Talk:Assassination of Galip Ozmen

Regarding the source

"ASALA and the ARF wanted first, to force the Turkish government to acknowledge that the ethnic conflict in eastern Anatolia in 1915 was an Ottoman-sponsored and directed genocide against the Armenians; second, to pay reparations to the families of these victims; and third, to return the provinces of eastern Anatolia to the Armenians. Contrary to the aims and aspirations of the terrorists, however, Turkey’s government was not going to revise their country’s history to adopt the Armenian version of 1915."

Not only does the author call the Armenian genocide an "ethnic conflict", he also doubles down saying Turkey wasn't going to "revise" it's history to "adopt the Armenian version of 1915". And by "Armenian version", he means Turkey wasn't gonna call genocide a genocide. Typical mumbling, this book isn't a reliable source. Reverting and restoring stable edit. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a criticism of this source from a reliable third party source? Researchers may have their opinions on 1915 events, but that does not make them unreliable on issue of Armenian terrorism. And Gunn refers to US State department, when citing witness testimonies. Is there any reason to question the accuracy of his quote? Has he misquoted any other source to question his accuracy? And your version was not stable, you made your revert just a few hours ago. Since when a revert of an older edit becomes a stable version? Grandmaster 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what did I just read? The overwhelming academic consensus agrees that the Armenian genocide was a genocide, so by "researchers may have their opinions" you mean there are researchers who accept that fact and those who deny it like Gunn? On top of that, he's spouting basic Turkish government nonsense, saying that calling the genocide genocide is just "Armenian version of 1915". Hence I'm sorry that I don't consider Gunn no way near a reliable source on contentious Armenia/Armenians related topics such as this article.

Also those "1915 events" as you refer yourself have a name, it's called the Armenian Genocide. Last time I heard someone call the Armenian genocide "1915 events" were Turkish propaganda channels, but I'll assume good faith in you. Regarding the State department: if you have direct source(s) from US State department, go ahead and cite them. Other than that, this conversation is over. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Genocide is not the topic of this research. Is there any evidence to challenge the quality of research, other than the usage of a certain term? And Gunn does use the term genocide, if that's your concern, for example, he writes: "The literature in English on the organizations this research will analyze, the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the armed wing of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), alternatively named the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide (JCAG) and the Armenian Revolutionary Army (ARA), and their violent campaign against Turkey to achieve the recognition of the Armenian genocide...". Is there anything else that could challenge the reliability of this source? Grandmaster 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Genocide discussion was included in his book, and he almost word for word quotes Turkish denialist propaganda, saying it's just an "ethnic conflict" and "Turkey’s government was not going to revise their country’s history to adopt the Armenian version of 1915". He already expresses very clearly what he thinks of the genocide, more precisely that it's just the "Armenian version" to call Armenian genocide a genocide, and that "Turkey was not going to adopt it". He is describing what ASALA stands for in your text, not his denialist views, which again are expressed very visibly and clearly in page 136 in a full paragraph/page, and not some one line quote that you just showed. As I already said, this conversation is over for me. I explained multiple times, but you don't seem to comprehend that an Armenian genocide denier isn't a reliable source on contentious topics related to Armenia or to Armenian revolutionaries like Melkonian, who himself is a descendant of genocide survivors and in this instance, was directly involved with a Turkish diplomat. Go ahead and ask your questions in Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I'd actually love to see what uninvolved editors would think when you try to ask whether an Armenian genocide denier is a reliable source or not, gets even better with added context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is not about genocide, it is about a terrorist act. Who calls Gunn a denialist? It is just a label you personally slapped on an independent researcher. I already pointed above that Gunn uses term genocide as well. So how is he a denialist? His work is not about 1915, and it is not used in an article about Ottoman empire. Melkonian was not a revolutionary, he was a terrorist who killed an innocent person and his 14 years old daughter. But it is not about what we personally think of a person, we just need to present facts based on reliable sources. Is there any problem with this source regarding its coverage of terrorism, not something else? Grandmaster 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

According to a Turkish studies website, "Gunn has spent nearly six years living and researching abroad in Budapest, Istanbul, Ankara and Antalya, and his primary research interests include Turkey, Cyprus, the Ottoman Empire".

According to his Linkedin profile, his research for this book had been done while spending over two years in Ankara. It also seems Turkey was the subject of his degree and that he spent a summer in Turkey on a "program" as a student.

In Gunn's dissertation, he cites various known genocide deniers such as Justin McCarthy, Heath W. Lowry, and Stanford J. Shaw, whom Gunn says "his academic research and conclusions differed from the Armenian narrative".

Gunn is very obviously a propagandist and genocide denier. Everything he has written is unreliable and shouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia. --Steverci (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Studying Turkey obviously requires traveling and working there. And Gunn refers to various sources, including Armenian and pro-Armenian ones, which does not mean that he agrees with them. Grandmaster 10:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I asked for third party assessment of this source, and linked to our discussion here. Grandmaster 11:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If you had read the book, you would know Melkonian found out Ozmen was a Turkish spy afterward because it was reported in various Greek newspapers. Gunn even admits this ("Greek newspapers covering the assassination claimed that Özmen was a member the Turkish intelligence services, Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı (MIT), and a Turkish newspaper claimed that he was killed because of what he had uncovered regarding Armenian organizations in Greece"). Marker's book goes into further detail, which apparently the Turkish institutions funding Gunn didn't want to include. It seems that Ozmen's son was the one who told Greek journalists that his father was working for the MIT. --Steverci (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

We need another source to support this claim. So far we only have Melkonian. You do not find Gunn to be acceptable. Grandmaster 22:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Gunn isn't, he's a biased and undue source, but per WP:BIASED it can still be useful in certain context. Such as if a pro-Turkish propagandist is confirming something Turkey would naturally want to keep secret. And he also cited a Turkish news source confirming Ozmen was a spy, which I will add. That's three sources. You need to provide a reliable source claiming Ozmen wasn't a spy to have any WP:ALLEGED wording. Monte Melkonian wrote in his own writings that his view was obscured, which his brother is citing. This contradicts the witness explanation, and Markar citing a decades old conversation he wasn't a part of is not a very good source. And please to word to paragraph to imply he knew that he was shooting a girl, that's rather deceptive. --Steverci (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Gunn is being discussed at WP:RS, until there is a consensus, we are not using him. Do you have an access to Turkish Press Review: Aug. 4, 1980,” Ankara 05651, Aug. 4, 1980? Could you please provide a quote? As for Melkonian, we cannot quote selectively, and decide what he could or could not know. It is in the source that he said he did not want to leave witnesses, and then changed his story. Also, Monte clearly saw who he was shooting in the front seats, and he shot the wife of the diplomat deliberately. Front window/windshield could not be tinted. Grandmaster 08:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

As the biased source guidelines say, context is important. Like how mentioning the claims of McCarthy and Shaw could have some use for the Armenian genocide denial article if only to expose them. Given that Gunn has spent years in Turkey with access to all Turkish resources, I see no reason to doubt the citation. And for Markar Melkonian's book, keep in mind that it is a self-published personal account, not a definitive academic work. If this was something Monte had told Markar, that would be one thing, but it's from a conversation with Alexander Yenikomshian. We'll need more than one source for the witnesses version, whereas we have multiple sources for the tinted windows version. And what you're saying is original research, the book clearly says he didn't see anyone clearly, not even the driver. --Steverci (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand that there is no problem with using Gunn now, as you used him a few times already? If he can be trusted with quoting Turkish press review, which is also a US publication, he can be trusted with any other source. So I will restore his quote about State Department then. As for Markar, his account is properly attributed to him. You cannot use Melkonian or Gunn selectively. If it is in the source, it could be used in the article with proper attribution. Grandmaster 10:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please read more carefully the explanation by user Steverci, it's about exposing Gunn not "selectivity". Markar's book is a self-published account as already mentioned, not a scholarly or academic work. Contradicting claims in his book that you try to add without reaching consensus here first need additional sources to confirm, preferably academic reliable works. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How come that Gunn's is acceptable as a source for MIT, but not as a source for State Government? How come that Melkonian is acceptable as a source for tinted glass, and not for Melkonian's admission? Sources are acceptable only when they support a certain narrative? Grandmaster 14:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Because we have a Turkish biased source and an Armenian source that both confirm the MIT spy and the tinted windows. This is why even biased unreliable sources like Gunn can still be useful in certain context. Markar's claim is the only source we have for the witnesses, which isn't mentioned in Monte's writings (just the tinted windows). Markar does not provide a source for what he claims Monte told Yenikomshian, nor does he even explain how he would know this. Therefore, it's too dubious. --Steverci (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus so far to consider Gunn pro-Turkish. So if Gunn is used, he should also be used for other information that he provided. Why should we doubt authenticity of State Department reports, and not that of Turkish media reports? And Markar is the only source for tinted windows. Every other source refers to him only, including Gunn. But Gunn also cites witnesses who say Monte watched family get into the car before shooting. Markar does not have to explain anything, it is his memoir. He might have been present at conversation, or be told about it by his brother, it does not matter, as long as we attribute the claim to the source. Sources cannot be used selectively, they are either acceptable, or not. Grandmaster 08:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus he is. Even users suggesting Gunn could be used sparingly for his non-outlandish claims (not much) like Szmenderowiecki and Animalparty! agree he's obviously extremely Turkish biased. Please quote whatever document Gunn was citing, because we already have several examples of him ignoring information from his own sources that harm his agenda. I just gave you a US court document that confirms he is sane. There are three sources for tinted windows: Markar, Monte, and Gunn. And here's a fourth from de Waal. Like Gunn, de Waal is unreliable, unqualified, sensationalist, bribed, pro-Turkish, and anti-Armenian. Yet even he confirms tinted windows and makes no mention of not leaving behind witnesses. I re-read Gunn's section and he doesn't mention witnesses, please provide a quote. It would be an undue claim anyway though. My Brother's Road is still a WP:PRIMARY source. Markar's only credibility is his relation to his brother, so reliability is limited. Something not mentioned in other sources should be avoided. The consensus on Gunn is largely he is unreliable or can only be used for the little due weight claims he makes. So yes, we certainly can cite him selectively.

I also removed the link to the "Mass shooting" article because there is no source using that term and it does not meet that article's criteria. --Steverci (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

References