Talk:August 2012 Sinai attack

Change terrorist to attacker
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.  -- Activism  1234  03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I"m fine with using substitutes as much as possible, for example "gunmen" or "attack." -- Activism  1234  04:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Against "references": TERRORIST (contentious label). "Freedom fighters" would be as bad. "Attacker" and "gunmen" would adher to the guidelines better. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  17:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Name change?
Another border checkpoint was attacked. 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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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? -- Activism  1234  15:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial suspects
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. --37.244.215.89 (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.  -- Activism  1234  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). -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  04:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

New insertions into background section
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.

-- Activism  1234  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. -- Activism  1234  01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Context
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. -- Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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).  --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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 article – if 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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. 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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing how any of the arguments above can change the consensus as previously notated. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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... --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  21:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Context (continuing)

 * 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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  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. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  01:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812202329/http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-05/africa/world_africa_egypt-violence_1_egyptian-soldiers-north-sinai-security-rafah-border to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-05/africa/world_africa_egypt-violence_1_egyptian-soldiers-north-sinai-security-rafah-border
 * Added tag to http://www.alarabiya.com/news/articles/66/Bahrain-Condemns-Sinai-Terror-Attack.html

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

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