Talk:2005 Sharm El Sheikh bombings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media Coverage[edit]

I wonder why there hasn't been much reporting of this on the cable news networks yet. Compared to the London bombings, this is already quite large.

7 News (NBC) just aired their report on the matter.--Acetic Acid 03:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because that happened in London. Ha --Wooddoo-eng 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wooddoo has a very valid point. Last week I heard of a bombing on radio and noticeably cared much less when I heard that the casualties were in Iraq. Which then freaked me out. In any case, this is on the main page now and news reports are starting to roll in, so smile for the camera and let's get to work... --Kizor 08:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot to say -- that was me with the opening comment. Anyway, it *is* a shame that this is probably going to get less coverage due to how it recently happened in London, but I can't help feeling that it's also going to get less coverage since Egypt seems "farther away" (whether geographically or ideologically, from US-mainstream perspective) than London did. I don't know. It seems quite likely that the number of casualties in this one will be twice as much as those in the UK, even though it's still less as it stands than the number of Iraqi civillians who died in a single truck bomb last week. Of course, that received almost *zero* coverage in our media. The whole thing's a shame, but the selectivity of these so-called "news" networks is even worse. I hear about Brad Pitt more these days than I do about Baghdad. LokiCT 12:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times coverage today demonstrated the same systemic bias: this incident got one column on the front page and a couple of inches after the jump, while events in London received most of the front page (including four color photos) and at least a full page inside. Something about this ought to go in the article. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to disagree that there's "systemic bias", but keep in mind that it's systemic -- in part a natural outgrowth of a capitalist enterprise, e.g. The New York Times Corporation, serving its customers. Additionally, it's natural that there are many more English-language reporters per square inch based in London, vs. a remote Egyptian tourist resort. Give the major media 24 hours to get their regional staff into Sharm and you'll see an increase in coverage, but it won't ever be on the scale of the London coverage. American readers are also far more likely to a) have relatives or friends in London, b) plan to travel or have traveled there themselves.
The tsunami ultimately got that front-page coverage, just not right away. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The US media is now reporting that Egypt received a vague tip in advance of the attacks that there would be a terrorist attack somewhere in this red Sea resort. The heads of security made a best guess, that the target was the casinos frequented by Israeli tourists, and stepped up security there only.. AlMac|(talk) 05:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting old pretty fast[edit]

Sorry, just wanted to say that. --Kizor 08:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you referring to List of terrorist incidents, ie. this sort of thing is happening entirely too often, the authorities of all nations need constructive help by intelligent citizentry on how a better job of prevention can be accomplished, although that might not be a role for Wikipedians through this encyclopaedic effort ... and where would the appropriate place(s) be? AlMac|(talk) 00:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

On what basis would anyone make the name of the article less specific? The emerging Wikipedia standard is to use the full date, localized for the format preferred where the attacks took place. Thus, September 11, 2001 attacks and 7 July 2005 London bombings. Now, I made a change, but then I responsibly went around fixing all the redirects I could. Now it's been changed again, and people are not only changing the name for unknown, and probably not very good, reasons, they're not cleaning up after themselves. This kind of help, we don't need. --Dhartung | Talk 15:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for anything more specific that 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. 11 September is named such because it is the name generally adopted by people and the media following the incident. The London bombings specify month and day due to two attacks occuring in the same month. Another problem with full date names is the dispute between formatting. I, personally, do not like the form "July 23, 2005" and I'm sure as many people dispise "23 July". There is no reason to have the overspecification and insuing annoyance. --Oldak Quill 17:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're "annoyed" at things I think you have no business being annoyed at. I'm American and I don't object to (let alone "despise") the use of the European date format for a British event. Are you arguing that we should change the name of 7 July 2005 London bombings to "2005 London bombings" (regardless of the existence of the 21 July article)? What about "2005 U.S. attacks"? A date is a date, it's unmistakable. Try thinking this over using less emotionally-laden words, I would suggest. --Dhartung | Talk 18:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply saying there is no easy comprimise between the two formats. "The London bombings specify month and day due to two attacks occuring in the same month" - London bombing articles need to be specific to remain unambiguous, this is not needed here. --Oldak Quill 19:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More precise map?[edit]

I originally removed the map of Egypt because I felt a map that didn't spêcifically show the location of Sharm el-Sheikh didn't add much to the article. Circeus 16:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

How about these maps? (either the "Strait of Tiran" [most detailed], or "Egypt - Sinai Peninsula" [less detailed] map in the linked page). According to the page, those maps are produced by CIA, and therefore are in the public domain. 61.94.149.190 08:51, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title[edit]

Maybe the title of the article should be changed to exact date, not simply the year. and, maybe I am wrong, but wouldnt it be better to name the title "terrorist bombings" or something else rather than "attacks"? because it is not exactly clear who whom attacked except that it was terrorists and civilians.

Attacks is neutral POV; terrorists could be, to someone else, freedom fighters and such. Using loaded terms like that is guaranteed to invite an edit war. Note that even the most notorious terrorist event in all history doesn't use that word.
As for the date format, well, you'll have to be careful. Oldak gets annoyed when people use the wrong date format, so you'll have to guess which one won't annoy him. Good luck! --Dhartung | Talk 16:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

I notice this article is in Category:Suicide bombing ... should there be a Category:Car bombing? Looks like the 2002 Bali bombing had a lot in common with this incident, a car bomb aimed at a tourist place. AlMac|(talk) 00:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks[edit]

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks were obvious Mossad attacks according to sources[edit]

The 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks were obvious Mossad attacks according to independent sources. The trucks had numberplates / identification needed for Israeli vehicles to cross the border FROM Israel to Egypt. These had been forgot to be removed by the perpetrators. source: Ian Crane , http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7193024010983572797# This could be verified by egyptian Newspapers. Only UK and US Newspapers reported the incident as "Al Qaida" attacks. The attacks were identified as Israeli revenge for the Egyptian government signing deals with Gaza to extract natural gas, from what would be Gaza terretory if Gaza and Palestine were not occupied, according to sources.

All this Israel business has been discredited by #Amndawla Leaks. Gamal Mubarak ordered the attack. Egypt's SSIS carried it out. Apparently Gamal Mubarak wanted revenge against the resort owner for cutting him out of part of the Israeli gas deal.

AmnDawla Leaks[edit]

AmnDawla Leaks has just revealed that Gamal Mubarak and Egypt State Security were behind the Sharm el-Sheikh resort bombings in 2005.

It appears that Gamal Mubarak motivation for the attacks was damaging the property owned by Hussein Salem because Salem had reduced Mubarak's commission for the Israeli gas deal from 10% to 5%. And I'm sure he didn't mind drumming up more anti-terrorism money form the Americans and persecuting the Bedouins too. Israeli was not involved in the attacks, only Egyptian state security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.204.158.146 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virus warning[edit]

I got a virus warning on source 10, Aljarida. Alexmcfire (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh bombings. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Sharm_El_Sheikh_bombings&oldid=1196472890"