Talk:Ankara Esenboğa Airport attack

NYT

Gazifikator, NYT calls the attackers terrorists. So do US State Department, Time magazine and other sources, quoted in the article. This is a quote from this NYT article, which I have in full:

The terrorists opened their attack in the international flight terminal at Esenboga Airport, where they exploded a bomb and then strafed passengers going through passport control for a KLM flight.

The Secret Army is one of two Armenian terrorist groups that have been responsible for the assassination of 22 Turkish officials and members of their families abroad since 1973.

So what's the point in your reverting? Grandmaster 06:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. ... These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.[1] Gazifikator (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also we need to use more neutral term per WP:NPOV. NYT is using "armed group", "gunmen", not only "terrorist". Gazifikator (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there is not a "clear meaning" of "Terrorist" in this sources. As you see, they use different (lighter) terms, one of them is terrorist. Gazifikator (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The rule also says:

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided in the sentence where it appears.

I provided multiple reliable sources referring to the attackers as terrorists. Among them NYT, Time, US State Department, etc. The citations are included. We can make them more precise, if you needed. Grandmaster 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Armed

I returned the word of armed as it is sourced, neutral and correct per WP:WTA. Gazifikator (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If a group is a part of militant organization, it is supposed to be armed. And NYT is not a good source for such statement, it also calls the attackers the terrorists. You cannot pick just the words that you like and ignore those that you don't. The wording that I included sounds more logical. Also, why you undid my other edits? Grandmaster 07:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So armed is something obvious for you, or not? I cant understand. yesterday you had a discussion that they are obvious terrorists, today you say armed is too much logical to add. I dont ignore the words I "dislike" but editing in accordance of WP:WTA. Other minor edits were unsourced, but they can be readded if they are correct. Terrorism in CA is not correct category, it was in a CA-related place, not in CA. And it is rather tourism related. Gazifikator (talk) 07:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NYT cannot be used as a reference for "armed group", as that is not the only term it uses to describe the attackers. It also calls them terrorists. In my opinion, it is better not to use any description, the fact that they belonged to an organization that is called militant in the article makes it clear that they were armed. Militants are supposed to have arms. The article must be readable and written in a decent English. I really see no point in this argument. Grandmaster 05:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil aviation

Airports are part of civil aviation. Why are you removing this category? Grandmaster 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was discussed earlier, but you prefer to edit before replying to my notes. I see no any airport here [2]. Read and discuss my previous notes on this I explained there. And you can read more on Civil aviation here [3]. Gazifikator (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading your link:

Each signatory country has a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (such as the FAA in the United States) to oversee the following areas of civil aviation:

• Aerodromes — designing and constructing aerodrome facilities.

So airports are a part of civil aviation, right? Grandmaster 13:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So you don't know the difference between aerodromes and airports. Gazifikator (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Are those 2 not related to each other in any way? Grandmaster 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

They are related. See the prev. section. Gazifikator (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aviation incident

Its been decided after some talk, that this and other airport bombings or massacres are not to be put in aviation accident templates or categorized as a aviation accident or incident. If you disagree, don't revert, but instead come over to this discussion[4] and we'll listen to your opinion....William 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Esenboğa International Airport attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090523010926/http://www.kultur.gov.tr:80/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313A781CAA92714FCE0A3216081A23BEF0D to http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D313A781CAA92714FCE0A3216081A23BEF0D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Asbarez

Why should Asbarez be considered a reliable non-partisan source? It is a publication by radical Armenian nationalist dashnak party or related people. The author of the article is certain Raffi Bedrosyan, civil engineer and concert pianist from Canada. [5] Why should he be trusted? Was he present at the torture? No third party source confirms the claims of torture. Claims like that require multiple reliable sources. Grandmaster 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)