Jump to content

Talk:Sinai insurgency

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sinai terror attacks)


Desert Storm?

[edit]

Is there an official confirmation for the code name operation "Desert Storm", which I noticed on the coup article in the incidents section? --PLNR (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Amrtarek (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I gathered its:

  • Operation Eagle (mid-2011)
  • Operation Eagle II (mind-2012) called here operation Sinai
  • Operation Desert Storm, two days at the end of July 2013

Since that point, it appears that Egypt adapted to the reality of counter-terrorism. They are still making concentrated efforts, but its part of wider continues operation. Including September 2013, January-February 2014. --StairSlash (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Abu Shatiya- Killed

[edit]

According to the article linked below one of their field commanders, Mohamed Abu Shatiya, was killed recently. Therefore, this article should be updated to reflect this information.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/112275/Egypt/Politics-/Reuters-Egypt-army-kills-militant-commander-in-Sin.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.18.54 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already updated [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL Sanctions

[edit]

Due to the involvement of ISIL in the Sinai insurgency from 2014, this page is subject to ISIL community sanctions, meaning:

  • All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.
    • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.
    • Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.}}

Please edit carefully and mind consensus.GreyShark (dibra) 19:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Bait al-Maqdis or Wilayat Sinai ?

[edit]

I noticed that editors reverted edits in the Ansar Bait al-Maqdis article and changed the group name back to Ansar Bait al-Maqdis but i can still find Wilayat sinai name in the fighting belligerents in the Sinai insurgency article. We should agree on a unified name and edit all the articles that connects with this group. Amr Mostafa (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as Wilayat Sinai. It is the name of the rebranded group that has merged into ISIL. There are also sources available to prove this. The small minority of Ansar Bait al-Maqdis that is left is not part of ISIL, so the name under the "ISIL" column should remain as it is. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle map needed

[edit]

Can someone please add a battle map for the Sinai Peninsula? The Libyan Civil War and the ISIL articles have their own battle maps of the countries involved in the conflicts, so why don't we have one for this article? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The militants in Sinai don't control ground territory, unlike ISIL. Amr Mostafa (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But there are still cities/towns that are contested. Even then, you have to remember that there are other terrorist groups that do control territory in the Sinai. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Militants do not control any one piece of land in the Sinai and the village nor city, And Look at this report from Reuters--RabeaMallah (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself. The article clearly says that the militants controlled one third of Sinai in 2013, and even though their momentum has been reduced, they still hold control in some areas in southern and eastern Sinai. Also, there are definitely villages/cities that are being contested right now in the Sinai, and it would really be nice for the readers if they could know who controls what piece of land, and where exactly the battles are taking place. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map (low-reslution, unfortunately), Wilayat Sinai controls some territory in northern Sinai. It would be really nice if someone cold generate a battle map for the Sinai region, so that we can see which groups control which pieces of land, and which cites are being contested. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The map you posted states that ISIS is operationaly active in the North Sinai region, there are no sources about any militant held terrority in Sinai. Militants use hotbeds and temporary camps to launch their attacks from and then retreat to hideouts in the mountains or simply in the city between civilians because basically they are "civlians" too. When they seize an armored vehicle they take what they can and then burn it, because it is impossible for a relatively small group to enter a conventional battle with an army supported by an airforce and a huge manpower. Holding ground is the senseless move they can take. Amr Mostafa (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Reuters article provided by another user above, Wilayat Sinai does control territory, although it has been greatly reduced from last year's amount. Also, there are plenty of villages and cities being contested right now, and these clashes should be mapped out for the readers to see. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source that names a specific village to be under militant control, that would be great. Amr Mostafa (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a map of what ISIL controls in the Sinai Peninsula. Now, can someone please generate a battle map? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The militants are present in some town districts in a small pocket of land in the North Sinai governorate near the border with Gaza, but that doesn't mean they actually control anything, unless you manage to find reliable sources with specific town/village names they occupy. Earlier this month they attempted to take over Sheikh Zuweid but failed miserably following a government siege of the town's police station a few hours later. But that's about it. This was the first and last occasion so far on which they deviated from their regular hit-and-run technique and actually held something. What they may "control" in Al-Arish, Rafah and Sheikh Zuweid is as significant as what criminal gangs do in some districts of, let's say, Los Angeles. Even Mexican cartels and North Caucasian insurgents hold more territory than Wilayat Sinai. I understand you're very keen to bring about this map, but that won't happen as long as you don't provide enough RS for that purpose. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created a battle map, like the ones on the other Middle Eastern conflict articles (particularly those in the Levant); might as well do it since the Sinai insurgency article now has a map module of its own. Currently, Wilayat Sinai doesn't control anything outside of the Sheikh Zuweid District. They may be attacking some of the towns in the area right now, but the map module currently does not reflect this. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the millionth time, unless you provide enough reliable sources backing the claims that ISIL controls the territory marked on the template (and highlighted in the file on which it is based), this would clearly be in WP:OR territory and should be put up for deletion. There was clearly no consensus to create this map. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to make an own article about the casualties?

[edit]

I think the section Casualties is too long and perhaps it is time to make it an own article and have more general descriptions here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea but i think the casualties section should remain and create a new detailed article about each incident and add more details about the attacks. Amr Mostafa (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the section exceeds more than a third of the total article length, then sure. However, a summary section with monthly totals/major highlights should be maintained in this article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a more general description should remain, like "monthly totals/major highlights". --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support casualties separate article — Preceding unsigned comment added by G8j!qKb (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support casualties separate article Amr Mostafa (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IRISZOOM, Amr Mostafa, LightandDark2000, G8j!qKb, and David O. Johnson: I went ahead with the splitting process. The new article is titled Timeline of the Sinai insurgency. If anyone agrees with Amr Mostafa that each incident should be added with details, then you may find some of the stuff that I have on my userspace kind of useful for that purpose (see User:Fitzcarmalan/Timeline of the Sinai insurgency). Cheers, Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The monthly casualties should still be summarized in the main article, especially for major attacks. However, the article split was necessary. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good but there is still too many sections and details here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is it allowed to use the photos published by militants ? It would be great and will improve the article alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amr Mostafa (talk • contribs) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Photos published by militants, terrorists, or criminals can't really be copyrighted anyways. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas's temporary aid to the Jihadists

[edit]

Hamas aided the Jihadists for a while. I think we need to discuss about we should make a "supported by" and add Hamas in both sides, on the Jihadists from 2011-2015 and on the Egypt's side fron 2015-. I am sorry that I don't give enough sources (cause I have very limited time) but I will add when I will be able to. --Bolter21 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

This is kind of after the fact but it seems as though that was a decidedly contentious claim and not actually proven. It's something that's even more unlikely when you consider that Hamas was/has been/is in combat with salafi jihadi cells in Gaza who've made a big meal about pledging allegiance to ISIS/Daesh. I think the big issue was that the Sinai Jihadis were using unsecured tunnels or some such thing-- rusty on that issue itself though. Shah massoud (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this information should be added. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apperently I forgot about this subject. I"ll try and see how can it be added. If anyone see and have any idea, feel free.--Bolter21 (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, this is allegations made by Egyptian and Israeli officials plus some journalists who are fast to accept that as fact (like Avi Issacharoff who likes to do that). International media is careful with that and it is the same when it comes to the alleged support from the Muslim Brotherhood. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a one who observe forgion media after reading my media, I can tell you that most of forgion media (by forgion I mean forgion to the subject's location) mostly don't care about things like this. Can you give a source that explanes why Hamas didn't help the Jihadists even though Egypt acually classified Hamas as a terrorist organization which is a drastic move giving the fact you seem not to recognize Hamas's temporary aid to the Jihadists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolter21 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Egypt or another state etc. claim is not automatically true, especially when they have a conflict with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Much stronger sourcing is needed to present that claim as a fact. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Egyptian forces seize rockets being smuggled from Gaza to Sinai". Retrieved 2 July 2015.
  2. ^ Greg Botelho, CNN (6 June 2015). "Egyptian court rules Hamas not a terrorist organization - CNN.com". CNN. Retrieved 2 July 2015. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  3. ^ "Behind the lines: The Jihadi connection between Sinai, Gaza and Islamic State". The Jerusalem Post - JPost.com. Retrieved 2 July 2015.
  4. ^ "Since Egypt's military ousted Morsi in 2013, the authorities have accused Hamas of aiding the jihadists". 2015-01-31.
  5. ^ "Egyptian forces shoot dead three Palestinian gunmen in Sinai". i24news. Retrieved 2 July 2015.

Map

[edit]

Does ISIL really control the roads connecting Sheikh Zuweid and Arish, as well as the relative abundance of famrs in the northeastern coast of Sinai? I don't think so.. (Unless I"ll be provided with a source). I think the map should have the "area of operation" and not the ambigues control areas of the group.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might control a few, but most of their control is rather limited to the outlying communities. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where are your sources? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to see some source. So far I gathered only tidbits on more recent events, that militants have managed to hold territory in the areas of Moqataa and Mehdiya, and they very briefly held the city of Sheikh Zuweid in a July 1, 2015, advance. --StairSlash (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Sinai insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

The Lebanon paper seem to imply that the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty demilitarization led to the situation:

"Security provisions in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty of 1979 have institutionalized a diminished security presence in the area, enabling militants to operate with a freer hand."

I read several papers on the topic, but this is the first I am hearing of this. And it makes no sense, the reason for the outbreak of hostilities is due to decades long Egyptian policy which marginalized the locals, not because they couldn't station mechanized military division in the region...

Anyway, I am tired, I am going to add few extra source and leave it to someone else to fix.--StairSlash (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian casualties

[edit]

The religion of those killed is almost never mentioned in infox box in such conflicts. Further if it was mentionned, it would be in the civilian casualties section. The religious affiliation of soldiers is not relevant. And finally, the civilian section already mentions the nationalities which imply a religious figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.158.185 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not many non muslims live in sinai 2A02:C7C:507D:0:916F:2E2C:6556:88F (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinai insurgency. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Start year of 2011?

[edit]

Contrary to the article, didn't the insurgency predate the 2005 Sharm El Sheikh bombings? Or was that an entirely separate? --TimSC (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sinai insurgency

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sinai insurgency's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc.com":

Reference named "auto6":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sinai insurgency. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign support

[edit]

Can we please stop adding Russia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the US as "supporters" of the government in the infobox? So what if they export arms to and/or finance the military? Many others do that as well. And the sources kind of indicate that there is original research involved. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Hi! I agree with @Muhammad adel007: that the article title should be changed to "Terrorism in Sinai", or "Sinai terror attacks", or something like that to clearly reflect the criteria. ISIS is internationally recognized as a terrorist group.--TheEagle107 (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency means rebellion, riot or mutiny by portion of the citizens of a State against the established government. It indicates armed struggle by dissident forces the established government in a state.

The difference between terrorism and insurgency is that an insur­gent has the support of a large section of the local population while a terrorist need not have such support. Again, an insurgent is a national of a country which is in revolt against the constitutional government of his country and fights to overthrow the government by guerrilla warfare. The terrorist may or may not be a national of the country in which he op­erates (Saxena, 1985:14-35).

If there are no objections, I will move the page soon.--TheEagle107 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 October 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved.
 A simple count shows two !votes in favour of moving to the proposed title (including the nominator), and another supporting moving but opposing the proposed title, and another agreeing with the !voter who supported moving but was unsure about the proposed title. A simplistic count might deliver a no-consensus close, but in the case the WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME arguments put forward by the supporters are highly persuasive and based on clearly presented evidence. In contrast the dissenting !votes are less clearly made out. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Sinai terror attacks → Sinai insurgency – I think the article should have its name back to an insurgency due to recent attacks by the ISIL-SP like capturing villages which is a lot more than just a simple terror attack. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Support renaming away from the present title and oppose moving back to the "insurgency" title. This is about so much more than attacks by terrorists in Sinai. It is also about so much more than an ambiguous insurgency. Not sure what the correct title should be, perhaps Militant violence in Sinai or similar? Neither the current title nor the proposed title is adequate for this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't militant violence be the same as insurgency? If not, we could also call it a conflict like the Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict and Turkey–ISIL conflict. But it might just be better to call it an insurgency like most articles that have Islamic state as a major player. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought so at first, until I read the article on insurgency. That's a word with ambiguous overtones and only partly applies to what's been happening in Sinai. This article needs a title that unambiguously lets readers know what it's about. And neither "insurgency" nor "terror attacks" fulfill that need. Frankly I'm not certain that "militant violence" does, either, but at least that seems closer to the mark than "terror attacks" or "insurgency". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 02:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Paine Ellsworth: but I don't find any harm in keeping the title as it is, which seems to resonates very well with the article. There are many websites, newspapers, and TV channels that describes the situation in Sinai against the Egyptian army, security and police forces, and even civilians (see: 2017 Sinai mosque attack) as “terrorist”, “takfiri” and “extremist” acts/attacks. Anyway, in my humble opinion, any suggestions should be considered carefully and should reflect WP:consensus. Regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belligerents

[edit]

@WatanWatan2020 Can you explain to me what is wrong with adding Israel and (to lesser extent) UAE? There are sources (as I understand them, these sources are reliable) that provide evidence for their involvement in this conflict. This involvement shouldn't necessarily be direct and official. There may also be several other sources if there is a need. This is not a big secret really. Moreover: after (probably) denying in 2018, in 2019 Egyptian President seemed to confirm cooperation (here or here, also mentioned in Human Rights Watch report here). What else proof do you want?
Also want to hear responses from other editors. --Oloddin (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WatanWatan2020 Please stop removing information for no apparent reason. It is common knowledge that Israel has carried out airstrikes against ISIL on Egyptian territory. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, where did you get this common knowledge information from that israel did such a thing? It is officially denied by the Egyptian military and Israel itself never claimed to have carried out strikes there. So where is this information you are getting coming from? And where did you even get that the UAE is in anyway involved in the Sinai to be adding this also? WatanWatan2020 (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the Egyptian military has OFFICIALLY denied such reports and allegations that anyone but its own forces are involved in the Sinai. if otherwise, then such parties you list such as UAE and Israel can come out with evidence and prove their involvement. None of that has happened. The only reliable source is the official statement and position of the Egyptian military. The reactions of Israel to the operation by Egypt also goes contrary to the idea that they joined Egypt’s side to do such a thing. You also added a source for Israel that explicitly states in the title the official denial by the Egyptian military. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense that both countries would deny Israel's involvement. Much of Egypt's population remains hostile to Israel, so the denial by the Egyptian government is a no-brainer. Israel does not want to embarrass al-Sisi's government, so they too keep quiet (for the most part). But numerous airstrikes have been carried out, and despite official denials, this has become common knowledge. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a proper form of source. Wikipedia is based on proper sources and official statements. “Common Knowledge” is objective. What is common knowledge to you is not the same for others. But what is taken as the proper source is official statements. Therefore, we will go based on the official positions on the matter. It is the only legitimate source. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not sure why there is the addition of The UAE. In no way are they involved in the Sinai. The list of operations even on their own pages, and in their own official defense sites do not list as such.

To add, common knowledge is not proper sourcing. An example is that it is common knowledge that ISIS is supported by specific intelligence agencies. A lot of people have common knowledge that Israel’s Mossad is behind it. Although is israel listed as a supporter? No. This is because common knowledge differs amongst people and therefore becomes a bias. Let’s try to avoid bias. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 04:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are (obviously) the references that you keep deleting, and there is plenty more out there. I just tried (and apparently failed) to explain to you why "official statements" are not necessarily true. I don't know how to respond to your comparison of reality and conspiracy theories. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I made to Israel being behind Isis is common knowledge amongst Many people. You can try and shrug it off as “conspiracy theories” although I was making the attempt to use your argument of “common knowledge” as a source of information..which now obviously you don’t like since it doesn’t fit to “your comparison of reality”. I reverted back important information on Egyptian forces which should’ve not been removed to begin with.. and clarified the position on supporting forces, which was actually added before by someone else to have more of a neutral tone. This will be the neutral tone, practically meeting each other half way at this point. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ. If you can't understand the difference between "common knowledge" (backed by sources) and conspiracy theories, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Furthermore, "neutrality" is not some sort of middle ground between reality and official statements. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion for Israel involvement in the page should be removed. We've established that common knowledge is not something to be considered credible. We should also be aware of the fact that most sources in support of Israel's involvement is a second-hand (possibly third-hand) information linked to NY's article by David Kirkpatrick who, albeit his numerous contributions, is a questionable journalist with questionable neutrality.[1] Amaxs (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian president also confirmed it (see beginning of the section). Maybe we should add "Support" to Israel and UAE as Egypt is the main side who fights IS-SP. --Oloddin (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut the chase and state one fact, Israel never claimed that they intervened in Sinai with operations, they never claimed to make airstrikes there or deploy troops, and Egypt officially denied their involvement. They only supported Egypt with publications. If you are going to add to Egypt's combatant side everyone who made publications supporting Egypt, half the world would be there, which makes 0 sense, but if you want to do that then add everyone who made such publications with Israel. Doo2doo2 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote Mikrobølgeovn above: It makes perfect sense that both countries would deny Israel's involvement. Much of Egypt's population remains hostile to Israel, so the denial by the Egyptian government is a no-brainer. Israel does not want to embarrass al-Sisi's government, so they too keep quiet (for the most part). But numerous airstrikes have been carried out, and despite official denials, this has become common knowledge. Such official statements are WP:PRIMARY sources, and we need reliable WP:SECONDARY sources such NYT. twsabin 15:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you cant make something reliable based on secondary sources without having primary sources ?

What is the primary source ? The NYT cant be the primary source since you put them as secondary source. Doo2doo2 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.imediaethics.org/ny-times-never-called-me-anonymous-sources-fact-check-failures-rule-in-egypt-analysis-reveals/

Necessary changes are needed.

[edit]

1) The Title should be changed to something like Terrorism in Sinai , the word "insurgency" does not describe it. 2) Should we not consider it over? ISIS in over 7 months have not released a statement, and it has not declared allegiance to the new ISIS "Caliph" for over 3 weeks, most terror organizations listed are either defunct, went into hiding, and have not committed any terror attacks for a considerable amount of time. 3) Map does not describe the current situation in Sinai, ISIS-SP and other groups do not control territory in Egypt anymore, the last land they held was lost in 2021. 156.215.211.178 (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the map. Agree the article in general could use an update. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total casualties don't add up

[edit]

If we add together the casualtiess of all sides and civilians as stated in the infobox we get 9,112 fatalities, but the the same infobox claims that this number is above 10,000. So which one is correct? Gorgedweller (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The total seems to be rounded up and unsourced? Possibly it should just be removed? But it would be good to find an accurate overall estimate, the Lancet or the United Nations will have one, it will probably be even higher. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinai_insurgency&oldid=1253456556"