Talk:Gamal Abdel Nasser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Content Lacking

As of 9/28/06, this article doesn't even mention the 6-day war in 1967, and Nasser's involvement in the run-up and subsequent disaster. This is absurd. We need some proper historians to assist us bringing this article into proper and realistic context.

This article indeed does not mention a lot of things in general. To mention a few the complex relationship of Nasser with the Muslim brotherhood (An egyptian researcher Tewfiq Aklimandos worked thoroughly on this), the united arab republic experiment (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Republic), the nasserist influence and legacy (his popularity was immense in Egypt and the broader arab world), the agrarian reform, the nationalization of awqaf ... Also nothing about the non-aligned movement and the Asian-African (Bandung) Conference articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandung_Conference

do something about it yourself dont sit around complaining!

Anon

ummm I find this really scary considering i came too this site for more information on American and English involvment in the war crime (pre-emptive strike) on Egypt, after i've just watched an interesting documentary on The Black Bird spy plane ,in which an american air force officer freely admits he witnessed british and american flights of f-111 s returning from Alexandria during these pre-emptive strikes.And that america was freely updating Israel with intel and dispositions on all regional forces involved.

Minor Changes

Removed the line "Some accounts however, say that it was a sound Egyptian military victory." because it really offers nothing to the passage. The line before this one drew the same conclusion without telling the reader exactly what the author thinks.

Also removed a few double spaces in this paragraph.

Abdul mit Klappstuhl

Gamal and Jamal

The name of the presedent Gamal can be pronounced Jamal also. Indeed, Jamal is the pronunciation in formal Arabic, and other arabic dialects except for egyptian. Since Nasser was egyptian i see why his name is written Gamal, but i think it should be mentioned somewhere that it could be pronounced Jamal. The point is that when i searched for Jamal, i got no results, and i was confused. I believe that when you search for Jamal Abdel Nasser, it should return the result of Gamal Abdel Nasser. I have never edited an article in Wikipedia, and i'm hesitant to do so, at least right now, because i dont know how. So would someone work on that please?

I totally agree with you! Well said.

He is known as Gamal in most of the litterature and should appear as such on wikipedia. This is a standard pratice in academic work even though, technically, a standard transliteration would have his name spelt jamal or ǧamal depending of the system used for detials see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_transliteration).

Context of withdrawal of Western credits

Source is Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The World was going our way, p147. The chapter also implies that KGB was in contact with Nasser prior to this. The dating is unclear though so I didn't include that.

Resignation

I find the mention of his resignation address to be mentioned in just one sentence. I believe that his popularity among Egyptians and Arabs at the time is best described through this event. I added a section his resignation and its aftermath.

Neutrality

Due to certain paragraphs throughout this article (including "As a testament to his greatness" and, more poignantly, the tiny section on the Six Day War and his role in it compared to the Suez Crisis), i'd say the article has lost its Neutral tone.

Due credit has not been given to Nasser for being the forerunner in freeing the arab world from imperialism. The west will always have its bitterness about Nasser. The article comments and judges nasser's actions. - ashokthommandi

that sounds very POV too

62.30.169.155 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Name...?

Google shows 383 hits for "Gamal Abdal Nasser" (of which Wikipedia are, unsurprisingly, 1 and 2) and 12,200 hits for Gamal Abdel Nasser. I'll move the page tomorrow unless there are strenuous objections. - Hephaestos 06:53 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Please do. -- Zoe

There is a sentence "Nasser died of a heart attack only two weeks after the war ended, on September 28", but the war ended in August 7. Is it the longest tow weeks in the history? Eran 16:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What Happened?

What Happened to the Nasserism, Legacy, Six-Day War, Arab leader and Personal sections? Also why were all of his pictures removed?

Don't know about the pictures but I rather rewrote the article, i suppose i rather left out those sections, feel free to add them back. ShortJason 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--85.69.128.159 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Family

The spiel about Hoda Abd El Nasser under "Early Life" seems way out of place and far too spammy. First, it has absolutely nothing to do with Nasser's early life. Second, it is an advertisement and really belongs under "external links". Third, the theory of operation of the advertised website and archives do not need to be explained on a page about Nasser. It really needs revision.

Agreed. It's on my to-do list, but very near the bottom, so feel free to fix it. Palmiro | Talk 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro, I do not think it is the norm here that family members piggy back on their famous relatives.

I think the part on his family should be added in a seperate section. I put up a list of his children for now, till I find more information on each one. Ahmed Mohamed | Talk 1 November 2006

Brioni Declaration?

There are photos on the page of Nasser with Tito and Nehru which are only explained as part of the 1956 "Brioni Declaration," an event I can't find on Wikipedia and which seems to refer to a 1991 event as well (judging from search engine results). The photos also appear on Non-aligned_nations - which is not linked from the Nasser page - so it has something to do with that, but more of an explanation is in order.

It's thisBrioni declaration. Arre 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The start of the article is written in a biased view, and not factual. Possibly by an Egyptian or Muslim I would imagine.

I'll have to ask whoever wrote that for some sort of justification (i.e., specific examples). ShortJason 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the begining to be flattering, however it is factual nothing said was wrong, though its style was POV I guess.(not all Egyptians and Muslims are biased). Zakaria mohyeldin 07:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Year of publishing

Nasser's Book "The Philosophy of the Revolution" was first published in 1955. NOT 1959 as you have I tried editing it but you guys keep reversing it. By the way the actual title is "Egypt's Liberation The Philosophy of the Revolution" You have spelt philosophy incorrectly as well.! Kind Regards195.93.21.71 16:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The anon is right. The year of the publishing is 1955. Please do not revert the correction. see the reference. Cheers -- Szvest 17:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Trivia

• For a long time my area's postman had the same face as Gamal Abdel Nasser. Anthony Appleyard 21:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Assassination attempt?

I'm sure I read something recently about an assassination attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood, which killed his bodyguard and wounded him. Can anyone further elaborate. --MacRusgail 16:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

yep, alexandria, October 1954, assassin was an Ikhwani, abd-al-latif, later executed. jackbrown (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Critic section

Where is the critic section, more analysis is needed on all of these leaders.. --Halaqah 21:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Heat

"Emotions, which included telecasters crying on the air, boiled over in the 80-degree heat"

80-degree heat? Is that really correct? Is that even possible? That's a temperature I'd expect in a sauna, not ourdoors. Ossi 20:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How about 80°F (c.27°C; see Fahrenheit)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds more reasonable. I automatically assumed the temperature to be in Celcius degrees. But yes, the unit should be mentioned. Ossi 00:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The BBC article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/1/newsid_2485000/2485899.stm says "scores of people were crushed or battered to death" because of the crowd surges at his funeral. Is this not worth mentioning in the article? I would do it but I still haven't figured out how to do web link citations. Tilefish 12:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The first image

The first image needs to be updated. It seems like it has been deleted or something. --TheEgyptian 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?

Edited out this part until someone wants to give citations for their sweeping, general claims:

"Nasser turned the country into a police state. Many of the oppositionists were either arrested or assassinated. It is not known exactly how many people were killed by the state security apparatus during Nasser's 16 years in power. Thousands of Egyptians were forced to flee the country to escape his regime."

My favorite is this one: "It is not known exactly how many people were killed by the state security apparatus during Nasser's 16 years in power."

Oh, well, then if NOBODY KNOWS, no reason to source it, might as well just report it as fact. Hey, I think I'll go to the wiki article on "Gandhi" and write "Nobody knows how many children Gandhi molested and how many puppies he kicked in the face, so I won't bother to provide a citation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.155.34 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. But on the other hand the article definitely requires explicit mention of the regime's savage treatment of the Communists and the Muslim Brothers in 1954, 1959, and 1965-66. Many many thousands were tortured, probably on the order of a hundred thousand imprisoned, and the bitterness of this still distinctly colors many people's feelings about Nasser in Egypt. jackbrown (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Constitution

Can someone add a year to this section? It's unclear from the way it's written. 207.112.40.235 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having this trouble, too. It appears to be 1956, but it's not clear. Wakablogger (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Wakablogger

Religious freedom under Nasser?

How were non-Muslim minorities, particularly Jews, treated in Egypt during Nasser's rule? Josh (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is particularly significant for a biography on Nasser, especially since he doesn't have a history or reputation of persecuting Jews in Egypt (there numbers were in the mid-hundreds anyway). Nasser led a very secular Arab nationalist regime, so Copts, Greek Orthodox Christians and Muslims were treated alike. He is notorious, however, for unjustly imprisoning Islamists and Communists. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. :) Josh (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Economic policies

The current economy section reads like a paean, but doesn't seem to mention at all that his expulsion of some 30,000 Brits and French plus probably 100,000 Greeks decimated huge swathes of the economy... Jpatokal (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that. I'm not arguing it but we need a cite for these claims. I hope soon I could edit this article more since I have his bio. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one:

After the revolution in 1952, Nasser’s regime adopted a stage-by-stage approach to transforming Egyptian society. In September 1952, it decreed land redistribution, placing a ceiling on ownership of roughly 216 acres, a move that drastically affected the cotton sector. Almost three years later, Nasser proclaimed the “Egyptianization” of foreign companies and joint ventures. This measure still gave some wiggle-room to Greeks who were in partnerships or on boards with Egyptians, but everyone could read the writing on the wall. ...

An avalanche of measures restricting the activities of foreigners followed each other in quick succession. In 1956, the Egyptian government placed all foreign community organizations and schools under its jurisdiction. In 1957, the Egyptian leader nationalized all foreign-owned banks and insurance companies, and he also ordered all foreign agencies and representations to pass on to Egyptian ownership. The coup de grace came with a string of nationalization of Greek and foreign-owned manufacturing companies.

Within a few years, the Greek presence in Egypt was reduced to a few thousand persons. Their number has dwindled since then but several hundreds remain, as do a handful of their once-imposing communal institutions. These few Greeks who are left might not have said goodbye yet, but their Alexandria is lost.

And I'll correct myself: the Greeks weren't expelled, they just had all their companies nationalized. Which, in practice, amounted to pretty much the same thing. Jpatokal (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy section

Most of the events described in the "Suez Canal" section occur before most of the events described in the "Relationship with the Soviet Union" section. Shouldn't the order of these two sections be reversed? --rogerd (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

President of Egypt

That article says Nasser was President from 1954 to 1970. Which article is correct? GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

Currently, the article is not structured chronologically. From the "Growing Opposition" section to the "Yemen War" section, the article becomes divided into two dimensions: Economy and Foreign policy. Typically, except for the Legacy section, biographical articles are structured chronologically. Are we going to do this here or keep the current format? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've noticed that too. As long as it doesn't compromise the content itself I see no reason not to restructure sections. Unless you are talking about rewriting or crafting paragraphs...? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

the plan is to rewrite this article and bring it up to featured status. So restructuring, adding, rewriting. But to the question I say chronological order would be best. nableezy - 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Well, most likely many paragraphs will be rewritten. As of right now there are many that are unreferenced, so there is a good possibility that with the sources we have, these unreferenced paragraphs will be replaced/expanded on/clarified. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll start writing 10 hours. I'm going to be adding from the Aburish book first, but on google books I also found Egypt Under Nasir by Hrair Dekmejian, Nasser's Egypt, Arab Nationalism, and the United Arab Republic by James P. Jankowski, and Gamal Abdel Nasser by Sam White. There are many other potential sources as well. Diaa has three biographies on Nasser. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading up on it (shh, dont tell my boss), planning on working on the domestic policy section, the economy subsection is a mess. nableezy - 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure all the information on Egypt's economy during Nasser's rule is all that important to a biography of Nasser, more an Economy of Egypt article. The stuff he did and their impact sure, but not everything that happened. nableezy - 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Have at it. I've been concentrating on the pre-Revolution/Revolution sections. As of right now, there is way too much info on Egypt's economy. I think we should cut it down to the main elements introduced by Nasser; nationalization schemes and land/agragarian reform. It's important that the info is tight on Nasser, but of course proving some background. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reading through the article, I don't think we should have that section at all. Instead we should mention economic reforms in the article chronologically, such as in the Revolution, Conflict with Naguib, and Leader of Egypt sections. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I could see that, but the nationalization of the Suez would merit a subsection IMO. nableezy - 04:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's one already at the bottom of the article which also covers the Anglo-Israeli invasion of the Sinai that followed. I'm going to restructure the article right now with the present info to avoid any confusion or redundancy. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Converting book reffs to {{Harvnb}}

I suggest using {{Harvnb}} for book references, so that if clicked the related book would be highlighted. This is used on multiple FAs and gives a better style to the Article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you did that at Asmahan. That helps out a lot for easy access to the source. Go ahead and do as many as you can. I'm going to see what I could cleanup right now (my book is not with me at this moment, in a couple of hours I'll have it.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nasser's Economy Politics in Egypt

Nasser has Greatly affected Egypt in its Economy, following the revolution, with wars in Algeria, Yemen and Palestine, yet there doesn't seem to be any thing about that issue, also we should include the ideas of what people opposing Nasser think, in Egypt i mean... since he was the father of socialism in Egypt, and alot of people, who were considered the Aristocrats of Egypt, don't like him, and blame him for the Current Egyptian Economy's Back warded situation... --Arab League User (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We actually have been cutting down on information about the economy of Egypt under Nasser, feeling that since we're going Featured status, we should keep info tight on him and in chronological order (unlike before when there were sections exclusively for his Domestic policy and Foreign policy). You are definetly right about Nasser greatly affecting the economy and I have added information on his notorious land reform law in the Revolution section, the even more famous Suez Canal nationalization, and his major socialist efforts in the Arab unity and socialism section which mentions the nationalization of several foreign-owned industries, the Helwan steelworks, tax incentives, government control over third of the economy, and small mention of the Aswan Dam effort. Now this info only extends to 1957. He probably did more after and this should be mentioned as the article goes on. As for internal opposition that section will need to be rewritten and expanded. It's already been made clear in the article, however, that he was on terrible terms with the Muslim Brotherhood, Communists, and the old Wafd (aristocracy) politicians and supporters. I've provided some sources in the above sections on this page, and there are more of course, but please add what you can. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Depreciate References of Prior to 1990

Old reffs aren't good especially for such a controversial topic. Please try to depreciate reffs prior to that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do as I go through the article. Actually, most of the old reffs (Stephens, Malekh, Nutting, Copeland) cannot be verified since nobody here appears to have their books and they're not available on google books. However, Dekmejian seems to be useful and could be verified since we have that book. As for Heikal, although unfortunately he's not verifiable, I think he would be very useful since he was kind of like Nasser's Baha ad-Din. Do you have his biography? Anyway, I could replace all of them with Aburish (2004) and possibly Jankowski (2001), although my access to the latter is limited. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have about six books by heikal: "The 30 days war" (4 books each about 1000 pages) (http://lib.bue.edu.eg/cgi-bin/koha/opac-ISBDdetail.pl?biblionumber=3777) "Suqūṭ niẓām! : li-mādhā kānat thawrat Yūliyū 1952 li-azmah?" (which documents life prior to 1952, about 600 pages) (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52103285) I also have "Kharīf al-ghaḍab" which might be of use for if we work on Sadat. (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/13092110&referer=brief_results) Another book not by Heikal would be "Miṣr wa-al-Miṣrīyū" which document the chronlogical incidents of Egypt starting 1946 and ending 2000. (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51527011&referer=brief_results) If needed I could also buy "The Cairo Documents: The Inside Story of Nasser and His Relationship with World Leaders, Rebels, and Statesmen" by Heikal. I will dedicate myself to the article as soon as I finish things with Asmahan. Funny thing is that currently on ON TV (Orascom) a discussion is going about the effects of the revolution. As today is a holiday in Egypt for the Revolution. We should actually improve the Revolution article if someone could go there briefly till the end of the day.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Two source problems

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/jv7n3a3.html and http://www.blic.rs/beograd.php?id=66015 are in russian. These are the only online reffs we used. They're both in russian and don't have the propper citation templates. These should probably be replaced...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's avoid any web pages... it's best we stick with books, our own and online. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Required Articles

Wow, that's a lot of Heikal. Anything you could add from him, you should add. I forgot that today the Revolution happened. I can't really contribute anything to the Revolution from my Aburish book right now; I'm not home at the moment, will be in a several hours. But there are other sources online we could use. That brings me also to another note: We should create some new articles that are related to Nasser and are mentioned in the article i.e. Mankabad, Gamal Salem, Abdel Latif Boghdadi, Khaled Mohieddine, Abdel Hamid al-Saraj, Liberation Rally, Abdel Rahman al-Shawaf, and others. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Al Ameer son could u use Harvnb even for start class articles? They're really much better than the normal reffs.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are. I'm about to leave somewhere in a few minutes, but I'll do it in the Gamal Salem article right now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these articles should be all DYKs. I'll work one each to substantially expand. http://www.marefa.org has a lot of info on many such subjects. Is in Arabic..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear. Articles on these guys (and the town) definitely need to be created; It'll enhance this article, the Free Officers, the revolution, etc. Unfortunately for me, I can't read Arabic so you'll have to extract the info from that site. I'll find other sources though and there are plenty. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is Abdel Hamid al-Sarraj. I'll do it later this week, if you hadn't already. Yazan (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Yazan! That should allow us some space to start a couple more articles on the Free Officers. Just throwing it out there, do you think Afif Bizri should have an article too? --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I started the Abdel Hamid Sarraj article. Still needs major expanding. Afif Bizri, well, I wouldn't mind. Not a priority though.Yazan (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see how much I could expand (Aburish (2004) has a decent amount on him for the UAR period). As for Bizri I might start an article on him, but like you said, not a priority ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(“Aswan High Dam”) reff

What is that^ ? replace by {{fact}} ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea. I haven't gotten that far into the article yet (I'm at Arab unity and socialism). Go ahead and fact tag it. To be honest, I think the second half of the article should also be rewritten in addition to being sourced and expanded. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been skimming through the article's sections relating to the UAR. And among other mistakes, it states that Khalid al-Azm pushed along with Quwatly for the union, which obviously untrue. Al-Azm was very much opposed to Nasser's policies and he feared for Syria's economy from Egyptian domination. He was the only one who signed the declaration of union with reservations (Bi Tahaffuz). Just some heads up, not sure you've gotten there yet? Yazan (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your right al-Azm was the only signatory who had reservations and I think I'm misreading the source. Take a look at page 151 from Aburish and tell me what you get out of it. At one point he says al-Azm was pro-Communist and then says Kuwatly and Azm insisted that union would be the only way to prevent Syria from becoming Communist. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't view the book. Nonetheless, Al-Azm was never a communist or pro-Communist, he did however pursue an alliance with the USSR, and arranged loans and support, not from an ideological point of view (he was always a conservative), but from a national interest point of view, and at one point he was called "The Red Millionaire", because of his relations with moscow and the fact that he's the heir of the Azm aristocrats. I can't see how the second part holds true though. Yazan (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have his autobiography with me now, but I've read it many times, and his dislike for Nasser and for the union was obvious. al-Azm and Quwatli were taken by surprise by the officers, and they were only told about the arrangement after the Hurani and others flew back from meeting Nasser in Egypt. The cabinet was cornered into signing by public pressure, but even at that cabinet meeting Azm argued in vain to wait and arrange things slowly. Yazan (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case a correction has to be made regarding Azm and the reluctance of some Syrian officials. I know Bizri and Bakdash didn't view union favorably and that's currently mentioned I believe. I will fix it ASAP. However, are you sure Quwatli didn't initially view unity favorably and who are the "officers" you are referring to? Syrians or Egyptians? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Kuwatli was not opposed to the union, nor eager. But at that point, Kuwatli was nothing more than a figurehead. Akram al-Hawrani and a group of officers (I don't have any books on me here now to list all the names) traveled to egypt (without informing either the president Kuwatli, or PM Azm) and met with Nasser, they agreed to all his conditions, and flew back to Syria to present the cabinet with the decision. Yazan (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I added what you said at the bottom from the Elie Podeh book. Apparently Kuwatli and Azm considered the delegation as a military coup. I also clarified that leading Syrian officials signed the agreement, but Azm did so reluctantly and he was eventually removed by Nasser. In the Podeh and Aburish sources it says Afif Bizri led the delegation, he opposed union but I believe he did sign the agreement anyway, and Hawrani and Sarraj, although members of the delegation, stayed in Damascus to notify the cabinet of the Cairo decision. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(indent) The section is much better now. Maybe you want to mention that Haydar al-Kuzbari was the one who led the force that surrounded the joint-chiefs compound (where Amer was staying). And that Jasem Alwan (A Nasserist) in 1962 had a counter-coup but Nasser refused any military assistance of the coup, which only lasted a few days. Quwatli became very disillusioned with the union early on and he left to switzerland (in 1960 I think) and gave his full support to the coup with a very interesting televised address in which he criticized Nasser and Sarraj quite harshly. Azm left after the union to lebanon right away, and was back the day right after the coup... These along with Hawrani all released a joint statement supporting the coup. Yazan (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh certainly, that subsection is just a start, I'll expand on it later today. Also, I think I might have put too much detail on the UAR in the section which, like the rest of the article, is supposed to concentrate on Nasser. However, this three-year period was such a significant one for him and for Arab nationalism (its pinnacle and fall), plus there is a need to mention some background for the majority readers who aren't that familiar with the subject. Anyhow, I'll be doing very little shaving off, letting the future peer reviewer give his judgement on the section. Thanks for pointing out the mistakes (pretty big ones too) in the section, Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree the section might be too long for a biography. But as you said it was very significant not just for his version of Arab nationalism, but his image as an Arab leader never really recovered after that, it was a downhill, with Yemen, 6 Day War... One last note, this photo is very interesting and could be used in this section. It's created before 1994 so it is public domain. Yazan (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

True, that was the end of his golden age I guess you could say. See the sub-discussion below for how we will reduce the info in this section without sacrificing too much. Thanks for pointing the image out, I will upload it very soon. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Phase out to an article

I think that this section weighs too much in contrast to the rest of the article. Either creating a new article or possibly merging with United Arab Republic, Pan-Arabism, Nasserism or Arab nationalism would be better imho. Maybe expanding United Arab Republic and using {{main}} on all those articles would be an improvement. Anyway, The article still needs much expansion...which I'll help in just after the Aburish Book is exhausted...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that's kind of what I was thinking. However, I think it's best that you or someone else remove what's deemed unnecessary detail. As for the rest of the article, there will certainly be more expansion; we haven't even gotten into 1962 yet! I'm glad Aburish will not be the sole source of info. For Featured articles, which is what I assume is the destiny of this article, it's good to have a variety of sources. The diversity of sources is good for the first seven sections and subsections, but "Arab nationalism and socialism" relies too heavily on Aburish. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Association of Free Officers vs Free Officers Movement

Which one is the right name??--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know which one is the official. Aburish states "Association" and doesn't mention "Movement" at all. Of course this could be his own translation. Most sources just say "Free Officers." What is the name in Arabic and literal translation? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

In arabic it's haraka which means movement.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we should use "movement". Objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there seems to be a conflict on this point. Google shows 119,000 results for "تنظيم الضباط الأحرار" (Association) and 40,000 results for "حركة الضباط الأحرار"(Movement) . The article on the Arabic Wiki is "حركة الضباط الأحرار" (Movement). The same is for the English page. I have to check with Heikal since he's the most who could answer this question...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, didn't realize that. While you check Heiak, I'll take a look through google books. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Heikal calls them "تنظيم" which is translated to "Organization" / "Association" / "regulation" . I wish I had the English versions of these books.. Would have show what it means .--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all the books on google books refer to a movement, so I'm still not sure what to do here :( --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The official term used in Syria is "Harakat", which translates into Movement.Yazan (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Family mention

How should we mention Nasser's family in the article? Chronologically or have a separate section for it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a section called "Family", "Marriage and Children" or something similar would be best after the Death section. Mentioning his Children, their lives, influence and positions currently.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, most FAs I've come across do it the same way, however, its not after Death, its in the beginning. See Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ban Ki Moon. Anyway, that's not a big deal, we could discuss placement later, at least we know where to concentrate info on his family life. However, I don't think we should get too deep in the individual lives of his family members, but rather concentrate on Nasser's relationship with each or all of them. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Section name

Could anyone think of a better name for the Collapse of the UAR and aftermath section? It discusses the fall of the UAR, the immediate aftermath (extra socialist reforms in Egypt), the Yemen War, Algeria's independence, the new pro-Nasser regime in Iraq, the Arab league summit and the creation of the PLO. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Small note

I won't edit this article at this point because I'm sure the structure/flow/balance of it was carefully made, but just a small comment: In the Military career section, the units Nasser commanded and his rank are not mentioned at all. The rank is mentioned later on, but this should be moved to the Military career section, as well as which units he commanded in the Egyptian Army. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the biography I'm using doesn't get too deep on his actual military service, but from reading about some of the former villages in Khalidi, Nasser seems to have been involved in a number of battles with Israeli forces. I'll use Khalidi, but do you have other sources by any chance? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He was officer of armed forces, 6th infantry battalion. Reference: Page 103 of The Thirty years War by Heikal (http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/224995535&referer=brief_results)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Nasser is very well-known for being part of the Fallujah Pocket resistance. Don't have any sources that talk about him specifically in that context, but I'm sure that his memoirs would have quite a bit of info about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alt text

Just a reminder, don't forget to add Alt texts (Wikipedia:Alt) to the images through |alt= , describing the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) :Will do, now. -- Actually, could you do at least one so I get the idea of how to write these alt texts. I've never written one before and I can't see what the difference between the caption and the alt text is supposed to be. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting Personal life from career

Franklin D. Roosevelt has the personal life as a first section going chronologically, then resets again with the career section. Would that be better here? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I keep thinking about it every now and then. I have an OK amount of info on Nasser's family life (apparently he was a family man). I really can't decide here or there, so I'll let you make a final decision on this. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Birth section

His father's name isn't Hussein Abdel Nasser but "Abdel Nasser Hussein". Could u check Aburish ref cause I can't access it anymore? Also I think mentioning his birthday in this section is essential.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Aburish says Abdel Nasser Hussein; I think another user changed it recently because he must have thought Abdel Nasser was a last name and the spelling was a typo. I'll fix it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sections and Arrangements

I think "Free Officers" and "Revolution" should be under one section since they both are about how the Revolution started. I also think "Nationalization of Suez Canal" should have a Suez Crisis or war, since it was an important event. A section regarding his economic reform would also be important since these were one of reasons he was loved in Egypt. I also think the two first paragraphs in "Rising influence in the Arab world" should be moved under "Attempt at Arab unity" which should be retitled "Arab Unity" with a subsection about the UAR.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice organization Diaa. What should we name the main section which will include the "Free Officers" and "Revolution" subsections? How about putting it under "Revolution", while renaming the current "Revolution" section "1952 coup" or something along those lines. I agree with splitting the Nationalization of the Suez Canal. As for economic reforms, these are placed chronologically throughout the article: (land reform, nationalizations, Helwan steel factory, and Aswan, etc.) As for the last statement, how about relocating the first two paragraphs of "Attempt at Arab unity" and relocate those to the "Rising influence in the Arab world."? --

I agree, with the Free Officers and Revolution rearranging, no problem with the economic reforms, the first two paragraphs of "Attempt at Arab unity" is about the establishment of the UAR, so it doesn't exactly fit the influence section and why is "Attempt at Arab unity" a copy of the history section found in United Arab Republic? I guess a lot of work is to be done regarding this section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried not to make it an exact copy, but yes, more cleanup is needed there. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to create more subsections for the "Arab unity" section: The first four passages under "Founding of the UAR" and the next four under a different subsection. What do you think? Also, if you agree what should we name the second subsection? It would deal with Nasser's handling of the Lebanese crisis and the coup which brought Qasim to power, one of his most famous speeches promoting pan-Arabism, political reform within the UAR turning Syria into a police state, the Mosul Rebellion, and a major crackdown on Communists following the rebellion's failure. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's "influence on the Arab world" ? Should this section be reduced to half or moere? Or is it a significant event?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's use that name. On second thought, that name wouldn't work because there's already a section with that name and the section is not really centered on influence on the Arab world, but rather his role in events in the Arab world that reduced his unity schemes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

About your second note, it depends. Aburish really stresses the Iraqi coup and the Mosul rebellion as defining events in Nasser's pan-Arab career. To him and other people he cites, this was really the end of Nasser's unity schemes. The Iraqi coup in which Nuri Said, his main adversary in the Arab world, was toppled and killed meant to Nasser that the "march of Arab nationalism" would go unhindered with Iraq willing to join the UAR. This proved false however, culminating in the Mosul Rebellion where Iraqi nationalist Qasim and his Communist backers crushed the Nasserist uprising and with that Nasser's dreams of unity. How he turned Syria into a police state was also significant, but his role in the Lebanese crisis was not as significant because it was really Sarraj who played the main role (concerning the UAR) there. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Some changes

I changed some titles and rearranged sections. Tell me your opinion...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great job! Well, since we're organizing the sections, do you think we should have no subsections in the "Legacy" section (which hasn't been worked on yet)? --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think New Direction should be renamed and the legacy section needs much work since it doesn't have any references it should be wholly rewritten to contain criticism and praise of his actions, the Egyptian Nasserist party, media with references to him and speeches referring to his actions...

Yes, Nasser's legacy is very debated and I think I saw some articles from Al-Ahram Weekly that discuss it specifically. I just pulled New direction out of the blue because I couldn't think of a name. What do you think we should name it? Or should we do some cutting down and re-arranging? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm finishing off the missing articles of the Revolutionary Command Council members. I just created an article about Abdel Moneim Amin and am creating another one about Kamal El-Din Hussein. If you could in the meantime create one about Mostafa Kamel Morad from this source: http://www.sis.gov.eg/VR/rev/english/2e.htm I would appreciate it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem (Dr. Blofeld and I just created Youssef Seddik (revolutionary) although I think it should renamed to something simpler and more common like Yusef el-Sediq or something like that. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamal El-Din Hussein has some info, will expand further tomorrow from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-kamal-eldin-hussein-1101828.html . I'll think of something for New direction...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

More notes

Unfortunately I don't have much time to read articles for my own enlightment these days, but I'm slowly reading this one; it's overall very good, and a I will offer a couple more comments:

• The "Conflict with Naguib" section is written in a way that doesn't really give it the feel of a conflict, and has strange flow. In the first two paragraphs, it describes small incidents which would be considered minor disputes in general policits, but then you have the last 2 paragraphs where suddenly Naguib is being kidnapped and arrested. More information on what actually led to these events would be extremely helpful (am I missing something).

The title is an old one that I just decided to keep; perhaps we could rename it "Disputes with Naguib" or something related. The third paragraph, which begins in March 1953, is really where the rift between the two gentlemen began to occur. I could try to expand it more with Aburish, but I'm going to wait and see if other sources could be used (trying not to rely on one source). --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be a positive step, although I still think that the flow of the section should be more "climatic". Why was he arrested and kidnapped? Was it because of some minor disputes with Nasser? Or was there something deeper not mentioned in the article so far? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems Nasser didn't trust Naguib, suspecting he was colluding with elements of the old regime (the Wafd) and the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasser also wanted Naguib out of the way so he could take his place in order to implement the reforms (political and economic) that he had been planning. I think I forgot to mention in the article that both men began a de facto campaign to garner popular support from the Egyptian people before the kidnapping. At the time, Naguib was a familiar face and had the people's trust and this is one of the main reasons Nasser decided not to move against him earlier. In fact, when he was kidnapped, large street demonstrations took place demanding his return. I will add some of this info tomorrow or the day after; I'm kind of busy because the return to school. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• At the same time, King Saud gradually began to resent Nasser's popularity among the Saudi people and his references to Saudi oil as belonging to all the Arabs; when Hussein requested military assistance from him, Saud complied, sending 4,000 troops to Jordan.[52] – so, why did he comply? While I personally have a general understanding of this, the sentence would appear contradictory to the average reader. Adding a "however" somewhere there might help, but maybe more background can be added.

I'm not sure how much more clarification is needed here. In the passage, it talks of how pro-Nasser elements won the elections and King Hussein believed they were conspiring to overthrow him. Later, it discusses how King Saud grew suspicious of Nasser and when King Hussein opted for support from his army, Saud complied. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I misread the sentence. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The National Assembly was to be national representative body, allowing Nasser to sideline former Liberation Rally leaders Gamal Salem and Sadat. – I assume that sentence means Anwar Sadat? The name is not previously mentioned, so it should be given in full, and linked.

Will fix. Actually, Anwar Sadat is spelled in full and linked in Military career; he's also mentioned in Free Officers. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly long article, I believe it should be spelled out in full and linked again. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, will do ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now, cheers! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Ynhockey! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article! I will offer more comments as I read further. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

More stuff:

• Nasser's fortunes on the Arab stage unexpectedly changed when ... – unclear what this means. Some statements in the section support that his position became stronger, while others support that his position became weaker. Could use clarification.

What the book means is that after the 1961 split with Syria, Nasser pretty much ran out of Arab allies (as far as governments were concerned). In addition to Syria, Qasim's Iraq, Hussein's Jordan, Faisal's Saudi Arabia, and Imam Ahmad's Yemen as well as the Gulf sheikdoms and even the Mufti, were all pinned against him. Then all of a sudden, pro-Nasser officers take over North Yemen, Algeria under Ben Bella (a staunch supporter) became independent, Qasim was rid of by Baathists and Nasserists, another coup in Syria occurred by Nasser sympathizers, and the the rule of the Saudi family was threatened by its own members who declared their support for Nasser. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the Six-Day War section, it says "Sharm el-Sheikh" and then "al-Arish". I believe this should be consistent (Sharm el-Sheikh and el-Arish, or Sharm al-Sheikh and al-Arish). Personally I support the former.

Oops, that was a mistake. I also prefer the el- because I've noticed most Egyptian Arabic articles use that instead of the al-. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that Sadat should be spelled out in full and linked a third time in the Six-Day War section. Again, it's a long article.

Are you sure we should have him linked for a third time; wouldn't that violate the redundant links rule/guideline? --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Finally, the legacy section probably requires expansion. There are some notable tidbits of information missing, like how Egypt was called UAR until after Nasser died, etc. I don't really know how to make a proper structure, but someone who is knowledgeable on the subject can probably introduce more points to include and create a proper section.

Yes, it's a mess. Work on this section hasn't been begun nor have we worked on the Death section. Also, we still need to fill in the rest of 1969 and 1970. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)