Open main menu

Talk:Suruç bombing

  (Redirected from Talk:2015 Suruç bombing)

Cluster bombEdit

The explosive can't have been a cluster bomb--they're meant to be air-dropped so the bomblets can separate before exploding. Did you intend to refer to a Claymore mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmNitpicking (talkcontribs) 18:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It does seem a bit dubious (mistranslation of "fragmentation" perhaps?). Tagging it as such. Kolbasz (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Has ISIS claimed responsibility?Edit

The article mentions that ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack based on a euronews article that simply states that without pointing to any sources. The article on independent ( on the other hand states that ISIS has NOT claimed responsibility for the attack.

I updated the information this morning based on the latest information - feel free to make it cleaner - I'm new at this wiki thing.

User:Silber47's repeated attempts to remove informationEdit

User:Silber47 repeatedly tries to remove sourced information that he does not like. I have reinstated it one last time, if you insist on this behaviour, be advised that you will be reported. Discuss it at the talk page if you think something should not be mentioned in the article (even though it is true).-- (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"gayKurd" was, I am pretty sure, not sourced. If you want to change something, create an account instead of using IPs to violate this article. You will be reported and this page protected (only autoconfirmed user), if this vandalism goes on. And bring relevant arguments why your recurring IP violations should not be reverted. Wikipedia has ethic standards. --Silber47 (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit war and vandalism with dynamic IPs are not helpfull. --Silber47 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"gayKurd" is not sourced; "Kurd", however, is, which you have attempted to remove by reverting more than three times. You need to provide a reason for removing sourced information. And you certainly can't remove it repeatedly during the day. You have been reported for edit warring.-- (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"ethnic Kurd student" is absurd, is he studying "ethnic Kurd"? And this information is not relevant, there is no relevant reason for this information. As I said, Wikipedia has ethic standards, ethnic Kurd, ethnic Arab, ethnic Greek etcetera is only relevant, if it is a game changer (helpfull information) for the cause. But it was only an ISIS fanatic. --Silber47 (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who added "student", I would not oppose removing it. "there is no relevant reason for this information" - You don't get the decide if there is no reason for an information. And "ethnicity doesn't matter" is just something you are making up right now. e.g. the page currently mentions that the population of Suruç is mostly Kurds, and I haven't seen you removing it because they are just "Turkish people whose ethnicity does not matter".-- (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You have problems to differ between relevant and non-relevant information. --Silber47 (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

So please, enlighten me, why is his age relevant, and can be mentioned, but his ethnicity irrelevant, and should not be mentioned?-- (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You can remove both, I would not have a problem with that. --Silber47 (talk) 08:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

After that, can we remove the city he is from? After that, can we also remove his name, because it is such a petty detail? And then, can we remove the time, because what does it matter if it is 12:00 or 11:00? After that, until which point we can remove information? I really wonder your boundaries.-- (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding ethics, the ethnicity of the perpetrator is critical. If there is no good reason, there is no place for it. The other information (Suruc mostly Kurdish) is not such critical. --Silber47 (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Age is clearly not critical like ethnicity, you have serious problems to differ between these issues. --Silber47 (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If ethnicity is critical, then of course we should mention it. That is what an information being critical means.-- (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Critical because of discrimination, if there is no good reason for it, there is no place for it. Your arguments are untenable. --Silber47 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, not to mock your level of English, but you are misusing the words. Critical information means it is important enough to be in the article. Secondly, WP:NOTCENSORED.-- (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, English is not my mother tongue, Я русский, but you know what I mean, this information can lead to discrimination. And there is no reason why this information is such important for you, unless you want discrimination. --Silber47 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED.-- (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There must be a reason, then you can come with WP:NOTCENSORED, what is your reason? --Silber47 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why I am still having this conversation. You clearly have no idea what Wikipedia is, and what you say makes zero sense. First of all, it doesn't matter what kind of outcome the information on Wikipedia will cause. Wikipedia won't hide facts because they may have detrimental effects. And secondly, if you actually think that people learning the ethnicity of a criminal will have a dangerous consequence... I don't even know what to say to such nonsense. If a reader so stupid that he will hold grudge against the members of the same ethnicity, then so be it, we cannot do anything about it. We can't go on and hide the ethnicities of all criminals on Wikipedia.-- (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you have no reason, unless discrimination. That he was a student is more important than ethnic Kurd, when can't provide a good reason, I will change it. --Silber47 (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your aim, when the ethnicity is immaterial for you, why do you want have this information instead of student? --Silber47 (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I am having a very hard time preserving civility and continuing to assume good faith at this point. I am afraid I won't be able to keep myself from insulting you if this goes any further. I will leave it to someone else with more patience to educate you about Wikipedia.-- (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly my view about you. --Silber47 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have to leave, we can discuss later. --Silber47 (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This talk is really nonsense, he was a Turkish national. This is the official statement by the Turkish government. Everything else is not lexical. Period! -- (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Listen @ Don't come on Wikipedia pushing a POV, insulting other editors ("This talk is really nonsense"), and acting unilaterally because you don't like something. That is not a way to change hearts and minds. Quis separabit? 13:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not insulting other editors, I just said that this discussion don't make any sense, because of the official statement. -- (talk) 14:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Neutal point of view is that he is a Turkish national according Turkish officials. -- (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Listen upEdit

@ -- please read carefully the following:
This is the last warning I am issuing:
  • a) If you revert my edits you will be in violation of 3RR (if you are not already), which usually is rewarded with an editing block of at least 31 hours
  • b) You are rewriting the reflink which is being sourced
  • c) I do not care if you don't like the fact that the perpetrator was an ethnic Kurd (that falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT)
  • d) Do you understand what I am trying to tell you? Quis separabit? 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Zaza v KurdEdit

  • To whomever is interested -- there is no source I have found that the perp was a "Zaza"; however this BBC link clearly states the perp was an ethnic Kurd. The IP who keeps changing it has already violated 3RR and this matter will need to be resolved. Quis separabit? 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Zazas are Kurds. Gob Lofa (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gob Lofa:

  • a) That would need to be sourced, but beyond that:
  • b) The 3RR-violating IP claims not all Zazas are Kurds (see this diff)
  • c) The perp could/can be identified as both. Quis separabit? 00:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can throw this BBC source away. Western media like BBC, CNN and so on have ZERO credibility and reliability regarding this topic. I bet they don't even know that Zazas exist. There are nationalist and islamist Zazas. The nationalist consider themselves mostly as Kurds. The islamist Zazas hate the Kurdish national movement, they see themselves in the first place as muslims and then Zazas. And you will not find anything about his ethnicity in Turkish media sources, because it is not needed (and also assimilation policy history). His name says everything, source is not needed as long as his name is sourced. And BBC and so on sources are normally reliable, but really not when it comes to such topics. -- (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying only Zazas have that name? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Other left-wing groups"Edit

@Silber47: In a recent edit to this page, you mentioned that members of several "left-wing groups" including ISIS were arrested by the Turkish government. Why are these groups classified in this way? Jarble (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What was type of the bomb?Edit

Was it TNT, or Hexogen, or Semtex, or C-4, or pure ammonium nitrate, or ANFO? (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)alex

Incorrect claimEdit

third paragraph of lead states:The next day, ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) claimed responsibility for the attack

this is incorrect, IS never claimed responsibility

Return to "Suruç bombing" page.