Talk:2010 Sharm El Sheikh shark attacks

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Articles have been merged. un☯mi 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Provided that the event is deemed notable enough, this article and Egyptian shark attacks conspiracy theory should be merged. It is all about the same event, one topic. The major overlap between the articles prove that. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Those are two different articles, each notable on its own. We do have articles about September 11 attack and September 11 attack conspiracy theory and many others like those. If conspiracy theory is merged into this article, it will be undue weight. That conspiracy theory was called the most bizarre ever. It should have its own article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Can't compare it to Sept. 11 articles. This event is split up over numerous articles since there is such a flood of info. And these two articles are not notable on its own. Shark attacks by themselves are not notable. We can merge them the other way around if preferred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by P199 (talk • contribs)

• Agree in no way this cannot be compared to 9/11 and that's why here's only one article about the theory. This conspiracy theory got significant press coverage and that's why it should have an article on its own.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support don't see why appropriately merging a content fork needs to wait for DYK. Takes no precedence over the editorial process. If the merger proposal fails, is when it should be considered for the main page. Hence, i've reopened this.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Just to be clear i propose the article be merged into the following section of this article: 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks#Israel conspiracy theory.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The page on these shark attacks run afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS, and certainly the topic does not deserve more than one article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The conspiracy theory is a sub-topic of the shark attacks (which are certainly notable and very widely-covered; the conspiracy theory has attracted much less coverage). However, we should be careful that the conspiracy theory doesn't swamp the rest of the article. It's really not a big part of the story, so it shouldn't be the subject of disproportionate coverage (which I think a separate article certainly would be). Prioryman (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Now it is interesting. If according to you conspiracy theory is "really not a big part of the story", why did you use it in your initial DYK hook? I mean why not to use something that is "a big part of the story" instead, just not to mislead wikipedia readers you know?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, but maybe because he thought it was an interesting hook?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. A hook is like a newspaper headline - the goal is to make people sufficiently interested to click on the link to find out more. Prioryman (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, and that's why the article about conspiracy theory that was written 7 hours before this one was should not be merged with this one. It is interesting, it is what made the case so special. I wrote my article before this one was. Don't you think I thought about writing an article on shark attack with a paragraph on conspiracy theory? Of course I did, and I decided against it. Shark attacks were usual shark attack news articles. Conspiracy theory is a different story. It is a very good example of Middle East conspiracy theories.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What makes the case special was it was the worst series of shark attacks in egyptian history, created a great deal of hysteria, a mass egyptian shark hunt, disruption of tourism, and was highly unusual in the global context of shark attacks. The kookery about israel is also interesting and should be treated in the article on the overall event. Your first thought, to create an article on the shark attack, was the right one (this largely has to do with the organizatoin of knowledge and avoiding content forking; if an event is notable for 2, 3, more things, it should generally be covered in one article.) You ended up making the wrong final decision. It happens. No big deal.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have added the words "In my opinion" to your post. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody just added an interesting piece of press coverage to conspiracy article. In case it gets reverted from the article or the article is merged I'd like to preserve it here.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The other article is the locus of interest in the related articles. If anything, this article should be merged into that one, or else deleted. That this article was created later than the other article only supports that view.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the conspiracy theory is merely a sub-topic of the shark attacks. No attacks, no conspiracy theory. The attacks have also received far more coverage (I'd guess orders of magnitude more) than the conspiracy theory. I was actually a little surprised that the conspiracy theory had become the subject of a separate article. Although I'd covered it in this article, I didn't consider it particularly significant in its own right - after all, it's apparently sourced to just two people of negligible notability - a local politician and someone interviewed by Egyptian TV. Prioryman (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although this strikes me as rather more a matter of editorial preference than significant policy concerns. I see no problem with the content of the conspiracy article: the subject is clearly notable and kudos to Mbz1 for writing about such an interesting and quirky subject. What decides it for me is the volume of overlapping information relating to background etc. Given the volume of common material, I consider it editorially preferable to place everything in the one article. My most preferred outcome would be for most of the content in the "Conspiracy theory", "Israeli response and press coverage" and "Explanations from shark experts" sections of the conspiracy article be merged (almost verbatim) into this article, the first two as sub-sections of the Conspiracy section here, and the last as its own section.  -- Lear's Fool 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Merge The combined length is not such that a content fork is necessary, we can keep the conspiracy theory redirect if necessary for navigation purposes. First mover is not really relevant to the discussion, for the purposes of merge targets we should be focusing on encyclopedic titles as well as weigh the sources. Needless to say, each of the (fairly few) sources that mention the conspiracy angle also deal with the Shark attack itself. Above Mbz1 states that the conspiracy angle got significant coverage, I guess everything is relative but, searching just for the last months reports: news.google.com: Egypt shark attack +conspiracy shows 18 stories, some of them blogs, some are 'entertainment' pieces where they mix in the latest comments by Bar Refaeli or the antics of Bristol Palin etc. while news.google.com: Egypt shark attack -conspiracy claims 880 stories - I don't think we need to argue about which is the more notable story. un☯mi 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: This increasingly looks like a non-event, whoever sourced this managed to miss that on Dec 5 the governor attributed the attacks to dumping of sheep carcasses[1], and that he apparently came out in support of that theory again on Dec 13[2]. I am also not finding any particular evidence that the actual theory had legs within Egyptian media or the public, can any one find that? un☯mi 15:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question Have you even bothered to read and maybe try to understand what you are reading before you came here to vote? Or you were in such a hurry to wikihound me that you did not? [3] [4]; But even, if Egyptian media did not mention this at all, how does it matter? Are we not allow to use other media sources, if Arab media does not mention something? Oh well... --Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply I am trying to find out if there is an actual conspiracy theory in circulation or not. Quite honestly from reading the sources it doesn't seem like it, what it seems more than anything is that a comment regarding not ruling anything out[5] was taken out of context, multiplied, amplified and then turned into an article by an editor with an agenda. The link to the sheep dumping hypothesis is everywhere, and seems more than anything to be the one supported by Egyptian officials: Hisham Gabr Ali, the chairman of Egypt's Chamber of Diving and Water Sports as reported in ABC.au Dec 7, Shousa as reported Dec 2 in Epoch Times, vancouver sun, Dec 5 in The Telegraph and Dec 12 by Reuters etc etc This hypothesis was likely prompted by the report that weeks earlier an Australian cargo ship dumped carcasses as reported in bbc on Dec 5. The actual article should be about incompetence in reporting, but there you go. un☯mi 16:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  That's right. I do have an agenda Here's only a small part of my "agenda". Wikipedia would have been a better place if there were more editors as I am versus wikihounds and trolls, who see their only purpose in trolling on administrator noticeboards and wikihounding the editors, who actually write encyclopedia.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Merge I think the article is fine on its own. The theory is reported by reliable sources and is notable. It is not a prevailing theory but it does not need to be. - BorisG (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Merge No reason to have a separate page for a fringe theory which is apparently reported solely in connection to the event itself. Shoplifter (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge A very notable story that has got lots of coverage in Israel and around the world. Definitely deserves an article on its own.--Broccoli (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if either article's topic will receive enough enduring coverage to be kept, as Google's news timelines seem to show that coverage of the attacks has fallen to near zero.[6][7] There would be little point in merging these articles if the result was to be deleted anyway. Another option would be to merge the conspiracy theory article into something like Antisemitic canard#Accusations of causing wars, revolutions, and calamities. --Avenue (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is a wrong approach to make a decision depending to the level of news coverage. If the same discussion were at wikinews, then yes, but here is an encyclopedia. For example we do have an article Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916 that is BTW a featured article. I am sure its news coverage now is zero, but in encyclopedia it looks just fine. And I am very sure that in a few months or years that conspiracy theory would be discussed in books about conspiracy theories.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge The vast majority of the material in the conspiracy theory article either duplicates this article or belongs here. The sourcing for the existence of a conspiracy theory is in any case very thin, not enough to justify a separate article. --NSH001 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge into this article: Overlapping of content in the articles like "Background" and "Explanations from shark experts" in the conspiracy article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge: per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this would be better included in one article rather than two separate ones. SmartSE (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge - I think it would make a fine addition to this article as a strong subsection. I think forking it into two separate stories only split the content unnecessarily, and that it's not worthy of a separate article all by itself. — Hunter Kahn 01:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge - fringe theory (now retracted) can be dealt with in a single well written paragraph. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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.

Merge discussion

It ran for over a week with 12 arguments for, and four against. I've gone ahead and done it.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 Sharm El Sheikh shark attacks. 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/20100525234739/http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/species2.htm to http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/species2.htm

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) 23:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)