Discussion:Attentat d'Istanbul de 2022

Accusations farfelue du PKK en infobox

@Tan Khaerr WP:PROPORTION nous oblige à un usage raisonné des sources. Les accusations complotistes d'un groupe terroriste (le PKK qui accuse le gouvernement turc) n'ont pas leur place en infobox. Panam (discuter) 16 novembre 2022 à 13:40 (CET)

Copie de la discussion qui a déjà eu lieu sur le Wikipédia anglais, à laquelle j'ai participé, et qui a tranché la question déjà. Merci.

I'm noticing that there is a significant amount of speculative stuff being written in the articles that frankly is very biased and not really supported by any facts, like for example in the background information, there is the mentioning of the election and other things, but I'm wondering what that has to do with the attack, it seems like people are pushing suggestive thinking trying to push a narrative that somehow Turkey did this to itself, without any basis. And then there is a the perpetrators column, where people are taking statements from the PKK saying that Turkey carried out a false flag. I'm just wondering if this sort of speculation would be the same if there was a terrorist attack in western states, and if someone would write in that al qaeda or whatever group is alleging that the US or whatever country carried out the attack on itself for its own foreign policy objectives or whatever reason. Like for example I cannot imagine that the 9/11 article would be ever written in any way that would acknowledge conspiratorial stuff, b/c that would be seen as irresponsible, and yet for some reason this seems reasonable to some people here. Midgetman433 (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Simply stating, for instance, that the SDF disavowed any involvement and accused the government of the bombing as a "false flag" operation isn't supporting that accusation. They did say that, and that fact that they said it is noted. Omitting that fact seems like censorship.

Al-Quaeda, on numerous occasions, definitely took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on numerous occasions. If they had disavowed responsibility you can be assured that the Western press would have been reported it.

I'm not seeing a "perpetrator's column" in the article itself, in earlier versions of the article, or in the talk section. What are you referring to?

Ormewood (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I saw "Turkey (alleged by the PKK)" listed under "Perpetrator" on the right hand of the page, which is why I raised the question. Alond with the speculative/conspiratorial narrative attached to the background section.

Secondly, If i'm not mistaken Binladen never took responsibility explicitly(this was one of the reasons cited by the taliban when the US asked them to turn him over, and the taliban demanded proof.), its actually a very common conspiracy theory in the Muslim/Arab world, that the U.S. faked the attacks to launch a crusade against the Muslim/Arab world. Of course such a thing would be ludicrous to add to the 9/11 page, but somehow this sort of speculation people seem to think is valid for Countries they don't like. There are several other such events where the people allegedly involved suggest that those accusing them did it themselves(several incidents with other non state actors), and we don't seem to list that on wiki pages, so the rationale seems to be selectively applied.

People it seems to me are trying to create suggestive thinking b/c of their own geopolitical biases against Turkey, even in Turkey the opposition has made no such claims, and they actually are in govt in the city, with the mayoral office and local police under their jurisdiction. The govt itself hasn't explicitly named the culprits, b/c the investigation is ongoing. Midgetman433 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, stating the fact that the SDF and PKK denied involvement in this incident is not "supporting conspiratorial stuff." It is, in fact, possible that they weren't, by the way; after the bombings of March 19th of 2016 the government was quick to blame the PKK, only to reverse their assessment later on and blame ISIL. Given that, trying to imply reporting that the SDF and PKK deny involvement amounts to "conspiratorial stuff" seems pretty thin.

I think what you are after is a straight repetition of the Turkish government's take on this, with anything opposing that expunged. That might very well be possible in Turkey itself, given this quote from the article:

"Around an hour after the explosion took place, a broadcast ban was issued by the Istanbul Criminal Court for all visual and audio news and social networking sites related to the incident. Only interviews with government officials are allowed to be reported about. CNN Türk and TRT then stopped reporting on the incident. Internet speeds throughout Turkey and access to social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram and Youtube have been significantly decreased since the event."

However, you are going to have a very hard time selling it here. Ormewood (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that the PKK and Kurdish terrorist groups have an history of claiming their attacks ; it's very unusual to see them not doing so. You can see that here : 2020 İskenderun shootout, February 2016 Lice bombing, May 2016 Diyarbakır bombing, May 2016 Dürümlü bombing.

In the attacks where they have denied implication, such as there : 2015 Siirt bombing, the infobox says "Turkish claim". AgisdeSparte (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You can also note that the Turkish Wikipedia page also takes this point of view : https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_%C4%B0stanbul_sald%C4%B1r%C4%B1s%C4%B1 AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Its interesting that all it takes to have something considered legitimate here is an opinion piece is a partisan(neocon in this case) media outlet that offers nothing in terms of proof but speculation. I really wonder if people here started citing opinion pieces in Russia Today, Presstv, or any Chinese publication casting doubt and creating speculation around any statement from the US govt regarding an incident, if those would be considered "legitimate", my guess is the same people would be saying no. There hasn't been a single political party in the opposition in Turkey that has suggested this sort of speculation, not even the HDP and even reputable publications in the West like the NyTimes or the Guardian haven't said its a false flag conspiracy. If such a narrative was even remotely true, we would have seen the CHP and the Istanbul Mayor(under whom the police function) raise these issues. The Govt itself hasn't released anything other than saying some syrian nationals were arrested and being questioned, and it remains to be seen whether it was the PKK involved or Daesh or an isolated crazy person. Yet somehow others have decided to jump the gun and determined its all a conspiracy, despite having no tangible proofs regarding the incident. I guess the "bad guys" and "bad countries" are never allowed to be victims, no there is always a convenient conspiracy theory that explains away that element, and if anyone suggests that speculation and conspiracy narratives should be questioned with regards to their lack of tangible evidence, well I guess those people want "censorship" and only want the "govt narrative". lol Midgetman433 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that btw, it seems that the claim is creating growing skepticism in mainstream media, like The National Interest, for example, that finds the story pretty dubious.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/who-was-really-behind-istanbul-bombing-205880

Or The New York Sun : https://www.nysun.com/article/turkey-tries-to-finger-yanks-kurds-for-terror-bombing-at-istanbul "At the height of its war against the Turkish government, the PKK typically claimed responsibility for attacks. Yet, for several years the group, which the Department of State has listed as a terrorist organization since 1997, has tried to shed its past militancy in favor of political activity. Turkey, nevertheless, often bombs PKK bases in Iraq, as well as the American-backed Syrian Kurds. After nearly six years in which there were no serious attacks against civilians in Turkey, the Sunday terror bombing could mark the return of harsh security measures in the country. Some fear that such measures would even become tougher with the approach of next June’s presidential and parliamentary elections. There are “hints at a premeditated campaign of terror orchestrated by Ankara, with the US and Kurds pre-designated as the perpetrators,” a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Turkey watcher, Sinan Ciddi, tweeted. He later told the Sun that while “there is no hard evidence that the Turkish government is behind the bombing, they’re certainly trying to capitalize on it.”"

AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC) AgisdeSparte (discuter) 16 novembre 2022 à 22:21 (CET)

C'es du grand n'importe quoi ce qui est fait sur en. Donc on ne reprendra pas.

@Apollofox et @M.A. Martin Panam (discuter) 16 novembre 2022 à 23:09 (CET)

Merci de votre avis éclairé en tous cas "c'est du grand n'importe quoi". Répondre une ligne à un développement de cette taille qui fournit de nombreuses sources, c'est assez insultant, honnêtement. Si vous voulez pousser une raison à votre vandalisme, au moins faites le de manière construite. AgisdeSparte (discuter) 17 novembre 2022 à 00:39 (CET)

Allons voir l'administration, et exposons leur nos arguments, même si vous n'en présentez pas, dans ce cas ; j'ai créé cette page et j'ai mentionné des sources dans le développement fourni plus haut, qui sont celles de médias mainstream, en plus d'un rappel que c'est AUSSI la prise de position du Wikipédia turc. Le Wikipédia anglais s'est déjà posé la question, le Wikipédia turc aussi, ils ont tranché en faveur de cette décision là après exposition des arguments, je ne vois pas en quoi ce serait du "grand n'importe quoi" et ça ne s'appliquerait pas au Wikipédia français. AgisdeSparte (discuter) 17 novembre 2022 à 00:42 (CET)

Cette présentation est du WP:POV pushing. Les choix éditoriaux des autres WP ne sont pas un argument. Panam (discuter) 17 novembre 2022 à 01:45 (CET)