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)