Talk:2022 Istanbul bombing

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

WP:SYNTH[edit]

I have removed the mention that Soylu is known for this rhetoric as the articles belonged to before the attack even happened, therefore didn't include a mention of the bombing. Anyway the info was added back, adapted a bit and I won't edit war over its inclusion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly do not see the point of putting in the header of the article that he accuses the USA of having committed the attack (which he does not, he accuses them of having financed the groups that he thinks committed the attack), especially since this politician spends his time accusing them of all the evils affecting Turkey, from terrorism to the issue of the veil. He has an openly anti-US rhetoric on a number of issues, and I think it's important to state that, which I did.(BTW, the text I wrote was pretty mild-tempered, because he says openly in some instances that the USA are the worst country in the world, which obviously is to be said when he accuses them again of something else)
Respectfully, AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neve Shalom Synagogue cancels memorial to 2003 bombings[edit]

Cramer, Philissa (2022-11-13). "Blast rocks Istanbul, killing at least 6 and canceling memorial for Jews killed in 2003 attacks". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 2022-11-14.

Also, it's worth knowing that a deadlier attack occurred in Beyoğlu district in 1986. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted in "See also". Sarrail (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title and reactions[edit]

As we know, the title is 2022 Istanbul bombing. I'm confused, of why the title is like this if the editors already had the article "March 2016 Istanbul bombing." (In See Also) which is similar to this one. Shouldn't be the title "November 2022 Istanbul bombing"?

Also, there is another article of a bombing in Istanbul, which is January 2016 Istanbul bombing.

Thank you. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because there were several 2016 Istanbul Bombings Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far 2022 Istanbul bombing is fine. And I do not understand your insistence to include mention of selected countries? As you see many countries had something to say on the bombing and it would just deviate the readers from the core substance. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it would? (Deviate), also, i wrote the information at the final of "Organization of Turkic States", so it wouldn't and i tried to write the information with the order that is required. A user said is not necessary to put a sub-heading of a single country, and also said that it should be in International Sub-Heading, and i tried to write it like another similar articles, and I did the configuration of the texts as i saw in another article.
Well, i see important to put the reaction of the countries that has relations with Turkey. Also, the text that is currently wrote in International is:
"Many countries, including Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Canada, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Latvia, the Netherlands, Moldova, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Romania, Russia, Somalia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uzbekistan condemned the attack and offered their condolences. Condolences were also offered by international organizations such as the European Council, NATO, and Organization of Turkic States (OTS)."
And that's incomplete. The text is based in a list of countries that offered condolences, and the organizations that did the same... That's it, i feel necessary the detailed reaction of the countries, but not all... Also that it'd more informative to the readers.
Also: In the heading "Internal" there's detailed information of the reactions of some institutions, for example: Kurdish People's Democratic Party: expressed its "deep sorrow and grief over the explosion that has killed six of our fellow citizens and injured 81 others", adding that "Our grief and sorrow is great. We wish God's mercy to the citizens who lost their lives".
That is the exact same format i wrote in "France and Germany". Which was deleted because "Was good before". Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really, what we could do now is to add
{{flagcountry|Countryname}}
and add the condolences to it. Reliable sources will also be needed. You may add Germany and France's next to their flags. Sarrail (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable source is there. Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrator is still unknown[edit]

In the fact section, should "perpetrator" be renamed to "possible perpetrators" as it lists several groups and is unconclusive? FikaMedHasse (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree CyanCat8991 CyanCat8991 19:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhealthy false flag speculation[edit]

I'm noticing that there is a significant amount of speculative stuff being written in the articles that frankly is very biased and not really supported by any facts, like for example in the background information, there is the mentioning of the election and other things, but I'm wondering what that has to do with the attack, it seems like people are pushing suggestive thinking trying to push a narrative that somehow Turkey did this to itself, without any basis. And then there is a the perpetrators column, where people are taking statements from the PKK saying that Turkey carried out a false flag. I'm just wondering if this sort of speculation would be the same if there was a terrorist attack in western states, and if someone would write in that al qaeda or whatever group is alleging that the US or whatever country carried out the attack on itself for its own foreign policy objectives or whatever reason. Like for example I cannot imagine that the 9/11 article would be ever written in any way that would acknowledge conspiratorial stuff, b/c that would be seen as irresponsible, and yet for some reason this seems reasonable to some people here. Midgetman433 (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply stating, for instance, that the SDF disavowed any involvement and accused the government of the bombing as a "false flag" operation isn't supporting that accusation. They did say that, and that fact that they said it is noted. Omitting that fact seems like censorship.
Al-Quaeda, on numerous occasions, definitely took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on numerous occasions. If they had disavowed responsibility you can be assured that the Western press would have been reported it.
I'm not seeing a "perpetrator's column" in the article itself, in earlier versions of the article, or in the talk section. What are you referring to?
Ormewood (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I saw "Turkey (alleged by the PKK)" listed under "Perpetrator" on the right hand of the page, which is why I raised the question. Alond with the speculative/conspiratorial narrative attached to the background section.
Secondly, If i'm not mistaken Binladen never took responsibility explicitly(this was one of the reasons cited by the taliban when the US asked them to turn him over, and the taliban demanded proof.), its actually a very common conspiracy theory in the Muslim/Arab world, that the U.S. faked the attacks to launch a crusade against the Muslim/Arab world. Of course such a thing would be ludicrous to add to the 9/11 page, but somehow this sort of speculation people seem to think is valid for Countries they don't like. There are several other such events where the people allegedly involved suggest that those accusing them did it themselves(several incidents with other non state actors), and we don't seem to list that on wiki pages, so the rationale seems to be selectively applied.
People it seems to me are trying to create suggestive thinking b/c of their own geopolitical biases against Turkey, even in Turkey the opposition has made no such claims, and they actually are in govt in the city, with the mayoral office and local police under their jurisdiction. The govt itself hasn't explicitly named the culprits, b/c the investigation is ongoing. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stating the fact that the SDF and PKK denied involvement in this incident is not "supporting conspiratorial stuff." It is, in fact, possible that they weren't, by the way; after the bombings of March 19th of 2016 the government was quick to blame the PKK, only to reverse their assessment later on and blame ISIL. Given that, trying to imply reporting that the SDF and PKK deny involvement amounts to "conspiratorial stuff" seems pretty thin.
I think what you are after is a straight repetition of the Turkish government's take on this, with anything opposing that expunged. That might very well be possible in Turkey itself, given this quote from the article:
"Around an hour after the explosion took place, a broadcast ban was issued by the Istanbul Criminal Court for all visual and audio news and social networking sites related to the incident. Only interviews with government officials are allowed to be reported about. CNN Türk and TRT then stopped reporting on the incident. Internet speeds throughout Turkey and access to social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Youtube have been significantly decreased since the event."
However, you are going to have a very hard time selling it here. Ormewood (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the PKK and Kurdish terrorist groups have an history of claiming their attacks ; it's very unusual to see them not doing so. You can see that here : 2020 İskenderun shootout, February 2016 Lice bombing, May 2016 Diyarbakır bombing, May 2016 Dürümlü bombing.
In the attacks where they have denied implication, such as there : 2015 Siirt bombing, the infobox says "Turkish claim". AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can also note that the Turkish Wikipedia page also takes this point of view : https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_%C4%B0stanbul_sald%C4%B1r%C4%B1s%C4%B1 AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its interesting that all it takes to have something considered legitimate here is an opinion piece is a partisan(neocon in this case) media outlet that offers nothing in terms of proof but speculation. I really wonder if people here started citing opinion pieces in Russia Today, Presstv, or any Chinese publication casting doubt and creating speculation around any statement from the US govt regarding an incident, if those would be considered "legitimate", my guess is the same people would be saying no. There hasn't been a single political party in the opposition in Turkey that has suggested this sort of speculation, not even the HDP and even reputable publications in the West like the NyTimes or the Guardian haven't said its a false flag conspiracy. If such a narrative was even remotely true, we would have seen the CHP and the Istanbul Mayor(under whom the police function) raise these issues. The Govt itself hasn't released anything other than saying some syrian nationals were arrested and being questioned, and it remains to be seen whether it was the PKK involved or Daesh or an isolated crazy person. Yet somehow others have decided to jump the gun and determined its all a conspiracy, despite having no tangible proofs regarding the incident. I guess the "bad guys" and "bad countries" are never allowed to be victims, no there is always a convenient conspiracy theory that explains away that element, and if anyone suggests that speculation and conspiracy narratives should be questioned with regards to their lack of tangible evidence, well I guess those people want "censorship" and only want the "govt narrative". lol Midgetman433 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that btw, it seems that the claim is creating growing skepticism in mainstream media, like The National Interest, for example, that finds the story pretty dubious.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-was-really-behind-istanbul-bombing-205880

Or The New York Sun : https://www.nysun.com/article/turkey-tries-to-finger-yanks-kurds-for-terror-bombing-at-istanbul "At the height of its war against the Turkish government, the PKK typically claimed responsibility for attacks. Yet, for several years the group, which the Department of State has listed as a terrorist organization since 1997, has tried to shed its past militancy in favor of political activity. Turkey, nevertheless, often bombs PKK bases in Iraq, as well as the American-backed Syrian Kurds. After nearly six years in which there were no serious attacks against civilians in Turkey, the Sunday terror bombing could mark the return of harsh security measures in the country. Some fear that such measures would even become tougher with the approach of next June’s presidential and parliamentary elections. There are “hints at a premeditated campaign of terror orchestrated by Ankara, with the US and Kurds pre-designated as the perpetrators,” a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Turkey watcher, Sinan Ciddi, tweeted. He later told the Sun that while “there is no hard evidence that the Turkish government is behind the bombing, they’re certainly trying to capitalize on it.”"

AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects of interest[edit]

This edit removed two banners for WikiProjects that have an interest in this article. This removal was not previously discussed, nor were the reasons for removal explained in the edit summary. Within 6 hours, these banners were reinstated and partly reassessed. However, I found I needed to still clean up what was original removed. WikiProjects banners are often added to article talk pages because an editor believes the article is within the scope of a particular WikiProject and is "of interest" to that project. However, WikiProject members should decide if a projects's banners is relevant for a particular article, and the WikiProject guidelines indicate a consensus is needed if a banner is to be removed by non-participants. Unexplained removal of WikiProject banners deprives the relevant WikiProjects from fulfilling their purpose to improve the quality of articles. Users who feel an WikiProject banner is not appropriate for an article should ask first about the reason for a banner, and not remove without warning or explanation. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those removed & reinstated are Explosives & the Serial killer task force. The Explosives project doesn't state its scope, but bombings are clearly of interest to it. The SKTF banner says it covers mass murders, but it's often removed from talk pages by people who haven't read it & don't realise its scope is wider than its name suggests. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further details emerge of link to PKK/YPG[edit]

According to Hurriyet Daily News article of November 16, 2022 titled Perpetrator of Istanbul bombing ‘always dressed in black’: Witnesses, "The suspect reportedly stated in her interrogation that she was trained as a “special intelligence officer” by the PKK/YPG that she joined." In addition, "We assess that the order for the deadly terror attack came from Ayn al-Arab in northern Syria, where the PKK/YPG has its Syrian headquarters,” Interior Minister Soylu said earlier." All this needs to be added here. 46.31.118.93 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valuable new evidence and info in November 18, 2022 article titled Perpetrator of Istanbul terror attack arrested: Albashir reportedly stated in her interrogation that she was trained as a “special intelligence officer” by the PKK/YPG that she joined.
“I met the YPG in Manbij in 2017. I met a man named Ahmed A., whom I learned to be a YPG member, and we were lovers. Then Ahmed went to Jarablus, and I went after him. The organization tried to draw me in and offered assignments. After a while, I lost track of Ahmed, but my relationship with the organization did not cease as they didn’t leave me,” Albashir said in her statement, daily Hürriyet reported.
According to the examination of the records and the statements of the detainees, Albashir made reconnaissance on İstiklal Avenue on three separate days with a pirate taxi driven by a man named Bilal Hassan and a member of the organization with whom she had come from Syria before the attack, the daily said earlier. 46.31.112.222 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victims' names[edit]

The names of the people who were randomly killed by a stranger have been repeatedly added. They're not included in the large majority of articles about fatal bombings. It's not encyclopedic, the names mean nothing to the vast majority of readers & including them violates the privacy of the victims' families. We shouldn't name them on the basis of remembering them or it being respectful. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reported the dispute at the 3rr noticeboard and there I was told The general consensus has been that lists of victims of disasters or terror attacks are a matter of article-by-article consensus among editors. I guess we ought to find some solution. I'd say if there is some say-their-names movement the names become notable as it was for example in the Hanau shootings. But this is my personal POV and if other arguments arise I might join those as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has said on this talk page that they want the names included, let alone given any reasons why. The reasoning given in the edit summaries isn't justification for including them. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The names have been widely published in the media. I don't think it's a privacy issue. Frogging101 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't copy the media. The names of the randomly-killed victims are of no relevance to over 99% of readers. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

The removed paragraph from the background section need to have a reference that explicitly mentions the information. Otherwise its SYNTH. [1] Semsûrî (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this[2] as the source predates the attack and thus doesn't mention it in anyway.VR talk 00:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also removed the content on the 2016 coup[3]. Are there any RS that think this info is relevant to the bombing? VR talk 01:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey changed a lot in the 2010s as a result of the renewed Kurdish separatist insurgency, the Islamic State insurgency & the coup attempt. The government responded by substantially reducing freedom. All of these severely affected Istanbul. It's also relevant that during the few years prior to this month's bombing, there had been no insurgent attacks since the Istanbul nightclub shooting in 2017 & no high-profile killings since the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. I understand the argument for not mentioning the coup attempt, but the insurgencies are clearly relevant. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you can find RS that make some connection between what you think are background events and the 2022 bombing, we can include it.VR talk 00:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters ref at the end of the first paragraph does that. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ASALA[edit]

You dimwits, ASALA has been inactive since 1990s. One Ukrainian and Kyrgyzstani tabloid report on it, and you include it? Shame on you! Remove this trash right now! PKK is responsible! OÇ KYRGYZ (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing significant to back the claim of ASALA involvement, nor even of the group existing in the 21st c., so it's a fringe theory & I can't see a good reason to include it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations[edit]

It is acceptable for potential Turkish invasion plans of Northern Syria to be included in the article, however the lede is not the place for them. Especially since the Kurdish forces did not claim responsibility for the bombing. Wikipedia is not a tabloid cover.

Denials from YPG, SDF and AANES should be put under the same banner, YPG is comparable to US Army, SDF to US Armed Forces and AANES to the United States Federal Government. It is pointless to state that each of them specially denied involvement instead of saying United States (aka SDF, or AANES) denied involvement. Ecrusized (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Istanbul_bombing&oldid=1215250093"