Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Discussion on lede imperative

@EtienneDolet:A sweeping change such as the one you just made needs to be fully discussed beforehand. I am prepared to let Massacres and Holocaust go, but I cannot accept eliminating Medz Yeghern from the lede. What do you say? Diranakir (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You had earlier agreed to the footnote solution! It is pointless discussing anything with you - the only solution you accept is your own and have edit warred that solution into this article for years. I will give temporary support to the edit by EtienneDolet. Once it is there, I will initiate a RfC regarding its content. Once the content issue has been settled, I suggest a second RfC regarding the return of that content to the lede (as said earlier, I do not think the extent of the content overloads the lede). The issue remains the same: either Medz Yeghern is gone from the lede and placed together with the other alternative names in a footnote, or all the alternative names including Medz Yeghern remain in the lede (along with Aghet and the sourced translations of Medz Yeghern). If you, Diranakir, had the slightest interest in consensus based on sourced content, you would have taken up the offer of moderated discussion and presented your what you are "prepared" to accept at that forum. A position that Medz Yeghern with a mere 75 Google Scholar hits remains but "Armenian Holocaust" with 394 Google Scholar hits goes is not sustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As an alternative, if EtienneDolet want's to drop for now the format of alternative terms in a footnote solution, a RfC can be started right away on what content related to alternative terms there should be in the lede (with the understanding that if the decided content is too much it could be moved into a footnote). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought Diranakir didn't have any objection to it being in the note. At any rate, my concerns over having Medz Yeghern in the first sentence of this article are growing. Its definition is vague. Its interpretation has been a topic of debate for almost a decade now. More disconcertingly, however, Medz Yeghern has become synonymous with Armenian Genocide denial. Obama has said it for the eighth year now and we all know that he refuses to classify the events as genocide. Unfortunately, much more people would take Obama's understanding of the word Medz Yeghern than any other Armenian historian or etymologist. Even the Turks have caught on and I'm not going to let Turkish denialists have the satisfaction of seeing Medz Yeghern in the first sentence of an article on the Armenian Genocide. Unless, for some strange reason, you guys actually think that Obama means genocide when he employs the term Medz Yeghern. I hardly doubt it. As a matter of fact, the only time it is searched is under the context of its denial thanks to Obama's routine annual statements. For all the google scholar (or google in general) hits of Medz Yeghern, 90% of them come after 2008, the year Obama first used the term to describe the events. Unfortunately, whether it's some sort of cruel joke or whether it's some sort mistake of his behalf shouldn't be a concern anymore. The term Medz Yeghern has become corrupted to such a degree that I think it's utterly useless to use it unless there's a long and elaborate explanation as to the terms traditional and historical use. And that's something that only the body of this article can do for us. However, finding it on the first sentence of this article would confuse our English readers and render Medz Yeghern a convenient term to describe the events. I'd much rather it be disassociated with the Armenian Genocide altogether so we wouldn't have to deal with this issue anymore. I also welcome a RfC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes Obama, that blatant little hypocrite (in a week where he has been accused of being a blatant little hypocrite rather more than usual, re UK EU membership referendum), has done it again: [1]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: At 19:20 on 11 April 2016 (UTC), ArmenOhanian proposed the following to you: 'I think it may be fairly reasonable to establish a comparison with the opening sentence of the entry "Holocaust" and divide the first sentence into two:"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun), also known as the Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"), was the systematic extermination by the Ottoman government of its Armenian population. It was carried inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey." '

To which you replied: 'Armen's proposal looks good to me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)' and to which I replied: 'I concur. An admirable resolution by Armen. Diranakir (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)'

Shortly after that statement you basically disappeared from the discussion. You next made a clean sweep of the lede of the article, throwing out Medz Yeghern which you had previously accepted. Concerning your first sentence, I don't know whom you were addressing: 'I thought Diranakir didn't have any objection to it being in the note.' Was that a response to me, the readership, or someone else? I also don't know why you waited until the eve of this April 24th to decide that Medz Yeghern was 'synonymous with Armenian Genocide denial'. If you felt that way you should have done something much earlier, it seems to me. It is a bit over the top to declare Medz Yeghern a denialist term when it is part of the name of the Armenian Genocide Complex in Yerevan and appears on many genocide memorials around the world, as well as being used interchangeably with Hayotz Tseghaspanutyun in both Armenia and the diaspora. President Obama's use of the word instead of genocide cannot change its Armenian meaning. That is a fallacy.

'Meds Yeghern', per se, is referred to 3 times at the highest level of international law as reflected in the Judgment of the ECHR in the case of Perinçek v. Switzerland on 17 December 2013, Strasbourg. In their Joint Concurring Opinion, judges Raimondi and Sajó state: 'There are occasions when judges of human rights courts have a special moral obligation to account for their position to people affected by the judgment. This is such an occasion. Why do we have a special obligation vis-à-vis the Armenians? Because government-led destruction of a people always commands particular attention and imposes special obligations on all of us. From 1915 to 1917, the Armenian people experienced an unimaginable degree of suffering. This tragedy has had lasting consequences even for the fifth generation that grew up after the Meds Yeghern (Great Crime), in part because that past injustice and suffering has never been fully acknowledged or remedied.'

In paragraph 10 of their Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion, judges Vucinic and Pinto de Albuquerque add a footnote citing President Obama's use of 'Meds Yeghern' in his 14 April 2012 statement. In paragraph 22 they state: 'And the denial of the HayotsTseghaspanutyun (Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն) or Meds Yeghern (Մեծ Եղեռն) is no less dangerous than the denial of the Shoah.' For these and many other reasons, I think you should consider that the purpose of this encyclopedia is to inform the public and not to select what seems to be fit at any given moment based on the shifting perspectives of one editor. Diranakir (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

When an average English speaker consults the word Medz Yeghern, they most likely didn't consult it because of what judges Vucinic and Pinto de Albuquerque had to say about it, they consulted it because of Obama said. This is why that term is such a problem, even though there's valid proof that suggests the term can be equated with Armenian Genocide. For every source you can pull that equates Medz Yeghern with genocide, I could probably pull ten more that says its just Obama's way of denying it. Above all, however, this falls under policy. We must provide a WP:COMMONTERM when it relates to not only the title of this article, but of the alternative use of the term as well. As WP:COMMONTERM states:

Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

And it is also noted:

Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack.

In this case, not only is Medz Yeghern's meaning ambiguous, it's less cited as a term to equate with genocide, and more cited as a term associated with denial. My main concern is creating an image that presents the former, rather than the latter. If we can place Medz Yeghern in another part of this article, with a comprehensive analysis on its usage, I'd welcome it. But in no way do I suggest Medz Yeghern and Armenian Genocide being used interchangeably, at least not anymore. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears, as it has happened in the past, that whatever Armenians do or think is dictated by what other, non-Armenian people think. As Marc Nichanian has written, "Out of this demented, if also logical in its coherence and persistence, historical situation, it follows that any reference to the catastrophic event within the civilized world today is under the obligation to abide by the logic of the executioner." When an English reader consults the word Medz Yeghern in Wikipedia, it sends them to Armenian Genocide. So your argument that it is Obama and not the judges is totally irrelevant, even if it were true, which you can't prove. In your reasoning, if Obama uses Medz Yeghern, then we should not use it, because it's a term of denial. This reasoning simply plays into the hands of the denier. Incidentally, who told you that it's a term of denial? In case you don't know it, here's the view of a prominent denialist in an open letter to Obama, six years ago: "Although your statement omitted the highly charged word ‘genocide,’ you twice employed the expression ‘metz yeghern‘ which is the exact translation of ‘genocide’ in the Armenian language. You twice employed the expression ‘metz yeghern’ which is the exact translation of ‘genocide’ in the Armenian language" (Hurriyet Daily News, April 20, 2010). I think I don't need to tell you who Sukru Elekdag is, don't I? The only thing that Obama has consistently done from 2009-2016 is to cite the name Medz Yeghern without using "genocide." As I mentioned in a previous post, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, in 2006 used Medz Yeghern and "genocide" in the same sentence. Did he use a term of denial? Of course not, he stated his recognition of the genocide. Today, I heard Senator Chuck Schumer saying "Medz Yeghern, the Armenian Genocide" from Times Square (BTW, he didn't say, "Aghed, the Armenian Genocide") Did he used a term of denial? Of course not. Last year, Pope Francis used "Medz Yeghern" in his message. Did he use a term of denial? Of course not.

On the same token, besides some other tasks I had suggested to you, you may also want to cleanup all references to Morgenthau in this article. Although the "little hypocrite" spoke about him in 2015 and 2016, don't forget that Morgenthau is nothing else but a liar and a creator of "tall Armenian tales," according to a former Princeton University professor and a sizable amount of Turkish sources. So, since he's "associated with denial," Morgenthau must go. (Otherwise, there's the risk that some troll will come and plant those sources for you.) Do you want me to continue with this theater of the absurd?

Should someone "abide by the logic of the executioner" and allow him to dictate what to do? He or his representatives or imitators must even dictate what to do with the language about which they have no clue? I am sure you have learned long time ago that denial is just a continuous fishing expedition for all possible ambiguities in order to create escape doors. I'm afraid you're unwillingly helping feed the fishermen.

You don't suggest Medz Yeghern and Armenian Genocide being used interchangeably. It's your and only your problem. FYI, the facts of language doesn't abide by what you or I think. Here is just one example. The President of Armenia said the following in April 2014 (98th anniversary). Of course, he spoke in Armenian, but there is an English translation (www.president.am) that I assume it's official. For your benefit, I took upon myself to find how he said "Armenian Genocide" and I'm putting into brackets what I found:

"Today we bow to the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Medz Yeghern]. One and a half million Armenians fell prey to such a crime which did not have a name at that time.(...) Up until now, all the parts of Armenian people and all generations have known what the outcomes of the Genocide [Medz Yeghern] feel like. (...)The 24th of April is just a symbolic date: it is clear that the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] was not initiated and put an end in one day. (...)Today, we stand on the threshold of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun]. (...) We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide [Hayots Tseghasbanutiun] with a straightening back, open-faced and having a state whose name is the Republic of Armenia." Armen Ohanian (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

To Dolet: The reference to the ECHR judges was to show the international standing of the term Meds Yeghern/Great Crime. It can't just be chucked out of the lede as irrelevant or 'ambiguous'. If an average Anglophone reader runs into the word in the AG article, they are given a simple, unambiguous definition right there in the lede, Great Crime. You can't prove that most people look up the word because of the president's statement. The statement doesn't even get that much circulation. There are all kinds of ways someone might look up the word. And it takes more than your reservations or resentments about the use of a word to make it 'ambiguous'. There must be something inherently unclear in its meaning. That is not the case with Medz Yeghern, unless you subscribe to the fraudulent 'alternate meaning' gambit of your associate in this discussion. The meaning of the word in the lede (Great Crime) is very clear, since it is presented as a synonym or alternate name for the Armenian Genocide. The ECHR judges used the term in very straightforward fashion, not a hint of ambiguity. So, the big problem with the term is not a big problem. Your sentence, 'This is why that term is such a problem, even though there's valid proof that suggests the term can be equated with Armenian Genocide', is not as straightforward as it could have been. You should have said, 'Even though there is proof that the term has been equated with the Armenian Genocide, it is a problem'. That's what your sentence amounts to. So spare me the fancy WP acronyms, they don't help. Diranakir (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to that fraudulent view, but this is not about me, nor is it about you. It's about the average English reader who has stumbled upon the term Medz Yeghern when Obama gave his annual denial statement. That English reader, who sees Medz Yeghern in the first sentence of this article, is immediately inclined to feel that Obama's statement is justified, and that the terminology he uses is acceptable. That's just great news for denialists who would love to spread the word Medz Yeghern around rather than genocide. And as I have already mentioned, the Turkish media is loving it. So I'm not going to give them that satisfaction. Also, if the Anglophone reader stumbles upon this article, he will see nothing that will help clarify this for him. All he sees is "traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime")" and it would make matters even more confusing. Hell, it makes matters confusing for Armenians, let alone non-Armenians. So in order to shed light on this matter, it needs to be placed under context. That can only happen in the body of the article, or in a note. But not in the first sentence. Also, if this bargain isn't suitable enough for you two, I will go ahead and start a RfC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you have clearly forgotten what I have written and what you had agreed before (you're surely familiar with the colloquial term "flip-flopping"), I will remind you a small part of my proposal that I left aside for the sake of space at the end of the previous thread:

"Finally, as I had promised, I would like to go back to your proposal of alleviating the burden in the lead and build up on it. I think it may be fairly reasonable to establish a comparison with the opening sentence of the entry "Holocaust" and divide the first sentence into two:

"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun), also known as the Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"), was the systematic extermination by the Ottoman government of its Armenian population. It was carried inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey."

Compare:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews" (Wikipedia, "Holocaust")

What part in the first sentence of the Holocaust entry is "confusing" to you or to any average English reader? Is there anything more "confusing" to any average English reader in the first sentence of my proposal, to which you had agreed? The Holocaust or the Assyrian genocide entries may have their proper names in the language of the victims in the first sentence, but the English average reader is too stupid to be able to read the same in the first sentence of the Armenian genocide entry? If you want to write "the Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun), also known as the Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"), was the genocide by the Ottoman government of its Armenian population" to make it even more clear by repeating "genocide" twice, go ahead! The Holocaust Have you ever seen in any of Obama's eight statements a translation for "Medz Yeghern"? Have you ever seen in any of Obama's statements for the Holocaust the translation for "Shoah"? Do you need me to clutter even more this page with citations of English readers who are not daunted or confused by the meaning of Medz Yeghern? Didn't I show you, with sources, that the terminology that Obama uses is acceptable, except that he has excluded the word "genocide"? (Don't tell me that John Paul II, Stephen Harper, or Francis are less famous than Obama, and that's why you don't take him into consideration.) Didn't I show you, with sources, what denialists think of Medz Yeghern? You want to create context? As in the case of the Holocaust, create an article, "Names of the Armenian Genocide," and feel free to start writing it, or even a subsection in the AG article. You say that this is not about you, or about someone else. In the same way that I deferred to the combination of pov and legalese in the picture matter, you may want to finish this conversation for the extensive series of proofs given in this entire talk. There is absolutely no need of RfC, CfR, fCR, or RCf. There is only need for common sense, i. e., "sometimes, someone else may be right." Armen Ohanian (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet:(05:35 above) I'm very glad to see you openly state you do not subscribe to the fraudulent view that 'great calamity' is an alternative definition of Medz Yeghern. I hope we hear nothing more about that nonsense again. The issue was never about you or me in the first place. I doubt you can speak for the average English or Armenian reader. You may be right. You may be wrong. This is something that requires evidence, not a blanket statement by one person. As for the Turkish media loving it, Armen Ohanian has given you an example of a prominent Turk who sent up flares about it, and as usual the Turkish establishment is making its yearly vigorous objections to the statement. What's just great for denialists is for Armenians to be represented as having had no genuine word for their genocide before Raphael Lemkin supplied them with one 25 or so years later. That goes right along with their idea that there was no genocide before 'genocide', a lie. As I said, there is nothing 'confusing' about the use of Medz Yeghern following on the word Armenian Genocide nor in the ECHR verdict I cited. If necessary, further context can be supplied in the body of the article or a note, as you suggest. But because some readers might get the impression that President Obama came close to the truth should not be a criterion for eliminating a word from the lede which has a long and meaningful history of use among Armenians and corresponds in function if not literal meaning to Shoah as used by Jews. Diranakir (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The fundamental difference is that the Shoah is not being used in the context of denying the Holocaust. That's why English readers won't get confused when they see it as part of the first sentence of the Holocaust article. The same cannot be said for Medz Yeghern, which has been used consistently by notorious deniers of the AG such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and many Turkish denialist journalists and writers. In fact, the entire I Apologize campaign uses that term instead of soykırım or jenosit. And if you don't remember, the founding members of that campaign aimed specifically at not using the term genocide. Hence, many Turkish sources use that term without any problem now, and these sources continue to deny the Armenian Genocide at the same time. And again, this is not about whether Obama, Bush, and Turkish intellectuals/denialists are right or wrong in their understanding of the term, this is about what the word has become regardless of that. It's for the sake of the average English reader who would be more likely learn about the Medz Yeghern under the context of its denial (i.e. Bush's, Obama's annual denialist statement) than he would under the context of what the ECHR or what Armenian linguists or historians use it as. And no, I'm not picking sides either (i.e. "it's Obama's word over John Paul II's"). My fundamental argument is that the term Medz Yeghern is not being used under a universally applicable context, but rather in many different contexts. Therefore, it's not a black or white picture. And to say that my argument is not backed by sources is to not understand the point of this discussion. What were trying to apply here is WP:COMMONTERM. Obama's annual denialist statement and the media uproar surrounding it is suffice in relation to that argument. Hence, there's no denying that Medz Yeghern is being used to deny the AG. The sources are there and its use as a euphemism to deny the Armenian Genocide is clear and abundant. The fact that the English, Turkish, and Armenian news media outlets have picked up on the whole: "Obama does not call 1915 events ‘genocide’ instead calls it Medz Yeghern" can be seen all over the internet. The question is whether it belongs in the first sentence of the AG article. I say no, and for good reason. In fact, unless this term cannot be clarified elsewhere in the article, I say remove it from the article in its entirety. Until then, I strongly suggest that such an expression used to appease the whims of a denialist never be equated with the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I will repeat the quote: ""Out of this demented, if also logical in its coherence and persistence, historical situation, it follows that any reference to the catastrophic event within the civilized world today is under the obligation to abide by the logic of the executioner" (Marc Nichanian). Therefore, if a couple of American presidents and Turkish denialist journalists and writers use it (BTW, Bush didn't use it, only its "translation"), then the whole world comes to an end and the clarion of retreat must sound: "Remove it from the article in its entirety!" This is exactly what denialists want. Period. I already quoted you one. How many do you want me to quote you? If your problem is not to write/say anything to feed denialists (Obama or Bush omitting the use of "genocide" does not make them automatic denialists; for instance, go and read what "mass atrocity" means in current genocide scholarship.), don't you know that genocide and denial were/are born at the same time?

What about all the others, Americans and Turks who use Medz Yeghern to affirm the genocide? Nada, zilch, because they don't help your case. I brought you the example: you have to purge the AG article from any reference to or from Morgenthau, because he has been rejected as a trustworthy source by American and Turkish denialists. Absurd? It is as absurd as your insistence in taking out Medz Yeghern, the proper name (did I tell you that "Armenian Genocide" is not a proper name?) that was characterized, right and wrong, as "the only definition, the only expression, used until the Armenian Diaspora discovered the PR value of ‘Armenian Genocide.'" Do you remember who said this? Baskin Oran, the one guy in the apology campaign who explicitly rejects using "genocide," but uses "great massacre." (Do I need to remind you that Turkish denialists did not, do not even accept the term "massacre"?) By the way, if you don't remember, some of the founding members of that campaign did not aim specifically at not using the term genocide. Here is one quote when the campaign was still ongoing: "The Armenian Genocide is a common tragedy of Anatolia, and even today what is uttered in the villages of Anatolia as part of the old stories is the tally of an unprecedented catastrophe" (Hurriyet Daily News, February 24, 2009). This was Cengiz Aktar. I don't think that you need me to quote Aktar's articles of 2014, 2015, and 2016 where he uses "genocide" all over the place.

No word is used in a universally applicable context. An Ukrainian understands "Holodomor" to be genocide, many Russians probably not. That has not deterred whoever created the entry on the Ukrainian Great Famine to call the entry "Holodomor" and not "Ukrainian Great Famine."

"Until then, I strongly suggest that such an expression used to appease the whims of a denialist never be equated with the Armenian Genocide." You're 40 years late. If you read or speak Armenian, you should know by now that Armenians have been doing that since the 1970s at least. Following your strong suggestion, the words "annihilation," "mass atrocity," "tragedy," "catastrophe," "disaster," "mass killing," "murder," "exile," "deportation," and many others must be banned from the vocabulary used by Armenians, because all those words, one way or another, have been used to "appease the whims of a denialist" by past or present American presidents. I'll repeat what I said yesterday: "FYI, the facts of language doesn't abide by what you or I think." Armen Ohanian (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

To Dolet: The term 'Medz Yeghern/Great Crime' is out in the public domain now, as the numerous examples that have been cited show. Trying to return to the status quo ante by making it taboo is not a responsible solution to the problem of Turkish denialism. It would be a retreat. 76.102.205.37 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The point I think that EtienneDolet is making is that properly explaining the issues and ambiguities connected to the alternative terms and their usages is far too complex to be contained in the lead, and to just state the alternative names without such an explanation is to not give the whole picture and in fact give an inaccurate picture. I see validity in this, but there is also a bit of cart-before-the-horse here, since there is no article content dealing with these issues and ambiguities, and the lede's purpose is to summarise article content. For example, while just about everyone agrees it is true, an assertion that President Obama has taken to using Medz Yeghern as a way of avoiding saying "Armenian Genocide" can only be made in the article if a source is found making that assertion (and it has to be an actual article or book source, not one of the many critical comments we find posted in response to an article about Obama mentioning Medz Yeghern). Here is one for the first time he said it [2], here is one for his seventh [3]. Oh, and btw, we have in that first source an Armenian spokesperson translating Medz Yeghern as "Great Calamity" - an indication that my assertion that the "Great Crime" translation is a translation coined and propagated in recent years as a response to Obama's insincere usage of "Medz Yeghern" has substance. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, if there is the need to give the picture of the alternative names, an article called "Names of the Armenian Genocide" can be created. I already brought the initial sentences in the entries on Holocaust, Holodomor, and Assyrian Genocide as examples to follow in the construction of the initial sentence of the lead. And, btw, since you feel the need to go back again to the same tired issue, let me tell you something: if someone comes and asks for your opinion or mine, you don't become a spokesperson. The "spokesperson" was "speaking as an individual." Besides, FYI, she doesn't speak the Armenian language.

As a bonus, regarding the substance of your assertion, I will copy two sources that may help you assess it (http://armenianweekly.com/2013/01/04/the-great-calamity-hoax-what-medz-yeghern-actually-meant-for-the-survivors/).

This is the direct translation of a text in Armenian:

“But the Armenian martyrdom lacked principally a voice of conscience and piety, a cry of resistance on the part of the millions who constitute that people who carry the entire responsibility for this horrible yeghern."

Here is the English published translation:

"What is principally lacking in the records of Armenia’s martyrdom is the voice of conscience on the part of the millions who constitute the nation that is entirely responsible for this fearful crime.”

The Armenian text is from Aram Andonian's The Great Crime, Boston, 1921, p. 5. The English is from its translation, The Memoirs of Naim Bey, Newton Sq., Pennsylvania, 1964, p. IX. As you surely know, this is the photographic reproduction of the original edition of 1920.

The translation "crime" in this text is eighty-nine years (89) older than Obama's first statement. So much for the "substance" of your assertion. Please drop the issue and you will do yourself (and others) a favor. Armen Ohanian (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yet, Armen Ohanian still continues to quote people like Marc Nishanian, who no average English reader knows about or cares to know about. An average English reader's chances of encountering Medz Yeghern is not due to Marc Nishanian, it is due to Obama. It would be insane to suggest otherwise. However, we agree that there's more than one understanding of Medz Yeghern, therefore the term needs some sort of clarification, or else we're left with the reader to decide what its definition and signification is at the risk of outside influences (i.e. Obama, Turkish denialists, and etc.). You see, the first sentence of this article cannot be an appropriate place for us to clarify that for them. But if you feel that we should make an article on the names of the AG, be my guest. Personally, I'd rather just have a section devoted to the topic. But until then, don't add such expressions in the article if you're not willing to express who, what, why its being said and for what reason. Otherwise, it shall go. And it doesn't end with Medz Yeghern. We also have the "Armenian massacres" alternative name. Wonderful. I mean really, is this some sort of joke? Britannica used that term to deny the genocide for nearly a decade. The AG article on Turkish Wikipedia, a notorious outlet to deny the genocide, is called "Ermeni Kırımı", or Armenian Massacres, for crying out loud. In fact, I remember when they first chose the term "Ermeni Kırımı" for their article title, they used these ridiculous alternative names on the English Wikipedia and Britannica to justify their reasoning to avoid the term genocide ([4][5][6]). Talk about embarrassing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1) Yet, you continue to conveniently forget what I had suggested as the first two sentences of the lead on April 11 and you agreed with. I have to repeat it for the third time (not my fault):

"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun), also known as the Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"), was the systematic extermination by the Ottoman government of its Armenian population. It was carried inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey."

Along the lines of what you [Etienne Dolet] had proposed, footnote 3 would become:

"Spelt Հայոց ցեղասպանութիւն in classical Armenian orthography. In English, the Armenian Genocide is also known as the Armenian Holocaust, and, previously, as the Armenian Massacres.

(The last sentence of footnote 3 can even be taken out, if someone thinks that its too "heavy.").Armen Ohanian (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The answers by Diranakir and you, the two agreeing parties, were:

Armen's proposal looks good to me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. An admirable resolution by Armen. Diranakir (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems that your absence afterwards made you forget some things. . Following YOUR proposal, I sent two names to the footnotes and even said that they could be deleted, if someone wanted to. Translation: "I'm not going to delete them by myself, I'm looking for consensus." What are you still talking about Armenian Massacres and the like? Armenian Massacres existed as a name for decades, until the 60s at least, and neither Britannica nor Ermeni Kırımı had anything to do with it. I even wrote "previously," in case the name would remain, to indicate that it's no longer the case.

I didn't quote Marc Nichanian for the average English reader, but to show the ridiculous predicament where we put ourselves (in this case, you put yourself): whoever says something unfavorable, we bow and fall back. If Obama says "Meds Yeghern," then we automatically want to take it out, because "it's a term of denial." I have explained extensively why we don't need to take it out, and you have just clung to the scarecrow of the "average English reader" and repeat it mechanically as the ultimate discovery.

Again, I don't need to clarify anything. Did Obama write any translation? NO. What did he use? The name that WE have traditionally used. He used the PROPER name, Medz Yeghern, not the legal qualification of the crime committed by the Ottoman Empire, genocide. What does the lead say? Armenian Genocide, traditionally called Medz Yeghern ("Great Crime"). Period. I don't care where your "English average reader" comes from. He will come there and see the article "Armenian Genocide" and the first three words: "The Armenian Genocide..." Period. I don't need to explain why the name is that and why the translation is that. There is a reference for that. The same as there is a reference to why it's called Armenian Genocide. It's enough for the "average English reader." He can go to those references and find for himself/herself.

Since you're in the mood of nitpicking where there is no need for (except to play into the hands of denialists, which I'm sure it isn't your actual intention), let me tell you: everybody says Shoah "Catastrophe". But I'm sure you know that there four or five different translations for Shoah, "catastrophe," "destruction," and so on. Go and find the list. Do they talk about "ambiguities"? No. They write "Shoah" "Catastrophe" and end of story. It doesn't even have a footnote. Armen Ohanian (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: At 01:08, 25 April, I made the point there must be something inherently unclear about the meaning of a word for it to be called ambiguous (not just your issues with the use of the word), then said "That is not the case with Medz Yeghern, unless you subscribe to the fraudulent 'alternative meaning' gambit of your associate in this discussion" to which you responded at 05:34, "I don't subscribe to that fraudulent view". The fraudulent view I was referring to was the idea that there is a so-called 'alternative definition' of Medz Yeghern, i. e., 'great calamity'. At 01:27 today you said, "However, we agree that there's more than one understanding of Medz Yeghern", which forces me to ask in order to clear the confusion: Do you believe Medz Yeghern has two definitions, Great Crime and Great Calamity? Diranakir (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does that matter? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The asking of the question "Do you believe Medz Yeghern has two definitions, Great Crime and Great Calamity?" again reveals that Diranakir and his co-actor Armen Ohanian either fail to accept or fail to understand the premise at the very core of Wikipedia. If this failure continues, they should both be blocked because they are unable or unwilling to follow that core premise. Content on Wikipedia is not about what you believe, or what I believe, or what they believe - it is about what acceptable sources say. Such sources give two translations of Medz Yeghern, "Great Crime" and "Great Calamity". The question that Diranakir and Armen Ohanian need to answer is "do you dispute that sources exist giving translations of Medz Yeghern as "Great Crime" and as "Great Calamity"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your "answer" actually does not even deserves the time I'm using to write this one. I have presented you an "acceptable source" from 1920 that substantiates that "yeghern" means "crime" and kills your "substantial assertion." The "answer" is utter silence and insistence on the same broken music. Sources that give the translation as "Great Calamity" exist. The actual question that you and anyone else need to answer is: "Are those sources reliable"? I'll give you not one, but two examples of what I mean:

a) A Princeton professor, when he was not yet a professor, said that Morgenthau's memoirs are "crude half-truths and outright falsehoods." It is an acceptable source? Of course, the assertion was published in a book, and archival sources were used to substantiate the assertion. By your standards, there should be a sentence in the AG article that disputed whatever is quoted about Morgenthau. However, that assertion has been debunked. Therefore, it has no room there, because there is a difference between acceptable and reliable source, which you seem to ignore.

b) By your standards, the source used to say that the roundup of the intellectuals in Constantinople happened on the night of April 23-24 is "acceptable." It was published in a book by a reputable author. But you will never bother to find out that the source is wrong, and the roundup did not happen on the night of April 23-24, because, for you, acceptability and reliability are the same thing.

Anything or anyone that doesn't fit your agenda simply deserves to be ignored or dismissed. You insist with intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning, which an outsider observer would call "intellectual dishonesty" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty), repeating things already said and factually debunked for the past four years, while hiding behind your particular (mis)interpretation of what "acceptable" is. If this failure continues, I would suggest that you should be blocked, because you are unable or unwilling to believe that there is a limit to what you can "substantiate," after which you enter into disruption. Armen Ohanian (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that you have affirmed that sources do give two translations of Medz Yeghern: "Great Crime" and "Great Calamity, do you agree that Wikipedia content should be content derived from acceptable sources and presented with a neutral point of view, and that an "acceptable source" is a source that is deemed to be reliable and high-quality using Wikipedia's standards? Will you also confirm that you will follow standard Wikipedia procedures to determine the suitability of a source if the quality or reliability of that source is being questioned by you? This is your final final warning regarding your relentless personal attacks against me - accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty is a personal attack, accusing someone of lying (as in your weasily worded "intentionally committed fallacies") is also a personal attack. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I said: "Sources that give the translation as "Great Calamity" exist." I have not "affirmed that sources do give two translations of Medz Yeghern: "Great Crime" and "Great Calamity." This is you who has said the latter, not me. Armen Ohanian (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If there is a controversy about the terminology for the event and it is mentioned in several presumably reliable sources, it should be covered and explained in the body of the article. Swiping it under the rug to justify someone's sensibilities seems to violate an important part of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I am willing to delete our exchange about Google Scholar hits under the 'Discussion' heading below but still insist that they are not a reliable source for determining what key words in the Armenian language mean. I appreciate your informing me about the protocol you follow, but I still get substantial fluctuations in results from one transaction to another, confirming that the method is fundamentally flawed, if not a heady form of original research in which arcane protocol combined with tendentious interpretation achieves a desired result. I explicitly said I depended on my arguments above to support my position and not Google Scholar hits. Diranakir (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not just the protocol I follow, it is the correct protocol, see [7]: "The single most useful search engine tool may be the use of quotation marks to find an exact match for a phrase". You can't get fluctuating results that vary from person to person or location to location - every identical search will give the same result if searched at the same time. If you click on the urls beside my search results you are making a new search, not getting an archive of my search, and you should get the same results. Of course they will vary over time as new sources are either published or put on Google's database but that changes slowly and the numbers will never go down. Except for when I corrected my 2 errors of a missing inverted comma in a search parameter, the search results I got have not varied from when I first posted them a month ago. If you have got questions about Google Scholar's usefulness or how it should be used there are probably other forums to ask about this - but I know that search results from it are more highly regarded for Wikipedia sourcing purposes that Google internet search results. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From the page you recommended, "Wikipedia: Search engine test". You will of course have a ready explanation.

"Google Scholar provides evidence of how many times a publication, document, or author has been cited or quoted by others. Best for scientific or academic topics." [Philology? I don't think so.]

"A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Which is why I did not quote the "raw hit count" for Aghet in my google scholar results, and why I gave actual quotes from numerous sources in my earlier "Sources mentioning "Aghet" as a name for the Armenian Genocide (in addition to the 4 sources cited earlier)" post. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record. The following are my Google Scholar results which differed from those of Tiptoethrutheminefield and Tiptoethrutheminefield's critique of same, both of which had been posted in the now-deleted 'Discussion' section which had followed the RfC and was deleted to facilitate the RfC. The whole content of that section is reproduced below.

Different Google Scholar results obtained

Aghet + Armenian Genocide, 66 results [8]

Aghed + Armenian Genocide, 48 results [9]

Medz Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 127 results [10]

Medz Yeghern + Great Crime, 81 results [11]

Medz Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 68 results [12]

Medz Yeghern + Great Calamity, 14 results [13]

Mets Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 22 results [14]

Mets Yeghern + Great Crime,14 results [15]

Mets Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 11 results [16]

Mets Yeghern + Great Calamity, 7 results [17]

Comment: I obtained very different results from Google Scholar than those posted above by Tiptoethrutheminefield. Such wide discrepancies prove Google Scholar hits to be completely unreliable as sourcing for this discussion. They constitute, in fact, the polar opposite of reliable sources. Results that fluctuate according to geographical location, date of transaction, etc., are patently disqualifying in any purported source. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that Google hits is the gold standard of truth that Tiptoethrutheminefield makes it out to be. Then it clearly supports my position, not his: Tiptoethrutheminefield boasts of 114 hits for Aghet/Aghed, compared to 75 for Medz Yeghern/Mets Yeghern. I obtained 149 hits for Medz Yeghern/Mets Yeghern, far exceeding that 114. If, additionally, we do a search under the term 'Meds Yeghern + Armenian Genocide', another 130 hits fall into the Medz Yeghern/Mets Yeghern/Meds Yeghern column. But I am not invoking the fickle Google hits standard to prove my point. I have stated my case without it and, as I tried to tell Tiptoethrutheminefield, it is not dispositive. Aghet, a valid and meaningful term in its own context, is not traditional among Armenians as a name for their genocide. It has no parity with Medz Yeghern as far as inclusion in the lede is concerned, and the majority of knowledgeable contributors to this discussion have agreed it does not belong there. Diranakir (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your search is invalid because you have not searched for any terms! You need to use inverted commas to define each of the actual terms for each search. Otherwise you are just searching for individual words. See my own search results to understand this. Though it is easy to forget how to do it - I now see that I too omitted the inverted commas in my own searches on two occasions (I have now corrected this) However, I think the very act of trying to duplicate what I have done and then presenting your results as being different exhibits bad faith on your part. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Can we please not get off-topic about the Aghed stuff and defer the conversation over to section above: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Aghet_inserted_in_the_lede. I really don't want to confuse non-involved editors who want to participate in the RfC. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that the result of Diranakir's Google Scholar search is invalid due to it being incorrectly done, and that assertions derived from that invalid search must also be invalid, and given that if the search had been dome correctly it would have exactly reproduced the data I have already given in the RfC, I suggest that Diranakir deletes this entire section. I have no objection to my response post being deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Numbers

I strongly disagree with the way the death toll is portrayed now. The widely agreed upon number of 1.5 million Armenians having been killed should be given in the first sentence. Compare The Holocaust, where in the first sentence the number of 6 million is also immediately given. Nearly every reliable source immediately describes it as the systematic killing of 1.5 million Armenians, so having the second sentence say "The number of victims is estimated at between 800,000 and 1.5 million." is straight up disrespectful. Giving equal value to a much rarer estimate that is almost half of what is generally agreed upon gives credit to deniers and is an insult to the hundreds of thousands that died in it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you, number of 1.5 million should be highlighted, as it is the most published number. Your sourcing is sufficient.Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it should be in the first sentence. Genocide is not directly connected to the number of victims, it is to do with aims and effects. But, as long as it is made clear in the wording that this is an "around about" figure given in the majority of sources, just having 1.5 million seems acceptable. An maybe a footnote to give other legitimate higher and lower estimates would be useful because the figure for Armenian deaths, unlike the politicized and almost religious dogma that surrounds the Holocaust's "6 million", is subject to legitimate variations in estimates in legitimate sources that have nothing to do with any attempts to deny the genocide. 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, to clarify: I'm not trying to say lower estimates are automatically attempts at denial, and you are right in saying that the numbers aren't pivotal to a genocide. I'm saying that giving equal weight (in this case: WP:FALSEBALANCE) to lower and rarer estimates has a detrimental effect on an article's accuracy. We may never know the exact numbers, and we may never reach a consensus based on exactly how many people were killed as a result of genocide, but the best thing we can do is follow the RS. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

We use the general consensus number 1.5 million in the lede using words like, up to 1.5 million, as many as 1.5 million, approximately 1.5 million, or just "1.5 million", whatever editors choose. Elsewhere in the article we can note scholarly variations while again reiterating the the scholarly consensus number is 1.5 million. This has been in the news lately because of Turkish anger at Germany for acknowledging the genocide, but anyone denying the Armenian Genocide holds a WP:FRINGE view and should be treated as such. Lipsquid (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the unfortunate phrase used above by Tiptoethrutheminefield, the politicized and almost religious dogma that surrounds the Holocaust's "6 million", it is in order to directly quote what the WP Holocaust article says so that there are no grounds left for misunderstanding or obfuscation: The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews. Diranakir (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A timely reminder (to me) about why I oppose Diranakir's editing aims here. Diranakir's promised land of "no grounds left for misunderstanding or obfuscation" is a nightmarish society where truth (and the quest for it) is banished and is replaced by whatever dogma the controlling elite has decided should be final, unalterable, and alone permissible. 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk)

"... A nightmarish society where truth (and the quest of it) is banished and is replaced by whatever dogma the controlling elite has decided should be final, unalterable, and alone permissible." Whether its author wanted it or not, this is another unfortunate phrase that sounds dangerously close to the "Armenian version of this history" expounded by Bernard Lewis in November 1993 and to what Turkish neo-denialists use to push forward their distorted version as an alternative narrative: the "quest of truth." It is also a timely reminder (to me, at least) about the motive behind its author's relentless and years-long quest to downgrade --ultimately, to exclude-- the name Medz Yeghern from that same first paragraph at any cost, even "giving equal weight... to lower and rarer estimates" (Prinszgezinde dixit): because it doesn't suit his relativist POV about "the controlling elite" under the guise of the "quest of truth." Armen Ohanian (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is complete nonsense to quote a figure of 1.5 million having in mind the Armenian population in Ottoman lands before WW1]. This topic has become simply mater of politics than historical facts. Hittit (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is frightening to see the Turkish Wikipedia promoting that myth, as those numbers have been debunked endlessly (see Armenian Genocide denial), but as described in WP:CIRC Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we're getting off topic here. I'd hate to straight up accuse you, but alleging that there were far less than 1.5 million Armenians even in the Ottoman regions at the time is a fringe view often used by deniers that we will never voice for the reason that the scholarly consensus is entirely against it. It's unhelpful to give an argument of "don't include it because it's nonsense" when the factual accuracy of it being possible isn't even up for debate here. We're discussing how and where to present it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is even more nonsensical to put any faith in Turkish sources regarding this subject. Lipsquid (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman archives are the only reliable statistics in this matter, as the population data is available. I can understand if the facts are not liked, the article POV shows it. Hittit (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

They are not reliable. See here. Scholars have long been denied access to these archives. And even when they could (under conditions) access it, as stated by Taner Akçam, a significant portion of the documents are missing. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For those who think that "Ottoman archives are the only reliable statistics," Talaat's "Black Book" may give them a surprise. Armen Ohanian (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield speaking of me and Armen Ohanian: Showt of getting them banned, there is no way to move forward. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016. (UTC). So just who is dreaming of a dogmatic, nightmarish society purged of all opposition and ruled by a conspiratorial elite? Diranakir (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Take it to user pages, not a discussion about Armenian Genocide. People can have all the arguments they want, keeping it out of the public eye is best for everyone. I am not picking you out nor negating your right to defend yourself, this is probably just not the right place. Lipsquid (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I Agree that the number 1.5 million should be used in the lead, then other numbers from other secondary sources should be included later in the article. Markewilliams (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Over-elaboration in terminology section

Please stop developing the terminology section without WP:CON. It's WP:UNDUE, protracted WP:ITSIMPORTANT content. There's more rambling about how many names there were, how often they were used, and when they were used than there is on the use of "genocide": and Lemkin's use of "genocide" takes precedence for the benefit of the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop it with the WP jargon over-kill (WP:WL) which obscures the fact that the spanking new section (Origins of the word genocide/Terminology) was a sprawling mess to begin with, which you never seemed to notice until some valid points were made to repair the damage done to the article when Medz Yeghern was thrown out of the lede in an aborted RfC, as if it could simply be excised from its proper place without consequence. Editors whom you favor and with whom you 'voted' in the RfC are now to be given an unopposed field day to romp as they wish with a serious matter, which is the actual meaning of the name Medz Yeghern. This is not allowable. By your own admission, the RfC was not duly closed (of course, because of backlog). WP says that an RfC is not simply a 'vote' and that an uninvolved 3rd party is to make an assessment on the merits of the arguments to complement the 'votes'. Nothing like this was remotely done and your repeated efforts to fill that gap do not serve well, no matter how many WP:THIS&THATs you invoke. Diranakir (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Diranakir: I think you ought to read WP:PETTIFOG carefully, particularly the section on misuse of the terms. Between yourself and Armen Ohanian, the terminology section has been developed here, here (reduces the verbiage?), even further here and here to create a lengthy paragraph of a multitude of names used before the term 'genocide' was created and employed in any languages. It appears that neither of you see that this does not improve the quality of the article, but is antithetical to the reader's understanding of the 'Armenian genocide': it is WP:OFFTOPIC and so elaborate as to trivialise the subject of the article which is the genocide of Armenians. The subject is 'genocide', not:

"The Armenian Genocide happened before the coining of the term 'genocide'. English-language words and phrases used by contemporary accounts to characterise the event include 'massacres', 'atrocities', 'annihilation', 'holocaust', 'the murder of a nation', 'race extermination' and 'a crime against humanity'. 'Yeghern (Crime/Catastrophe), or variants like Medz Yeghern (Great Crime) and Abrilian Yeghern (the April Crime)' were the terms most commonly used. Other terms used by the survivors included Medz Voghperkutyun ('Great Tragedy'), Medz Vogchagez ('Great Holocaust'), Medz Nahadagutyun ('Great Martyrdom'), Aghed ('Catastrophe'), Medz Nakhjir and Medz Sbant (both meaning 'Great Massacre'), Medz Potorig ('Great Storm') and Sev Vojir ('Black Crime'). The common name 'aghed,' usually translated as 'catastrophe,' was, according to Beledian, the term most often used to name the catastrophe of 1915 in Armenian literature. After the coining of genocide, the portmanteau word Armenocide was also used for the Armenian Genocide."

I find it disturbing that neither of you seem to understand why other editors think that it's overkill, and that it detracts from the flow of imparting relevant information. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

There was only one Armenian-language name that was enough for any reader for ten years, including many journalists who have used Wikipedia as a source for their information, and its meaning was established with a reliable source until this entirely unnecessary discussion was provoked (I have pointed out its unnecessary nature with plenty of facts) and the present situation of "overkill" was generated. Please go and check who wrote down entire paragraphs about "English-language words and phrases" and "multitude of names" before getting disturbed about overkill and addressing your discomfort to the wrong addresses.Armen Ohanian (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Finger pointing really isn't a constructive method of trying to improve the article content. The escalation of picking over details in the content was far more complicated than a single parsing of COMMONNAME, however I thoroughly commend the elimination of all but the primary terms used in Armenian. I hope that any grudges can be put aside, and AGF be adopted again in order to make a positive impact on the quality of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My request to you is that you communicate your points with common sense, in ordinary English, and in accord with conventional rules of reasoning, rather than habitually putting the focus on sources outside the specific area of discussion (WP:THIS/THAT) which often cut both ways and can be interpreted in a multiplicity of ways. For instance, can you give me an ordinary English translation of the following sentence? "The escalation of picking over details in the content was far more complicated than a single parsing of COMMONNAME." As far as the verbiage in the section, most of that was installed the day Medz Yeghern was removed from the lede, and I had nothing to do with it. See [18] I am with you in welcoming the elimination of all but the primary terms used in Armenian. Diranakir (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Massacres and Armenian Holocaust in the lead

Should they stay or should they go? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Both seem common (use quotation marks " " to make sure the two words in the term aren't separated – linking doesn't seem to allow this). I see no reason why they should go. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sentence adjustment needed

The very first sentence of the first alinea of the body states: "Armenia had come largely under Ottoman rule during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." This is impossible, and unverifiable, given that the Ottomans hadn't even expanded into Eastern Anatolia/Western Armenia/modern-day Eastern Turkey in the fifteenth century. The Battle of Chaldiran, which marked the first Ottoman expansion into the region, only took place in 1514 and was a temporary gain. With the Peace of Amasya (1555), they secured Western Armenia, which is nevertheless only a part of the historical Armenia meant here. To conclude what I mean; neither in the 15th nor the 16th century, did Armenia come largely under Ottoman rule. The sentence therefore needs some adjustment. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A very reasonable suggestion. The sentence should reflect that the Ottoman rule was extended over the western portion of Armenia in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century, following the treaties of Amasya (1555) and Zuhab (1639), with the latter establishing a lasting border between the Ottoman and Persian empire. Armen Ohanian (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Armen Ohanian:, thanks for your constructive response. I just rewrote that part, and added 3 sources to it as well. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC for Medz Yeghern as an alternative name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include the term 'Medz Yeghern' as an alternative name to the Armenian Genocide in the first sentence of this article? Please comment precisely whether you want to exclude or include the term. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Exclude per WP:COMMONTERM and for reasons I have aforementioned. The expression Medz Yeghern (Great Crime, sometimes called "Great Calamity") has become a euphemism for genocide deniers to use in place of the more appropriate legal term: genocide. This expression is now less cited as a term to equate with genocide, and more cited as a term associated with its denial. Comparisons between the term Shoah and the Holocaust have been made, but the fundamental difference is that the Shoah is not being used in the context of denying the Holocaust. The same cannot be said for Medz Yeghern, however, which has been consistently used by notorious deniers of the AG such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and many Turkish denialist journalists and writers. For example, for those who don’t know, Obama has used the term Medz Yeghern for the eighth year in a row in his most recent annual denialist statement. And again, this is not about whether Obama, Bush, Armenian linguists, and Turkish intellectuals/denialists are right or wrong in their understanding of the term, this is about what the expression is currently recognized as. This is also not to say that Medz Yeghern is not being used to describe the events of 1915 as genocide either. Indeed, there are those who do so. But it is due to these different meanings and interpretations of this particular expression that ultimately render it too ambiguous to be used as an alternative name. Therefore, as another user mentioned, to just state the alternative names without such an explanation is to not give the whole picture and in fact give an inaccurate picture. The first sentence is simply not a convenient place to provide such a clarification on all these interpretations. And if this isn’t handled properly, we're left with the reader to decide what its definition and signification is at the risk of outside influences (i.e. Obama, Turkish denialists, and etc.). Therefore, I propose removing the term Medz Yeghern in the first sentence of the article and creating a section in the body of the article that clarifies this for our readers by providing a brief explanation of the term, bearing in mind its historical and contemporary usage. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep based on the exchanges above and the following. The name Medz Yeghern/ Great Crime was given to the Armenian Genocide by the leading lights of the Armenian nation while it was still underway and was adopted by the people as the principal and most enduring name they gave to the apocalypse they had suffered. It has been used continuously since that time and today lends its name to the Armenian Genocide Memorial Complex in Yerevan as well as genocide memorials around the world. The name embodies much more than tragedy. It conveys outrage at the shocking rupture of every rule of civilized behavior that led to national death and destruction. This is the name that it is being proposed to shut away in a footnote with the reasoning that it is too 'ambiguous', does not justify the space it occupies in the lede, and is a 'euphemism' exploited by 'notorious genocide deniers' such as President Obama. Ignoring the word's historic standing as well as its contemporary recognition and notability as reflected in the 2013 ECHR verdict in Perincek v. Switzerland (as 'Meds Yeghern')[19]
it is denied the same standing as Shoah because 'Shoah is not used to deny the Holocaust'. The reason it is not used and cannot be used to deny the Holocaust is because Germany long ago accepted responsibility for the Holocaust whereas Turkey has for 101 years adamantly refused to face up to its historic role in the Armenian Genocide and uses every stratagem to continue doing so. Proposing to exclude the word betrays a reluctance to trust the average reader to judge for themselves and overlooks the fact that trying to rehabilitate the Great Calamity fallacy as an 'alternative meaning' invests the word, now very clearly defined, with the very ambiguity and euphemism found to be so objectionable. This would only be a shot in the arm to genocide deniers and apologists who want to convince the world that Armenians never had a clear-cut legal name for what happened to them and that there was no genocide before the word 'genocide', a complete myth. While an understanding was reached above to drop Armenian Massacres and Armenian Holocaust from the lede, these are the reasons I propose that Medz Yeghern be kept in the lede. Diranakir (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Exclude. It is a compromise solution. There are many different terms and phrases used as alternative terms for the Armenian Genocide, and several different nuances of meaning in the usages of each term, or in their translation. To maintain a neutral point of view these terms and translations would need to be given equal status in the lede. I am not convinced this is impossible to do, but EtienneDolet has said it will make the lede too complicated. If equal status were to be done, the lede would contain something like "...also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, traditionally by Armenians, as the Aghet (Armenian: Աղետ, usually translated as "Catastrophe") and Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, usually translated as "Great Crime" or "Great Calamity"). The bulk of the recent talk page discussions over several weeks reveals the refusal of two editors, Diranakir and Armen Ohanian, to accept the equal status principle. This alternative proposal - to remove them all and instead deal with them in the article's content - was an attempt at reaching a compromise. However, the same two editors also oppose the compromise. What I am certain of is that the issues of usage and meaning cannot be explained in the lede - it is not the appropriate place to do it. To cherrypick for lede content just one term ("Medz Yeghern") from all of them and to additionally cherrypick just one translation ("Great Crime") for that one term is unsustainably pov. As proof, Google Scholar (see section below this post) indicates that there is an alternative Armenian term, "Aghet" (which, when translated, is almost always translated as "Catastrophe"), that is of equal status (actually slightly higher, based on the number and the age of sources), and alternative English Language terms (such as "Armenian Holocaust") are far more popular than either of the two Armenian ones. Google Scholar also indicated differing English-language translations of Medz Yeghern and the choice of which translation to use is defined as a matter of controversy in some of those sources. In addition, there are nuances of usage with Medz Yeghern: it has been written that politicians have been using Medz Yeghern as an Armenian genocide denialist methodology to avoid mentioning the word "genocide" [20], [21], [22]. The singling out as "Medz Yeghern" as alone being fit to be included as an alternative term is simply not justifiable. Note that Diranakir and Armen Ohanian refused an early request for moderated discussion on this issue [23]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar results

Google Scholar results
Aghet + Armenian Genocide, 61 results [24]
Aghet + Armenian Genocide + Catastrophe 19 results [25]
Aghed + Armenian Genocide, 38 Results [26]
Aghed + Armenian Genocide + Catastrophe, 28 Results [27]
Medz Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 60 results [28]
Medz Yeghern + Great Crime, 19 results [29]
Medz Yeghern + Armenian Genocide + Great Crime 19 results[30]
Medz Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 13 results [31]
Medz Yeghern + Great Calamity, 9 results [32]
Mets Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 15 results [33]
Mets Yeghern + Great Crime, 3 results [34]
Mets Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 3 results [35]
Mets Yeghern + Great Calamity, 4 results [36]

There seems to be no overlap in the alternative spellings of each phrase. There seems to be a minor overlap in the Medz Yeghern / Mets Yeghern translations, where the same source gives two alternative translations [37] & [38]. The results show that of the two terms, the most common term used in association with the term "Armenian Genocide" is "Aghet" or its alternative spelling "Aghed", with 99 hits in total. "Medz Yeghern" and its alternative spelling "Mets Yeghern" used in association with the term "Armenian Genocide" get 75 hits in total. "Medz Yeghern" searched for on its own gets 81 hits, "Mets Yeghern" on its own gets 19 hits, "Aghet" means something in other languages so raw results for "Aghet" on its own are not usable. "Armenian Holocaust" gets 394 results, a low number but probably because it will be mainly older sources that use it, sources that Google Scholar neglect. "Armenian Massacres" gets 2760 but those results will include massacres before 1915. "Armenian Genocide" on its own gets 13,000 results, which indicates that all the alternative terms actually rarely get mentioned in sources compared to Armenian Genocide (an argument perhaps for all the alternatives being removed from the lede). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the portmanteau word "Armenocide" gets 166 hits. So it too should definitely be classed as an alternative term. [39] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep for reasons I have extensively mentioned in the discussion and the following. A proper name, Medz Yeghern, cannot be equated to a generic expression, genocide. It has and is equated by Armenian political and worldwide leaders (president and church heads) to “Armenian Genocide.” Three world leaders, Pope John Paul II, Stephen Harper (PM of Canada, 2006-2015), and Pope Francis, have used Medz Yeghern and genocide. One world leader, Barack Obama, has used Medz Yeghern without genocide (George W. Bush never used Medz Yeghern), instead using “mass atrocities” (= “mass atrocity crimes”), which currently designates what is embraced by the description “genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.” No serious commentator or newspaper, whether Armenian or not, has called Obama a “denier” and/or equated him to Turkish denialist journalists and writers for using Medz Yeghern, but he has been repeatedly called out for having “refused to properly acknowledge the Armenian Genocide” due to his failure to use genocide. Notorious Turkish deniers, incidentally, have reproached Obama the use of Medz Yeghern, claiming that it is synonymous with genocide. (There is good reason why the current Turkish government has never used Medz Yeghern and chided Obama for using it.) Medz Yeghern appears in the lede in the same way as Shoah and Sayfo appear in the lede of the articles “Assyrian genocide” and “The Holocaust”, and Holodomor as the entry name for the Ukrainian genocide. The article is named “Armenian Genocide,” starts with the words “The Armenian Genocide...” and continues with its literal translation in Armenian and the proper name in the same language. No ambiguity is left there, and no further clarification is needed in the lede. The issue revolving around “Great Calamity” and “Aghed” (including the groundless attempt to put the latter before Medz Yeghern with omission of conclusive evidence to the contrary) is the result of the years-long search for anything to debunk the meaning of “Great Crime” that may appear acceptable, with token consideration of scholarly procedures, prominence, reliability, and content of sources, and above all, with no knowledge of the language in question to have a saying on linguistic issues. Here is the reason for the so-called "refusal... to accept the equal status principle." It does not matter whether something is true or just a good find: hence the renewed attempt to impose a solution at any cost through two pseudo-methods: "Google hits," which could also be claimed to enter any discredited theory to Wikipedia through the backdoor (say, revisionist views in the Holocaust article), or "Google Scholar," which assumes that a bunch of hits represents the entire universe of mentions (= if it isn't on the Internet, it doesn't exist). Therefore, I propose, as in the case of the article on the Holocaust, to keep the proper name Medz Yeghern in its current place--along the lines of my proposal previously accepted and then left aside--and to add a section as the first one in the body of the article that explains briefly the historical and current use of the term. Armen Ohanian (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

But you propose excluding the proper name "Aghet", and the proper name "Armenian Holocaust", and the proper name "Armenocide", and the "Great Calamity / Great Catastrophe" translations for "Medz Yeghern" from the lede, even though all of them are sourced, and "Aghet", "Armenian Holocaust", and "Armenocide" all have more sources than "Medz Yeghern" has. How does your proposal not break WP:neutral point of view guidelines? Are you also advocating the exclusion of "Aghet", "Armenian Holocaust", "Armenocide" and the "Great Calamity / Great Catastrophe" translations for Medz Yeghern from your proposed article section that would explain the historical and current use of the term Medz Yeghern? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the value of each of those names. The lede is one thing, the proposed article section is a different thing. The article section only needs to explain succinctly what "Medz Yeghern" means and what has been its historical and current use of the term. Exactly as it is for "Shoah" in the Holocaust article, which doesn't explain other alternative names in the seven lines of the section "Etymology and use of the term." For all the other names, you can create an article called "Names of the Armenian Genocide," in the same way as there is an article called "Names of the Holocaust." Armen Ohanian (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You are avoiding responding to my valid question. Please answer the accusation that your desire to exclude all sourced alternative terms from the lede except "Medz Yeghern", and exclude all sourced alternative translations of "Medz Yeghern" from the lede except "Great Crime", breaks npov guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Exclude there's many alternative names to the Armenian Genocide, some of these alternative names have different interpretations than others. Therefore, it needs to be better elaborated on somewhere in the article. I'm ready to help out with the section proposal and we need to keep WP:NPOV in mind when doing so, as Dimadick pointed out above. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I haven't forgotten about this. The consensus is clearly in favor of its removal. But I'll still wait till more opinions before going ahead with the proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I too was hoping for more opinions, but it does not look like the subject is interesting enough to attract attention. Maybe some work should be started on what the content section will look like that would contain all the alternative terms. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude from lead. As it stands, I don't think that there's any point as, by the time you get an uninvolved third party around to responding to closing, Legobot will have removed the RfC template. If editors felt strongly about this, I'm sure more would have spoken up. Personally, I've abstained from !voting so far as I don't like getting involved in every RfC, but I am against its use in the lead, particularly as being presented as if it were an alternative COMMONNAME. There's no parallel between the commonality of usage of "Medz/Mets Yeghern" to, for example, that of "Holodomor". Should the situation change at a future point in time, there's no problem in updating the content of the article as it will be obvious. Until then, per Yerevantsi's observation, it should be elaborated on in an appropriate section within the body of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment to Iryna Harpy: For the record and as far as it bears on future discussion of this topic, the relevant parallel is not between Holodomor and Medz Yeghern, but between Terror-Famine and Medz Yeghern. Diranakir (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. As it is, there were perpetual arguments over the use of 'Holodomor' because it is not an English language COMMONNAME. It is, in fact, already the equivalent of 'Medz Yeghern' in that it is the Ukrainian language term for that incident. Holodomor has, however, become the prominent name used in English language scholarship, but 'Terror-Famine' and 'Famine-Genocide in Ukraine' appeared in scholarship (and continue to do so) because English language variants on the terminology pre-date the use of Holodomor in scholarship. By the same token, there is no weight of scholarship demonstrating the use of 'Medz Yeghern' as being a common usage alternative nomenclature for the genocide. I responded as I did because I did not see Armen Ohanian's argument about "The Holocaust" or "Holodomor" as being relevant. Comparing the details between genocides is like comparing apples and oranges: each instance should be accorded due respect and treated on a case by case basis.

Personally, I've never !voted on whether other terms are appropriate for the lead for the Holodomor article, and I'd be reticent to start a discussion as to their usage because the Holodomor related articles are amongst the most egregious on Wikipedia. The "Holodomor" article alone has not budged from its uncomfortable truce-consensus state for years. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevance of the argument is that you have three articles on genocides -- "The Holocaust," "Holodomor," and "Assyrian genocide," -- where the name of the event in each language (Shoah, Holodomor, Sayfo) is mentioned in the first paragraph or as the article name. I didn't compare details between genocides, but between the articles on genocides, which is a comparison between four types of apples. The Armenian genocide has a traditionally used proper name in its own language: it is Medz Yeghern ("Great Crime" / "Great Genocide"), not the calque translation of "Armenian Genocide." There is a weight of scholarship showing its use as proper name. I have offered a perfectly reasonable solution that makes the first sentence readable and understandable to any middle English reader, as much as it is readable and understandable in the case of the other three articles on genocides. As I have said previously, whether deniers or euphemistic users exploit it, I don't see a reason to budge to denial and use pov as pretext to eliminate the name from the first paragraph. Armen Ohanian (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

To Iryna Harpy: In relation to the articles on the Armenian Genocide and the Holodomor, we are talking about lead sentences that, in each, begin with the principal name of the article followed by alternative names in the 'also known as' clauses. Holodomor and Armenian Genocide correspond to each other in the roles they play in their respective sentences, and Terror-Famine and Medz Yeghern bear a similar relationship in their respective 'also known as' clauses. That should be self-evident. It therefore remains a complete mystery to me what it is you disagree with and why the inclusion of Medz Yeghern in the lede is such a problem for you, given that it is the most enduring name Armenians have given their genocide. Diranakir (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

As indicated it the Google Scholar results that I have posted in this RfC, and in the numerous quotes and citations I provided in earlier discussions, the weight of scholarship that Armen Ohanian mentions actually indicates that Medz Yeghern is rather far down the list of common names in terms of its academic usage, lower than that of Aghet, and that the English translation that he and Diranakir have repeatedly insisted Medz Yeghern MUST HAVE is not even the majority translation. The edit warring of their pov into the article, and their inability to make or accept any compromise, has led to an impasse where the only solution available to move forward is the removal of all alternative terms from the lede and instead have them mentioned and explained in the body of the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your "predecessor" in the same insistence on "Great Calamity" and yourself have been UNABLE for the past four years to bring a single, decent argument that proves that "Great Calamity" is a real translation, except quoting people that say so, but do not prove it, and filling these pages with pov, including the newfangled claim that pretends that Google Books or Google Scholar is the modern equivalent of the library of Alexandria, and everything is there. This is, unfortunately, the risk of Wikipedia rules: to quote some secondary source to prove a point leads to not give any attention to the accuracy of the source. (For instance, the picture of the eight severed heads stayed for years in the main text, because there was a source that said that there were the heads of "eight Armenian professors." I cleaned up the picture, indicating that the source was inaccurate, since the picture had been first published in 1899. Nobody argued, despite the fact that the same picture and the same inaccuracy had been remarked in 1992 by two researchers from Germany, but alas, that article published in an Armenian scholarly journal in English IS NOT in Google Scholar.) The so-called "repeated" insistence is the consequence of the repeated insistence on anything that may serve to prove your pov. It is akin to the picture that we see every time that a denialist rejects a certain fact and someone upholds the fact. Another denialist comes back with the same denial and someone else upholds the same fact, and the same goes again and again. Here, the difference is that someone rejects a fact (I don't imply that anyone is a denialist here), and when that fact is upheld with stronger proof, the same person comes back with a variation on the same theme, and the vicious circle continues again and again. Now the latest "discovery" is the existence of Aghed and Armenocide (Armenocide was invented fifty years ago or so, and neither Aghed nor Armenocide are "more common Common Names," except in your opinion, which unfortunately rejects referenced opinions) to help clutter the lead and, in this way, create an artificial "impasse" with the aim of imposing the pov by any means. I repeat it: a clean version of the lede had been introduced and won necessary consensus more than a month ago, but unjustifiable pov concerns botched that agreement and led to this unnecessary situation.Armen Ohanian (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record: The alternative name Medz Yeghern (Մեծ Եղեռն) has been part of the lede for a decade now and it is curious that those who are presently campaigning to have it thrown out have only recently been seized with the urgency of applying the COMMON NAME principle to it. Where were they all that time with the COMMON NAME principle? Or is their real problem with its UNAMBIGUOUS and fully documented translation as Great Crime? Diranakir (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And the reason it can no longer remain is thanks to your pov edit warring. Past versions of the article lede included Great Calamity as either the main translation of Medz Yeghern, [40], or its only translation [41]. But you and Armen Ohanian have edit warred for years against that referenced content and also against the addition of any additional alternative names even if better sourced, and have insisted that the recently-coined "Great Crime" translation is the only valid one despite numerous sources indicating otherwise. You have been unwilling to accept any compromise. So the only solution is to remove all of the existing alternative terms. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your response already shows that you seem to only read what it suits your pov. There was NO referenced content for "Great Calamity" in the lead for the past decade, as I explained to you in my latest posting, except "quoting people that say so, but do not prove it" (apologies for quoting myself), and the source currently referencing "Great Crime," if your read it outside your edit-warring mind --you're ascribing what you have started to others --, proves with extensive examples that the meaning "crime" for yeghern existed even before the genocide, and it is not "recently-coined" by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armen Ohanian (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Current name of the page, Armenian Genocide, is fully consistent with WP:Common name. There are also several alternative names. Given that they are sufficiently widely used, keeping them in intro is fine. Even if one of them was frequently used by "denialists", that does not invalidate mentioning the term in lede. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

In which case you will agree that the even more common Common Names, such as Aghet and Armenocide, should be there too, and that the alternative translations of Medz Yeghern should also be there, yes? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above shows that Medz Yeghern is rather widely used and even became a matter of controversy (the presentations by Obama, etc.). Is "Armenocide" that significant? I do not know. The number of Google hits is significant, but one should look at actual sources. If it is important, then yes, there is nothing wrong with including it too. My very best wishes (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, this RfC was started because two editors - Diranakir & Armen Ohanian - have point blank refused to include in the lede anything except Medz Yeghern and anything except "Great Crime" as its translation. This is even after sources and google scholar data has been presented that shows their position is invalid. (Part of that data has been presented in this RfC, so your Armenocide question is easy to answer: 166 hits on Google Scholar, more than Medz Yeghern.) The RfC proposes a compromise solution - remove all alternative names and translations from the lede and instead deal with them all in the article. No content is going to be deleted. Since you are opposing this compromise solution, what alternative solution do you suggest to move forward. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Many pages have alternative names in intro. They must be there (in the first phrase) simply for convenience of a reader. Starting an RfC to exclude an alternative name that arguably should be included looks to me something very strange. Just keep the alternative name and move forward. This is very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Except that it has been anything than very simple! I don't think the RfC was well worded or explained, but its purpose was to resolve the long running issue of two editors refusing any compromise on their opinion that no alternative Armenian names can be inserted into the lede except Meds Yeghern, and no alterantive translation than "Great Crime" is allowed for Meds Yeghern. This is all despite plentiful sources indicating that this opinion is nothing but a pov opinion of those two editors. Showt of getting them banned, there is no way to move forward. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

MVBW, you're missing the point that there are a great number of WP:OTHERNAMES. What is being suggested is that OTHERNAMES take on the same status as the COMMONNAME: in other words, editors are taking it upon themselves to promote other names... which is WP:OR. If the WP:TITLE of the article were "Various names used for the Armenian Genocide", then I would have to agree with the inclusion in the lead. The TITLE is, however, "Armenian Genocide". Other names belong in the body where/if appropriate, not in the lead. The rationale behind Wikipedia is that we don't run ahead of the ball and make the news (i.e., we would be facilitating the acceptance of other names as common names). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think having three alternative names in the first phrase right now is fine, just as on this page and a lot of other pages, and it is consistent with WP:OTHERNAMES. That would not work with a larger number of names (e.g. generic names of drugs). Once again, this something very minor that does not deserve RfC and this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

There are MORE than three othernames names. "Aghet" and "Armenocide" have more Google Scholar hits than "Medz Yeghern". To include Medz Yeghern in the lede and not the other two is a pov decision that is not supported by sources. To state in the lede that "Great Crime" is the only translation of Medz Yeghern is a pov decision that is not supported by sources. So, what exactly are you supporting? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

While we wait for the response to your question from My very best wishes, it has become quite clear what you are supporting, unfortunately: 1) your own pov agenda, which you continuously try to hide behind your "sources" that have been solidly shown once and again to be a smokescreen, 2) your not-so-veiled menaces to end your four-year-long campaign against Medz Yeghern by having other editors banned because they don't conform to your "my way or highway."

The passage "also known (...) traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Great Crime)" speaks of the knowledge by Armenians, understandably, in the Armenian language (hence "TRADITIONALLY"), not in English or any other language, which are not the TRADITIONAL language of Armenians. Therefore, all Google Scholar/Google Books lucubrations are null and void, because nobody asked about English, German, French (or Chinese, for that matter) mentions of Medz Yeghern, Aghed, Armenocide, or the next name that one can think of in any particular language. They only serve to give a cover to utter ignorance of the Armenian language, because knowing words like Medz Yeghern or Aghed do not give anyone the right to claim knowledge of the language (unless such knowledge is demonstrated otherwise), the same as I don't claim that I know Ukrainian because I know Holodomor. Unfortunately, we have come to the point where people who do not know the Armenian language take upon themselves the right to speak about linguistic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armen Ohanian (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You really are Not There in every sense of the term. I doubt anyone else could be so willfully and consistently in error about Wikipedia's insistence on content being sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't need any lessons about Wikipedia's insistence on sourced content, since I know very well the value of sources. The insistence of people in exploiting that insistence by Wikipedia for their own purposes is what remains incomprehensible to me. I doubt anyone else could be so willfully and consistently in purposeful disdain of all sorts of evidence that contradicts his views and still repeats those same views.Armen Ohanian (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Exclude - term has lost its original meaning and is a violation of common name rule. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Common name is about title of the article, i.e. "Armenian genocide", not about alternative, less commonly used names, which can also be included merely for convenience of a reader. Was that alternative name used in important recent publications on the subject? Yes, it was. Hence including it was fine.My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Question to Oatitonimly: Please specify what original meaning the term has lost.

Comment to My very best wishes: I appreciate your raising a very important point about the application of the common name 'rule'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that at this point, there's been an open debate about the current meaning of Medz Yeghern for quite some time. Medz Yeghern has lost its meaning because it is not a term associated with the Armenian Genocide anymore. Rather, it is a term used to deny it. So the ambiguity of this meaning, whether it be in our understanding of WP:COMMONNAME or WP:OTHERNAMES, should be handled the same way. Ambiguous names should be removed from the lead and further expressed in the article. Wikipedia is pretty clear on this. Oatitonimly (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my simple question. What is the original meaning that was lost? Either you meant something by it or you didn't. Diranakir (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The original meaning was something that was untranslatable, beyond a precise definition, a name to give something beyond comprehension or encompassment or description or explanation. Now it is mostly a euphemism that gutless politicians are using to avoid mentioning the word genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Tiptoe, why is it that when I ask another editor a direct question, it is you who jumps in? This is the second time it has happened. Are they not capable of answering for themselves? Apparently not. It seems they prefer talking through their various hats. Thanks for a perfect description of the muddle in which you propose to bury Medz Yeghern. Diranakir (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Exclude from the lead per concerns expressed by ÉtienneDolet and other editors. It seems to be a name preferred by genocide deniers (such as Obama) and I see the situation could be compared to adding notions used by Holocaust deniers to the lead of the article on Holocaust. The problem also is that there are numerous other variants more often used than Medz Yeghern that should then consequently also be added to the lead, for which I see no reason. Dorpater (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC) (vote by sock of blocked user). 17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is strange. Last time when I checked Wiktionalry [42], it was telling: "Meds Yeghern is used by Armenians refer to the Armenian Genocide the way Shoah is used by Jews to refer to the Holocaust." Other sources were telling the same. So no, this is not terminology by deniers or Obama, but a terminology by Armenians. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a citable source! More seriously, are you saying it is incorrect to say that Obama since becoming president has on numerous occasions said "Meds Yeghern" and has never once said "Armenian Genocide" and that there are many sources that state he chooses the former to avoid saying the latter? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

So what? It is clear who cares about what Obama said: 1) Those people who ignore the Armenian language and dare to give lessons about it; 2) Those people who supposedly know the Armenian language, but are simply obsessed with the word "genocide" and reject the language that supposedly they know; 3) Those people who are pushing the others to impose their POV.

Instead, I will quote from a different source that cannot be suspected of denying anything, the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan. John Paul II, Stephen Harper, and Pope Francis are not enough for you, then I have to add a fourth person who is not a "gutless politician" in this issue, the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan. I have FOUR using Medz Yeghern and genocide, you have ONE not using both:

"Today, we commemorate the memory of the holy martyrs of the Armenian Genocide. More than a century has passed since the Meds Yeghern" (April 24, 2016)(www.president.am/en/statements-and-messages/item/2016/04/24/President-Serzh-Sargsyan-speech-April-24/)

"The crimes of genocide – Medz Yeghern, Shoah, those committed in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and elsewhere, shall be commemorated by both the successors of the victims and perpetrators. The path to reconciliation is not paved by denial, but rather by the consciousness of memory" (April 22, 2015)(www.president.am/en/statements-and-messages/item/2015/04/22/President-Serzh-Sargsyan-Genocide-global-forum-April-22-speech/).

If Wiktionary is not a citable source, it is more than enough to quote the same from a source that has been a darling to source-twisters like you in a different time and name:

"Armenians sometimes still refer to the Armenian Genocide as ‘Medz Yeghern,’ just as the Jews use the Hebrew word Shoah for the Holocaust.” (Harut Sassounian, California Courier, January 5, 2005)

If that is not enough, there one more for you and for everybody else out there who are ignorant of their own language to the point of simply considering "Medz Yeghern" just one more about many:

"When Metz Yeghern is used, Armenians understand genocide" (Sukru Elekdag, former ambassador of Turkey to the United States, December 2008, http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/12/2680-tv-debate-transcript-32nd-day-on.html).Armen Ohanian (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is overwhelming in favor of the removal of Medz Yeghern. I've begun working on an alternative names section. I will remove Medz Yeghern bit in the lead and work to make the section in the coming days. Anyone is welcome to work on it with me. This is long overdue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "overwhelming consensus" --do you include, to mention only one case, the sock puppet who almost copied and pasted your opinion and who was blocked a few days ago?-- only exists (and I will repeat myself, since you seem not to have read much of what has been written here) in the imagination of: 1) Those people who ignore the Armenian language and dare to give lessons about it; 2) Those people who supposedly know the Armenian language, but are simply obsessed with the word "genocide" and reject the language that supposedly they know; 3) Those people who are pushing the others to impose their POV.

Will all due respect again, you unfortunately happened to be the person who broke the consensus reached almost three months ago and opened the floodgates for an endless discussion that has been going on and on since then. (It was an useful experience, however: every time someone's groundless arguments were crushed with facts, these facts were left aside and another groundless argument came forward, and this is how you built the "overwhelming consensus." It allowed me to see first hand how a denialist would operate in a slightly different context.) It was clearly explained that every COMPARABLE article in Wikipedia has the proper name of the genocide in its first paragraph, and I could not hear a single rational objection, except what amounted to denialism: when you deny your own name on the name of denial, you allow others to deny it too, as it happened.

"Last April 24, on the 100th anniversary of what Armenians call the Great Crime, the Bundestag postponed voting on a similar resolution to classify the mass killings as genocide. Yet German President Joachim Gauck used the term, drawing criticism from Turkey." This was written by Deutsche Welle on May 31, 2016 (http://www.dw.com/en/turkeys-erdogan-warns-germany-ahead-of-armenian-genocide-vote/a-19296898). They didn't call it Great Catastrophe/Calamity/Disaster/Tragedy or Aghed. "(...) WHAT ARMENIANS CALL THE GREAT CRIME." This is the name of the genocide (other than "Armenian Genocide," which is not the Armenian name), and this is what should remain in the first paragraph of Wikipedia, as the Holocaust, the Holodomor, and the Assyrian genocide do. Afterwards, one could write a full article about the names of the Armenian genocide in good conscience. But now, please do not hide behind "overwhelming consensus," because that looks like the emperor's new clothes. Armen Ohanian (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Six users ([43][44][45][46][47] as opposed to three appears to be quite overwhelming. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The merits of the word "overwhelming," as well as of your mathematical source to come to that conclusion are very disputable, but I'll leave them to your conscience, the same as the entire merit of this discussion, for which we are indebted to your previous break of overwhelming consensus (two users opposed to one are as overwhelming as six to three) and the lack of grounded argumentation that followed. Armen Ohanian (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected for the record. Two users opposed to one are as overwhelming as five to three. Banned sock puppets do not count. Armen Ohanian (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I never "broke a consensus" concerning this Medz Yeghern stuff. I don't get why you keep bringing that up with every comment of yours. My agreement was a temporary solution (the stuff about Aghed) to an otherwise very large problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's your agreement as a so-called "temporary solution" to a problem that it has never looked (and it does not) as "otherwise very large." Indeed, I was addressing you in the comment):

"d) Finally, as I had promised, I would like to go back to your proposal of alleviating the burden in the lead and build up on it. I think it may be fairly reasonable to establish a comparison with the opening sentence of the entry "Holocaust" and divide the first sentence into two:

"The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun), also known as the Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"), was the systematic extermination by the Ottoman government of its Armenian population. It was carried inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey."

Compare:

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"), also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews."

Along the lines of what you had proposed, footnote 3 would become:

Spelt Հայոց ցեղասպանութիւն in classical Armenian orthography. In English, the Armenian Genocide is also known as the Armenian Holocaust, and, previously, as the Armenian Massacres.

(The last sentence of footnote 3 can even be taken out, if someone thinks that its too "heavy.").Armen Ohanian (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Armen's proposal looks good to me. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. An admirable resolution by Armen. Diranakir (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)"

Your proposal was to alleviate the burden in the lead. I build up on it and I proposed how to alleviate the lead, and I gave a comparative example to another lead. There was no "temporary solution" there. This was a consensus for a final solution. This is what you broke and you don't remember.

The "stuff about Aghed" was an artificial issue created by someone who has never spoken the word "aghed" or any other Armenian word in his entire life, and who brought the word to muddle the field (including a fair amount of misinterpretation, indeed), as he has tried relentlessly to do for the past four years. This has shown beyond the need of more proof. Unfortunately, you seem to have bought that red herring.Armen Ohanian (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yup. It was a temporary solution for Aghed, but not the final solution for Medz Yeghern. I don't know why I need to go back and forth with you on this. It really doesn't matter, even if I did "break" some sort of consensus. After all, a consensus can always change. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody forces you to go back and forth. Consensus may always change. POV doesn't. This is, unfortunately, the bottom line of this issue: POV based on a subjective perception of denial for Medz Yeghern and the red herring of Aghed bought from someone who didn't know of its existence until he found it in his crusade to impose his own POV. Armen Ohanian (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Armen Ohanian, your above is just a continuation of your ignoring of Wikipedia rules regarding sources. What you say you want, what you say you know to be true, what you think is correct, all of that has no place in deciding what Wikipedia content should be. Sources decide content. Also, long-established sources are more important that recent ones when deciding on spellings or translations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

If you believed in what you said, you would have ended this discussion long ago. If you think that I say what I want, what I know to be true, what I think it is correct, then look at yourself and your opinions and stop ascribing your own attitude to others. Long-established sources have been shown long ago, but you preferred to ignore them. I have backed what I say and what I think with sources of which you have not the slightest idea, as it has been proved once and again. Your remaining arguments are the repetition of hot air to which readers and editors have been used for the past four years. Armen Ohanian (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Armen, you seem to be missing the point of this whole discussion. Something true years ago isn't necessarily true in the present day. --Oatitonimly (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC).

That is the point of this discussion? Anything which was true in the past is no longer true? Unless there are sounding facts that prove the contrary -- not speculations based on POV -- a truth remains as such. In this case, the truth of the proper name "Medz Yeghern," its meaning, and its importance remains there. Armen Ohanian (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have cited numerous articles, I have cited the Google search results, I have cited the Google Scholar results. All hot air to Armen Ohanian? However, this "hot air" forms the basis of deciding what Wikipedia article content should consist of.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Any denialist may cite numerous articles, Google search results, and Google Scholar results, and claim that those "form the basis of deciding what Wikipedia article content should consist of." In such a case, and in this case, the reliability of those citations is what is at stake. This is what has been called into question and debunked once and again, and not just with words. But, of course, whoever has one and only one goal in his mind will never renounce to it. Armen Ohanian (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your work, EtienneDolet,but could you place the proposed new section here first, rather than going straight into the article with it. So it can be discussed. What do you think about having the origin of the word genocide section combined into this news terminology section, detail when and why it was coined, then detail and explain the various names for the AG that were used before the coining of the term genocide, names that contemporary sources called it or described it (things like "the murder of a nation" (in the 1915 Toynbee booklet) is more a description than an actual term), and then onto the internalized names Armenians used, like Aghet and Medz Yeghern. And maybe also the terminology found in denialist sources, and the ways that avoid mentioning the word "genocide". This proposed section can be inserted regardless of any lede content decision, regardless of the AfD (which did have a clear majority to delete but the low numbers participating probably preclude calling it overwhelming). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: here's my draft. Nothing too elaborate so far. You're welcome to work on it with me, as is everybody else here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: so what do you think of the draft? Are you willing to work on it? I should I just place what I got so far? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not worked on it yet. I think it could be far more comprehensive. Is reproducing the terms found in denialist sources permissible, or would that be OR unless a third source refers to those phrases (things like "a tragedy", or "Armenian allegations" or "the events of 1915", etc.) as phrases found in denialist literature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To Etienne Dolet: 5 to 3 is no overwhelming consensus, especially given an RfC tarnished by sock puppetry. Your proposal to throw Medz Yeghern out of the lede is based on what you think is appropriate for the reader to see or not see at the top of the page, that is what it comes down to. The name has unique status in Armenian tradition, as Armen Ohanian has made perfectly clear. You choose to ignore that in the interests of your beef with the POTUS. Not very neutral. "Too many words, too confusing for the reader, not a common name", nonsense. All the other articles on genocides can have their alternative names in the lede but this one? Not very encyclopedic. Diranakir (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the three, My very best wishes, said that all alternative names should be inserted into the lede. This is something that the other two of the three refuse to accept (and their refusal was the reason for having this RfC). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes said that in reference to the THREE alternative names ALREADY on the lede for the past ten years (but you know this even before I did), not for what you are implying. (This proves my point that you cling to anything that suits your goals.) He said, in reference to Medz Yeghern (May 27): "Many pages have alternative names in intro. They must be there (in the first phrase) simply for convenience of a reader. Starting an RfC to exclude an alternative name that arguably should be included looks to me something very strange. Just keep the alternative name and move forward. This is very simple." And later (May 28): "I think having three alternative names in the first phrase right now is fine, just as on this page and a lot of other pages, and it is consistent with WP:OTHERNAMES. That would not work with a larger number of names (e.g. generic names of drugs). Once again, this something very minor that does not deserve RfC and this discussion." Armen Ohanian (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Exclude per WP:OTHERNAMES. Medz Yeghern has become an euphemistic term mostly used by Armenian Genocide deniers. Denialists and US presidents have employed the term Medz Yeghern to the point that the term has been perverted of its meaning. There's no denying that Medz Yeghern was or still is a word for the Armenian Genocide, but this background info needs to be clarified elsewhere in the article in a more appropriate place. WP:OTHERNAMES for example encourages us to have an alternative names section in the article to handle these kind of problems. 92slim (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To 92slim: You say 'Exclude per WP:OTHERNAMES' then immediately follow with the comment, 'Medz Yeghern has become an euphemistic term mostly used by Armenian Genocide deniers' , as if that is the reason for applying the 'othernames' principle, when it isn't. Then you say, 'Medz Yeghern was or is still a word for the Armenian Genocide'. Why the confusion? Why don't you just say is? With credit to 'My very best wishes', I have to point out that the very fact that we are having this discussion shows that the name has real prominence, far above any of the other alternative names. By the common name/other name principle as interpreted by you, 'Hayots tseghaspanutyun' should also be excluded from the lede. It is far less commonly known than Medz Yeghern. Diranakir (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone actually submitted this RfC for closure at the WP:ANRFC? It really needs a neutral admin/experienced user to close it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Striking as it is listed. Just a huge backlog on the board. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

OR, Synthesis and Undue Weight issues relating to edits made to the consensus solution - This edit [48] adds the claim that Obama had acknowledged the AG by using the term Medz Yeghern. This was a clear case of undue weight, and I have removed it. Obama, before becoming president, had used the words "Armenian Genocide" - so his acknowledgement predated his use of Medz Yeghern. As soon as he became president he stopped doing that, saying only "Medz Yeghern" instead. Six years have passed since the cited source's opinion - an opinion that was about the FIRST instance of Obama having used the term. In those six years Obama has continued each year to decline to say the words "Armenian Genocide" and has continued to only say "Medz Yeghern". It is his continued use of Medz Yeghern and continued refusal to say Armenian Genocide that the sources say amounts to denial (or gives encouragement to and succor for denialists). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Diranakir, without answering any of the points made above, has again inserted this content [49]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And has edit warred it in yet again [50], despite being directed to discuss it here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit [51] as well as having an extremely bad faith edit summary that is probably sanctionable, adds OR, Synthesis, and Undue Weight. It is a return by Armen Ohanian to exactly the same edit warring that obliged this RfC. Yet again this editor removes Aghet as an alternative term, despite the Google Scholar results presented during this RfC that indicate it is the most common term used, more common than Medz Yeghern. In order to try to placate this editor I deliberately did not put "Aghet" before "Medz Yeghern", even though the Google results would suggest it should be - but nothing it seems will stop Armen Ohanian's pov warring. And the alternative translation "Great Calamity" for Medz Yeghern is yet again deleted, despite the Google Scholar results indicating it is quite common, about half as common as the "Great Crime" translation. In this edit we also have a curious use of commas inside quotation marks: "xxx", "yyy", (which appears the correct usage to me) becomes "xxx," "yyy,", etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, while the ANRFC may be frustratingly backlogged, there has been no ruling to include Medz Yeghern or any other naming convention... meaning that no editors should be reintroducing the content in any shape or form, much less elaborating on it. Such tactics can only be understood as being WP:BATTLEGROUND, reflecting badly on the editor tampering with what currently stands as the status quo. Please wait until a decision is made. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

To be completely correct, the RfC was about lede content and whether particular content should be in the lede or should not. Since these edits concern body content and are thus independent of the lede content I think they do not need to wait for a final RfC decision. The troubling thing is that the same pov exclusion of Aghet and promotion of Medz Yeghern (with "Great Crime" as its only permissible translation) that was edit warred into the lede - to the extent that the only way to progress was the removal of all terms - seems to be being transferred into the article body content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to "close" here. The RfC template expired a long time ago. We can't close a template that doesn't exist. This tends to happen a lot during RfCs. And as for the RfC itself, it's nothing but a method to help get the community further involved, hence why it's called a "request for comment" and it should be treated as such. The discussion has reached a point in which we were able to fix up the lede without any further problems or altercations, so I think we would be beating the dead horse. We aren't supposed to view RfC's as something like congress voting over a bill and waiting for the speaker of the house to confirm the result. That's not how RfCs work. The importance given to the discussion and the result of it is what counts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for not checking the edit more thoroughly. I admit that I only took a cursory look. Agreed that no one is interested in closing, just as another RfC trying to overturn a recently adopted guideline RfC is going to be ignored. The give away with whether an RfC is going to have a third party close it is the fact that it was submitted before the 30 days were up. If admins and other experienced users are disinclined to close, it becomes an in-house issue. I believe that there was also a DRN submitted and either declined immediately, or within a short period of time (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Looking at the edit again, WP:DTS summarises the situation succinctly. Omission from the lead does not preclude that POV pushing is acceptable for the body. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes there was a Dispute Resolution request some months before the RfC - I submitted it, but the other invited parties declined to accept. At issue was what I saw as the pov exclusion of alternative terms from the lede. Identical issues now seem to be arising in the article body now that there is a section about terminology. However, lede content is meant to summarize body content, so in a way the earlier discussions were doing it the wrong way around because the lede content dealing with terminology summarized nothing that was in the body. This is why having a terminology section is required to move forward, regardless of the content that ends up being in it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Content allegation that "clamity" is a denialist term. It was inserted, I fact tagged it, a source was provided, it was invalid, I have deleted both the tagged claim and the invalid source. [52]. The source is a denialist text, but the cited page is actually part of a huge verbatim quotation of many passages from Hovhannes Katchaznouni's "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation Has Nothing To Do Any More", in which the word "calamity" is used once by Katchaznouni. Katchaznouni is not denying the Armenian Genocide (the word genocide was not coined when he wrote his pamphlet), nor is the source claiming that he was, the source does not even mention anything about Katchaznouni's usage of the word "calamity" - there is nothing in this to even remotely support a claim that "clamity" is a denialist term. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Erdogan uses of the word massacre

Erdogan uses of the term ought to be mentioned in the article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Heath W. Lowry article

For editors interested, there is currently a discussion on the NPOVN regarding potential POVPUSH issues on Lowry's article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

My reply on the noticeboard gives clues on how to treat scholars positions on the issue. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving discussions from OWNTALK here

These threads were started on my WP:OWNTALK, but I'm moving them here as they are relevant to this article's talk page as a matter of transparency.

On synth

Regarding the Armenian Genocide article, in your edit summary at 22:08, 17 June 2016 you say "‎There's also a difference between WP:SYNTH & WP:NOTSYNTH". As far as I can see, the difference is merely that between two different pages or sections of guidelines. I don't get the point. Perhaps you were using shorthand. Please clarify. Thanks. Diranakir (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

[53] - there are numerous sources around concerning the issue of Obama's continuing use of Medz Yeghern. I do not know if that particular citation says it equates to genocide denial, but there are sources that do make that equation. I am not going to be able to look for them as I will be away from Wikipedia for the next 5 weeks and this will probably be my last post here for a while. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

False balance

Concerning your edit on the Armenian Genocide article at 00:14, 18 June 2016‎: your suggestion that a statement by a genuine legal body in Armenia concerning President Obama's use of the term Meds Yeghern may be a 'minority view' or falls into the same category as 'flat Earth' theories and other forms of pseudoscience seems a considerable stretch of the WP:GEVAL guidance. If you have 'no idea' as to the quality as an RS in context, how relevant can that suggestion be? Diranakir (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more than a minority view, it is an off-topic view and it is an outdated view. To have this content next to content concerning the effect of Obama's usage of Medz Yeghgern is editorializing for effect. The article in that source was written as a response to President Obama's first use of the term "Medz Yeghern" in a public statement. Many years have passed since the cited source's opinion, and over those years Obama has used "Medz Yeghern" on multiple occasions but has never used the phrase "Armenian genocide" (despite having said it before becoming president). It is the repeated non-uttering of "Armenian genocide" and the use of "Medz Yeghern" instead that MULTIPLE sources say is a way of Obama avoiding mentioning the word "genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Diranakir and Tiptoethrutheminefield: When discussing content matters on highly controversial articles, I prefer not to use my OWNTALK page as a matter of transparency. My apologies for not following up my revert and changes on the article's talk page, but I'm pushing myself for time on Wikipedia with IRL obligations at the moment. To qualify, Diranakir, the GEVAL policy means exactly what the header describes it as being, that is "Giving 'equal validity' can create a false balance'. The use of extreme examples is merely an indicator of what it encompasses. The use of tit for tat content in order to negate the prominent academic position is precisely that, and is antithetical to NPOV. Requesting multiple references for something that is NOTSYNTH leads to WP:CITEOVERKILL. There are multiple RS to attest to it as being a denialist position, but forcing other editor's hands into providing these is a BATTLEGROUND position. Finally, my ES saying that 'I don't know' was a polite way of saying that I think that the source is a dud. I should have called it an op-ed piece in from a source that I've never heard of (and have never seen being used as a source anywhere else). If the opinion were attributed to an expert, it may have some merit... but it isn't, so it may as well be from a blog or forum for its reliability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Calling the source a 'dud' is not academic. It appears that your never having heard of it is what makes it a 'dud'. That does not make the case. Quoting the header also does not make the case. The source is entirely valid. There is nothing extreme about it. Diranakir (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's a dud... and I've explained to you in technical terms why it's a dud. It's an op-ed piece from an anonymous writer (probably a staff piece) in a source that only meets with WP:BIASED. Please stop edit warring this content back. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's no more a dud or an op-ed or outdated than the unsigned 1997 statement from the IAGS given in footnote 11 in the lede. Quit edit warring against valid content and defending a lopsided presentation of the matter. Diranakir (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see the comparison. IAGS is a scholarly community, and this is their stated, ongoing position (unless you have RS contradicting that it is still their position). How does this op-ed piece in an unknown quantity source eliciting its own opinion of what Obama 'meant' the second time he used "Meds Yeghern" rather than calling it the Armenian Genocide compare? Even the title - "Obama lawyer recognized Armenian Genocide: RA Council of Bar Association" - is misleading. It presents as if Obama's lawyer recognised the Armenian Genocide when, in fact, it's drawing on the Obama's being a lawyer... and that he is the lawyer being alluded to. It's badly written and is dependent on the assumption that it can read his mind. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the claim and the source. My point that it is an outdated source, inappropriate for content that relates to the sustained usage of Medz Yeghern by Obama long after the source was published, has not been countered. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)