Talk:Istanbul nightclub shooting/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources claiming ISIS responsibility

This tweet from a European news organisation says a Russian source says it was ISIS, https://mobile.twitter.com/thevocaleurope/status/815360744464273408 This then has screenshots of this user's tweets: https://mobile.twitter.com/hikmetdurgun but they're in Turkish so I can't understand it. Can anyone else find sources for this? Or understand that guy's tweets? (@SWF88)  Seagull123  Φ  01:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

it roughly translates to ISIS attacked turkey on the new years eve. He also states that there was a bomb and that the casualty rate is 37 killed. Plus that there have been bombing in Syria paralel to this attack with many casualties. SWF88 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@SWF88: Thanks for translating that! Is that guy a reliable source though? In his Twitter bio, it says something about Sputnik, which I'm guessing is the Russian news agency, is that right? Thanks again.  Seagull123  Φ  01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

i can't be sure. that's why i didn't add it in the infobox. we need more confirmation. SWF88 (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@80.132.75.201: Please come here to discuss this issue of the Russian news source before reverting anymore (See WP:3RR) Thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm nowhere near 3RR. Do you think that source is reliable ? It is a Belgian website btw. 80.132.75.201 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@80.132.75.201: Sorry, I mistakenly thought you were the same editor as a previous IP who removed that source. My apologies.  Seagull123  Φ  02:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah the anonymous twitter account is said to be Russian. Very funny. You are approaching 3RR now. 80.132.75.201 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@SWF88 Have you ever heard of "vocal europe" from belgium before ? 80.132.75.201 (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaand sorry Seagull123, I got you mixed up with SWF88. 80.132.75.201 (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It isn't an anonymous Twitter account, as it is has 57,000 followers, and gives a full name, I believe he also claims to work for Sputnik, but he tweets in Turkish, so I am unable to acertain the reliability of this source, that is why I asked SWF88 about its reliability and they provided a translation of the tweet. The news organisation "Vocal Europe" I don't believe is a fake news organisation, as it mostly seems to write opinion pieces on its website about events that have actually happened, but as it started in 2016, and is not a "mainstream media" organisation, I can't say for certain if it is truly reliable. But until other sources start saying who the perpetrators were, I believe we can still say that an unconfirmed Russian news source says ISIS were the suspected perpetrators. (As it was in the infobox).  Seagull123  Φ  02:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for citing all the reasons we should wait for some reliable source. 80.132.75.201 (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Vocal Europe is a reliable source I think but it is citing the claim of an unreliable source (Sputnik News) and another source whose reliability we don't know nor ever heard likely (in this case we have to presume unreliability). Besides if ISIS is suspected, I doubt Turkish government and Istanbul police will take much time to declare them as suspects. If ISIS is responsible, then I doubt it will take much time to claim responsibility. I think there's no problem in waiting. 117.199.94.196 (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Bataclan

Suggest a link to Bataclan (theatre) similar hate attack, against music and people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.212.246 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation for perpetrator at large?

Who is claiming this aside from witnesses who could be easily confused from being under the influence of alcohol, panic etc? MarsOz (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/turkey-istanbul-nightclub-killer-santa-new-year-terror-attack/1/846987.html Turkish minister.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

anything better than IndiaToday? It's citing the Minister's statements in local media, I thought there was a gag order? At the least, if this source is reliable enough to make that conclusion, someone should tag the perpetrator "1 at larger" claim with it as a reference. MarsOz (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/istanbul-attack-gunmen-dressed-santa-open-fire-nightclub-turkey/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/istanbul-nightclub-attack-new-years-eve/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/istanbul-attack-shooting-manhunt-nightclub-new-years-a7504186.html

Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Telegraph and Independent cites the same minister, CBS just says "The whereabouts of the assailant was not known and it was not clear if he had been caught." which doesn't help anything. To be honest I don't think that it's evidence enough when the confirmation is 3 outlets all using one source from one minister 'telling reporters' allegedly during a gag order. I could be wrong but I'm not going to pursue this further, decide how you wish. MarsOz (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any sources that contradict this one minister?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2017/jan/01/istanbul-nightclub-attack-dozens-killed-new-years-eve-mass-shooting-live-updates

A brief statement on the department’s website reads:

On 1 January 2017, there was an attack on the Reina nightclub in Ortakoy, Istanbul, causing a large number of casualties. There is an ongoing police operation in Istanbul as a result of the attack, and the attacker may still be at large. You should exercise vigilance and caution at this time, and follow the advice and instructions of the security authorities.

So the UK foreign office is saying it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I noticed in the article it says "authorities say 1 perpetrator, while some witnesses claim multiple perps". Yet in the sidebar at the top, it states "1 at large". If it is unsure of the number, should the sidebar read "still at large" and leave off numbering for the time being? L3X1 (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Abis Rizvi

Although he doesn't have his own article, Abis Rizvi I think is notable enough to be mentioned separately being a film producer (Roar: The Tiger of Sunderbans a notable film he produced) and CEO of a building company as well as soon of a former MP of the upper house of the Indian parliament. Besides, he is the only victim who is a subject of many articles where he is the main subject. Many from the Indian film industry have also condoled his death. This sets him apart. I think he is notable enough to be included. So I'm taking a consensus about mentioning him separately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Has article (for now). Name added. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename

The article should be remane to 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting, because all deaths occurred by firearm. see 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or other similar lone-wolfs incidents. Any thoughs? - EugεnS¡m¡on 14:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes that much of a difference but your suggestion would be a bit better than the current title Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Attacks in nightclubs (mostly assaults) are commonplace. This crime is notable because it was a shooting. Jim Michael (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree too. Mingus79 (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The article Mass shooting reveals a range of titles for various wiki mass shooting articles worldwide over the years. Grammarian3.14159265359 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline saying what the titles for articles like this should be? Jim Michael (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for ITN

-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

i guess it is already. imo it is not a good article, i have seen a few striking details in the media, and a few not that were respectively omitted or unknown or do feature for equally obscure reasons.24.132.35.220 (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Maybe we need to remove this section until we know?Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ideally this should wait. But there are a lot of sources in there, this would be back in no time (probably less organized). It's not the most important part of the article and everyone likes colorful flags. :) Deletion should be done only with a strong consensus. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: please see the total number of injured is not 69 as the article state but actually if we calculate the chart numbers we will have 67 rather than 69 so there is 2 missing injured items--مصعب (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean number of known injured from the article is 36 + number of unknown injured as in the article is 31 so the summation is = 67 and not 69 according to this article--مصعب (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

As you can see, I have said we do not know yet, and the numbers are all over the place. But as far as I can tell the source you are using is already in the list under Israele for 1 dead and 1 wounded. The number of wounded should day 67+ as we do not know the total yet.Slatersteven (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The numbers may not be correct but the photo in your source shows the same person who is said to be from israel. your source says she was from tira, which is in israel. she might be of arabic descend but the list shows nationality not ancestry. you source says nothing about her nationality. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If people add casualties can they also update the totals please?Slatersteven (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the number of injured just because we can't account for all nationalities. there are sources for 69/70 injured. maybe the summary row should be deleted? 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Might be a better option, but I was referring to the last edit (which the user has now updated the total of dead for). Thiss article was on the front page, we need to make it worthy of that. We need to be on the ball.Slatersteven (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think some users need to get a calculator (not all of them have gone to silicon heaven), I make the total 40 dead (based on adding up the numbers in our table). We either accept these figures as valid and use them or delete it.Slatersteven (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

So people will add up the dead in our table, and find our total wrong, they will add up the number of injured and find our total wrong. Are we trying to conform to the most negative image of Wikipedia as a source of accurate information?Slatersteven (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously at least one error. let's delete the summary row until someone finds it or the total gets updated in mainstream sources. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

We could call it a preliminary list until it's complete. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"The Latest: Lebanese man says brother is among Istanbul dead" looks like the most likely error source. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Is grouping the casualties by nationality really important here? In a list format like this it seems highly inappropriate for the article; this should be integrated into the prose if necessary. HelgaStick (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support removing the whole section until the mess is figured out. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Not sure what purpose this list serves.Slatersteven (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Most of the victims are foreigners and it isn't unusual to include nationalities in an attack article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you make up a well sourced list that adds up ? If you can I got no objections. Should be in prose instead of a list with flags. 80.132.91.197 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

can he offer some examples of these articles?Slatersteven (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I've never seen an instance of them being given a list, as was in this article. Wikipedia's policy on the use of flags is also relevant here. HelgaStick (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Look at the articles for the Paris attacks, Nice attack, Ataturk airport attack...plenty of examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinX33 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just looked at the Paris one, and it looks awfully, but yes there is a precedent.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The numbers still don't add up. Some of the sources used in the list are contradictory. We should delete the section until a reliable count is available. 80.132.91.226 (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's a total mess but it seems there are enough people here who want it to make it a problem. I suggest an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Can you start one? 80.132.91.226 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Which categories would be appropriate? 80.132.91.226 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose removal of list. The solution to inconsistent numbers from multiple news sources is not deletion but to annotate and note those issues with either "+" or "approximately" or other nomenclature. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC

I have stated an RFC, the question is should the table of casualties stay or be removed until we have a final total.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where? It should be here. 80.132.91.226 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The table in the section "Victims" has been wrong since it was added. The numbers don't add up mathematically, and some of the sources used contradict each other. This is no surprise since there is no official tally yet. It has been deleted until we get the data, but of course it was restored although it is obviously wrong. At some point someone even changed the (sourced) numbers in the lead to match the table. My suggestion is that we replace it with a short summary (in prose) of the confirmed numbers, even if those are not yet complete, and wait with a full tally until the data is available. 80.132.91.226 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep the table. The solution to inconsistent numbers from multiple news sources is not deletion but to annotate and note those issues with either "+" or "approximately" or other nomenclature. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. -- Fuzheado | Talk 19:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As MartinX33 mentioned above, there is established precedent for the table, especially when a tragedy impacts a diverse range of victims from many countries. See

• 2016_Nice_attack#Victims
• 2016_Atatürk_Airport_attack#Casualties
• November_2015_Paris_attacks#Casualties

Delete Even when the count is accurate, it's still a scoreboard. Those are better suited for games, or at least situations where point standings affect the future. If any of these stats do have ramifications, they'd be better explained in well-sourced prose, without the international sporting vibe (at least burn the flags). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep Standard and informative format for wikipedia articles on such events. Double counting can be noted. Avaya1 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete the table, as per what InedibleHulk has said, as well as my prior arguments. HelgaStick (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"According to Israeli TV"

What's up with this section? Seems like the person who added this is trying to claim that "Muslims" in general in Turkey are hostile to New Year's or approve of the attack?

Same thing with "Muslims" in other places "as far away as Australia"?

I'm recommending this be removed due to it being irrelevant to the attack in question and due to blatant POV-pushing. Turkey is 99% Muslim; therefore the Turkish citizens murdered were overwhelmingly Muslim. The other nationalities are predominantly Arab-- a majority-Muslim ethnicity.

This was a Daeshi attack, plain and simple. I really don't see why this irrelevant, leading rambling has to remain and will be removing it as such. 70.55.219.198 (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

perp

Iakhe Mashrapov has not been convicted, so he is only the alleged attacker.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

30 foreigners dead?

I understand that this is extrapolated from the table lower down in the article, but we really need a source which says that 30 foreigners were dead to keep this in the article. I've added a hidden note in the meantime, and removed the Times source as this source said at least 24 foreigners were dead, not 30. HelgaStick (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed my mind: I've removed the number of foreigners dead in the prose paragraph. HelgaStick (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Iakhe Mashrapov Page/ Infobox

Just one concern for the article, should their be a page for Lakhe Mashrapov or just a Infobox for him?Cass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Until he is tried and convicted (or killed, sadly) he is not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit too prominent here already, for (apparently) having nothing to do with anything. By taking up the lion's share of an "Identification" section, he might seem like a suspicious character (or at least "person of interest") to readers, even if the message is he had nothing to do with anything.

If he turns out to be important later, the info can easily be dredged up, but should probably be deleted for now, for BLP reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lian Nasser from Israel

About 19 Year Old Lian Nasser. She was of Israeli citizenship, the Ministry of Foriegn Issues of Israel brought her body to Israel and the Israeli government is participating in her burial, and supporting the family. See here Israel Hayom article telling about Lian. Here is her father talking in Hebrew and telling what happened along with the Israeli Arab mayor of Tira.

Writing "Palestinian" and putting the Palestinian flag, and giving a source reading that Tira is "in Palestine inside the green line" is ignoring the existance of Israel. The Green Line (Israel) happens to be EXACTLY the UNDESPUTED definition of the armistice reached border of Israel following Israel's war of independance and until the 1967 Six-Day War. I am correcting this. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nasser was a Palestinian in Israel. A second (or third) class citizen, especially in comparison to Jewish and Zionist residents.

She was a Palestinian. Not a Jew, not a Zionist, not a "proud Israeli". Your attempt to propagandize in favour of Zionist Israel under the guise of talking about her death is quite simply sickening-- although not something that's unexpected, all things considered.

Reverting to Palestinian living in Israel. End of story. 70.55.219.198 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And not all Israelis are Jews, what passport does she hold?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The point being is that she was Palestinian Arab. The Israeli Jewish government in all likelihood hates her family, as do many Zionist Jews in Israel. The above poster was trying to use her death as a way to post propaganda extolling Zionism and Israel. Sickening! 70.55.219.198 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the point is this is an encyclopedia. If she holds an Israeli passport she is Israeli.Slatersteven (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Renaming this article 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting

Someone mentioned earlier that this article should be renamed to the 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting. It is true that there was a gun used so that it could be considered a shooting. A second question, could I copy and paste all the content in the article when it is renamed?

(Cass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cannot recall where but in one source or other I saw a reference to hand grenades.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Outfit?

Arw we going to mention the fact that this guy was dressed up as Santa Claus? It relates to how he evaded police capture up until one hour ago today (Jan. 4). UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

We did, it was removed because the "fact" was not that clear cut. Also I fail to see how being dressed as Santa for three days in a Muslim country is a great disguise.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

He changed his clothes, so with a beard, hat and coat on his face would be hard to identify. If it doesn't seem fit, so be it. I just think it's important. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes he changed his clothes, here is is about to attack [[1]], he was not dressed as Santa.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we want a temporary WP:SEMI

You all saw what that punk just did, and how 3 or 4 of us came down on it. Admins are handing out one week WP:SEMIs till the kiddos go back to school L3X1 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it was just extremely unlikely someone like that was going to come around and say offensive things about the article. It is a wise judgement to make prevention measures.

(Cass) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassini127 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Uyghur

This is getting a bit OTT and reads like some kind of obsessive attack piece now. Are Uyghur's really the only ethnic group being arrested and investigate, because that is how the article reads.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Who?

Who is Julie Lenarz and why is her twitterings if interest? Also if this is the most notable criticism of Ms Menschs comments, maybe we should change it to "only criticism".

Come to that why are Ms Ms Menschs twitterings worthy of inclusion.?

Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that the comments by Louise Mensch should be included and expanded upon, as Mensch's comments are covered in reliable sources (e.g. this International Business Times article, also by Lenarz). Mensch is a notable pundit, and the IBT article solidified Lenarz's notability/reliability. Additionally, the comments are of note in the article as they are not the usual messages of condolences or usual responses one would expect, in a way similar to the New York Daily News columnist Gersh Kuntzman over at the Assassination of Andrei Karlov article. HelgaStick (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: Thinking about it, it could be merged into the conspiracy theories put forward by Sabah, which are already mentioned in the "reactions" section of this article. HelgaStick (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If RS have covered it I have no issue, it's just it was only being sourced to a couple of tweets.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What ? Some ex-MP on twitter and 2 sources who say she is talking shit make this notable? Come on you two! 80.132.89.167 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To make her theory notable some RS need to take it up and not rebuke it. 80.132.89.167 (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@HelgaStick, @Slatersteven. This belongs to Mensch's article. 80.132.89.167 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "notability has nothing to do with article content" so we include everything as long the subject of the article is notable? 80.132.92.111 (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No we include what RS have reported, RS have reported this. The Irish Business times is RS, and has reported it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

But the rebuke pertains to Mensch. It belongs into Menschs article. She got no special connection to the attack, unlike Erdogan. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What? This is commentary about the attack, your objection then is not "that it is not sourced" but just "she has no interest in Turkey"(in effect) this is not a valid reason for exclusion. I asked (at first) why her opinion on this was worthy of note. But I find your reasoning flawed as well. She is a well known pundit who had made comments about this attack being a Russian false flag. Notability (or interest) is not a criteria for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It falls under WP:WEIGHT. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is Yahoo news repeating it.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/conspiracy-theories-distract-us-russias-183003929.html Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, Lenarz. what does this back and forth between them has do do with the attack. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is commentary by a noted internet pundit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also check the sources in International Business Times about the reliability of that source. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article cannot be used to determine RS, that is what the RS notice board is for.

Thats why I said you should check the sources in that article and not the article. Sorry if I was unclear. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians do not evaluate the sources RS use for their articles, they report it. Either the IBT is RS or it is not. Which is it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it is not, but that's debatable. 80.132.92.111 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT maybe a valid reason for exclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

yet another identification

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/reina-nightclub-attacker-identified-as-abdulkadir-masharipov/

He is now from Uzbeckistan. Maybe we need to just remove that whole section until we have some firm information.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the sections "Perpetrator" and "Identification" should be merged and brought in chronological order. The back and forth should be documented. 80.132.82.230 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated on 4 January that the gunman had been identified as Abdulkadir Masharipov, aged 34." This is wrong. The source does not state a name only the photo. The name came out later. 80.132.82.230 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that. But I'm not up for the copyedit. Howe about you @Slatersteven:, @WWGB:? 80.132.82.230 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. I mean up to. See? :) 80.132.82.230 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection

We may need to protect the page.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested and received protection :) El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Attempted Assassination of Masharipov

The verbiage, "On 20 January, an unidentified attacker fired a rocket near the Istanbul police headquarters, missing the intended target and instead impacted against a garden wall of the Provincial Security Directorate. No injuries were reported. The suspect, Abdulgadir Masharipov, was held at the headquarters at the time of the attack," needs to be included in the article for two reasons:

1. It falls into logical and chronological order with the preceding paragraphs:

 Masharipov was arrested on 16 January at a Kyrgyz friend's apartment in the Esenyurt district of Istanbul.[51] Firearms, ammunition, two drones and about $200,000 were found in the apartment.[52]

Masharipov was 34 years old at the time of the attack and is believed to have been trained as a militant in Afghanistan and Pakistan before illegally entering Turkey through the Iranian border in January 2016.[52] Masharipov is also believed to have trained with Al Qaeda in Iraq, the group that morphed into ISIL, and had spent most of his time in Turkey in the city of Konya before arriving in Istanbul on December 16, 2016.[52][53] In an interview with police, Masharipov stated he was initially directed by ISIL to stage an attack at Taksim Square, but dropped the plan after conducting surveillance of the area and concluding there was too much security. Afterwards, Masharipov passed the Reina and decided it would be a good target to attack due to a lack of security.[53]

2. It is as relevant as the attack was likely intended to free or assassinate Masharipov. Regardless, of speculation which I have refrained from, the attack is part of the Aftermath of the attack, however, does not seem to flow in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whcarver (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section...?

Can someone explain to me WHY this section belongs? As far as I can tell it doesn't belong here, or anywhere.El cid, el campeador (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think this does not belong?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The first citation of the section has "conspiracy theories" in its title. If said theories are notable enough and cited as conspiracy theories, then they get a mention in the article or sometimes a stand alone article. Can you make a case for WP:UNDUE? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)