Talk:March 2016 Istanbul bombing

Use of sources
The source given does not saying anything about the nationality of the killed. Who and how did they decide they were Turks? --176.239.115.13 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This source speaks of one Iranian and three Israeli citizens among the dead, although I believe it's too soon to write this before an official announcement. --176.239.115.13 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What you first said is absolutely correct. However, given that the article actually names the victims, I think we can write this at the moment. --GGT (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Flags in the infobox
Either put all or none. --176.239.115.13 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing information in domestic reaction
Irem Aktas, a member of the ruling party in turkey, tweeted that she wished for the wounded israelis in the attack to die. The tweet was removed and she was promptly fired for her tweet. the source is here: 195.69.56.172 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist
victim? ==

how can you put "the perpetrator" in the victims table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.52.107 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems absurd to me. The perpetrators are not victims, even if they died. "Deaths" could be used instead, but currently the table is still titled "Victims"; in any case, there was agreement in some other articles (based on precedents) that victims and perpetrators should be kept separate in Wikipedia articles, so I'm pinging the editors who took part in the debate at the Paris attacks talk page (and in this other section): LjL (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Deaths" should include that of the perpetrator, but "Victims" do not include the perp. epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And do you have an opinion on whether all-inclusive "Deaths", or "Victims" with a separate mention of the perpetrator is more appropriate? LjL (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an absurd argument. The perp/attacker is not a victim. Even with a heading of "deaths", an aggregate total should not be used. I think there are just a few out there that enjoy conflating the two numbers for whatever reason... maybe to simplify things or maybe to see who notices. No one should feel disempowered to revert changes by the "lumpers" IMO. Bod (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only should the bomber's death not be counted with the victims, but he is not the perpetrator. Not to excuse the bomber's actions, but they use unskilled people that they have brainwashed into killing themselves. Suicide bombers do not plan attacks or build the bombs - the real perpetrators are at large. Building bombs requires significant skills and terrorists don't let those skills die in a blast. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Attacker" might be better if this is a concern. LjL (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Suicides have victims, too. He was mortally injured due to an act of violence, wasn't he? That he did it to himself doesn't change that, just adds a wrinkle. There's the "victim of circumstance" thing, too, but that's just gravy. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It does change things according to most of the definitions of "victim" at Wiktionary, though not all of them. Aside from the first definition which concerns religious sacrifice, the second is "Anyone who is harmed by another", the third "An aggrieved or disadvantaged party in a crime" (so not the perpetrator/attacker/criminal), while only the fourth talks about any person who suffers from a result of any voluntary undertaking, and the firth is slightly ambiguous.
 * Not that Wiktionary is the final source on semantics, but then also Merriam-Webster starts out by saying "a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else" and then "a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else'', followed by a definition still involving "accidents" (so not something voluntary).
 * Definitions aside, anyway, I feel that perpetrators are in a fundamentally different category from "innocent victims", and should be treated separately, which was somewhat consistently done in other articles, though not without discussion. LjL (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How does being blown to pieces not count as being aggrieved and disadvantaged? At least the others had the advantage of being further away from the bomb. I'll go with Merriam-Webster's definition, though. The full one, 2a. Less flammable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that it is incorrect and unfeeling to place the attacker beside his victims in this way. Surely should state "four victims; the perpetrator also died" or somewhat to that effect Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to be unfeeling. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean picking and choosing the (minority) definitions of a word that happen to conflate concepts that some readers may very legitimately consider separate. LjL (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure doesn't. Just means the unfeeling part isn't a problem. Not sure how Merriam-Webster can be seen to give minority definitions, though. Is Oxford more your mainstream cup of tea? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that their definitions are "minority", I meant that a majority of the definitions (including both Wiktionary and M-W) favored the idea that a victim involved a separate non-victim victimizer or perpetrator. Oxford Dictionary of English is less clear but I often find ODE lackluster, although I admin that's a personal opinion; just note that despite the name, it's not the same thing as the more well-established Oxford English Dictionary. LjL (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I used the established one, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, that one is ODE. Unfortunately, OED requires a paid subscription (or buying a good old book) to access. The choice of almost identical names is also somewhat unfortunate. LjL (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, people asking for money tend to be lying shitweasels. Maybe not. If it's not in the public domain, though, whatever it says a victim is is that much more obscure to most of our readers. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this makes no sense. The value of dictionaries is not based on whether or not they are in the public domain, and most of the relevant (i.e. recent) ones are not. Offline (including paid) sources are just fine on Wikipedia, and freely accessible ones (by the way, ODE is not "public domain", it just happens to have a website with abridged access) do not take precedence. LjL (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. If fewer people are reading their ideas on what words mean, those ideas don't go as far. Wikipedia is for the vulgar masses. We should use the words they know (or can Google) best. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Under "Attack"
" Initial findings pointed to Kurdish perpetrators.[14] " -- suggest this be removed or reworded, as this was found to be incorrect and leaving this in the article as-is is misleading. 148.177.1.211 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)