Talk:2016 Atatürk Airport attack

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

Lots of sources here[edit]

https://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d4SNy79pLQqsLrMZwUZTOtEHvGLfM&q=news&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs_MGX1svNAhUMWz4KHf95CpsQqgIIIDAA Victor Grigas (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britain and Donald Trump's reaction[edit]

British leaders and Trump have expressed condolences for the attack. British reaction should be added but I doubt about Trump as he does not hold any official position. Do you think Trump's reaction should be added? 59.89.40.92 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant he does not hold any official position in the US government. 59.89.40.92 (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because he is an official candidate now for the POTUS.--Stefvh96 (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Trump speaks for himself, not for the nation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not unless he holds an office. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We, Wikipedia editors, must be very careful and not be propaganda agents of governments. We should not automatically limit article coverage to just official statements. Note that this is not an endorsement of adding a Trump comment. In fact, please don't. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death count and official[edit]

Using this article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/europe/turkey-istanbul-airport-attacks/index.html?adkey=bn I updated the death count and changed the official who came up with the number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PromethiumElemental (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 36. Somebody keeps changing it to 50. If it continues I will seek semiprotection. Coretheapple (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, semiprotection would be good... --M4r51n (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just the User:Garzen edit? One edit alone is insufficient. I have warned that account. Coretheapple (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions[edit]

Let's head this off at the pass. Can we please please please limit the reactions to regional powers (UK, Germany, France) and relevant countries (Syria, Iraq, countries fighting ISIS directly). I'm totally against having a section dedicated to quotes from world leader, but if we are going to have it, then can we at least have it be tailored to the article at hand. What the president of Sri Lanka has to say about this attack is fairly irrelevant. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 03:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, the last graf about the Philippines seems irrelevant unless it can be stated that there is a large contingent of Filipino workers in Turkey and/or a sizeable number planning to work in Turkey. Sca (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a little more going on there than a simple "our thoughts and prayers are with you". It relates to the attack (cause of a potential ban) and relates to the two countries at hand (Filipinos in Turkey). Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 13:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Filipinos in Turkey would be helpful if it weren't eight years old and citing even older refs. IMO the Philippines' statement should be retained only if some brief reference can be made to the number of Filipino workers currently or recently resident in Turkey. Otherwise, since Manila is about 6,000 mi. from Istanbul, it seems pretty off the wall to English-lang. readers. Sca (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 10 hours, no one has added any explanatory, documented text regarding the presence of Filipinos in Turkey. Consequently, I've deleted the paragraph in question as being by itself irrelevant to this event. Sca (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The official condolences contained in this revision add no new info regarding the attack, its results or the perps. Boring and of little relevance. Suggest deletion. Sca (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In context of this event, I don't see much EV in the list (with flags!) of 38 countries that expressed condolences and support for Turkey in connection with the attack. It could be interpreted as a Turkey-centric effort to play up international support for Turkey despite various recent criticisms of some Turkish foreign and domestic policies. Sca (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I tend to agree. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: This user has no personal ax to grind with regard to Turkey or the Turkish people. My views are based on journalistic considerations. Sca (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A major issue about these reaction-sections is that they are almost never complete, and thus include and leave out a random number of countries. Either you'll have to have all, or you can have a limited selection for notability, or nothing at all. As these often develop however, they are just a random collection of countries, while including some small countries they leave out a great number of others which makes the impression that the countries left out have not expressed their condolences when I'm fairly sure that goes for all 190 or so countries in the world. So far this section "only" includes about 60 countries, so those in favour of full sections have a job to do. User2534 (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verb tense[edit]

Generally speaking, in encyclopedic writing past-tense verbs should be used, as most articles will outlive the present-tense status of breaking news. Wiki is not a news ticker. Sca (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Current event" tag[edit]

Given that the death toll is in flux and this only just happened late yesterday, I would suggest keeping that tag. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For how long? It's unlikely there'll be significant change in the death toll or other info. It's not really an ongoing event anymore. Suggest it be de-currentized (!) at least by early Thursday UTC. Sca (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, tentatively Thursday. Right now it's still a bit chaotic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per template:current, "it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day". Removed. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did not see that. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title needs to be changed[edit]

Should be a variation of Atatürk Airport.

Istanbul is only used by the uniformed or by dumbing down talk. It is as if the term New York airport attack were used instead of Kennedy Airport. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:COMMONNAME it is almost universally referred to as the Istanbul airport attack. Ataturk is rarely included in such references on first use and in article headlines and leads. I don't think it's necessary. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag salad[edit]

What is the point in the huge array of tiny flags and country names under the Reactions section? --John (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least we can identify all the 100+ possibly terror-supporting countries that are not included, I presume. User2534 (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh. Anything else? --John (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a useful section, as there is an absence of content. The reader has to go to the links, and all this does is identify the countries that express sympathy. Very marginal. Note that in Reactions to the September 11 attacks there are flags but also content with each. Coretheapple (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And hiding it was wishy-washy. (That was a tacit admission that it's not appropriate.) Either it's relevant to the story or it's not. I think not, for reasons aired above, and propose deletion. Sca (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I don't like that. However, I think that a more important task is to update the lead, as there is new sourcing, and it relies upon sourcing and speculation immediately after the attack. One thing I just noticed, and I hope this isn't a widespread problem: if you use the template reference gizmo and stick in the URL for a system-generated title, it turns up the wrong article name for the Daily Mail article ("50 dead"). Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added new AP ref to lede. (You beat me to the BBC re three attackers' origins!) Deleted 'flag salad.' Sca (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. (and no need to remove that little personal note, I thought it was amusing). Coretheapple (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK – it's back. Sca (talk)

Also what's the point in mentioning the names of airports which have "tightened" their security? Obviously hundreds of airports across the world would have stepped up security measures following this attack. Suggest removing airport names. 59.88.204.209 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To some degree it serves to illustrate how serious the attack was. However, I agree its relevance is fading fast. This is the prob with writing an encyclopedia article as if it were a breaking news story. We have to think ahead, and shouldn't get caught up in the moment. Sca (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it really should have a "current events" tag, as it is a developing story that keeps changing. I know that the documentation for the tag says that it should be removed after 24 hrs. but that's not a hard-and-fast rule. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the event is over. Sca (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just say "dozens of international airports across the world tightened their security" instead of naming the airports individually? Within a minute I could find similar news reports for airports in Vancouver, New Delhi, Azerbaijan and Singapore. 59.88.204.209 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. We should not try for real-time completeness on articles like this. --John (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't win friends with salad. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant for the lead(?): "A BBC report on 30 June indicated the attackers were from three countries that formerly were part of Soviet Union"[edit]

The current lead says: "A BBC report on 30 June indicated the attackers were from three countries that formerly were part of Soviet Union". I do think that this is not something that should be like this in the lead: the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 (25 years ago) and the current lead suggest that it is still to blame for a terrorist attack in 2016.... (I have no objection to the information being in the Responsibility-section of this article). It is better to just only list the countries (Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wording of the BBC report. We can tweak. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'IS'[edit]

Turkish officials said the attackers were from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, and commentators suggested that the attacks may have been related to stepped-up pressure against the group by Turkish authorities.

– Aside from needing a citation, I'm not comfortable with this. From what I've read, the attackers weren't from 'IS' – 'IS' is not a country – though they may have been coordinated by that terrorist group.
I'd rather see a simple statement that they were, according to an unidentified but "senior" Turkish official, from Russia, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. (The fact that those countries all were formerly part of the Soviet Union indeed doesn't seem very relevant.) Sca (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CNN reported that they came from those countries originally but had come directly from ISIL-controlled Syria. I've tweaked and added sourcing, though footnotes generally not needed in lead sections. Still, being a controversial subject, I see no harm. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few new details are coming out this evening (US time). I'd suggest keeping everything as is and add as necessary. No rush per WP:NOTNEWS as someone correctly cited above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good tweak. Sca (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organizer[edit]

Added Chechen extremist Akhmed Chatayev, per CNN via AP. Sca (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple: Since the Chechen separatist movement is not related to the Istanbul attack, "Chechen extremist involvement also was alleged" seems misleading and probably misplaced. As I read the AP story cited, Chatayev's designation as a "Chechen extremist" is merely biographical; presumably, his role here is that of Jihadist. – Sca (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's a valid point.
Would appreciate your (and other peoples') view of the title. See section above. It was changed without consensus or discussion and in my opinion hastily. However, changing it back, I think, would require technical assistance from an admin. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with your comment above. Obviously it should be 2016 Istanbul airport attack. Current title is pedantic and unwieldy. Sca (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I succeeded in moving it to 2016 Istanbul airport attack. – Sca (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good! That might have been the original title so I wasn't sure about redirects, double redirects, etc. Coretheapple (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akhmed Chatayev received refugee status in Austria (https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur50/002/2010/en/). I think this fact should be mentioned in the section about Chatayev 176.77.31.1 (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2016 Atatürk International Airport attack[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Discussion did not result in a consensus to move the article to the suggested title 2016 Atatürk International Airport attack. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 13:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Atatürk Airport attack → 2016 Atatürk International Airport attack – I would suggest renaming the article to 2016 Atatürk International Airport attack since there are two airports in Istanbul, neither called "Istanbul airport". -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying it is called "Istanbul Airport" and there is no need to name the airport in the title. It is commonly referred to in the reliable sourcing as the Istanbul airport attack, not as the Ataturk Airport attack. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: Take a look at: 2002 Los Angeles International Airport shooting and other articles in Category:Terrorist attacks on airports. The common method is to name the attack after the airport. This will be one of the only exceptions to this existent consensus. I cannot see a good reason for this. The claim that "Istanbul Airport" is the common name is original research at best IMHO. -- A Certain White Cat|Cat chi? 19:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Sca moved page 2016 Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack to 2016 Istanbul airport attack over redirect: Current title is pedantic and unwieldy. This event is generally known by the simpler "Istanbul airport" title.)

@Sca: This claim is baseless. This airports official name is used everywhere. See above on how articles on airport attacks are normally named. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Outside Turkey and the Middle East, and except for history buffs in the West, Atatürk is, alas, not a household name. From the standpoint of the the 1.2 billion English speakers worldwide, pedantically insisting on calling the article "Atatürk Airport attack" is counter-productive in terms of reader comprehension, and pointless. Sca (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It actually disambiguates the airport, because there exists more than one in Turkey. What is counter-productive here is the assumption that all readers are ignorant and have no world view. If a bomb went off in Stansted airport, we wouldn't call it "London Airport attack", if a bomb went off in Tegel Airport, we wouldn't call it "Berlin Airport attack", so why promote the ignorance here? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Google yields 26.5 million hits for Istanbul airport attack, 9.4 million for Atatürk Airport attack. That's 3:1 in favor of Istanbul airport attack. Sca (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance is no defence, just because many individuals aren't past high school education standard and can't quite cope with the idea that there could be more than one airport in Turkey, let alone Istanbul. "Istanbul airport attack" is inherently ambiguous, this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a blog. The redirect works just fine, and the current title is precise and accurate and verifiable. If we wish to stick to primarily American news sources, then please make that plain, in the meantime we should just be factual, not journalistic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the facts. Sca (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Istanbul" is generally much more known than the name "Atatürk". The airport is worldwide often referred to as Istanbul International Airport. However, Atatürk is the official name of the airport, and there is already a Wikipedia article about this airport: Istanbul Atatürk Airport. Why not making it consistent with what already exists, and name this article 2016 Istanbul Atatürk Airport attack. It makes perfect sense. My-wiki-photos (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have voted for Istanbul airport attack, but it's consistent with Wikipedia policy to be very precise, I guess. Just looked up the attack in 2002 against a synagogue on the island of Djerba, Tunisia. I had expected "Djerba Synagogue bombing" but it reads Ghriba synagogue bombing, as there might be more than one synagogue on the Djerba island. If that's policy, let's stick to it. We don't have to disambiguate then if somebody undertakes a Sabiha Gökçen Airport bombing next time. In fact, this already happened... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyacadiz (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Background" section violates NPOV[edit]

Large portions of the "Background" section of the article exhibit bias. The phrasing "willful blindness to [the] ISIL threat" itself violates NPOV, and moreover is apparently based solely on an op-ed in The Guardian (see WP:RSOPINION for further information on op-ed sourcing). The inclusion of the lengthy (almost 2 lines) quote from a Washington Post article (also an op-ed, by the way) seems to further tilt the POV of the article. Yes, these sources can be used, but presenting information from them without attribution to their sources should be avoided; in addition, sources cannot reasonably support their associated text portions if the text inserted is only a paraphrase of the cited article's title and does not discuss the content of the source, as is the case here. I would be prepared to undertake a substantial rewrite of this section, but wanted to achieve consensus before doing so. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as POV is apparent, sources op-eds, and too lazy to do it myself :P Dschslava Δx parlez moi 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clunky writing[edit]

Sorry to complain and not do to much to fix the issues, but the writing here is really clunky for a fairly major event. I hope it can cleaned up a bit. "This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened" is pretty sloppy writing, as it "It is believed....." It's not terrible, but it's not up to usual Wiki standards for a big international new story. Moncrief (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on 2016 Atatürk Airport 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, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 April 2018[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


2016 Atatürk Airport attack → Atatürk Airport attack – Year not needed. Unreal7 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Sole such attack.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposal goes afoul of WP:NCEVENTS, which suggests to use the When Where What formula for events that do not have an established, common name, and this once certainly does not. The year here is not a part of disambiguation, but simply a part of a "non-judgmental descriptive title", which is supposed to help readers locate the correct article. No such user (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the argument that was used at Manchester Arena bombing before. Unreal7 (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Atatürk_Airport_attack&oldid=1196704026"