Talk:March 2016 Ankara bombing

Perpetrators

Name of the suicide bomber is Seher Cagla Demir, a PKK militant. http://www.sozcu.com.tr/2016/gundem/kadin-bombaci-universiteli-seher-1135316/

Changing assailant information from unknown to PKK Temren (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Turkish gov't claims that person to be the perpetrator, though security officials have not yet concluded their investigations… OK, but even if we'd still trust in Davutoğlus perennial allegations, not even he claimed it to be a PKK attack. He merely mentioned the alleged, though unsurprising background of Seher Cagla Demir. At some point, most Kurds sympathized with or even actively supported the PKK. Also, the PKK has always claimed responsibility of attacks it conducted, and their attacks were consistently targeted against members of the state apparatus, not against civilians. This to be a PKK attack is not only unproven, it is also highly unlikely and currently not even claimed by the highly partisan Turkish government. --PanchoS (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of prior attacks out there where PKK, a designated terrorist group by US, EU and Turkey, directly targeted civilians. Also Turkish interior ministry has released a statement, the suicide bomber is a PKK militant and she was trained in Syria http://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-says-ankara-bomber-was-trained-by-ypg-68357 Temren (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The PKK was designated a terrorist group by the U.S. and the EU as a courtesy to NATO partner Turkey, and for its participation in a mutual, deadly warfare against the Turkish state, including military, police and village guards. Show me your hundreds of prior attacks against random civilian targets – they don't exist unless you're throwing all "Mountain Turks" into the same pot, including Qandil-uncontrolled offshoots like YDG-H, breakaways like TAK or adversaries like the Hezbollah.
Secondly, as you say, the Turkish interior ministry says she was a PKK militant. This doesn't reliably mean that she really was the perpetrator, or if she indeed was, that at the time of the attack she still was a PKK militant. Even less so it means she was acting at the behest of or in collusion with the PKK.
Infoboxes are meant to present secured knowledge only, not speculation or partisan claims. Please refrain from readding questionable claims unsupported by WP:RS. --PanchoS (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And what would be those reliable sources? PKK is the prime suspected perpetrator at the moment whether we trust the Turkish government or not, and by calling a spade a spade, saying that the PKK is the suspected perpetrator, we are not implying anything that we should not be implying. In the 90s, PKK did indeed target civilians, see Tourism in Turkey for example for sources on hotel bombings and tourist kidnappings. We already say in the article that the PKK has not recently committed such attacks and if it did, it would constitute a major tactical shift. To make more evaluation of Turkish reliability and act accordingly without sources is just original research. Plus, there are a number of sources that do establish a link (also see this) between TAK and PKK, so it's absolutely not black and white. And please do note that Sözcü, an anti-government newspaper, has also claimed Demir's and PKK's responsibility in its investigation. As long as we say that PKK, and its suspected member Demir, are the prime suspects in an ongoing investigation, which is what we are doing now, I strongly disagree that we are "speculating" - in fact, it is speculation itself to say that Turkish statements are absolutely unreliable to the extent that they should be excluded from being mentioned even as suggestions from the infobox. --GGT (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Quote from KCK

From the article:

Sabri Ok, member of the Executive of Council of KCK, a group under PKK, made a statement saying "this attack may have been claimed by [the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons] or another power. However, the act by comrade Zinar is a historical act that must be owned up to and feel proud of from every perspective".[19]

The news source it cites is from March 11, before the attack happened, and the fact he references to "Kurdistan Freedom Falcons" makes it clear that he was talking about the previous bombing at Ankara, not the latest one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.80.1 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@94.122.80.1: what you say looks correct, and I was about to make an edit to remove the involved content; you beat me on time, however, you should have used an WP:Edit summary instead of just removing it without an explanation. Chances are that someone will now revert your edit because they think it's unexplained and unjustified. Edit summaries are optional, but they're very useful. LjL (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not all that familiar to editing Wiki; I'll keep that in mind the next time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.80.1 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On TAK and the targeting of civilians

Here are some important points that must be kept in mind when considering the claim by TAK:

• Firat News Agency is a very partisan source linked to the PKK (see its article); in terms of reliability, it is just like Sabah. It is not a neutral, reliable source, and should not be used to support anything. When it comes to citing TAK's webpage as a primary source, I find that completely unacceptable: we do not cite Al-Qaeda-affiliated websites to present Al-Qaeda's views about 9/11. Also please note that a blanket dismissal of Turkish media (something I have recently noted in other articles) is unacceptable, there are a number of very reliable Turkish newspapers: Cumhuriyet (which has recently won a Reporters Without Borders prize) and T24 are some of these.
• There is no consensus on whether there is a link between PKK and TAK, reflected in news coverage in major outlets such as France24 and the Guardian. Please do not present the two as certainly affiliated or certainly independent.
• That TAK claims that the state hides its security casualties is not important by itself. It has not even been featured in news article by BBC and France24 and is merely a fringe theory. Per WP:FRINGE, it must not be added before "reliable sources [are] cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner". ANF is not a reliable source for this.
• What TAK claims is the target is not really important for our infobox (of course important for the body of the article), and it is not merely the "Turkish claim" that civilians were the target. A terrorist organisation's claim about its attack should not be taken at face value. The New York Times article clearly states that civilians were targeted in the attack. There should be no uncertainty regarding the target in the infobox as long as it is verified by independent sources.

--GGT (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you on Firat News Agency (ANF) being equally non-neutral as Sabah is: while not altogether unreliable, both sources won't ever outweigh more neutral sources available, but may be used with a grain of salt wherever there are no better sources. They are also unproblematic in regard to supporting the particular perspectives of the Kurdish resp. the Turkish government sides.
Exactly this is the case with the allegations of hiding security casualities: ANF is perfectly reliable in regard to the TAK's perspective on their attack. Their perspective may be or may not be a fringe theory – as the perpetrators they are not an unrelated third party in this topic, so their perspective always matters.
Finally, unlike any other mainstream media, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, meaning we're absolutely supposed to cite TAK to present their views on their attack, just as we are citing Al-Qaeda to present Al-Qaeda's views about 9/11. --PanchoS (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: I added Rudaw article about their message that they apologized for civilian casualties. You deleted it.
I added sources from the Guardian and Independent that the TAK said that it targeted security officers. You deleted them.
I added more details about the target with more sources, tried to make it more neutral. You deleted them
I would understand if my sources would have been unreliable or they wouldn't have confirmed my details but they were reliable sources and they exactly confirmed my details. Again, you deleted them without any appropriate reason.
You tell me that you have a source from New York Times but your source doesn't say that it was targeting civilians. It says: But the attack on Sunday seemed to suggest a shift in tactics, with the targeting of a large gathering of civilians in a major transportation hub. Take into account that it says seemed, the source doesn't say that civilians were aboslutely target of the bomb attack. However, let's say that New York Times exactly said that the attack targeted civilians. How about my sources? Are they unreliable or does it give your right to delete them because New York Times said so?
My Guardian source says: The group also said that security forces had been the real target of the bombing and expressed “sadness” about the civilians killed in the attack, but added that such deaths were “inevitable”.
My Independent newspaper source says: It said the attack was aimed at security forces and was not intended to kill civilians, but said further civilian losses in its attacks were "inevitable".
Not enough? Look what BBC says: On Wednesday, the group said on its website (in Kurdish) that Sunday's bombing had been aimed at security forces and had not been intended to kill civilians. However, it warned that further civilian casualties in its attacks were inevitable.. Also, ABC.net.au says so: TAK said it had not intended to kill civilians and was targeting security forces..
You deleted my details and its sources and replaced them all with one New York Times source which doesn't confirm your statement. Let me tell you again, the TAK is not international terrorist organization which means it is not in the terrorist list of the UN. Also, it's not considered as a terrorist organization more than 60 countries. You can't delete their all statements from Wikipedia only because it is a terrorist organization for Turkey and its partners. Wikipedia is neutral, it's not the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Let me repeat, Wikipedia is not the Turkish government's encyclopedia. Ferakp (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ferakp, I have no idea what you're getting at. I am fully aware that it is not the Turkish government's encyclopedia and I have, in numerous times in the past, have added material about violations by and scandals of the Turkish government. Please do not repeat this ad nauseum.

It has never been denied in this article that TAK claims that it was directed at the military. In fact, that very detail had been in the article before your last edits. It is perfectly acceptable to report what TAK claims this attack was about in the relevant section and analyse it, and that precisely is the case now; you don't need to add a bucketload of sources (please don't) to prove that TAK claims it wasn't targeted at civilians. No one is disputing that.

However, to whom the attack was actually directed is independent of the TAK claim. And mind what you are saying, it is not only the Turkish government saying that the attack targeted civilians, it is actually pro-Kurdish HDP itself that said that it targets civilians, so you get both sides of the political spectrum there. And anyway, if the fact that a pro-Kurdish party agrees that civilians were targeted is not enough, it depends on what the reliable sources say it targeted. And the New York Times article says: "Medics treated one of the dozens who were wounded in a blast in Ankara, Turkey, that targeted civilians at a public square" is a sentence from the article. And it is not only NYT that says that, it is also Associated Press and Amnesty International.

How is the classification of TAK related to who the targets were? And just for the record (please don't respond to this part) this argumentum ad nauseum that you are presenting about terrorism, by the way, does not really stand. Most countries and the UN do not recognize the Armenian Genocide, two actively refuse to do so. That does not stop us from calling it as it is and you are not presenting any sources that say they even actively refuse to classify it as one (I could just as well hypothesise that they would list it as one but no one has proposed listing it yet). And you are contradicting yourself by repeating that anyway: as you put it, Wikipedia is not any state's encyclopedia, it is essentially an overview of the academic consensus and a balanced presentation of any debates. When considering if "terrorist" in an appropriate label for TAK, those are the sources we consult, not necessarily the states. But that is not what we are discussing now, sorry for digressing. --GGT (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: I read your reply and I was surprised that you didn't justify why did you remove my sources and details? I mean I just added more details and neutralized. I didn't touch other details, I didn't remove anything.. Just added more details and sources. Instead of continuously removing my sources and details, please use talk page and ping me. You will save a lot of time. You will save more time or even it will be a huge benefit for Wikipedia if you stop your friends blackwashing Kurdish related articles. Start a campaign about this, I will support you from my heart. Ferakp (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: Sorry if I was misunderstood. The sources you added were totally fine, they were not necessary as I am not disputing the fact that TAK claims that this was an attack targeted at the military. That statement already had enough sources. I have nevertheless restored your sources. You had not otherwise added any details [1]. The target of the attack has been well-established IMHO, independently of the TAK or Turkish claims, by independent, reliable sources. Please stop your personal comments. --GGT (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: Restored my statements and details. Let me repeat again, do not remove my sources. You can't remove details and sources because you "believe" that your sources or details are right and mine are wrong. Read WP:ONLYREVERT Ferakp (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: For some reason you keep removing the sentence "A car laden with explosives was used for the attack and buses carrying civilians were targeted." from the lead. You leave this sentence as it is elsewhere in the article. The details in this sentence are key details, absolutely necessary for the lead, and as you do not remove it entirely from the article, I assume you have no problem with the content per se. So please leave it in the lead. If you want to remove it, make the proposal properly here and let us discuss beforehand. Otherwise, the article is currently fine as long as it is clear that it is the established consensus that civilians are the target and TAK is claiming that it was security forces. --GGT (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: I removed it from the leading section because it's alleged and can't be verified since other side (TAK) is saying that they didn't target civilians. Also, background of died people weren't revealed so we can confirm it. Since it's disputed, I added it to another section and described it with more details. You can't keep such claim and alleged statement if it's not confirmed.Ferakp (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ferakp: It is not disputed. This is not a dispute between two sides, this is TAK going against every single reliable source and political party (even pro-Kurdish) about the target. This is absolutely confirmed by reliable, independent sources: Amnesty International, AP, The New York Times. This is also universally agreed upon politically, even by the pro-Kurdish HDP, and is that not the other side against the Turkish govt? That TAK disputes it does not change the actual target. There is a list of casualties here. If you find an independent, reliable source disputing the target (i.e. agreeing with TAK and saying that civilians were not targeted), if you find such a source disputing this list of casualties, then we can talk. Otherwise, please drop this case, we already give enough coverage on TAK's claims and we need to present the attack as it is in the lead. --GGT (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: It is not confirmed were they all civilians or not. Don't you understand that we can't confirm it with your sources. We need independent sources to confirm that they really targeted civilians. When attack like this happens, you always see a lot of news which are inaccurate and you have just copied all those news to this article and try to use them as a source. The newest source says that the TAK announced that they targeted security forces. Also, none of your source confirm that the TAK targeted civilians. The NYT source says "seems", so it's not sure. The Amnesty source says " Nothing can justify intentionally targeting civilians or carrying out indiscriminate attacks." Take into account, they said or indiscriminate attack. This means that they are also not sure. The third source is old and it says directly that it targeted but newest source are against this source. The last source, there weren't mentioned anything about target. I don't have exact knowledge about the situation like this. However, if writing the article this way is right and you are also so sure about that, then I have nothing to say. I will also start to add ~60 articles which I was thinking to add but I wasn't sure about the neutrality. Those articles are related to events where the Turkish government with other Turkish organizations have been accused of executing Kurdish civilians. Since the European Court of Human Rights have condemned Turkey for practicing the Turkish terrorism and Turkey was punished for killing civilians in all events, I see no problem to add new articles about them. Those events are similar like this. Ferakp (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are following the line of TAK in saying that it is not confirmed that they are all civilians. We have a list of casualties confirmed by Turkish govt and media and we will accept that unless you provide us with independent sources disputing the list of casualties and is not affiliated to TAK or PKK. No major news outlets or reliable sources have at any point disputed this list of casualties or Turkish government's claims about anything regarding this attack, no one has come forward to say that they targeted anything but civilians. This is not some obscure village in the Southeast for God's sake, it is the heart of Ankara, this is like the Brussels attack and what you are saying about not being able to confirm the casualties borders on a conspiracy theory unless you are able to produce a list of reliable sources disputing the casualties for this specific incident. If the list was as unreliable as you said, it would sure have made some headlines. Otherwise, the idea that we can't confirm whether all deaths were civilians is your pure original research. The NYT article says that they did target civilians and this seems like a shift in tactic, not that they did not target civilians. Does the attack being potentially indiscriminate really make it all much better or uncertain for you? Please read the definition of "indiscriminate attacks", by nature they contain the targeting of civilians, at least along with military. Don't bring in your random and unrelated ECHR rulings about the 90s everywhere, this is not the 90s and the ECHR has not made a decision about this. There are no "old" sources, the target of an attack does not change over time. The last source (Reuters) explicitly mentions that it is the position of the HDP that civilians were targeted. AP clearly states "A suicide car bomb attack targeted civilians near bus stops in the heart of Ankara". You still seem to believe that TAK announcing that they are doing one thing really means that they are doing that, do you? Please call for a third opinion if you wish to continue this pointless agitation, I am sick and tired and have better things to get on with. --GGT (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

PanchoS, would you be interested in commenting? --GGT (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@GGT: I already know what PanchoS will answer. You told me that there is list of casualties, but you didn't give a source. II just saw list of names in Wikipedia. There weren't source to confirm that who they were, soldiers, employees, civilians etc.. The source must say that they really targeted civilians. Don't try to take issue somewhere else. I said if you are sure that editing the article like this is right then I have nothing to say. Another way to say this, I accept it. As I said I don't know have knowledge about the situation like this. Ferakp (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You know Turkish Ferakp. That list is cited to Bianet, which reported extensively on each and every victim and their stories. Bianet is an independent, neutral source. --GGT (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on March 2016 Ankara bombing. 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/20160314085743/http://www.turkishminute.com/latest-news_military-intel-document-underlines-threat-of-terorrist-attack-days-before-ankara-explosion_403758.html to http://www.turkishminute.com/latest-news_military-intel-document-underlines-threat-of-terorrist-attack-days-before-ankara-explosion_403758.html

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) 13:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)