read Vatikiotis book to verify Aburish since there are big inconsistencies in the Early life section at least. I'll have access to the book next week through the library of the American University in Cairo. I also need to verify the comprehensiveness of the article through multiple references. The books I have from Heikal are useless since they are imo very badly written too detailed in irrelevant incidents and not on others. I'll increase my contributions to the article in the very near future. The personal life section still has inconsistencies that need to be addressed. We need to compare here multiple books. Vatikiotis gives the most details but these need to be verified.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely forgot about his family. I will try piecing together some info on them. Apparently he kept a close relationship with his wife and children. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Abdel Hakim Abdel Nasser

When was he born? I know it's sometime between 1949 and 1952? Is there a source that lists all the children and their births. Hoda and Mona are from one source, Khaled is from one source, and Abdel-Hamid was another source. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't spot it right away... I'm reading Stephens page by page, if I find anything I'll add it as soon as I can.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

His books

Should we have articles about his books?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

nasser's dates?

the info box at the side and the dates within the article all conflict on when nasser actually assumed power as president. please can someone find the info from a scholarly source and clarify the dates in this article? 198.103.53.5 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)xfireworksx

The dates used in the article body are from book sources. I got the dates in the infobox from the List of Prime Ministers of Egypt. I will double-check to see which dates are the correct one. As for the president part: there is no conflict between the infobox and the body. Nasser officially became president on June 23, 1956 even though he had real power in 1954 when he ousted Naguib. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

He resigned on the 9th. http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8182/Gamal-Abdel-Nasser.html http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/848/sc5.htm

I will work to find better sources later and then I will revise the artice. dynam001 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo152 (talk • contribs)

Comments

Dear Al Ameer Son, I've been busy with finals, tomorrow is my last one, here are some things that need to be verified:

• "Gamal Abdel Nasser's daughter, Hoda, said she was not informed of her family's lineage, but suspects the claim of its Arabian descent to be accurate."--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aburish interviewed her for the biography. The information is found on page 12 of his book. It's not necessary to include her view so if you feel it should be removed, have at it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox is too long and makes problems in the images of the personal life section. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't know what to include and what not to so I just put in as much as possible. Cut down where you feel necessary. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• No need for stating when his children were born (We don't have the information and it's not that relevant). --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I should start editing again within the coming days. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article very shortly, but I just wanted to set up the review page now. Canadian Paul 01:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   some bias :

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very good article. Some comments:

1. Could the caption on the picture in the infobox be more descriptive? Perhaps some information on when it was taken? Right now it's not very informative, as it's obvious that it's a picture of Abdel Nasser if it's the lead picture of the infobox
2. The fourth external link is just a bare URL, which needs to be fixed, particularly as it is a foreign language site and not everyone can just click on it and figure out what it is.

   done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

3. WP:SURNAME is going to be a tricky in this article, since Arabic names do not easily fall into the "given name - surname" pattern, but I do have one question - since "Abdel" means "servant of" in Arabic, can it be separated from "Nasser" in English usage? In other words, in all the instances where it is stated that "Nasser did X" or "Nasser said Y", shouldn't it be "Abdel Nasser did X" instead?

   In this case Nasser is acceptable since he is commonly referred to as Nasser and Abdel can just be skipped. Various books just refer to him as [Nasser http://books.google.com/books?q=Nasser&btnG=Search+Books].--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Under "Influences" - "According to Aburish..." - You haven't introduced Aburish yet so the reader has no basis of understanding why this person's opinion is important or relevant. Is he a personal friend? A biographer? A historian? All of these can affect the reader's opinion of what follows and this becomes particularly important later when you're using him a source for information that differs from the norm.(e.g. "Aburish states, however, that he and Amer were posted to the Sudan in 1941.")

   Said Aburish is an American Palestinian journalist and writer... I'm not sure now if he qualifies as a historian as much as Nutting.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Under "Family" - "Tahia's parents had died in Tahia's early life" - At least one, if not both, of these "Tahia's" could be replaced with a pronoun

   done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

6. Under "1948 Arab-Israeli War" - "During the war, he wrote of the unpreparedness of the army, saying "our soldiers were dashed against fortifications."" - As this contains a direct quote, it requires a direction citation.

   done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Under "Free Officers", third paragraph, same problem with "According to Sadat, Nasser decided to wage "a large scale assassination campaign.""

   done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

8. First sentence under the third paragraph of "1952 Coup", same problem.

   done

9. Under "Disputes with Naguib", third paragraph, "The RCC then "joyfully...proclaimed Nasser as Prime Minister";[50] Soon after, large numbers of citizens joined protests demanding that Naguib be reinstated." - There's a grammar problem here... either that semicolon should be a period or "soon" should not be capitalized.

   fixed with period.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

10. Under "Assuming the presidency", fourth paragraph, the final sentence requires a citation.

    done moved the reference to the end of paragraph after checking the book on Google books.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

11. Under "Nationalization of the Suez Canal", direct quote issue with "the Eden government of Britain was agitated by Egyptian campaigns undermining the Baghdad Pact which Nasser viewed as disrupting "Arab solidarity.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

12. Under "Suez Crisis", first paragraph - "After this agreement, "Nasser estimated that the danger of invasion had dropped to 10 percent." He was wrong, however, because shortly thereafter, Britain, France, and Israel colluded in a secret agreement to take over the Suez Canal and occupy parts of Egypt." - This seems a bit off to me because "He was wrong" seems to be worded as a personal opinion, or at the very least it stands out compared to how well the rest of the article has been written thus far. It could be argued, for example, that he was not wrong, because he still thought that there was a chance that it could happen. Perhaps it might be more neutral to stick with "Shortly thereafter, however, ..."

    fixed through replacing by "Shortly thereafter, however, ...".--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

13. Same paragraph, there's a hidden note - their attempts to cover it in diplomacy - which is true.
14. Under "Pan-Arabism", first paragraph, direct quote issue with "Nasser berated Hussein on his Cairo-based Voice of the Arabs radio station, accusing him of being "a tool of the imperialists.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

15. Under "Influence on neighboring Arab countries", direct quote issue with "stated that "any attack on Iraq was tantamount to an attack on the UAR.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

16. Same section, second paragraph, the big quote definitely needs a direct citation. Also, if it's such an important quote, you may want to highlight it in quote box rather than copy it into the prose of the article, as it does somewhat disrupt the flow of the paragraph.

    created quotation box--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

17. Under "Revival on the Arab stage", second paragraph, direct quote issue with "Nasser berated the attendees for being "phony nationalists" and constantly changing direction."

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

18. Under "Internal dissent and shifts in policy", direct quote issue with the first sentence.

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

19. Same section, the first, third, and fourth paragraphs greatly overuse dashes in places where commas could be used instead, which becomes very distracting to the flow. In one place ("Nasser used his influence with al-Azhar to create changes in the syllabus—which trickled to the lower levels of Egyptian education, allow gender-mixed schools, introduce evolution as an acceptable subject matter to discuss, amend divorce laws, and merge religious courts into civil ones") it ruins the verb tenses of the sentence. Overall, through the entire article, I think that fewer dashes would be beneficial for flow.

    fixed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

20. Same section, fourth paragraph, direct quote issue with "Nasser blamed the lack of unity among the Arab states for what he deemed as "the disastrous situation" regarding the water diversion scheme."

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

21. Same section, fifth paragraph, direct quote issue with "Qutb wrote a book from his jail cell condemning Nasser as the representative of a "new age of ignorance""

    fixed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

22. Under "Six-Day War", first paragraph, direct quote issue with "After the blockade, he gave a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 29 May saying, "the issue was not UNEF or closing the Strait of Tiran; the issue is the rights of the Palestinian people.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

23. Same section, third paragraph, direct quote issue with "It was here, that the simmering conflict between Nasser and Amer came into the open when, according to present officers, they burst into "a non-stop shouting match.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

24. Under "Resignation and aftermath", first paragraph, you might consider my previous advice regarding big and important quotes.

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

25. Under "War of Attrition and later life", third paragraph, direct quote issue with "The attending heads of states launched verbal denunciations against each other, while Nasser pleaded with Arafat and Hussein "to stop it.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

26. Under "Death and funeral", first paragraph, direct quote issue with "As a testament to his unchallenged leadership of the Arab people, following his death, a Beirut-based newspaper stated, "One hundred million human beings—the Arabs—are orphans.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

27. Under "Legacy", second paragraph, the final two sentences require citation.

    removed not mentioned in source.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

28. Same section, third paragraph, "Traditional Western political scientists claim his largely charismatic and direct relationship with the Egyptian people "rendered intermediary organizations and individuals unnecessary."" - Aside from the direct quote issue, what are "traditional Western political scientists".

    fixed--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

29. Under "Nasser vs. Sadat", direct quote issue with ""I have come to you along the path of Gamal Abdel Nasser and I believe that your nomination of me to assume the responsibility of the presidency is a nomination for me to continue the path of Nasser.""

    done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There's other, more minor punctuation/grammatical issues. I've fixed a couple of them along the way, but mostly these would be concerns for a FA, rather than a GA, nomination. I may also have to go over the last few sections again after all of these issues have been cleared up, as one tends to miss/ignore more things when they've been reviewing for a long time. Anyhow, to allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 03:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed many of the issues, please review if they are correct. I'm not sure if I fixed the direct quote problems correctly. I put the references that were at the end of the paragraph which contained the quote to the end of the sentence of the quote.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it a little later tonight, when I have a bit more time! Canadian Paul 16:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the direct quotations, yes, that is exactly what I was looking for! So the only important thing remaining is the little hidden note after "their attempts to cover it in diplomacy" - I think if you just removed this (it's not too important) that would take care of the issue. There's also the picture caption, but I'm not going to fail this article over either of those issues, so I believe that the time has come to pass this as a Good Article - there's only ever been one other article that I reviewed for GA that I enjoyed as much as this one, and I have to say that I learned more about Abdel Nasser here than I did in any of my university courses. The next time someone makes fun of Wikipedia for its quality, I will be pointing them here as evidence to the contrary. So congratulations and thank you for all your hard work - good luck getting it to FA if that's your goal! Canadian Paul 23:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the encouraging words and the aim is FA, but I'm afraid to proceed to a nomination before a thorough review on FA quality. I'll improve the article as much as possible then proceed to an FA nomination. Thanks again.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Miles Copeland info needs verification

It's about time someone corrects the record and tell something about what did really go on prior to the 23rd of July,1952; The US musician and the CIA agent Miles Copeland played a major role in directing and supervising the Free Officers in their preparations for the coup. The US policy towards the Middle East during the Roosevelt administration geared towards picking the right leaders in all Arab Nations, starting by initiating series of military coups in Syria, where the power shifting from one military officer to another took place at rapid repetition, and some leaders governed for a few months before another coup sends them home or jailed them indefinitely. In Iraq, Abdulkareem Qassim led a military coup which changed Iraq's government style for decades to come, but was also taken down by another coup. He too was trialed and was found guilty of treason, and later was executed by a death squad. Nasir was picked to become Egypt's leader months before the coup, but was not scheduled to take the role of the nation's leader until Najeeb was found unfit to adhere to the CIA's agenda to the fullest measures. Nasir continued to control a balanced foreign and internal policy in Egypt until his death in the 70s. His role extended beyond the Egyptian boundaries to reach out other Arab nations like Jordan, Syria, Iraq and others, and while the US administration saw in him a favorable key Arab leader, he was seen as an Arab nationalist by Arabs, a status he achieved by unprecedented propaganda using Radio Cairo and Egypt's powerful press. His anti-American false propaganda made him sound like a hero to peoples of most of the Arab nations, coupled by his friendly approach to the Soviets, and to his leading role in the establishment of the non-alliance group of nations, added to his staged animosity to the Jewish state, all consequences showed him to be a different person to what he really was. Arabs to this day may never find him guilty of initiating a war with the Israelis that he himself could not foresee winning in any way or shape, and even when he made his address to the Egyptians upon surrendering to the Israelis, and when he assumed his fullest responsibility of the war's outcomes, Egyptians were passionate enough to demonstrate in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptians cities begging him to reconsider his decision to give up his presidency.{citation: pages 57-133, Game of Nations by Miles Copeland III. Published by Simon & Schuster, NY, 1969. ISBN 671-20532-3}

This needs verification before being displayed on the article--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

I have added all the previously written transcriptions of his name, so as, I wrote DIN 31635 standard, in a hidden comment.

''{{unicode|Gamāl or Jamāl ‘Abd an-Nāṣir}}''/''{{unicode|Gamāl ‘Abd an-Nāṣir}}''
{{transl|DIN|Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir}} All fail to represent pronunciation

However, they all fail to transcribe or transliterate the name. There is no standard I know of which succeeds in transliterating/transcribing Egyptian Arabic phonology or at least approximating it. All the standards there: Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table are only made for Modern Standard Arabic, lacking Modern Standard Arabic pronunciation in Egypt and other regional standard pronunciations elsewhere. But, the problem is that names in Egypt aren't normally transcribed or pronounced with any of those standards (Romanization of Arabic#Comparison table), so as those standards distort how Egyptian names are pronounced. (The same applies to other varieties of Arabic names' pronunciations)

This is how his name is normally pronounced: [ɡæˈmæːl ʕæbdenˈnɑːsˤeɾ]. Attempting to use ALA-LC standard, would be [Jamāl ‘Abd al-Nāṣir] Error: {{Transliteration}}: unrecognized language / script code: ALA-LC (help). ALA-LC problem is, it ignores [ɡ], as well as, failing to represent [e]. DIN 31635 also has its problems, its letter: ǧ suggests that ج has other possibilities of pronunciations rather than [ɡ] only, as well as, failing to represent [e].

DIN 31635 or other ways might be appropriate to transliterate Modern Standard Arabic or possibly other spoken varieties of Arabic, but not all of them, especially Egyptian Arabic. The only way I found to provide proper pronunciation for Egyptian names is by IPA. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

PKK in 1957?

The article states: "Later in 1957, Turkish troops massed along the border with Syria, accusing it of harboring PKK Rebels." but the PKK was founded 1978. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.159.196 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Actually, restored. The article originally said "Turkish Communists" not the PKK. Another editor or IP user replaced it falsely with "PKK." --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Symbol Of Arab Freedom

I have deleted this statement

Although his status as "leader of the Arabs" was badly damaged by the Israeli victory over the Arab armies in the Six-Day War, many in the general Arab population still view Nasser as a symbol of Arab dignity and freedom.

for the following reasons

• POV
• unsourced and an opinated (yes that what even the writer states it as) is not a strong enough source
• Nasser turned Egypt into a Police state
• In Lybia opposition were raising pictures of the former King who was booted by the Pan-Arabist Gaddaffi so the writer's opinion is obviously biased especially when oposition in Syria are OPPOSING a pan-arabist government.
• Because nasser a country as big as Egypt lost Sinai to the Israelis for several years and could only retrieve it back through negotiation . It's said that this humiliation is partly what killed him.

now I don't want to go into an edit war just stating some points here. Nasser was not a democrat--♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nasser was a dictator, but he is still regarded by many Egyptians as a symbol of freedom (i.e. self-government) for his role in breaking from Britain and France and nationalising the Suez Canal. It is entirely true that his image was badly damaged by the defeat of the Arab armies in the Six Day War in 1967, together with the subsequent stalemate in the War of Attrition, but he is still praised for his earlier achievements. As for what killed him, I would imagine continuing to smoke like a chimney after suffering two heart attacks had a lot more to do with his early death than losing the Sinai. (92.7.25.247 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

He is regarded by many Arabs (mainly Palestinians and other arab nationalists) as a hero or symbolic figure for their fight against Israel and western colionazation. but for it be allowed to imply he represent's freedom is POV and utter fantasy. to say someone who TOOK AWAY many intellectual freedoms Egyptians had in terms of theory and religion (he expelled all the jews) had and turned the country into a one-party is a personification of what an Arab concieves as freedom is twisted. He does not represent freedom in any format of freedom is revision. Also the POV shouldnt be allowed. I seriously want to avoid another edit war the source from Al-Jazeera is opinionated and dreams of the revival of a dying (thank goodness!) ideology when their are many factors that contradict Lamis's opioion. --♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your personal feelings do not trump what a reliable source says. Please do not continue to remove sourced content, and please do not continue to misuse this talk page as a soapbox for your political beliefs. Much of what you wrote above is patently false. Nasser did not expel all Jews. Finally, NPOV requires the inclusion of POVs that have been published in reliable sources. You cannot demand that a POV be excluded. If there are other views in reliable sources that dispute these they should also be included. If you wan to avoid an edit-war do not edit-war. You have repeatedly removed sourced material. Stop doing so. nableezy - 14:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Utterly pathetic. That whole introduction is pure unadulterated propaganda, in the style of Pravda or indeeed Al Ahram. 'Reliable sources', my foot. It's a disgrace to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasser Gaddafi 1969.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 4 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

June 1956 election

Should it not be mentioned that the election of June 1956 was massively rigged in Nasser's favour? (92.7.0.36 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

.OGG FILE

What is the mansheya incident? There's no explanation and little information on outside resources. 209.152.69.110 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mansheya incident is actually a very important event in Egyptian and perhaps Arab political history. It refers to the assassination attempt against Nasser by alleged Islamists during a speech he was making in the Manshiya district of Alexandria. I don't think it's called the "Mansheya incident" and that's probably why you can't find much info on it. The caption for the audio recording should be changed. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there footage somewhere? That would be public domain, and we could add it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, didn't have any luck finding one but I'll keep a look out for any videos. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Propagandist phrasing

"heralded a new period of modernization, and socialist reform in Egypt together with a profound advancement of pan-Arab nationalism"

This is pure propaganda. His "modernisation" institutionalised military rule, something Egypt is still struggling to escape from. His "socialist reform" bankrupted the country, leaving it heavily dependent first on Soviet aid and now on US aid, and his "profound advancement of pan-Arab nationalism" (which is by the way a contradiction in terms, since pan-Arabism is an anti-nationalist idea) amounted to a futile war in Yemen, failed unification projects with Syria, Libya and Sudan (none of whom wanted to be ruled by the Egyptian Army), and the 1967 war, largely caused by his inflated rhetoric and resulting in total defeat. Nasser's dictatorship was the greatest disaster to befall Egypt in modern times, and while the article can't of course say that in so many words, it can at least avoid lies like the passage I have quoted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Indeed, IMT. That was the immediate impression I got from reading the whole of that absurd introduction, It's a disgrace to Wikipedia. It reads like something you might find in Pravda or Isvestia, or indeed Al Ahram in October 1970. Utterly pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Colonel Nasser was a complete disaster in every way for Egypt, and his awful legacy continues to this day. Someone should rewrite the entire introduction. (AhmedBuhtan (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC))

Abdel Nasser

I don't know if this has already been discussed: I have just finished trawling various Palestine related list so that names are sorted by Abdul and Abu as per Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Sort by surname. Yes, Abdul Nasser is abbriviated to Nasser by western sources - but it is not his name and is disrespectful to the man and the culture. You wouldn't think of writing about "Ben Gurion" as "Gurion"? Padres Hana (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Practices vary in English, so you should not base your argument on logic and consistency. For instance, we say "Van Gogh" for the painter but we say "Beethoven" for the composer, not "Van Beethoven". At Wikipedia we follow common practice. For Nasser, the common practice is to write "Nasser". Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jews info that was reverted

This piece of text was reverted for the copy editing process. I'm copying it here to see whether its notable for later use:

As a result of the Suez crisis, Nasser brought in a set of sweeping regulations abolishing civil liberties and allowing the state to stage mass arrests without charge and strip away Egyptian citizenship from any group it desired; these measures were mostly directed against the Jews of Egypt.(Laskier, Michael "Egyptian Jewry under the Nasser Regime, 1956–70" pp. 573–619 from Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 31, Issue # 3, July 1995, p. 579.)As part of its new policy, 1,000 Jews were arrested and 500 Jewish businesses were seized by the government.(Laskier, Michael "Egyptian Jewry under the Nasser Regime, 1956-70" pages 573-619 from Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 31, Issue # 3, July 1995 pages 579-580.) The decree bound all Jews with relatives in Israel and those suspected as Zionist agents - nearly half of the whole community. Similar measures were enacted against British and French nationals in retaliation for the invasion. About 25,000 Jews left Egypt following the decree, urged to abandon all their property. By 1957 the Jewish population of Egypt had fallen to 15,000.(Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries. Jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

There is also generally no mention of jews in the article. I'm pretty sure most jews left Egypt during Nasser's presidency and it's worth a research one day.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think it started from the Lavon affair onward, but I don't think we should go into the details in this article because as you know we're currently trying to trim the size per FA standards. It's still going to be large I think, but not the mammoth article it currently is. I discussed this with the IP user who added the material (See here.) We agreed to a compromise solution, which I will discuss with Czar later. There are currently a number of different articles where the Jewish departure from Egypt during Nasser's presidency is discussed or could be discussed: History of Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956), Suez Crisis, Egyptian Jews and Lavon affair. There are many things about societal changes from the Nasser era that are not currently in the article such as the departure of the foreign resident communities from Alexandria and Port Said (i.e. Italians, French, British, Greeks and so on) and the effect on the Turkic/Circassian and Coptic elites who fared pretty badly on the economic level due to Nasser's socialist and land reform measures, although they were not specifically targeted because they were Turks or Copts, they just happened to be the major economic stakeholders at the time. The relations between Nasser and the Church were actually quite good, but that also is not in the article and could be mentioned elsewhere. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Without more explanation of its importance relative to Nasser himself, it would be undue weight to put a whole paragraph on this topic in the already-unwieldy article. Per the 88.104 talk page, mention of the 1956 Expulsion article and perhaps a single sentence in context would seemingly be justified. Otherwise Al Ameer covers the other oversights of the article well (hence why we follow summary style). This article is about Nasser, the man, and not a complete log of his effect, but of his most significant stories as they pertain to his own biography (including the effect on Jews and foreign resident communities, if appropriate). Everything else spills over into subarticles. czar · · 20:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

I recently reverted the insertion of an alleged statement by Nasser to an unnamed German newspaper about his serious doubt that 6 million people died in the Holocaust because it is not relevant to Nasser's legacy whatsoever, especially since this article is set for an FAC soon. Even if the details are verified, I cannot see how it could fit into the article. When we try to ensure high articles quality, and these types of random quotes (assuming it was said), we have to ask: Did the statement get serious attention by the international/domestic media to warrant mention? Did it signify or reflect a major policy decision? Did it have an effect on his domestic or foreign in anyway? The answer for each of these questions is no. Of all the things Nasser accomplished, of all his blunders, of all his policies, and quotes, and more importantly, of all of the excluded details on Nasser's impact on Egypt and his opinions on a huge range of issues and events, why is this alleged statement important enough to warrant mention in the Legacy section or anywhere in his biography? I don't want to come off as trying to whitewash history or whatever, but this is something that simply isn't a major fact or detail as it's not discussed at all by any of his biographers or the academic sources about Nasser and his rule, even the scholarly works that discuss the maligned effect of the Nasser era on Egyptian Jews or other groups (indigenous or foreign), including the source currently used in the Suez Crisis section. This article is already huge and is going through a process of trimming to keep the info tight on Nasser's person, without sacrificing important context of course. This is just a random quote carelessly attached to a section where it simply doesn't belong. If there's an article about Holocaust denial in the Arab world it could be added there, if the details are verified and attributed. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have either of these sources to confirm what they say? You seem to be saying they are unreliable, why? If he has denied the Holocaust, it should be in his biography, it's a significant stance.

1. Satloff, Robert (2007). Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach Into Arab lands. PublicAffairs. p. 163. ISBN 9781586485108.
2. Laqueur, Walter (2006). The Changing Face of Antisemitism: From Ancient Times to the Present Day. Oxford University Press. p. 141. ISBN 9780195304299.

If he hasn't you might want to remove the "Holocaust Denier" category.

Your argument about the size of the article seems utterly disingenuous, it's a single sentence.

(Hohum ^@) 20:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope what I stated above makes clear my main concern isn't reliability (actually I think they generally qualify as RS). Based off the FA criteria, particularly 1a., 1b., 1c. and 4., this is exactly the kind of random stuff that takes the section or topic at hand out of focus and makes it below FA-quality. You're saying my reasoning is "utterly disingenuous" (without good justification), but you haven't replied to my main point. Why should we add a sentence about this quote (assuming it's verifiable) and not the dozens of other interesting, but random, quotes/opinions attributed to Nasser about his views on democracy, social justice, Palestinian rights, US policy in M/E, political Islam and other far more relevant topics? We chose to sacrifice these random nuggets for the sake of concision and biographical focus. There's already a wiki-page for random Nasser quotes and feel free to add this there, if verified. In the discussion thread above, a point was brought up regarding the effect of Nasser's rule on Egyptian Jewry in the Suez Crisis section: a valid concern because the presidential regulations regarding citizenship was a relatively important aspect of the Suez war's aftermath and more importantly, it was a direct result of Nasser's personal decision. We added one sentence about it in context. In this case, there's no context, there's no relevance to the section (or any other section), there's no explanation on how this configured into Nasser's presidency, it effects or his personal life, and finally the biographies and academic works dedicated to Nasser and his rule don't even discuss it. The only relevant wikipedia article that could include this would be Holocaust denial, the Arab world section. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For the sake of verification, I tried looking this up in the two sources, and I think they're there, but I couldn't get a full preview of the particular pages. You or someone else might have better luck, and it would be preferable if we could get the year of the statement and name of the newspaper. Again this would only be in regard to the Holocaust denial article unless its relevance and importance to the legacy section (or other sections) could be properly supported by RS. --Al Ameer (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't read the sources. If he has espoused Holocaust-denying beliefs that have been verified and confirmed by reliable sources, and they are important to one of the current sections, they can fit into said section. I don't see such a statement fitting anywhere but "Criticism" (where it should highlight how this belief is related to his criticism), if it can even be confirmed. czar · · 04:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Regional English

The article is currently an inconsistent mishmash of American and British spellings. We need consensus to choose one and then standardize the rest of the article. czar · · 04:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which one should be used, but my natural preference would be American. Unless there's objections, I say we go that direction. --Al Ameer (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you know whether Nasser tended towards British or American English, himself? Or whether Egypt uses American/British English? czar · · 16:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Nasser actually spoke English surprisingly well[1]. I guess he would have leaned towards British since that must have been the type of English used in Egypt at the time. Whether Egypt uses British or American English today, I don't know. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sudan

I have been rewriting the "Disputes with Naguib" section with more info from the Kandil source because Kandil devotes far more detail on this juncture than Aburish. Aburish generalized the events of 1953-54 to the point that some of the info was not fully accurate. About the Sudan, this has been an issue that's come to my attention since the peer review. I've now determined from the sources (including Jankowski and a number of online books on google) that on the Sudan, Nasser and Naguib's opinions were more-or-less harmonious. Both favored offering Sudan the right to self-determination, partially as a tactical step in their negotiations with the British regarding the canal withdrawal (the British were strongly opposed to historical Egyptian claims on Sudan) and partially as a realization that keeping the highly sectarian and impoverished Sudan would be a burden on Egypt. Both were familiar about the Sudanese' Nonetheless, all in the RCC agreed (at least privately) that Egypt should maintain some sort of hegemony over Sudan. In February 1953 Sudan was given the right to self-determination and referenda was held in Sudan in 1956, not 1954 as Aburish implies. In any case, the Sudan issue was not a matter of dispute between Nasser and Naguib, but somewhere in the article (maybe the same section or the 1952 revolution) we should have a line or two on it, since it's an important issue in its own right. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-peer review comments

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)

Discussion

• 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)

Sources

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)

Israel

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?

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)

inevitable

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.

-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

-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-

-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

-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.

-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.

-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

-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

-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

-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.

-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.

-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. Ykantor (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

chance of war- Nasser , Heykal, Hussein

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences books.google.com/books?isbn=1107002362 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.

-http://www.sixdaywar.co.uk/nassers_challenge-martin-gilbert.htm 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."

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)

lede disagreement

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. (79.67.113.184 (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. (79.67.120.219 (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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119073022/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/503/el5.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/503/el5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830214614/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Nasser,%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20First%20Palestine%20War.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Nasser,%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20First%20Palestine%20War.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806232017/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/501/nasser2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/501/nasser2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928201645/http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Nasser%2C%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20First%20Palestine%20War.pdf to http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/Memoirs/Nasser%2C%20Memoirs%20of%20the%20First%20Palestine%20War.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161120151508/http://www.gtsourapas.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BJMES_Tsourapas.pdf to http://www.gtsourapas.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BJMES_Tsourapas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

Egyptian anti-communists

I don't really see how he fits anti-communist. He was allied with Cuba, Yugoslavia, USSR, etc. Cinefan Cinefan (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Green Shirts

@WookieInHeat: The information you inserted is virtually a repetition and not an improvement of what’s already in the Early life section:

It was in Alexandria that Nasser became involved in political activism.[9][13] After witnessing clashes between protesters and police in Manshia Square,[10] he joined the demonstration without being aware of its purpose.[14] The protest, organized by the ultranationalist Young Egypt Society, called for the end of colonialism in Egypt in the wake of the 1923 Egyptian constitution's annulment by Prime Minister Isma'il Sidqi.[10] Nasser was arrested and detained for a night[15] before his father bailed him out.[9] Nasser joined the group for a brief period in 1934.[16][17][18] His association with the group and active role in student demonstrations during this period "imbued him with a fierce Egyptian nationalism", according to the historian James Jankowski.

—Minus the added “similar to the Nazi Party” polemic, which may be relevant to the article on the Green Shirts and Young Egypt, but not to this article. This added polemic suggests, without sufficient proof, that Nasser joined out of sympathy to fascism or Nazism when the scholarly sources note he joined briefly during his activist youth and was attracted to its Egyptian ultranationalist approach to fight against the British interest in Egypt. It also has nothing to do with his military career. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I will note that the “group” was specifically Young Egypt’s paramilitary wing, the Green Shirts, with the relevant source, as the current section does not specify. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah sorry I didn't notice the part about Young Egypt in the Early Life section, the article is a bit disjointed now that I see it. Nasser joining the Green Shirts/Young Egypt is relevant and gives context to the following paragraph in the Military Career section, which notes his difficulty entering the Royal Military Academy due to "his police record of anti-government protest." Also not sure how joining a paramilitary group could be considered to have nothing to do with his military career, and how long he was a member is superfluous. Mincing words about ultranationalism/fascism - which are nearly synonymous, the Ultranationalism article even says it is a "key foundation of fascism" right in the lede - seems a bit disingenuous. Nasser joined a fascist political group in the 30s, then went on to create the "ultranationalist" United Arab Republic with Michel Aflaq's overtly Nazi aligned Syrian Socialist Ba'ath Party in the 60s. It's not up to us to determine what his motives were or how he felt about fascism, and it seems like the current article is trying to downplay or conceal unfavorable history with ambiguous, indirect language. WookieInHeat (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

But that’s exactly what we would be doing by using “fascism” or “Nazi-inspired” instead of “ultranationalist”, or by not giving the appropriate context. Or by labeling the UAR ultranationalist and the result of an alliance with a Nazi aligned party and somehow relating this to his brief membership in an ultranationalist organization while he was a teenager: it all reads as synthesis or original research and is definitely misleading at best or worse, inaccurate. The reliable, scholarly sources (and there are many devoted to his biography and this time period) don’t describe it this way or paint this picture, so why should we? I’m not even sure paramilitary is the appropriate or accurate term because he was merely a student activist involved in street protests, not actual military activity. The “Military career” section summarizes his entry and elevation within the Egyptian army and his role in the 1948 War. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Using word "fascist" to describe a fascist political party is synthesis? The word "fascism/fascist" appears several times in Young Egypt's article, meanwhile "ultranationalist" doesn't appear at all. Unilaterally redefining Young Egypt with the roundabout term "ultranationalist" instead of "fascist" for the purpose of this one article is the only synthesis happening here.

"Or by labeling the UAR ultranationalist and the result of an alliance with a Nazi aligned party and somehow relating that his brief membership in an ultranationalist organization while he was a teenager: it all reads as synthesis or original research"

I didn't write any of that in the article nor was I trying to include it, I brought that up on the talk page to illustrate your opinion Nasser was only drawn to ultranationalism and not fascism might not be entirely accurate, since he was in the company of fascists on more than one occasion, and later on in his life as well. Everything I wrote was directly supported by the sources cited, pointing to other sources and saying they don't talk about this aspect is neither here nor there, it doesn't preclude the inclusion of sources that do address said aspect.

"I’m not even sure paramilitary is the appropriate or accurate term because he was merely a student activist involved in street protests"

It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist Young Egypt (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat.

Your opinion isn't relevant to what the sources say. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it that you think that an article in Asia Times should be used as a source in an article on a person covered, copiously, in actual scholarship? nableezy - 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The first step towards that question would be identifying "Marc Erikson", who seems to have no presence except as the author of a small number of Asia Times articles. Zero^talk 08:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, the inclusion of one source doesn't preclude the inclusion of other sources, this is a non-argument. And attack the Asia Times article or Marc Erikson if you like, it's not like there aren't other sources which say roughly the same thing. The existing sources for the section about Young Egypt are books, some of which are out of print and not easily accessible, we just have to take Al Ameer's word about what's in them. After a bit of digging, it appears Nasser was in the Green Shirts from 1934-1936, two years is hardly the insignificant amount of time Al Ameer is representing it as, and it's questionable if the existing sources actually support his claim. Anyway, the things you guys are trying to change the focus to here aren't really what's being debated. What is being debated is this article soft-peddling that Nasser joined a fascist political party with ambiguous language about "ultranationalism," and trying to obscure his participation in a unsavory paramilitary group by conflating it with his participation in student protests, which are two separate things. WookieInHeat (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Very seriously doubt nasser.org is a reliable source either. But again, why are you looking to use news articles on historical figures? And even then, the entirety of coverage that TIME gives is to say The youths were members of an independence movement called El Fatat (Young Egypt). Our article gives a similar depth of coverage to that. nableezy - 14:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources, all news articles (some of which only give Nasser a cursory mention) or websites, that have been introduced in this thread add anything to the article. In fact, both the Time and Nasser.org sources illustrate how much of a footnote this was in the life and career of the subject of this article. They register one sentence a piece to it. Indeed, this is the proper weight. The many scholarly sources (books and journals published by credible institutions and written by credible authors) this article mainly uses for the historical survey of Nasser give similar weight, i.e. at most a single passage or two. The information you speak of is not being suppressed. It’s already there. To add, as you intended, that the Green Shirts (who were also pro-royalist) often clashed with the pro-loyalist Wafdists or that it was Nazi-inspired would not only be giving undue weight, but it would misleadingly allude that Nasser participated in such clashes, which there is zero evidence of, or that he joined out of sympathy to the Nazis or fascists in general. And I reiterate it has no place in the Military career section. There is nothing to indicate anything “military” or “paramilitary” about Nasser’s activities prior to his entry into the country’s military academy. Aburish (p. 15), explicitly states:

There isn’t even a hint that he ever acted on orders from the party, nor was its fiery leader, the uneducated rabble-rouser Ahmed Hussein, his type of man.

Al Ameer (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nableezy: actually nasser.org is already used extensively as a source throughout this article, including in the section we're discussing.

After witnessing clashes between protesters and police in Manshia Square,[10] ... 10.^abcdefghijklmn Abdel Nasser, Hoda. "A Historical Sketch of Gamal Abdel Nasser". Bibliotheca Alexandrina. Retrieved 23 July 2013. [*Note that nasser.org and nasser.bibalex.org are the same site]

Regarding @Al Ameer son:'s quote from Aburish's book above; Aburish is clearly an admirer of his subject, using his biography as the basis for Nasser's Wiki article, while trying to use it to exclude other sources that are more objective, is like citing a biography of Stalin by a Soviet scholar which glosses over the Holodomor Famine, while trying to exclude other sources which address that topic from his article. In his Wiki article he even refers to his own works as "revisionist history" according to NYT. His books are dramatized novels playing to an audience, they are not historical scholarship.
I managed to find most of the existing sources, and pinned down the exact years of Nasser's involvement with the Green Shirts, which concur with the nasser.org article's time frame of 1934-36. The Wafd Blue Shirt vs Green Shirt clashes I previously wrote into the article turned out to be not entirely accurate. The Blue Shirts were only created in 1936, it's possible Nasser was involved in some violence with them, but I haven't seen any sources the explicitly state this. The Green Shirt violence Nasser was actually involved in were student anti-Wafd demonstrations, where they fought with police (this is, at least partially, where his police record of "anti-govt protest" that initially hindered his entrance to the Military Academy stems from).
The Young Egypt Society was, as its name suggests, a youth political movement, its members were nearly all students. In a previous version of this article I discovered it once stated Nasser was "elected the chairman of Young Egypt," which is obviously incorrect. Nasser was elected chairman, but of a student union at his school.

"El Nahda school had a reputation for playing a leading part in schoolboy and student demonstrations. Towards the end of his time there Nasser was in the forefront of the demonstrations and was chairman of the executive committee of Cairo secondary school school students. During his last full school year between 1935 and 1936 Nasser was so involved in politics that he spent only forty-five days actually in school." - Stephens (1972) pg 32

According to another book by James P. Jankowski (who has a book cited in this article) specifically regarding Young Egypt, it seems these student unions existed in schools around the country - one of which Nasser was the chairman of - and were more or less the Green Shirt arms of Young Egypt.

"For three days in succession after Sir Samuel Hoare's speech, Nasser organized secondary school student demonstrations in Cairo in conjunction with university students. The police opened fire and two students were killed and many arrested. A bullet from a British police officer's revolver scored Nasser's forehead, leaving a permanent scar." - Stephens, 1972

"As a teen-ager, Nasser came into contact with the Young Egypt Society whose ideas were socialist, romantic and strongly religious. Indeed, at 17, Nasser was injured in a political demonstration. The newspapers reported that several students had been killed and that the leader of the attack, Gamal Abdel Nasser, had been wounded in the head." - A. F. Madsen, M.Ed. [this source was previously used in the article]

Ironically what that last source alludes to - that Nasser was leading a Green Shirt demo when those students were killed and his forehead was grazed by a bullet - is clarified by Aburish, on the same page of his book Al Ameer quoted from above:

"In February 1936, Gamal was wounded during a demonstration the purpose of which, except for being anti-British, escaped him in later years. The wound, which he earned when the students tried to cross Cairo's Al Rodah Bridge to the other side of the Nile, was superficial, but it won him a mention in the press, and a baptism of fire. He was also jailed for two days. Most of the people arrested with him belonged to the fascist Young Egypt, or Misr al-Fatat, the Egyptian Green shirts of the 1930s. In fact, some historians claim he joined the party in 1933 Whether or not he joined the party cannot be verified and is not important except to denote a restless state of mind. There isn't even a hint that he ever acted on orders from the party, nor was its fiery leader, the uneducated rabble-rouser Ahmed Hussein, his type of man." - Aburish, 2004

Nasser wasn't merely involved in student demonstrations, he was organizing and leading violent anti-Wafd Green Shirt clashes with police, one in which students died.
Before you start telling me this is synthesis, I'm aware I'm drawing a larger picture by connecting dots from multiple sources (although there are existing sources I've not seen full versions of yet, and other books I've become aware of that could give a more detailed picture of Nasser during this period, so that could change). The purpose of this is simply to disprove the notion Young Egypt was some minor footnote of Nasser's youth that occurred "briefly" in 1934, it was clearly more significant than that.
That said, some of this could certainly be included without even adding any additional sources. Such as Nasser being elected chairman of his school's student union and subsequently leading it in violent anti-govt demonstrations which resulted in deaths (seems particularly relevant in a biography about a man who later became president by overthrowing said govt in a coup), and being arrested on more than one occasion. The way it's currently written makes it sound like Nasser just inadvertently got caught up in some student demonstrations, got arrested once, and didn't really have a clue what any of it was all about, which is obviously not the case.

To add, as you intended, that the Green Shirts (who were also pro-royalist) often clashed with the pro-loyalist Wafdists or that it was Nazi-inspired would not only be giving undue weight, but it would misleadingly allude that Nasser participated in such clashes

No, this would not be misleading at all. Not only did Nasser participate in such clashes, he was leading them. This isn't the Nasser fan club, our job isn't to whitewash his image or determine his feelings about fascism, our job is to represent facts. And the fact is, he was a member of a fascist political/paramilitary group for two years - which is currently being obscured behind vague language about "ultranationalism" - and was undoubtedly involved in some violence during that period (he has the scars to prove it), which are not being represented in an accurate or forthright manner currently. WookieInHeat (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Re nasser.org is used as a source, it shouldnt be if it is (imo), I dont see anything about it that makes me say "reliable source". Re Aburish, you seem to be emphasizing the wrong parts here, Aburish says the people jailed with him were members of the Green Shirts, he does not say that Nasser was (and most would imply at least some were not). Aburish does not support what you seem to be claiming. And yes, WP:SYNTH is still Wikipedia policy. Nasser organizing student protests is in your sources. Nasser having been jailed with (mostly) Green Shirt members at one of these protest is also in your sources. Nasser leading and organizing Green Shirt protests is however not. And being involved in violence is a bit euphemistic for having been shot by the police. Seems a bit silly to be making demands to represent the facts when misrepresenting them so boldly. nableezy - 10:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Whether nasser.org is WP:RS or not is really irrelevant, since, as I mentioned, other sources concur about the time frame of Nasser's involvement with the Green Shirts. Also thank you for reiterating what I said about WP:SYNTH, perhaps I wasn't clear enough that I wasn't trying to include any of it in the article. Finally I apologize for my euphemistic use of the word "violent" to describe demonstrations organized and led by Nasser, that resulted in clashes between fascist militia members and police, in which people were shot and students died. I'll try to avoid boldly misrepresenting facts like this again in the future. Now we've gotten your concerns addressed, perhaps we could focus on my actual points about the totally-non-euphemistic use of the term "ultranationalist" being used to describe a fascist political group, and Al Ameer's totally-non-factually-misrepresentative contention that quoting the existing sources in the article which say Nasser led such clashes, "would misleadingly allude that Nasser participated in such clashes"? WookieInHeat (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It is absolutely synthesis or flatly inaccurate to state that Nasser led or organized demonstrations of the Green Shirts or clashed with [pro]-Wafdist demonstrators when there is no source that states so. Some sources state he was a member of the group, others are doubtful or say it was only briefly, but none appear to mention/describe any specific role (especially paramilitary role) that he had within the group, and all use this whole part of Nasser's life, the 1930s, to illustrate his high state of restlessness and political activism during his school years. If there is a reliable source that specifically states that he was leading demos for the Green Shirts, then we can make a brief clarification in the article. Same goes for anything reliable that states he was a member until 1936. If the biography from nasser.org isn't very reliable, being penned, after all, by Nasser's own daughter Hoda, then it could be systematically replaced and should be because there are indeed more reliable alternatives. I had used it naively many years ago for rather non-controversial stuff, but knowing better, I wouldn't use it today (other than the website's fantastic repository for Nasser-related media). As for everything WookieInHeat has quoted above, it's all in the article already so what are you trying to achieve quoting all this information here other than endless discussion? Your view that the article, which has gone through an in-depth peer review, GA review and only failed its A-class review because of a lack of reviewer input, is "a fan club", is simply your opinion and nothing of note that you've quoted above has been omitted. This is from the article currently:

On 13 November 1935, Nasser led a student demonstration against British rule, protesting against a statement made four days prior by UK foreign minister Samuel Hoare that rejected prospects for the 1923 Constitution's restoration.[10] Two protesters were killed and Nasser received a graze to the head from a policeman's bullet.[15] The incident garnered his first mention in the press: the nationalist newspaper Al Gihad reported that Nasser led the protest and was among the wounded.[10][21] On 12 December, the new king, Farouk, issued a decree restoring the constitution.[10] [break] 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.[22][23] Despite it having the almost unanimous backing of Egypt's political forces, Nasser strongly objected to the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty because it stipulated the continued presence of British military bases in the country.[10] Nonetheless, political unrest in Egypt declined significantly and Nasser resumed his studies at al-Nahda,[22] where he received his leaving certificate later that year.

clashes between fascist militia members and police literally no evidence for that. The police using force to disperse a protest does not make a protest violent and the person shot engaged in violence. None of what you want in the article is well-sourced and the quotes you bring from actual sources are already represented in the article. That the article does not make the inaccurate claims you are attempting to make here is a good thing. nableezy - 17:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

When did Nasser become President of Egypt?

This page says "In January 1955, the RCC appointed him [Nasser] as their president, pending national elections."

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_Egypt the table gives Nasser as becoming Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council on 14 November 1954.

Is one of these statements incorrect or can they be resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterPedant (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Signature

I uploaded a new Nasser signature in both jpg and png. You can find them here. Can someone turn it into svg? -- Maudslay II (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2021

Remove the nassers' home town of alexandria from the Abdeen Palace incident. Abdeen Palace is in Cairo not alexandria 197.246.75.96 (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

When was Nasser president?

Nasser became President in 1956 as stated multiple times in the article yet in the opening sentence it states he served as President beginning in 1954. Is there a reason for this discrepancy, and if not can someone fix it so there is no confusion? This very well could have already been addressed so apologies if this is a redundant discussion.

99.163.124.27 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Edit: I think I figured it out. He began serving as president in 1954, but wasn't officially elected to the position until 1956. Is that right?

99.163.124.27 (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)