Talk:2012 Gaziantep bombing

Please follow the rules
It is an encyclopedic content. You could not distort sourced material to express your POVs. BTW, you are making the group more known with your attempts.Egeymi (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I made one change to a POV wording I saw. If there are other issues, let me know. -- Activism  1234  22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will Activism. Thank you. I am just trying to be neutral.Egeymi (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Np, I can understand that. I'm completely neutral in regards to Turkish-Kurdish conflict, so I'm willing to check out any suspected bias and comment on it. -- Activism  1234  22:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you are neutral. Thanks again. I think the article involves a neutral stance as it is. But if you notice any POV, please comment on it and also, correct it.Egeymi (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, you are trying to be neutral but unfortunately you made a mistake. I explained why that changes was incorrect. Best regards.-- Reality 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to add an extra information. de:Firatnews Agency is a pro-PKK news agency as you can see that page and its sources, not pro-Kurds.-- Reality 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Firatnews is referenced in this article though, unless I'm overlooking it. We should strive to use mainly international media outlet reports, such as BBC, CNN, etc, and then only reliable Turkish media outlets (like Hurriyet News seems reliable to me). -- Activism  1234  03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. We should use BBC, Hurriyet News, VOA and maybe CNN.-- Reality 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Activism: "Turkish-Kurdish conflict"? I hope it was a lapsus l. It is PKK terrorism against Turkey, the Turkish society as a whole. I expect you to be neutral in other questions, not terrorism... --E4024 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The name of the article is Kurdish-Turkish conflict, that's where I got it from. Using a different title while that is not the name of the article would be a breach of neutrality to me. -- Activism  1234  20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

PKK
From my talk page:

Hi! You made a mistake. Expression of Kurd separatists wrong and biased. First of all, there is 10-20 millions Kurds live in Turkey, however PKK (it is a illegal party and terrorist organization in many countries) has a 4-5 thousands member. How can we accept that 10-20 millions Kurds are member of PKK. Second, you removed the source. It is not an appropriate because of Wikipedia rules. Finally, PKK claimed that they are not responsible for this bombing, however, 5 people was arrested by the Turkish Police in Şanlıurfa and Gaziantep (Vatan, Milliyet, BBC). Officials said that they are member of PKK. Wish to be more careful and I apologize for my bad English. Best regards.--Reality 02:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the editor put this back in, and I'm fine with that, but can someone show me specifically a sentence that media outlets themselves believe that the PKK was responsible? I don't see this as likely, as they're not doing the investigation... They may have reported "Official X believes" but that doesn't make it their own opinion.

Secondly, any info about arrests and statements that they are PKK should go into the article, but without erasing the PKK's denial, as it's still a factually referenced info.

Lastly, I'm confused by what it means that I removed sources. As far as I can tell, I changed the wording, but didn't remove any references. -- Activism  1234  03:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, English is not my main language. So I can't explain my ideas exactly. I wrote about this and I said that I'm sorry.-- Reality 03:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to write something about this topic. First of all, PKK claim that they are not responsible for this bombing but PKK did it well in advance. First refused, then agreed. It is a normal situation, I belive that they will accept this bombing in the next few days but it is not important because I didn't write relied on the my feelings. I wrote relied on reliable sources. Please see this news (BBC, Milliyet (A big Turkish newspaper), Vatan (Another big Turkish newspaper). All of them mention same topic: 5 person arrested because of Gaziantep bombing and Chief of Turkish Police in Gaziantep said that they are related to PKK and one of them brought the car bombing that location. I think it is not an opinion, it is fact according to Turkish goverment and mainly international media outlet reports. Of course, we should mentioned PKK's claim and you mentioned that on the article I think it provided neutrality but we shouldn't changed PKK to Kurd separatists. Is to ignore these resources and facts. Finally, I had a mistake. You didn't remove references. Another user did that. Best regards.-- Reality  03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right I got that we have media outlets saying that PKK is suspected, but that's what media outlets do - they report on this stuff, and PKK is suspected by Turkey it seems. So just saying PKK is suspected by Turkish officials is enough.  Saying that international media believes they did it isn't true though - international media reports that Turkey suspects it was PKK.  The international media doesn't have its own opinion that it wrote in the article "We, the BBC, believe that the PKK did it." You understan dwhat I'm saying? -- Activism  1234  04:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it and I agree. We are saying the same thing. PKK is suspected at the moment. When perpetrator is certain, we can changed the article. I think article is a neutral at the moment and perpetrator will certain until a few days.-- Reality 05:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm referring to the sentence "the bombs were believed by Turkish officials, media and international media to be planted by PKK." The part about the media and international media believing it was planted by the PKK should be removed - it's not true.  They report it like every news story that Turkey suspects this.  The media itself doesn't have an opinion on whose responsible. -- Activism  1234  05:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight,it's totaly unacceptable of what most of the Turkish media outlets write and claim, but it's totaly acceptable to mention what Fırat News Agency announces? Isn't this against WP:NPOV? --Cerian (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know and I totally get it you're right about that sentence. I didn't add that sentence but I fixed it.-- Reality 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's good now. I appreciate it.  -- Activism  1234  05:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Beşir Atalay
B. Atalay is DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER like B. Arınç. Please read the article.Egeymi (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is correct. There is a mistake. Sorry and best regards.-- Reality 09:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem.Egeymi (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

5 arrested ?
There seems to be no mention in our article of any arrests - the title of the BBC article (linked above) suggests 5 were detained - based on a Google translate of "saldırısında 5 gözaltı". Unfortunately my Turkish is pretty minimal and I'm not inclined to rely 100% on google translate (particularly of languages with a different grammatic structure). I thought I saw an article in an english language news article recently about there being arrests, but I can't find that now. Is there more information on these 5 individuals ? EdwardLane (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is (and more in the same newspaper) what you are looking for... --E4024 (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

And also here. --E4024 (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, you can't expect everyone to know what happened afterwards and put that in the article, especially if it's not in an international media outlet. There is no ownership of an article.  If you have any information from reliable references, just go ahead and put that in! WP:Be Bold.  No need to ask for permission. -- Activism  1234  14:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I asked the question to confirm I was reading the source correctly, then once I saw the link above I added it to the perpetrators section, but yes being Bold is good. EdwardLane (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 13 detained now. The "suspected" perpetrator: a teacher! (The attack killed four children as well as 5 adults.) --E4024 (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Small is beautiful
Thanks for your contributions Edward. I know being bold is good but I prefer mostly to make small changes, as I am not a native speaker. The news about Turkey in English can always be found at "Hürriyet Daily News" and "Today's Zaman". Both have the henious attack as first news today. --E4024 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Şeker Bayramı - Ramazan Bayramı

 * Şeker Bayramı is not preferred name and it is not common. Please see Google results: Şeker Bayramı: 1.210.000 - Ramazan Bayramı - 6.890.000-- Reality 18:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course you are much more experienced than me on these details, but simply out of curiosity I wrote "Seker Bayrami" (without using the problematic Turkish letters) at Google search and the result is over 7 millions. A small contribution from a newbie in WP, in comparison to yourself. On the other hand, I sincerely recommend you to give the same time and labour to the merits of the question of PKK terrorism in Turkey, as it is a very important social problem that requires more attention from everybody; also here in WP. --E4024 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Killed and wounded
I updated the numbers but could not add the source ref. Here it is. If any user helps to incorporate it to the article, will be most appreciated. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)