Talk:August 2012 Sinai attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Change terrorist to attacker[edit]

I suggest that the article avoid using the term terrorist and instead uses the less controversial term attacker as is already used in some places in the article at least until the attackers identity, background or purpose is revealed. Averater (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This would be fine with me. It seems to me that most news sources appear to not be using the term "terrorist" to describe the attackers except in quotations by others. Khazar2 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Nearly all the references I've seen have referred to it as terrorists, from both Egyptian and Israeli, as well as officials on both sides. It fits all the descriptions of terrorism. --Activism1234 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I"m fine with using substitutes as much as possible, for example "gunmen" or "attack." --Activism1234 04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Against "references": Wikipedia:TERRORIST (contentious label). "Freedom fighters" would be as bad. "Attacker" and "gunmen" would adher to the guidelines better. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 05:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing a few of the instances of terrorists to attackers as I couldn't see anyone opposing. Of course where the use of terrorist was some sort of quotation I left it as it were. Maybe there are more usage of the word that could be replaced, but I was a bit unsure about the rest unless I simply missed it somewhere. Averater (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - the United Nations Secretary General called it a terrorist attack. --Activism1234 03:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally call these people terrorists, but "attackers", "gunmen", etc. are more self-evidently neutral terms and so I think I'd lean toward them; I'd be perfectly happy to see even our article on Osama bin Laden not use the word terrorist outside of quotations. The UN reaction should remain in the article, of course, along with any other quotational uses. Khazar2 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that, but what is your opinion on an editor removing it from the category "Terrorist incidents in 2012?" It fits all the description and has been widely condemned and recognized as a terrorist attack, even if we'll use more neutral terms. Thanks. --Activism1234 13:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it definitely should be left in that category. The way our "Police Brutality in..." categories work, even instances of alleged or disproven police brutality fit in the category. This clearly has been alleged by many primary and secondary sources to be terrorism. Khazar2 (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I would not be able to explain my reasoning here, but my "gut feeling" is the same as yours. Calling them "attackers" but keeping them in the category of "terrorist incidents" seems like the right compromise. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinions. I reinserted it sometime ago per talk page. --Activism1234 17:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change?[edit]

Another border checkpoint was attacked. [1] Since information about that most logically goes here as well (even if the attacks prove to be related only by timing), what would all your thoughts be on changing the title to "2012 Egyptian–Israeli border attacks"? Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

From your talk page - Hmm a page move though is a major change, and for that I think it'd be best to wait a bit and see whether this is as serious an incident or not, as it appears the terrorists haven't been that successful either and haven't infiltrated any borders, so it may just be an unrelated incident. Maybe we should just wait a few hours or a day and see what happens with it, I think that'd be the best idea personally. And if it still becomes major news, or even a minor failed attempt but a related incident, it can be reinserted and appropriate title change. --Activism1234 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Someoen recently added this in. This seems to be related to the attack mentioned above in this talk page as well. I suggest for now on reporting the above attack in the same paragraph, and see where it goes. --Activism1234 04:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, another major news piece made headlines (headlines are changing so quickly...), in which Egypt just killed 20 terrorists in the Sinai. I combined all of this and added it in under a new subsection for Egypt called "Operations." It may not be the best name. If anyone has better names, feel free to suggest here. --Activism1234 05:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's grown into a major operation to remove 2000 terrorists from the Sinai. Egyptian media are calling it "Sinai cleansing operation." So I think 'Operations' as name of subsection is fine, but I'm also fine with "Sinai cleansing operation" as well. Thoughts? --Activism1234 15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial suspects[edit]

Per sources, Palestinians suspect that Israeli forces are behind the attack (to worsen the Egypt–Palestine relations, but that's beside the point), so it seems reasonable to list them as one of the suspects in the infobox. Such inclusion might seem highly controversial and WP:FRINGE-ish at the first thought, but it does not imply that they are (probably) behind this, it only means that one notable party which is related to the event or could easily be affected by it suspects them, which clearly is the case.

There's no reason to exclude the opinion of one related party, and favor others. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. -- (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I think that it should be clearly indicated that these are statements by Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and not from a reliable secondary source. Have secondary sources discussed suspects or are they simply repeating different factions' statements at this point? If the latter, perhaps we could just indicate who appears to be blaming who. Khazar2 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I think WP:Fringe would supersede WP:NPOV in this case. No reliable sources indicate that Israel was behind the attack. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The question we should try to answer then, is if reliable sources have named anyone else as behind the attack. If so, I agree that we should reduce that section back down to only the groups named by reliable sources. If it is just a he-said/she-said thing at this point, though, the Hamas/Egypt conspiracy theory deserves placement there as much as the IDF statement. As a third option, we could just take suspects out altogether until reliable sources indicate responsibility. Khazar2 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Plot Spoiler. The 9/11 article doesn't list conspiracy theories as "suspected perpetrator." However, the thing is, that both the IDF and Egyptian army/security forces seem to agree that it was certainly not Israel, and rather members of global jihad or Gaza-based. The IDF/Egypt have intelligence services, while Hamas is just doing natural reflexes. Of course, what Hamas said will naturally remain in the article, and shouldn't be removed. I also think we should remove the part about the Bedouins and put it under "perpetrator" as that has been confirmed by multiple reliable sources, and I'd be happy to include them next to it. That should trim it down enough. --Activism1234 22:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I put into my sandbox an example of what it would look like, with references, including Time Magazine. Please dont' edit my sandbox, anyone - rather comment whether you agree with it, or disagree with it (why? what should be changed?). Also, the Time Magazine says that eyewitnesses and Egyptian media reported Palestinians were also involved in the attack - should that be in "perpetrator" or "suspected perpetrator?" I'm inclined towards the latter, under something like Gaza-based terrorists (of which we have a number of refs I can find). --Activism1234 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Having the footnotes there is helpful given how controversial this has proved to be. Only two small suggestions: "Global Jihad" doesn't have an article, and probably never will, so I'd suggest using quotation marks there instead of a wikilink. Also, it looks like an extra comma is still hanging out in that part. Thanks for your efforts on this. Khazar2 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Updated it with refs, made distinction in "suspected" to Gaza-based groups. Should be good. Only wording that may be awkward is "Other suspecpted perpetrators include..." I wrote it like that b/c "assailants" already has "Bedouins" in it. If anyone feels it's an issue, it can probably be changed. --Activism1234 04:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Also removed wikilink to global jihad, but didn't put it in quotes because it seems to refer to an al-Qaeda affiliated network (and not just any international terrorists) and was used without quotes in the refs. However, I decapitalized it (is that a word even?) b/c it's not capitalized in the refs. --Activism1234 04:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New insertions into background section[edit]

I would like to insert two new passages into the "background" section. I would also like to split it into two subsections. Please see my sandbox [NOTE: Removed link now, it has been added to article] for more info and what it would look like. The new insertions are under "New insertions" (which is bolded). Please do not edit my sandbox either - rather say here whether you support the insertions or not. Thanks.

--Activism1234 22:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Perhaps the one-word Qaddafi reference could be overwritten as [Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi] or some such in case there's a group of readers left who don't know who Qaddafi was. Khazar2 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Any objections by other editors can be stated here. --Activism1234 01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination[edit]


Apprently, some editors automotacially made this part of the "Arab-Israeli conflict", but this is WP:OR[WP:SYNTH]], since the attackers were not related with the Arab League or any affiliated organization. Actually, this event is part of the Sinai Insurgency, an aftermath of the Egyptian Revolution and possibly part of the global Jihad insurgency, to whom the Arab League is an enemy as well.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose keeping Op Eagle. But the gunmen also attacked Israel, not just Egypt. Similar attacks also include Gaza-Israeli conflict or Arab-Israeli conflict (can't say Gaza for sure). Also remember Op Eagle began in response to many of these attacks, and in this one for example, it only resumed/intensified after the attack. For those attacks that Op Eagle began only after the attacks finished, "part of" was written as Arab-Israeli conflict/Gaza-Israeli conflict, and the same thing should be done here. But it's certainly part of the Arab-Israeli conflict - that's why they attacked Israel. --Activism1234 17:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Activism1234. The attackers certainly attempted to execute a mega-attack against Israeli targets within Israel, and therefore, although this attack luckily ended with no Israeli casualties, it did occur also within the context of the Gaza–Israel conflict (which is part of the bigger Israeli–Palestinian conflict - which as we all know is part of the much wider Arab–Israeli conflict). Therefore, in my opinion, similarly to the article 2011 southern Israel cross-border attacks we should state that this attack was part of Operation Eagle AND the Gaza–Israel conflict. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You have missed a small important detail - the attackers probably had no relation with Gaza. They were most probably Sinai Bedouin. Hence it cannot be part of the Gaza-Israel conflict (and hence the Israeli-Palestinian and the Arab-Israeli conflicts). In general, not any incident involving Israel and Muslims is automatically Arab-Israeli conflict - the Arab-Israeli conflict in its original form is practically over; current tensions are largely between Israel and Iran+its proxies (not the Arab League).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
On the same weight, Al-Qaeda attacks on Jews or Israel aren't part of the AI conflict, even though some leaders are ethnic Arabs.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Arab-Israeli conflict is practically over?? WHAT??? Just because Arab countries are smart enough not to start another war hardly means its over. Heck, just 6 years ago a major war was fought against a Lebanese organization which currently holds seats in the Lebanese government. Go to Egypt, go to Lebanon, go to Syria, see how they feel about Israel, then tell me that the conflict is practically over. That's like saying the Cold War wasn't really a conflict between America and Russia, because they weren't fighting.
Also, please show an example of such an al-Qaeda attack to be used as a precedent...
And lastly, even if it's not listed as Gaza-Israeli conflict (although Israel, Palestinian Authority, and Egypt seem to think so...), the Arab-Israeli conflict would still apply. --Activism1234 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Not related to Gaza? then why were mortars being fired from the Gaza Strip during the attack? and why did the remaining attackers try to escape back to the Gaza Strip after the Israeli Defense Forces managed to stop the attack? and why did the Egyptian government close the Rafah Border Crossing to the Gaza Strip following the attack? and why do Israel, Palestinian Authority, and Egypt state that militants from Gaza took part in the attack?
I think what Greyshark09 is trying to argue here is that in instances in which the true identity of the terrorists whom commit a prominent terror attack was not publicly publicized, or in instances in which the organization the attackers belonged to, and which explicitly targets the "Israeli Occupation" (ie killing any Israelis anywhere just because they are Israelis) did not take responsibility for the attack, we must not consider the attack as an anti-Israeli attack which took place within a wider ethno-religious conflict, and instead we need to consider the attack in the same way we did to any of the shooting attacks taking place in recent decades in the United States (such as the 2012 Aurora shooting) - that is, assume that the attackers were eccentric freaks who just wanted to kill innocent people wherever they are, not necessarily out of a fascist ideology, or with under the command and support of a terrorist organization whom attempts to kill any Israelis anywhere just because they are Israelis, as part of a wide ongoing ethno-religious conflict. In the same way I suppose he would claim that attacks in which American soldiers were killed during the Iraq war should not be classified as being "part of the "Iraq War" and that instead we must assume that the attackers were eccentric freaks whom just wanted to kill innocent people and not necessarily Americans (unless it would be proved without a doubt otherwise).
Does anyone else beside Greyshark09 think that we should avoid classifying the attack in the infobox as being part of the Gaza–Israel conflict? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your sarcasm doesn't make your arguments any more solid; in case of Iraq war the Sunni Iraqi insurgent groups were clearly targeting US "occupying troops" and Shia groups, while the Shia insurgent groups were targeting US soldiers and Sunnis; In case of Sinai insurgency the Bedouin tribesmen have been targeting both Egypt (member of the Arab League) and Israel. If Egypt itself, a member of the Arab League, is attacked - how can you relate it to the Arab Israeli conflict? Do Iraqi insurgent attacks, which prbably killed several Jewish American soldiers, are also included in the Arab-Israeli conflict per you logic??Greyshark09 (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Simply - Do you have any source saying that this attack is a part of the IP conflict or the AI conflict? If no WPRS source says that - it should not be mentioned. End of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your point, but as CuriousGnome points out above, not every soldier killed in a conflict appears in news story saying "Sgt. Joe Chang was killed in the broader conflict known as World War II", so I don't know that we need that level of proof here. Reporters may assume that their readers know that things between Israel and Palestine have historically been a bit tense.
Enough reliable sources indicate connections to Gaza that I think that the AI and IP conflicts are reasonable labels to put here; the article has thoroughly documented the subsequent diplomatic and PR wrangling between Egypt, Israel, and Gaza. Even if it turns out that everything related to Gaza was a red herring and the attack was perpetrated by super-sneaky Swedes (a possibility the savvy Wikipedian should never rule out), the back-and-forth between the countries would still make it a notable incident in the conflict, as would any major attack where these borders meet.
Take all the above with a grain of salt though, as this isn't an area that I edit in very often; I'm not sure what precedent/criteria we might have for including these labels. Khazar2 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Greyshark, we've discussed this extensively already. It's not dubious at all. It's legitimate, correct, and also based on previous article formatting. 3 editors support it, and while you're welcome to oppose it, your own personal opinion doesn't give it a "dubious" tag for discussion when we've already discussed it. --Activism1234 18:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
While you indeed can revert me without problem, it is my wikipedian right to create a discussion on dubious issues. You have no right to delete this until this dicussion closed when all opinion heard. It should be roughly one week per standard wikipedia procedures. Do you mind???Greyshark09 (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Your arguments are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT and not supported by any source.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I haven't deleted this discussion at all.
Secondly, if you think my arguments are IDONTLIKEIT, then this is a waste of my time, and we can continue this for a year without it ever being closed. I and 2 other editors gave very clear and long explanations above, and have responded to you. This is ridiculous and a waste of time. You're trying to minimize an attempted mass-terrorist attack on Israel to just a simple segment of Operation Eagle (and more is explained above). --Activism1234 18:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I clearly asked you to keep this discussion for a week for other editors to express their opinions. If i shall remain the only one - then case is closed. I'm not trying to minimize anything - you apparently have now idea about what am i doing (maybe you have a glance on my user page?). You on the other hand are crystal clear.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep this open as long as you like, while you're the only dissenting opinion it doesn't warrant a dubious tag. I'll see what the editors above have to say if they respond here. --Activism1234 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I was going to review this GA nomination... How soon is this discussion likely to be resolved? Do you need further opinions? Osiris (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't seem like there is going to be much further discussion or any other editors contributing. Perhaps you can give your final take on what you feel it should be, and we'll go with that? Otherwise, we have 3 editors supporting the text and 1 opposing, and there aren't really any other active editors here likely to contribute. --Activism1234 16:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've only managed to have a quick read over, but... What do reliable sources say? Are there sources describing the event as being part of the Arab–Israeli conflict, or perhaps the Gaza–Israel conflict? If it's a controversial claim, it should be made in multiple reliable sources. Also: in general, and especially in a good article, the infobox should be a summary of basic facts described in detail within the body of the article. At the moment, the article – most prominently the "background" section – describes the event as being part of a militant insurgency in the Sinai. Later on, in the "operations and subsequent attacks" section, it describes the response to the attack as being part of what I gather to be Operation Eagle. In regards to the disputed text, if you were to keep that it would really need to be reliably sourced and should be expounded upon in the body of the article (there shouldn't be any "new" facts in the infobox).
I hope that helps. If it doesn't, you can always seek out more opinions at WP:DR or on one of the content noticeboards. Osiris (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how exact a phrasing is needed to prove it, but hundreds of reliable sources do appear to describe the incident as a conflict that involves Arabs, Gaza, and Israel. I'm not sure the exact phrasing "part of the Gaza-Israel conflict" can be found, but I'm not sure it could in news coverage of most incidents in the conflict. Khazar2 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm only really saying this in relation to this article's potential as a GA. Depending on the situation, you don't necessarily need sources to state, unequivocally, "this attack was part of this conflict"... but you need them to come pretty close to it, because the infobox states it explicitly. Basically, for a good article, if there's doubt about a claim and there is an inadequacy of sources to back up that claim, it should probably be left out. Osiris (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
What about Operation Eagle then? Sources don't write explicitly the attack was part of Operation Eagle, but it did occur in the context of it, and the operation intensified as a result. Would you be more open to Arab-Israeli conflict, rather than Gaza-Israeli conflict, as the perpetrators certainly did infiltrate Israel and attempt a major terrorist attack? Thanks. --Activism1234 18:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It depends on a few things. The difference between the two is that you've described the event as being part of Operation Eagle in the body – the article's explanation using reliable sources somewhat accounts for this attribution, whereas this isn't the case with the second item. The second item appears more likely to be contested, so it's more likely to need an explicit reference. The other thing to consider is relevance: the top of the article should summarise the most important details of the subject. Is it particularly important to state that this attack was part of Conflict A, or is this nonessential detail? Honestly, I would recommend leaving the |partof= parameter completely blank. It's an example of one of the major pitfalls of infoboxes – they present sometimes controversial details as clear-cut data, when in many cases it's much more complicated. Instead, to be truly accurate, I would recommend describing the relation to wider conflicts using the body of the articleif it is called for. Osiris (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. If other editors agree, perhaps we can remove the "part of" tag, at least until a consensus is reached. Thanks. --Activism1234 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Please let me know when a decision is made and I will start the review. Regards, Osiris (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd be fine with leaving that parameter blank as well. Given that we name the Gaza/Israel/Egypt border area as the site of the violence, its relation to broader contexts is self-explanatory. Khazar2 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
After the advice by Osiris and input from Khazar2, I decided to removed the "part of" parameter. Should be good now. I appreciate the advice. --Activism1234 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i'm coming back to the issue, whether this event is part of the AI conflict. I guess the question is whether the guys who made the attack were Palestinians from Gaza. If so then this event could be described as part of the Israel-Gaza conflict and hence the IP conflict and the AI conflict. However, if there is no verification that the attackers were Palestinians from Gaza, they were Jihadists (Mujahedeen) or unidentified organizations with unknown affiliation, with no relation to the Arab-League (unlike Palestinian governments). To my best knowledge AI conflict is between Israel and the Arab League, not involving Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations of global Jihad, aimed against the West (including Israel and moderate Arab regimes).Greyshark09 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment.
As of now, it remains unknown officially where the perpetrators originated from. However, there are ample statements by both Egyptian and Israeli officials concerning Gaza-based perpetrators. Moreover, the Arab-Israeli conflict is just as it sounds. Islamic Jihad in Gaza is not a government or a country, is not a member of the Arab League, yet their missile attacks on Israel and Israeli airstrikes on Islamic Jihad militants are widely considered in the context of the conflict. The only way it'd seem as though the attack wasn't motivated by animosity against Israel (and Egypt) is if the attackers were mentally insane and decided to do this for the fun of it, something for which there is no evidence and is highly unlikely. --Activism1234 23:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
First of all, it is not clear whether the Israeli claim that Sinai attackers were Gazans is correct, and Israeli sources themselves expressed several versions on the issue. For example Israeli Chief of Staff himself pointed the blaiming finger for the later attack (September attack) to "Global Jihad". So did Egyptians, saying the attackers were Egyptians and the press posted in that relevance an announcement by Ansar Bait al-Maqdis[2]. It seems this August attack was of similar nature, involving organizations affiliated with al-Qaeda. If that is so it is not relevant to the Arab-Israel or Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Again i would like to point out that an event involving Israelis and Arabs is not necessarily a part of the Arab Israeli conflict, because Arab Israeli conflict is a confrontation between Israel and the Arab League, most of which came within the context of the Cold War (not all of it). 9/11 for example involved Arab terrorists and caused the death of several Israelis, but it is clearly in a different context of the Jihadist struggle of Wahhabists against the West. Palestinian Islamic Jihad attacks on Israel from Gaza are included in the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation and hence the AI conflict, simply because they are usually evolving into short clashes of Israel and Hamas, and Hamas claims to represent "Palestine", a part of the Arab League.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If Arabs in al-Qaeda target Israel, it's in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. If there wasn't such a conflict, we'd probably include it as a conflict against the West. But we can't make that call now, since that's hypothetical. There have been attempts by al-Qaeda to establish terror cells in Jerusalem as well, many of which were busted. --Activism1234 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how any of the arguments above can change the consensus as previously notated. --Activism1234 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there was a consensus - you and Gnome said it is clearly AI conflict, Khazar supported (stating it is not his expertise however), but Osiris was a bit sceptical; i was against this idea. It is not a consensus so much. In any case, i disagree that al-Qaeda's activity against Israel is part of the AI conflict - with same logic you can put Iranian activities against Israel as part of the AI conflict - which is clearly an absurd.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would that be absurd? Because technically, Iran isn't an Arab country? Yeah. And technically, Arabs can't be anti-Semitic because technically they're Semites... --Activism1234 21:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Egyptian–Israeli border attack/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Osiris (talk · contribs) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Well structured, and seems to check all the MOS boxes. Lead is an adequate summary. No use of controversial labels for living people. No embedded lists.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Almost all sources are news articles, which is pretty unavoidable, but there is a reasonable diversity in publishers.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I'm obviously still reading through it in detail, but from my cursory reading of the article it's certainly covered everything that needs to be. Whether it includes any extraneous detail is something that I will need to weigh up at the end.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Fair representation of reliable sources. Use of in-text attribution is excellent.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Debates seem resolved. Static material has been moved to another article without compromising the coverage of this one, so content should remain stable from here onwards.
  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):
    I was a little concerned about the accuracy of the license tag on the first image, but it's been proven to me elsewhere so all of the images are fine. I've also added alternative text.
  7. Overall:

Some preliminary comments[edit]

Interesting article. The language is fine, and the coverage is complete. I think moving the material on the ongoing operations to another article was a good decision, and the content of this article should remain stable as a result.

I've only reviewed up to the end of the first section for now, but there's a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with before I go any further. Parts of this first section contain serious close paraphrasing. Most of the section is fine, but there are some paragraphs that I've identified as problematic – the last two paragraphs about warnings prior to the attack, the report from Haaretz, and the bit about Aviv Kochavi. These need to be rephrased or completely rewritten. You might find it easier to integrate the information from these paragraphs into other paragraphs, if that makes sense. After you've done that, check through the rest of the article to see if there are any other parts that might reasonably be considered someone else's work. If you need some other tips on rectifying close paraphrasing, let me know and I'll give you some links. Osiris (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Extended content
  • Formatting:
  • There are a few references (e.g., 48, 58, 59) using a different date format than the rest of the article. Ref 48 is also using a different name style than the others.
  • Linking:
  • Some wikilinks need to be adjusted. In some instances, a word has been linked in its second or third appearance, rather than its first. There is also a bit of overlinking: al-Qaeda, for example, is linked three times in the same section; other words probably don't need to be linked except only perhaps in the very first instance (like Israel and Egypt).
  • Language:
  • The languge of what I've read so far is fine for a GA. Parts of it read somewhat like a news report would, which could be a reflection of the sources used (when you've read all these news articles on something, you naturally start to write about it using the same style and tone). It's not excessive, though, but something to keep in mind if you wanted to take it further than GA.
  • There are a few expressions and metaphors used; it's better to write plainly when catering for a global audience. An example is "set off alarms". If I find another that bugs me, I'll add it here later.
  • I usually fix minor grammatical issues when I notice them. I hope this is okay. One thing I would recommend you check for yourself is consistent use of serial commas: it's used in some instances (e.g. time, place, target, or type), but not in others (e.g. its Armored, Engineering and Infantry troops).
  • References:
  • All appear to be reliable. There is a lack of diversity in reference medium used, but this is probably unavoidable for this particular item.

Section 1[edit]

  • The second paragraph in this section needs restructuring, as it doesn't flow properly. I would suggest something more to the point:
These groups have been frequently attacking and bombing gas pipelines running between Egypt and Israel.
...or something similar. If it's important to mention AMPAL, be sure to make it clear what this initialism refers to — link it if possible, and use the expanded name if there is one.
  • The information in this sentence doesn't seem to be verified. The citation at the end of the paragraph only appears to verify the number of attacks, and perhaps contradicts the earlier sentence when it says that "no attackers' identities have been discovered after any after any of the bombings".
  • I suggest replacing ref 23 with ref 25; the citation currently used doesn't seem to verify any deaths, it just says "injuring a number of passengers". I'm also confused about the number of deaths in this paragraph. All three refs (23, 24, 25) report seven Israelis dead including six civilians; the seventh, ref 24 says is a Golani soldier, while ref 25 names an officer of Yamam. If my reading is correct, since both given seven as the death toll, I think it would be better if you either found a different reference or just said seven as well.
  • I think the word borderline has been used incorrectly in the second-to-last paragraph.
  • Some of the capitalisation may need fixing, such as in "Yamam special Unit police officer". Is "Armored, Engineering and Infantry" the name of something, or should these be lowercase?

Osiris (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. --Activism1234 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I've rewritten the paragraphs which you said are problematic. Hopefully they are good now. I am working on the other bullet points now. --Activism1234 23:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I went through a few references and changed the format. If there are others I missed, let me know. --Activism1234 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed some wikilinks that already existed and wikilinked others the first time they appeared (such as Bedouin). Let me know if I missed any. --Activism1234 00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "set off alarms" part. --Activism1234 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I changed the serial comma in the IDF division (I actually noticed it while making some other edits before reading this!) I also noticed it in other places, and fixed it there (such as in the August 2011 attack). --Activism1234 00:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't have any issue with you fixing grammatical errors when you notice them. --Activism1234 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've reworded the second paragraph in the background section. I hope that it's better.
  • What was meant by the source saying the identities weren't found is that they don't know the names of who did it, but it's clearly militants who would do this (such an attack would make them a militant). I've added two other referenses though that explicitly write "militants" in the headlines, which should make it better. --Activism1234 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In regards to the number of deaths, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but perhaps this CNN ref (in the article) will clear it up. Essentially, a minimum of 7 dead were reported in some of the refs used. 1 of the refs mentions a Golani officer was killed, which is true. The same media outlet, in a different ref, later reported that a special operations police officer was killed as well, which is also true. In total, as the CNN report shows, 8 were killed. --Activism1234 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've changed the word "borderline" to "Russo feared that soldiers at positions on the Egyptian-Israeli border near the Kerem Shalom border crossing would come under attack..." --Activism1234 00:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I capitalized all the words in Yamam. I believe that the IDF brigade is one brigade and that's the name for it, as that's how the reference wrote it. --Activism1234 00:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah! I understand now. Perhaps adding the CNN citation to the end of that sentence about the number of deaths will avoid confusion in the future. Your rewrites to the smaller paragraphs are excellent. That larger paragraph might need twisting a bit more, but I might have a couple of things to help. You might like to try out Dcoetzee's Duplication Detector, which can be helpful for the future. It might also be helpful to get a fresh pair of eyes to do a copyedit. I've posted a quick rewrite below. If you can use this as a basis and make some amendments of your own, it should be more effective.
Over the weekend prior to the attack on the border, various intelligence reports reaching the IDF's Southern Command warned of an impending attack. Specific information regarding the time, target and location of the attack could not be ascertained. The division's commander Maj.-Gen. Tal Russo prepared his troops regardless. Armored, Engineering, and Infantry soldiers were placed on high alert and the Israeli Air Force was deployed in the area as reinforcement. Russo evacuated troops from the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where the militants would later break through, in anticipation of them coming under attack.
I will continue the review tomorrow. I was a bit busy with some other things today. Osiris (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling me about that Duplication Detector tool!
  • I rewrote the paragraph, using your version as a basis.
  • Take your time, there's no rush.
  • Thanks. --Activism1234 16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Section 2[edit]

  • The ordinal 35 will need to be spelled out in full as long as it's kept at the beginning of the sentence. It's a MOS thing.
  • Is there an error in the distance covered? The article says "100 meters", but the corresponding fact in the source gives "about a kilometer". Can you please clarify?
    • Which source are you referring to? The sentence's reference is found in the next sentence (the reference applies for both sentences) (ref name="Blow by blow"), and it mentions 100 meters. --Activism1234 04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I know this is frustrating, but I really need you to go through the rest of the article and check it for close paraphrasing. Most of this section is okay, but one sentence was well over the line:
  • The article : Israeli troops were alerted to a possible breach of the border just minutes before the attackers crossed the border, following intelligence that an Egyptian border patrol post had been surrounded.
  • The source: The forces were alerted to a possible breach of the border minutes before the terrorist vehicle crossed the fence, following intelligence indicating that an Egyptian border patrol post had been surrounded.
  • All right, I've rewrote that one, hopefully it's better. I'll go through some other sections, I don't know if I'll have time tonight though as it's late and I'm busy right now, but hopefully in the morning. --Activism1234 04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Will do more later. Osiris (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your help! --Activism1234 04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey. Let me know when you've finished with this. There's another one right at the beginning of the next section:
  • Israel and Egypt believe that the attack was carried out by fighters from a global jihad network who are receiving assistance from local Bedouins in exchange for money.
  • Israel and Egypt estimate that the attack was carried by terrorists from global jihad, who are receiving assistance from local Bedouins in exchange for money.
I know it's frustrating. If you want me to put the review on hold for a while I can. I'll do a quick copyedit for grammar in the meantime. I've also added alternative text for the images, and started marking it off against the criteria. Osiris (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure sorry I didnt' get to it, hopefully I'll get to it today and then I'll just notify you quickly, shouldn't take too long though. I'm not familiar with the GA review though - what's the difference between the gray and green icons you posted above? Thanks. --Activism1234 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, the grey just means I haven't assessed those points yet. Green means it's checked off. Osiris (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through some of it now and changed some wording. I also split some of the paragraphs based on who said it or the category of the statement (nothing major), and removed 1/2 a sentence in the Egyptian section that wasn't part of Egypt's reaction. I'll go through the rest later hopefully. --Activism1234 16:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been going through some passages and changing around the wording a bit. I think that most would've been fine anyway, but always safe to be sure. Didn't go through all of them, but got some done. --Activism1234 05:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Section 3[edit]

I'm having some issues with prose. There's a lot of word repetition, which is corrupting the flow... ("Responsibility for the attack was initially unclear, as no group claimed responsibility.") There are parts where each sentence seems to be constructed in a way that makes it stand out on its own, rather than depending on its paragraph to form a natuarally flowing syntax. As an example, in the section titled "Egypt", each sentence individually makes it implicit that we're reading about the reaction in Egypt ("the Egyptian government", "Egyptian Prime Minister", "Morsi ordered Egyptian security forces"). While it's good to make things clear where there might be confusion, overdoing this will hinder rather than help the reader. Even within certain sentences, there is sometimes a superfluous adjective ("a North Sinai Egyptian security official"), or repetition of what's already been implied ("The Egyptian government indefinitely closed the Rafah border crossing to the Gaza Strip, which is a border crossing between Egypt and Gaza.") Use the advantage of wikilinks to defer unrelated explanations, such as the description of the iftar meal, which results in a lengthy, complex-compound sentence.

If you'd like, I can do a copyedit of the section to formulate the flow a bit better. Would that be okay? The good news is that I didn't find any copyright problems in this section. Osiris (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure that's fine. I'll go through it in the meantime and remove words like "The Egyptian government" because, as you said, that's obvious - it's the name of the section. --Activism1234 18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Great! I'll get started. Osiris (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed some of the stuff you requested (I truly hope you weren't editing at the same time, otherwise you'll have a really bad edit conflict... Sorry if that's the case!) --Activism1234 19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good! No conflicts, I'm too sloooow for that ;) Osiris (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I won't be back until tomorrow night, but feel free to fix up whatever you'd like and continue the review here, and I'll respond when I get back. Thanks! --Activism1234 22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit at the end of the section on "Palestinians" that seems as though it's liable to change. Has it changed, or should I tag it as dated information? Osiris (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Egypt's blockade has continued. There were some reports about 6 days ago from some sources that it reopened, but a more recent article I read in a reliable source (can't remember it) said it's still closed. If it changes though, it shouldn't really affect the stability of the article - just writing "On ___, Egypt reopened the ___..." --Activism1234 00:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Took a look on Google. It looks like it might have been reopened on 25 August??? I'll let you do the digging, just wanted to make sure it's not outdated. I was away for the weekend, but hopefully should get this review wrapped up during the week. Osiris (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Okay, I've checked off a few items, but there's no way I can judge some of these things when I'm still finding closely paraphrased content.

Extended content
Source Article

An unnamed security source told the daily that the three men are not suspected of perpetrating the attack, but of providing “indirect logistical support” to an extremist group in Sinai that carried it out. ... Hamas agreed to hand over the men to the Egyptians, but they refused to go voluntarily, citing a fear of being tortured by the Egyptians. The men did agree to be questioned by the Egyptian intelligence inside the Gaza Strip.

A security source said that the three men are not suspected of having carried out the attack, but rather of providing "indirect logistical support" to a Sinai-based extremist group which carried out the attack. ... Hamas agreed to hand over the men, but the men themselves refused, citing a fear of being tortured by the Egyptians. They agreed to be questioned by the Egyptian intelligence inside Gaza.

Abdul Dayem Abu-Midin, a Palestinian philanthropist from Gaza, on Thursday pledged $10,000 to every family of the Egyptian victims. He told the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Information Center that his donation stems from “the love of a Palestinian citizen to a sister-nation.”

Abdul Dayem Abu-Midin, a Gazan philanthropist, pledged $10,000 to each family of the 16 murdered Egyptian soldiers. Midin told the Hamas-affiliated Palestinian Information Center that his donation originates from "the love of a Palestinian citizen to a sister-nation."

...the Palestinian Authority on Saturday called on the Egyptians to tighten the blockade on Gaza by destroying all tunnels under their border with the Strip. ... This was the first time the PA has called publicly for the destruction of the tunnels.

...the Palestinian Authority called on Egypt to tighten the Egyptian blockade on Gaza by destroying all tunnels under their border with the Gaza Strip, marking the first time that the PA has called for the destruction of the tunnels publicly.

Mr. Ban expressed his condolences to the families of the victims and wished those injured a speedy recovery.

He also expressed his condolences to the families of the victims, and wished a speedy recovery to the injured.

Bahrain voiced total solidarity with Egypt and full support the measures undertaken by Cairo authorities to protect security and stability, and combat terror acts.

Bahrain expressed full solidarity with Egypt and full support of the measures undertaken by the Cairo authorities in order to protect security and stability and to combat these attacks.

...confirmed its recommendation to the Russian citizens visiting Egypt for tourism, to take the necessary precautions and to refrain from traveling outside the resort areas on the Sinai Peninsula.

...recommended to Russian citizens visiting Egypt to take the necessary precautions, and to refrain from traveling outside the resort areas on the Sinai Peninsula.

Even just reading through casually, there are parts that just sound like someone else's work, like they've come directly from a news article. It's not enough to simply change around the wording, and the problem appears to be extensive. There's no plagiarism, because attribution has been given in the text. But because these are copyrighted sources, the material simply can't be reproduced.

At this point, I'm wondering whether this nomination might fare better being resubmitted after a more thorough look into its issues with copyrights. Collaborative efforts to address the problem using the advice at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing would be the best approach. I'm happy to help where I can and give some advice, or if you'd like some extra eyes there are a number of names of users active in copyright cleanup I can give you. Osiris (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the paraphrasing issue in the extended content section. The only remaining thing after Russia is the reaction of the U.S., so I don't think you'll find much more paraphrasing. --Activism1234 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But as I said, it's not enough to just substitute some words for others. Once it's in there, close paraphrasing doesn't go away easily, and I saw it in pretty much every paragraph. In such a long article, I don't know whether I've caught them all. But – and I have to be blunt here – it's not up to me to find these things. It shouldn't have been in a good article nomination to begin with. I'm supposed to be reviewing whether the article meets the criteria for good articles, not whether it meets the most basic principles of Wikipedia.

With that said, here is another
Source Article

...initial forensic report on the bodies of the Rafah checkpoint attackers suggests that the perpetrators were wearing military uniforms made in Nablus, Palestine at the time of the attack.

...initial forensic report on the bodies of the gunmen suggested that the perpetrators were wearing military uniforms created in the Palestinian city of Nablus during the attack.

The problem is still in there, when I look for it. It's not going away easily. And since I don't know whether we've got them all, I have to fail this. It needs to be cleaned more thoroughly, preferrably with a collaborative effort and with an eye on the links and advice here.

I really do apologise, because it's quite obvious how much time and effort you've put into this article. Most other thing are fine. But it needs a thorough clean to be copyright compliant. Osiris (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Context (continuing)[edit]

Thank you for that comment.
As of now, it remains unknown officially where the perpetrators originated from. However, there are ample statements by both Egyptian and Israeli officials concerning Gaza-based perpetrators. Moreover, the Arab-Israeli conflict is just as it sounds. Islamic Jihad in Gaza is not a government or a country, is not a member of the Arab League, yet their missile attacks on Israel and Israeli airstrikes on Islamic Jihad militants are widely considered in the context of the conflict. The only way it'd seem as though the attack wasn't motivated by animosity against Israel (and Egypt) is if the attackers were mentally insane and decided to do this for the fun of it, something for which there is no evidence and is highly unlikely. --Activism1234 23:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little bit lost - is your comment a reply to me or to the GA1 nomination?Greyshark09 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
This is embarrasing... Yes, it was in response to you. I'll move it above. --Activism1234 01:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on August 2012 Sinai attack. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)