Talk:Gourgen Yanikian

Category: Murderer

There is a user who keeps reverting everything i edit. Can this user explain me why this person should not be listed as "Murderer", although the article itself says that he indeed is one? Does killing a turks does not make you murderer, am i supposed to understand this? XmuratX (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Content conflict and turkish denial of genocide

There continues to be some conflict regarding the content of this page. I would like to spell out some reasons why Andranikpasha's edits are as unacceptable as they are persistent.

• Weasel words which promote an ultranationalist agenda: phrases such as "Armenians hoped..." stand out as ridiculous, as Armenians are individuals and not a monolithic collective. "Yanikian became a symbol to many Armenians of their resentment" surely makes sense to the editor and is consistent with his political views, but it is uncited and would be just as true if it stated precisely the opposite of what it states. Also, "marauding Turks" seems to be a dehumanizing shot at the modern Turkish people.
• Faulty citation: The New York Times article reports that Yanikian killed "two men", but this editor continues to reassert that Yanikian referred to them as "two evils". The article is easily accessible and it does not say what the editor is using it to cite.
• The story about the DA and Aram Saroyan seems not to warrant mention, and is uncited. Likewise I'd quite like to drop the quotation about "desecrate my invisible existence", because while it may seem eloquent to a non-native English speaker, it is IMHO a jarring affront to the English language which adds no content.
• POV detail: wording such as he "lured" the men out, or he "sat calmly", these are not neutral and seem to represent a preferred mythology rather than a cited and serious retelling of the events.

These concerns, and the editor's interference, are particularly troubling given the prescient quotation from Khachig Tololyan at the end of the piece. Yanikian appears to be sick and crazy according to all citations, but clever and a hero according to Andranikpasha. Let's try not to "blur history, context, and nuance" where two innocent people have been murdered pointlessly. DBaba (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The material is sourced and cited (see the text). what you're adding is a turkish pov and genocide denial. Do it in turkish wiki, till you have this opportunity, but I suggest you - ITS TIME TO CHANGE, TO RECOGNIZE THE BLOODY AND ANTIHUMANIST PAST OF TURKEY! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not denying the Armenian Genocide. On the contrary, I objected to your own seeming "Turkishness": your persistent obsession with a nationalistic narrative at odds with moral (and NPOV) reality. But I wish you and your ideological kin well. DBaba (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Banknote

The banknote detail seems to be very strange and odd. What kind of banknote was it? I checked every newspaper report I could find about this person and the murder he committed. Every source mentions the painting, but I could not find any contemporary source mentioning the banknote. I don't trust Bobelian much, his book reads more like a novel than a research, it would be good to cross check whatever he reports with other sources. Grandmaster 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to crack open Bobelian's book or even inquired about his background? He is a graduate from Columbia University's journalism school, his book was published by one of the most reputable publishers in the United States and received wide acclaim from a number of reviewers, and each endnote is packed with numerous sources. Statements like "I don't trust Bobelian much" smack of nonsense - is it not possible that an investigative journalist might have had better access to some sources than either one of us? If you have a reason to doubt his reliability as a source, bring it up here and tell us why or on the respective board, but please don't waste an editor's time with such pointless - and disingenuous - statements. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I already explained a reason for my doubts. His account differs from other sources. In particular, this bank note thing is not mentioned anywhere else. It would be good to cross check info. Bobelian's book is more like an ode to this killer. Hardly neutral, which is mentioned by independent reviews, which are not all so raving, for instance,

The Washington Post writes that "Some will flinch at Bobelian's lionization of Gourgen Yanikian, an Armenian who shot two Turks in a revenge plot hatched in the 1970s" [1]

Publishers Weekly: The victimization of the Armenians' excuses much for Bobelian, who blames Armenian terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s — he sympathetically profiles an aging survivor who assassinated two Turkish diplomats — on “frustration and rage” over Ankara's denials. One leaves this j'accuse wondering if the quest for justice can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. [2]

As you can see, the reviewers note that Bobelian is hardly neutral in his depiction of Yanikian (lionizing, sympathetically profiling him, taking to an unhealthy extreme). Therefore, this book must be used very carefully, if at all. Grandmaster 06:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fully accepting the above reviewers' perceptions is also taking to unhealthy extremes. Bobelian is sympathetic to Yanikian - what else can one say for a man who lost his entire family and even contemplated committing suicide? - but he does not at all try to ameliorate nor excuse him for his crime. Please review the sources he uses in his endnotes if you are interested in finding the source of the reference to the bank note - he may have conducted oral interviews with the witnesses present at that day. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers have a point. The book by Bobelian is not the most neutral account of the assassination. The article relies too much on this work, and too little on actually neutral sources. We can ask a third opinion on Bobelian. Grandmaster 21:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please go read the book (it's a great book), but also have a look at the dozens of sources listed from pages 271-276 for the section on Yanikian. Bobelian not only utilizes newspaper articles, but also books, scholarly articles, oral interviews he himself carried out, and internal diplomatic correspondence between the US embassy in Ankara and the State Department. If anything, Bobelian is the single best reference we've got. If after all this you persist, then by all means ask for a third opinion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the book, not impressed. Reads like an apology for the killer, and not as a neutral account of the events. Grandmaster 05:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We apparently did not read the same book. Either that or you're just exerting undue effort to discredit the author. I never came across a single sentence in the book that even attempted to excuse Yanikian for the killings. Trying to understand his motives? Yes. Trying to absolve him of his crimes? That's just grotesque and patently false. Maintaining neutrality on a topic like this is extremely difficult but Bobelian is able to do so, deftly at that. Please list some specific examples; otherwise, stop bringing it up so much.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked 3rd opinion at WP:RSN. Grandmaster 07:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The result of discussion at WP:RSN is archived here: [3] Grandmaster 06:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Motive: Double standards?

This article: The person (Armenian) has killed two Turks. Motive: "Revenge" (Massacres of Ottoman Armenians.) Article Ramil Safarov: The person (Azeri, i.e. Turkic) has killed one Armenian. Motive: "Ethnic hatred". (Massacres of Azeris by Armenians)

Both persons have killed for "revenge" of massacres against their people or both have killed for "ethnic hatred". Why do we have motive "revenge" in one article and "ethnic hatred" in the other? Do we have double standards in Wikipedia? I request serious comments, please... --E4024 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask Esc2003. George Spurlin (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am asking the WP community. --E4024 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Killers made heros

Read the section 3.1.1. in Article Ramil Safarov. As long as there are people who make heros out of assassins, there will be more and more assassins. Here in WP we should treat all the assassins with the same approach. (See above talk.) --E4024 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)