Talk:Assassination of Andrei Karlov

Requested move 19 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED/MERGED. It is clear that there is not a consensus for merging these articles at present. Once the story has settled down, this may be revisited if needed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Assassination of Andrei Karlov → Andrei Karlov – Both articles have similar content RandomUser3510 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This diplomat passes GNG and his assassination is just one aspect of his life.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Suggest merge. There is already an article at Andrei Karlov. General Ization ^Talk 18:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Event not large enough as of now. --Yug (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Per Yug. --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. Article cannot be moved since there is an article already at the target name. Nominator should consider withdrawing this request and using WP:MERGEPROP instead. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Article should be a stand-alone. Reaper7 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If anything, keep assassination article. The event is as notable or more notable than the person. The repurcussions are yet to be known. There are articles for both Archduke Ferdinand and Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Scarykitty (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Scarykitty Bkissin (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, Keep Separate — The assassination will prove to have a lasting impact and this is already reflected in the worldwide coverage. It is also notable as it is a step up for the "Allahu Akbar" crowd, going from killing regular civilians to high-status government individuals. Think, on the other hand, how many people even knew the poor ambassador's name before today? XavierItzm (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep separate — Karlov is notable enough to have a standalone article. There is enough information to make it start-class at the very least and the assassination is even more notable than Karlov himself. Keep them separate. Aria1561 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — As mentioned before, the assassination is arguably more famous than the assassinated - there wasn't even an article for Mr. Andrei before this attack occurred. It has yet to be seen what impact this attack is going to have and could form another part of the series of Russia-Turkey "run-in"s. NewCarloso (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose — As mentioned before, the assassination is arguably more famous than the assassinated, and now both are important as to have now two seperate articles. --Midrashah (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Ambassadors are inherently notable due to their position, and the event (an assassination of a notable figure) is equally notable as a separate article. riffic (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep separate) - Some ambassadors I wouldn't necessarily call inherently notable - ie Venauto Ambassador to Swaziland - But Russia's ambassador to North Korea and Turkey where relations between those countries and Russia aren't only sensitive and vital to those countries, but arguably the entire regions and world. If the article existed on Karlov before the assassination, I doubt there would be consideration for deletion of it. --Oakshade (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep separate). Oakshade says it well, and this article will contain lots of information on the fallout and short and longterm consequences (when they happen) that would be inappropriate for a biography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep separate) - I feel that there's already enough material regarding both articles to warrant the continued inclusion of either. I also feel that merging the article about the assassination into Karlov's article would overshadow his biography, as well as including Wikipedia-suitable content that would not be otherwise suitable to all but the most extensive biographical articles (e.g. political reactions to and repercussions of his assassination). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The article has been redirected to Andrei Karlov with everything to the assassination section. I did not do this and it seems that the discussion here has not reached a consensus. Should there be a revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUser3510 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if only because that (unilaterally creating a redirect while a move proposal is being discussed) is not how we do things here. General Ization ^Talk 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree. I was about to add a Reactions section, but the redirect had already happened. It will be in my sandbox in the meantime. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of the redirect. General Ization ^Talk 19:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no more redirect template because of the result of the discussion RandomUser3510 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, I reverted your closure of the discussion, because this type of discussion often takes days (not less than 2 hours, the elapsed time prior to your close) and should provide editors a reasonable time to comment; also because you, as the one who proposed the move, should not be the one to close the discussion (you are not an "uninvolved" editor). General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Reactions" and world flag salad

Do we really need this section? Is there any doubt that most politicos will "condemn" the attack and "send their most heartfelt condolences" to the grieving victim's family and his connationals? A waste of everyone's time. Seriously, creation of a "Reactions" section should only take place if some established government out there goes out and throws a party, which is highly unlikely, but which, if it happens, would absolutely merit inclusion (!) XavierItzm (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We should move toward consensus (in this article) to summarize the general content and tone of reactions rather than enumerate similar examples. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I certainly understand the concern. However, I think it's important to get the Turkish, Russian and US perspectives as we move forward, as this assassination has obvious diplomatic ramifications. I agree that we don't really need the Albanian or Sierre Leonean reaction, but major world powers and their positioning on the issue is important. Russia viewing this as "terrorism" rather than a "state action" is an important distinction. Bkissin (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This isn't a list article, and it's unnecessary for a large portion of the article to be a transcription of comments made by officials. This doesn't add any information on the event. Natureium (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. Long lists of reactions are not encyclopaedic, only those which are unquestionably significant (in this case leaders of Russia and Turkey) and/or are adjudged by reliable secondary sources to be significant (too soon to know which, if any, meet this criteria) should be included here. All others should be added at Wikiquote, a project intended for that sort of material. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. The only reactions that should be mentioned are actual actions. Example: Country X has tightened security at embassy Y because of this incident. There should be a single sentence saying that the assassination was condemned by many world leaders - and those countries may be listed in a footnote. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 22:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

i dont see the big deal, every article of a terrorist act is made this way on wikipedia, especially since it happened to an ambassador the reactions from other ambassadors are important.--Crossswords (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Note I've moved the US reaction (nothing particularly of note) and UK reaction (100% formulaic) from the article per the developing consensus above. I've copied them below so they can be easily added to Wikiquote if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed the Czech Republic to the collapsed section below. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I've moved Australia and Romania to the collapsed section as well. I'm working on quickly putting together some prose to which countries can be added as they release statements. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Reactions moved from the article

Czech Republic – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack "in the strongest terms". It also conveyed condolences to the family of Andrei Karlov and injured in the shooting, while saying: "We consider this despicable attack an assault on the right of all diplomats to safely advance and represent their nations around the world." United States – "The United States condemns the assassination today in Ankara of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov. Our thoughts and prayers are with his loved ones, the Russian people, and with the other victims who were injured in this shooting." Secretary of State John Kerry said in a press release. "We stand ready to offer assistance to Russia and Turkey as they investigate this despicable attack, which was also an assault on the right of all diplomats to safely and securely advance and represent their nations around the world". United Kingdom – UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson: "Shocked to hear of despicable murder of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey. My thoughts are with his family. I condemn this cowardly attack". Australia – Foreign Minister Julie Bishop tweeted: "Australian Government condemns shocking attack on Russian Ambassador in Turkey - I extend my condolences to his family, loved ones & Russian people". Romania – Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lazăr Comănescu sent a letter to Sergey Lavrov, condemning the assassination of the Russian Ambassador in the strongest terms and expressed the Romanian Government's solidarity with the Russian people. References

I see that there's Trump reaction there (again?) now. I personally am of the opinion that either all countries reactions are to be mentioned, or of only directly involved (Russian Federation and Turkey) countries, so tend to have that new piece of US reaction removed (again). Any thoughts? --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

My principle feeling is that the reactions section should consist of sourced, encyclopaedic prose not a list of quotes. Currently what is in the article is prose about the Russian and Turkish reactions, and I'm happy with that. I'm not going to object to the addition of relevant prose about reactions from other countries, if that prose is sourced and relevant. Any addition that is just quotes, or a coatrack for quotes, should, in my opinion, be removed. If there is a desire to record all the reactions from world leaders, ambassadors, etc, then do so on Wikiquote and link the Wikiquote page from this article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm very much of the same feeling, so am removing/condensing quotes that restate things that have already been said. As XavierItzm said right at the beginning, there's not likely to be much divergence from condemnation and condolences, so that's what I'm trying to maintain. The only key things needed are either things that are divergent from the general tone (for instance, its celebration by Al-Nusra Front), or concrete actions regarding it (for instance, if a country was offering to send investigatory support or made specific changes to their consular arrangements for reasons explicitly related to the assassination). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo of assassin pre-murder

Can we get the photo of the Assasin before the assasination, I believe there's a shot of him behind the ambassador — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theycalledmejesus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That photo is likely copyrighted by the photojournalists attending the event. Generally, non-free media are discouraged from use on Wikipedia. --Tom (talk - email) 21:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Motive/claims of responsibility

@EmrahÖ: Have just removed "Syrian Popular Movement (claiming responsibility)" from the Infobox for the perpetrator. http://rudaw.net/ is not known to be a reliable source, and claims by the Syrian Popular Movement (which is currently unknown to Wikipedia) should not be accepted at face value. Wait for mainstream news sources to cover this angle. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NODEADLINE. General Ization ^Talk 22:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Rudaw Media Network is known to be highly partisan and hence its reporting, unverified by any mainstream source, is to be considered highly suspect. Wait for the mainstream media to do some fact-checking. General Ization ^Talk 22:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Removed the line "According to Turkish officials and the Russian delegation that arrived in Turkey after the murder, the Gülen movement was behind the assassination for the purpose of sabotaging Russia-Turkey relations." and replaced it with "President Tayyip Erdogan attributed the assassination to the Gülen movement. While Turkish and Russian officials alike condemned the killing, calling it an attempt to sabotage Turkish-Russian relations, Russian officials were hesitant to attribute the killing to the Gülen movement prior to further investigation."

The original source communicated that the Russian delegation fully agreed with Turkish officials about the Gülenist movement's involvement, but the sole source of that claim was from fetogercekleri.com, whose tagline reads: "FETO Facts - The dirty past and dangerous relations of the Fethullahist Terrorist Organization" and is a biased source with regards to the Gülen movement; in this case, the FETO quote likely misrepresents the Russian delegation's position when compared with international and Russian sources, which indicate that the Russian delegation agreed about an international terrorist motive, but not that the Gülen movement/FETÖ was behind the attack. Multiple international news sources maintain that Putin and Russian officials agreed with Turkish officials that the assassination was a terrorist plot to weaken Russian-Georgian relations, but stopped short of attributing blame to the Gülen movement, with some officials openly saying that the matter needed additional investigation before placing blame. Several Russian news sources (TASS and Interfax) didn't assert anything about FETÖ/the Gülen movement at the time of the assassination beyond saying it was terrorism. EaroftheBat (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Off-duty or former police officer

"Off duty" => Is currently a police officer but not working at the time. "Earlier he was fired from" => He's not currently a police officer. Which is it? -- KTC (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

An unemployed police officer is still a police officer by both training and profession, just as an unemployed chef is still a chef. While vague, it is not a contradiction per se. "Off duty" may have resulted from a mistranslation of "unemployed". It's early yet; these kinds of issues will be resolved in the next few hours and days. General Ization ^Talk 23:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, the Turkish government said that the perpetrator was an off-duty police officer. I've removed the statement that he was fired from the article, as the content is disputed. It can be re-added if the information is corroborated by multiple reliable sources. Mamyles (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the current source (in spanish) makes no mention of the perpetrator having been fired for taking part in the July coup. The TASS source however does mention exactly that but it's owned by the Russian government... Tinss (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Reuters story is reporting the attacker as "an off-duty police officer", per "security sources". — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Differing accounts of what the perpetrator said

Despite five sources listed, not all of them claimed that the perpetrator said the following:

"Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar. We are those who have sworn allegiance to Muhammad for Jihad as long as we live. Do not forget Aleppo, Do not forget Syria. Unless our provinces are safe, you will not taste safety either. Stay back, stay back. Only death takes us away from here. Every single person who has a share in this cruelty will pay."

In fact, none of the English sources claimed that he said, "We are those who have sworn allegiance to Muhammad for Jihad as long as we live." That part should be removed since:

1. The perpetrator's motives are disputed, some think he did for Islamic fundamentalism, some think he did it to tarnish Turkey-Russia relations, some think he's a CIA sponsored assassin.

2. The only two sources I know of whom have claimed he is a Islamic jihadist is the Israeli far right and Donald Trump.

My suggestion is to only list the three definite things he said, "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar. Do not forget Aleppo, do not forget Syria. Stay back, stay back!"

GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Whilst not exactly the same, this is the version given by the New York Times. I think it warrants merit within the article as well (emphasis added).

• "Gunman Kills Russia's Ambassador to Turkey". New York Times International. 19 December 2016
  • "God is great! God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Mohammed for jihad ... God is great! Don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria. Don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria."

As far as I can tell, it's the only English-language version which says anything like what has been claimed in other sources. But again, I could be completely wrong on this one. – HelgaStick (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently going through the cited sources to corroborate what is said, and it seems that the article from The Independent states: "He also shouted "Allahu akbar," the Arabic phrase for "God is great" and continued in Arabic: "We are the descendants of those who supported the Prophet Muhammad, for jihad."" (paragraph 7). I'm still looking to find a reliable primary source (or reliable secondary sources) for this. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing was captured on video camera and the shooting and immediate after is available online. Someone who speaks the relevant language can just watch/listen to the video. -- KTC (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Turkish speaker here

"Stay back, stay back! Only death takes me away from here." is not a part of his statement. It's a direct reaction to somebody out of view of the camera (to his right.). He says these while pointing the gun at him(?) and then he goes back to his statement.

This seems like a valid translation if we omit repetitions: "God is great! Do not forget Aleppo, Do not forget Syria. Unless our provinces are safe, you will not taste safety either. Every single person who has a share in this cruelty will pay."

Conspiracy theories

I'm not sure that conspiracy theories belong in the article:

“ Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the far-right Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, claimed that the assassination was a false flag operation by NATO and the West in general in order to prevent Turkey and Russia reaching rapprochement following a year of tensions. Frantz Klintsevich, the deputy chairman of the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament's defence and security committee said that the assassination "was a planned action. Everyone knew that he was going to attend this photo exhibition. It can be ISIS, or the Kurdish army which tries to hurt Erdogan. But may be - and it is highly likely - that representatives of foreign NATO secret services are behind it." ”

It may be from a Russian politician and in a reliable source, but on much the same grounds as the diplomatic reactions being reduced to key states involved, I think the article should be focused on official government responses until sufficient evidence is brought forward to discuss other relevant points of view. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the section - as above, it's not an official government line, which is what the article should be confining itself to at this point. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Good. Obviously just crazy-talk. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Smells pretty fishy, since Obama had just finished saying that the US would get even with Russia. Kortoso (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

О негативной роли СВР - ФСБ , оккультизма и мирового жидо-массонства. Я, пишу диссертацию на эту тему. Использую убийство Посла России в Анкара в качестве примера из современной истории. Дополните , пожалуйсто, статью Wikipédia подробностями : Анти-террористические акты возмездия против Stat of Islam итд. Пока что непонятна роль юзера Wikipédia <Q-bit array> в Теме (блокирует из Германии русскоязычьные страницы <Wikipédia> для всех библиотек в Брюсселе). /EN/ The negative role of the Foreign Intelligence Service - the FSB, and the occult world Judo-massonerie. I am writing a thesis on the subject. I use the murder Russian Ambassador to Ankara as an example of modern history. Complete, please article <Wikipédia> Details: <Anti-terrorist retaliation against <Stat of Islam> and so on. While it is not clear the role of the user <Wikipédia> <Q-bit array> in the Sujet (block from German page Wikipedia.RU for all the libraries in Brussels.195.244.180.59 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism?

It is absolutely true that Russia is calling this incident terrorism, and the word certainly belongs in the quote from the Russian foreign minister. However, I believe that we, as an NPOV encyclopedia, can't call it that - not in the infobox, not in the navbox at the bottom, and notin the WikiProject banners - because it wasn't use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (a part of the definition at the top of the Terrorism article), it was aimed specificly at a person who was there to represent Russia, as a reaction to Russian policy and military actions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Even with your comment, which I consider biased, the issue still exists that a foreign diplomat was killed in turkey not by any official order. So by definition alone, at the least in turkey, this was an act of terrorism. The alleged "reaction to Russian policy" etc... is subjective to your personal interpretation - the factual event however had was that of an assassination. 2A02:8388:1601:800:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

An assassination, not an act of terrorism. These are two very different things. I have no doubt that this was a murder motivated by political causes, but it wasn't indiscriminate - it was clearly aimed at the official representative of Russia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

As discussed at Terrorism#Definition, the definition and scope of what constitutes terrorism is contentious with many states and people defining it somewhat differently. With that in mind, I would suggest that Wikipedia should be relying on whatever language the majority of reliable sources are choosing to use. I haven't tried to figure out whether it is widely described as terrorism or not, but that is what I would focus on. Dragons flight (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Armed entry into the area of the shooting

It is, to me, and possibly others, a bit unclear how he was (a) able to enter with a gun and (b) standing behind the victim. Additionally it was also said that he was there already the week before; but at any rate, could someone who has this information explain whether there was any check for weapons or not at the entrance site? Were there no other armed securities? From the descriptions, it appears as if he was the only one shooting initially, which is a bit strange though possible. Edit: Also I just realized that the site of the attack is not given exactly. Where exactly did this exhibition happen? At the time, the statement is only this "an exhibition showcasing Turkish photography of Russia" but it does not state where exactly this was. 2A02:8388:1601:800:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the CNN article, it was at the Cagdas Sanat Merkezi modern arts center in the Çankaya district. I remember seeing a source that mentioned witness accounts that there was no screening, and others reporting that Altıntaş had used his police badge at one point, but I don't recall which sources these are. I'll have a look into it. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to any official Turkish media, but according to Israeli media he certainly was a police officer. To translate the beginning of the text from this news page, from Yediot's web site: On the social networks, a new viseo was put up, in which the Turkish police officer Mevlüt Mert Altıntaş stepping behind the Russian embasitor to Ankara, Andrei Karlov, and shooting him from short range. Israeli printed media - both Yediot and Israel Hayom - also says that he was a police officer. The CNN page you linked to , in the section headed "What we know", satarts with The gunman, identified as police officer Mevlut Mert Altintas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added the stuff from the CNN article and noted that the assassin entered the hall using police ID. Hope this helps! HelgaStick (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Another Russian diplomat found dead

"A high-ranking Russian diplomat has reportedly been found dead from a gunshot wound at his Moscow home. [...] The death occurred just hours before an off-duty Ankara policeman,"

• Mortimer, Caroline (December 20, 2016). "Senior Russian diplomat shot dead in flat in Moscow hours before assassination of ambassador in Turkey". The Independent. Retrieved December 20, 2016.

Should we add this new info to this article? Not sure if it's related. I am not convinced that Petr Polshikov passes GNG to have his own article.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough to link the two yet; even the news article itself literally says "There is no evidence the two shootings are linked." — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Gersh Kuntzman

Most of the reactions to Andrei Karlov's assassination have been as expected, though I think that this article by Gersh Kuntzman (yes the AR-15 PTSD guy), might be worth a mention: (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/don-cry-russia-slain-envoy-putin-lackey-article-1.2917281), specifically his comparison of Andrei's muder to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, a Nazi diplomat. Maybe this could be extended to other, similar reactions like that of Volodymyr Parasiuk? NewCarloso (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Other murdered ambassadors

The article mentions that Karlov was the fourth Russian ambassador killed in the line of duty. It mentions Alexander Griboyedov and Pyotr Voykov, so who was the third? --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Vatslav Vorovsky. 128.127.99.108 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Motive: Unclear"

"After shooting Karlov, Altıntaş circled the room, smashing pictures that were on display and shouting in Arabic and Turkish: "Allahu Akbar (God is the greatest). Do not forget Aleppo, do not forget Syria.""

Gee, it sure is an impenetrable enigma wrapped in a riddle as to what the perpetrator's motive was. Maybe we should make a whole category of "Unsolved Mysteries Involving Murderers Who Shout "Allahu Akbar!" Before Murdering People" to toss this in with all the other cases, so that maybe, someday, scholars & archaeologists digging through the ruins of our civilization can look deep into the non-religious background of the perpetrators & discern their true motive.

It's a darn shame he just silently opened fire like a madman & didn't take time to scream his manifesto at everyone - we may never know what, in his mind, justified him committing such a senseless act of violence./s — Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2016‎ (UTC)

People don't always mean what they say. It's not impossible that he was working with a different motive than stated, and then said what he said just to get a certain effect. But aside from that, there's been no official consensus on the motive, and that's what Wikipedia deals in - anything else would just be original research. All we can do is report on what has been stated by official sources. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

When a person commits a murder in front of many people and a video camera (leaving no doubt as to what happenned), and declares a motive for the murdr, we should probably assume the person was telling the truth unless there is a good reason to doubt him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The modus operandi lines up w/ many other cases of "previously irreligious person suddenly turned homicidal Islamist fanatic". Unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary, I see no reason not to take the perpetrator at his word. I mean, this is getting to be a darkly comical situation, where the killers flat-out tell us what their motive is over and over, and then a bunch of out-of-touch arm-chair analysts sit around and say "Well no, that can't possibly be it. We know your religion better than you do, you couldn't have killed for religious reasons, & if you claim you did, then you're just doing your religion wrong, trust us." CitationKneaded (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this is pretty old but I just couldn't resist. His motives aren't what you think they are even if you think they're obvious. He killed a Russian because in Turkey, Russia was considered murderers of Aleppo, a largely muslim city. "Look how Russia is bombing our muslim brothers and sisters" was basically the sentiment. In his eyes it was revenge. Yes, he screamed Allahu Akbar. Yes, he was muslim. But it does not make this attack islamic in nature.217.166.253.169 (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Should family, neighbours' reactions be included in the article?

Via this Reuters article (referenced in text):

• Gumrukcu, Tuvan (23 December 2016). "Russian envoy's killer remembered as lonely boy, not angry jihadist". Reuters.

– HelgaStick (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that article you linked is a gold-mine of dark hilarity: " lonely taciturn boy twice rejected by university before leaving home"... sound like someone we know? CitationKneaded (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)