Talk:2015 Ankara bombings

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 Ankara bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving 2015 Ankara bombings was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 10 October 2015.

Wikipedia

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Islam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
	This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
	This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.

Military history: Middle East / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Turkey High‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2015 Ankara bombings, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Coordinates

I've added very rough coordinates for the bombings, taken from the coordinates in the station article that give only the station's general locality. If anyone can refine them to match press report descriptions, I'd be grateful. -- The Anome (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Havent yet gone through the article proper but wanted to highlight the necessity for adequate background context in light of turkey's actions in the past several months. While this reeks of false flag (note- im not saying to go out on a limb and put that on the article as MSM "RS" will not be saying that, the consequent excuses to up the ante in bombing runs will also suggest it). Nevertheless, the background is necessary and we can possibly add an "Aftermath" in due course.

Also Ankara blamed PKK, IS and sme leftist group. PKK also said it would suspend operations till after the election.Lihaas (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, good job folks. I did some minor cleaning and added the cancellation of erdogan's trip to Turkmenistan, which I read but need an online source.

Also this could have repercussions with the Madrid train bombings and the PP's hammering in the election because of its reaction. We could add it as a see also since the election is around the corner.Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions

This is a large list, and most of the reactions are standard condolence and condemnation which would be expressed by most people on Earth. On a Turkish issue, is the reaction of the leaders of Guatemala and Latvia really that important? The only ones which seem to have any third dimension to them is Tsipras questioning why peace rallies fall afoul of violence in Turkey (this unorthodox reaction is notable even if Greece and Turkey were not difficult neighbours), and Britain stating that they are supporting the investigation (rather than merely condemning, praying etc.) '''tAD''' (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. About 90% of this could go. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --John (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions part of every tragic event at such a scale. Part of International relations. A policy is required for removal of international reaction sections from this and all similar events. A few examples (among numerous): 2015_Suruç_bombing#Reactions, Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Reactions, 2015_Kuwait_mosque_bombing#International_reactions, Gizmocorot (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The International reactions section should stay. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. They are absolutely pertinent in adjudging to students of IR how relations stand and who (and who did NOT respond). Armchair editors of WP may see otherwise, but encyclopedias are for students/education.Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing this discussion before removing the info, Gizmocorot. I think it's pretty clear where I stand: messages of condolence have no place on Wikipedia. These are routine messages given out by many heads of state time and time again and lack substance. Anyone can say "sorry that happened to you". What is more important and quantifiable on Wikipedia are actions, things that nations do in response to such events. International relations are not necessary to bring up in every single tragedy, it's outside of the realm of focus we should be maintaining; most messages of condolences are simply to maintain the status-quo. Citing previous articles doesn't help much as this is more a move to reassess the site's stance on these types of messages and what is or is not viable for inclusion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, international reactions sections were useful to see who and who doesn't take a position in such events (e.g. certain suicide attacks in Iraq, some states intentionally don't take a position on attacks with major death tolls/significance...). Looking forward to result of discussion (has implication on many pages....). Gizmocorot (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add, considering it is a political act, international relations ARE enecessary to adjudge both the relations and the consequences (incidentally someone needs to add the bombings that ollowed this)Lihaas (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Are messages of condolence worthwhile inclusions to Wikipedia?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that condolences are not notable (WP:UNDUE) for a long list. The majority opinion is that they are automatic in some cases and a long list would be undue. There was support for wording like "Heads of state and government from around the world" though it falls just short of consensus. As a side note on application to other articles. Weight is applied per topic and its viewpoints. Length that is undue in one list may be appropriate for length for another topic. AlbinoFerret 03:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemming from the above discussion, I thought it necessary to bring in a broader audience since this has much wider implications. The basic premise of this is: Are messages of condolence issued by various heads of state notable enough to warrant a long listing on articles (namely events related to terrorism or disasters)? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issues extends into, presumably, hundreds of other articles as inclusion of condolences has been a standard practice for as long as I can remember. To reiterate my stance on this, I do not believe they warrant inclusion on articles of individual events, for the most part, as they lack substance. They are routine messages simply to maintain the status-quo of international relations. Anyone can make a statement that amounts to "sorry that happened"—akin, but not equal in scale, to saying "sorry for your loss" when a friend's pet dies. What should be focused on are actions, quantifiable and substantial actions by nations in response to the respective events. This includes, but is not limited to, financial aid, protests, emergency supplies, logistical support, etc. Items related to international relations should only become a point of discussion within an article when something deviates from the norm because of the event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Political events by its very vdefinition require piolitical responses (as in IR). This is not a personal "sorry your dog died" with not international reamifications for the actions tht follow. As such NATO and colition members' reactions and lack thereof are pertinent. As is Armeina stepping in and others' relations with turkey (haven't seen israel yet?).Lihaas (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think get rid of almost all of them. They are mostly NOT political responses - they are merely the typical bland, empty, sometimes deceptive, and 100% predictable public responses by politicians. Keep them only if the responses actually initiate or announce significant policy changes or actions. Wikipedia is not a book of condolences. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change of opinion - get rid of ALL of them. There is a case for a very weak keep on two reactions - the UK one, which suggests some unspecified British intelligence support being given to investigators (i.e., it announces an action), and the EU one, which hints at a belief in it being a false-flag conspiracy (i.e., it announces a policy), but that is not enough to justify keeping the section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be summed up with "Heads of state and government from around the world condemned the bombing" and then a few sources? A lot of these are standard condemnations and condolences. In another recent tragedy, in Mecca, it was notable to record the countries who sent medical teams to the site, and those who condemned the House of Saud for the tragedy (an indirect party). No countries are sending peacekeepers to Turkey, none have stated that they will send specific aid packages, and I am unaware of Turkish and Kurdish diaspora in the West holding notable demonstrations against the attack '''tAD''' (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Politicians are semi-automatic condolence vending machines. These types of articles always have this problem, for the first week or so. Unless someone says something substantial (like announcing a change in law or military plans), best to just say "Many world leaders expressed their condolences and condemnation", with footnotes pointing to articles that aggregate this stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by politicals are political. Studying IR in any academic institution of higher learning will tell you that the nature of public responses is NOT standard because who said what and wh o did not is symbolic of the nature of relations. Not by armchair enthusisats determining what is relevant and standard.

As such "Heads of state and government from around the world" did NOT make statements.Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to say these statements aren't important to international relations. Just that international relations isn't so important to this. Not "largest section in the article" important, anyway. If it can fit more like the others, in several sentences, it won't be an undue weight deal anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: international reactions and condolences by states not mere hollow words but a show of solidarity and support with due weight in international relations. Gizmocorot (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd say that it's not really that important to keep. Perhaps it's the list format that brings the issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note that I object to the closure of this RfC on the basis:

that the posted result of the closure is hardly understandable (What does "that condolences are not notable WP:UNDUE for a long list." mean?)
that it apparently doesn't balancedly reflect the course of the discussion, claiming that there was a consensus when there was none
that it claims to be much wider in scope than concerning this particular article, though only very few editors participated and though it has not been advertised beyond this particular talk page
that it blatantly contradicts general inclusion criteria in cases where condolences have been widely covered by the media.

I will be discussing with the non-admin closing user how to proceed. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I'd like to see some of the sourcing improved. We should not be using Twitter as a source. --John (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the whole source, anyway. It's fine to supplement secondary coverage of a tweet, but without the secondary, it's hard to gauge significance. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not inherently wrong. Considering state leaders nowadays resort to twitter to post their reaction, these notable persons are being qoted from the horses' mouth. Its not the lay poster on twitter that is being cited.Lihaas (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that they're always wrong or the authors non-notable. Just that without a secondary source deciding they're important enough to cover, there's a bit of an OR problem when a Wikipedian decides that instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP has them on here itself, if they weren't notable it wouldn;'t pass the threshold for inclusion here. As such, it is a the leaders of these countries that established notqability (as in with the topic above).

I agree of its own twitter, etc is not notable . but under the circumstances of it being verified accounts of notable persons its just quoting from the horse's mouth.Lihaas (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things a notable person does aren't inherently notable. If the President of Guatemala has toast for breakfast, and the press doesn't pick it up, we don't either. Same with tweets. If we didn't have these sort of standards, every "social" celebrity's page would be full of them. Self-published sources aren't allowed when they're about indirectly (or un) related events or other people. Saying something is notable if it's on Wikipedia is circular reasoning. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS

Response per ISIS seems legit as to what they would ay. It should be okey if its RS in the coutry in question p[1]Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Federation

Russian Federation is it's full and correct name. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the first to correct it as Others did. Nevertheless, the constitutionally official names of most of the country names on there is different from the WP:commonname.Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you for or against calling it Russian Federation? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 03:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United States should be United States of America all over wikipedia as per above reasoning. Russia common name in titles, see: Russia, Constitution of Russia, President of Russia, Politics of Russia. In my opinion this is not the page to discuss such changes for naming policy, maybe start a Wikipedia:RfC for Russian Federation and United States of America naming... Gizmocorot (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw- the others also have some form of "Republic of..." (pak is the Islamic Repybluc of...as is Iran).Lihaas (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary's just plain Hungary, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a question here on Wikipedia:RfC. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators

Please do not add perpetrators to an event without source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozguno (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source alleging by government that its ISIS. but due to the nature of the Orwellian propaganda that emanates and the political reactions, I have left that in the section below (moved from lead) and for now left the infobox emty.Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article suggests that we don't know (yet) the perpetrator(s) nor those responsible: infobox speaks only of 'suspects', lead says 'no claim yet' and 'suspected links to ISIL'. That seems the usual situation with many or most of such attacks in recent years. However, I noticed to my astonishment that one of the most reliable newspapers in my country, NRC Handelsblad, on 2 November and a few day earlier designated ISIL -- without any doubt or reserve -- as responsible. (See this link (2 Nov): 'Harde opstelling tegen Koerden brengt Erdogan zege', if you can.) I asked them why, they did not respond. Does anyone know of further, usually reliable, sources blaming ISIL without the least reserve for the attack? --Corriebertus (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was type of the bomb?

Was it TNT, or Hexogen, or Semtex, or C-4, or pure ammonium nitrate, or ANFO? 90.154.68.230 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)alex[reply]

I guess the investigation will indicate it.Lihaas (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll - HDP's claim

HDP retracted its statement that the death toll is 128 and apologized for the misleading claim. Party website, Newspaper. I'm removing it.--Orwellianist (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its cited to TMA though. Also who is the "official" figure attributed to. Health ministry? police?Lihaas (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated both the official and unofficial numbers. Also, the ceasefire was declared by PKK after the bombings, not before. In earlier interviews, they mentioned they were planning to declare it on October 11 [2], they decided to do it a day earlier when the bombings happened.--Orwellianist (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im not talking about the HDP numbers, I removed them before doing the update. The other figure is from the TMA. Ive restored the TMA part and some other rewording.Lihaas (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, this is the second time you are using the outdated source about TTB. I don't object to mentioning it in the first paragraph, but please use the source that I updated. Their last figure is 106, not 105. (To note, I don't think it is necessary to overcomplicate the first paragraph by mention TTB's claim, it is already in the infox, and official figures are enough for the first paragraph, there isn't so much discrepancy anyway. But go ahead and add them if you must, but please use the updated source.

Also, I noticed that you added the {{who}} again next to "The Ankara Attorney General". Please explain the reason, but as far as I can see it makes absolutely no sense here. Do you realize what that template is for? Ankara Attorney General is not a weasel word in any sense, it is perfectly adequate. And if you think his name matters, go ahead and it, it is right there in the source, but I don't see how the attorney general's name is relevant to the article.

I am having a hard time understanding your edits, so it would be great if you can explain them. Why do you keep adding the italicized part to the sentence "The Prime Minister's office claimed that 99 people were killed, according to the prime minister's statement on October 14"? Why do we need to mention it twice that it is from the statement by the prime minister? And why do you keep editing the part about PKK's ceasefire like there is something special about Cemil Bayik's October 9 interview? I can find you dozens of statements, from throughout this month, where PKK said the same thing, that they are ready for a ceasefire; Which is why I added the clause "which was reportedly already being planned before the bombing took place." Edit that clause if you like, but don't add that statement that is susceptible to be misunderstood, he didn't say anything new in that interview, he was just giving his routine statement "we are the peaceful ones, we are ready for a ceasefire, but Turkey keep attacking us, so we will give a drastic response to them" etc.--Orwellianist (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the things I mentioned. I didn't correct the reference for the TTB's claim, since I don't think it should even be there, but please correct it yourself if you believe it should be kept. I also removed "Prime Minister Office claim" you added to the "Suspected perpetrators" part. Of course it is not certain yet, that is why we are using {{{susperps}}} field instead of {{{perps}}}. And those are not prime minister's claims, they are the findings of the police, prime minister's office is not running the investigation. I don't think it is necessary to mention who is suspecting them, there is only one legal authority that can investigate it anyway. Maybe we could use (FBI) and (State Police) if this was in the US and there was a jurisdictional conflict and they had different suspects.--Orwellianist (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you shown it to be outdated. the source of the retraction is to the HDP. There is nothing to show TMA is outdated. They are different. Ad no we cannot rely merely on the PMO as the sole source, especially when there is a discrepency. That's a bias.

Yes, the Attorney General does need to be mentioned. The WP:ONUS is on that who added it.

Because it needs attribution and it came from the PMO. The other part was added by someone else firstly, but if its not refuted then its true to source and has to reflect the reality of intention came before the incidents. In a controversial and polarized atmosphere like this is, its certainly important to readers and not a POV/censorship issue. then do find other sources and dont censor, please.

Per BRD, seek consensus for the changes BEFORE changing. You don't have that. Susperp could be made by anyone from the media to the PMO to (in cases of tenous coailitions) other parties. At any rate, the political PMO is apart from the apolitical investigative units and in the light of an election in 2 weeks it is more pertinent (remember Spain's election after the bombing and the role it played?)Lihaas (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, first of all, I am having difficulty deciphering what you are saying. I am not sure if it is due to your English proficiency or sloppiness, but can you please proof-read what you wrote?

TTB's claim dated October 11: 105 deaths

TTB's claim dated October 14: 106 deaths

I really don't know how to explain it more simply. On October 11, they claim that there are 105 deaths. On October 14, they update their claim and say there are 106 deaths. And you insist on using the outdated claim dated October 11, despite repeated warnings, and claim that October 11 source is not outdated? You realize that October 14 comes after October 11, right?

And if you think the Attorney General's name matters, then add it to the article for god's sake. It is right there in the title of the source, why do you keep adding the who template? I mean, it doesn't matter to the article at all that his name is Kodalak and not Poharak, but if you like to then add his name, not an unrelated template. Who template is not used for these situations.

Again, I don't know how to explain it more simply.

"The Prime Minister's office claimed that 99 people were killed, according to the prime minister's statement" → Wrong

"99 people were killed, according to the prime minister's statement" → Correct

I get that you don't speak English so well, but if you can't see why the use of first sentence is incorrect, can you at least put your trust in the English-speaking editors and avoid repeatedly adding grammatical mistakes to the article?--Orwellianist (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I once again removed your additions, if you insist on adding them, please discuss it here first. And again, I left it to you to update the source on TTB's claim, since you are the one who wants to keep it in the first paragraph. I think I explained it simply enough above, use the October 14 source, not October 11.--Orwellianist (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to newest update 102 are dead. There isn't much discrepancy with the TTB's claim and official figures, and there is no need to overcomplicate the first paragraph by mentioning both. The government is doing the investigation and has access to police and hospital records; and as far as I can see all media organizations take the figure 102 as a fact; there is no reason to give undue weight to other claims.--Orwellianist (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Organize, clean-up

Could someone please perhaps organize the article, etc.? (I'm rather busy myself now at other parts of Wikipedia.) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Ankara bombings. 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/20151015054021/http://www.afp.com:80/en/news/pkk-leader-says-ready-new-turkey-ceasefire to http://www.afp.com/en/news/pkk-leader-says-ready-new-turkey-ceasefire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2015 Ankara bombings. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]