Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Aghet inserted in the lede

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Your insertion of Aghet in the lede is not warranted. Aghet has no parity at all with Medz Yeghern, certainly was never traditional, does not belong before Medz Yeghern, and overburdens the lede. Please see the following quotations. The first is from the same work of Marc Nichanian which you selectively quote [emphasis supplied]: 'This event bears a name in Armenian, a name among others, a name that did not really prevail in popular consciousness and henceforth in everyday language, a name which is still waiting for its full understanding.This name is Aghed, which means Catastrophe, like Shoah in Hebrew. Aghed is the proper name of the event. This is why, here and elsewhere, I will write its translation, "Catastrophe"'. And another quotation, from Taline Voskeritchian : “I am not certain how many people in the US-Armenian community use the term aghét when they talk about the genocide, but they are perhaps two handfuls at the most.” From “Between Massacre and Genocide: On Eric Friedler’s ‘Aghét: Nation Murder,’” Jadaliyya, May 16, 2011 http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1591/between-massacre-and-genocide_on-eric-friedlers-ag Diranakir (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove referenced content for your personal pov reasons. The source says Aghet / catastrophe has been used to refer to the AG since at least the 1930s and is far more "traditional" than Medz Yeghern as well as predating its usage. In addition, since it is a term that is also not controversial or subject to mistranslation or euphemistic usage, it should be there before your "Medz Yeghern". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The "popular consciousness" that Nichanian is talking about is the popular consciousness of the wider world (contrasting it with the wider - i.e., non Jewish - world's recognition and understanding of the word "Shoah", the equivalent of "Aghet"). In "Armenian Van Vaspurakan", 2001, Nishanian writes about Gurgen Mahari, a Genocide survivor from Van, and his attempts in the 1930s at writing about "a disaster with no name, beyond all possibility of designation". There is no controversy regarding Aghet as being a name used by Armenians for the Armenian Genocide. "Marc Nishanian is Visiting Professor of Armenian Language and Civilisation at Clumbia University. He has lectured widely on .... responses to the Armenian Genocide or Aghet (Catastrophe)" - p432 "The Armenian Genocide: Cultural and Ethical Legacies", edited by Richard G. Hovannisian, 2011. And again in "Armenian Tsopk/Kharpert" from 2002, again edited by Richard G. Hovannisian, on page 33, "Nichanian, in a concluding essay, explores the life of Vahan Totovents ... before and after the Aghet, the "Catastrophe". In "Armenian Literary Responses to Genocide" by Rubina Peroomian, in "The Armenian Genocide, History, Politis, Ethics", 1992, the term "Medz Yeghern" is not used even once. Aghet, or "Catastrophe" are the terms used to name the Armenian Genocide. For example, on p222, "The topic of the genocide literature consists of not only literary works with the Catastrophe or Aghet as their theme but also works in which the event is a hidden motive." And an example of its usage in the 1930s is cited on p225: by Hagop Oshagian (1883-1948), "his later works in the 1930s, Mnatsordats ("Remnants", 1932-33), which he calls the novel of the Aghet...", and there is a quote from this book "..we are seeking a scapegoat to blame for the Aghet". The assertion in your cited article (by someone who seems to actually be boasting that she is ignorant and not part of any literary community or, god forbid, a European!) that its author is "uncertain" about the extent of the usage of Aghet is meaningless for here; "we speak of genocide, not aghét - and most of the time, in English" might as well be referring to the Medz Yeghern term which will be equally rare in everyday usage, or even rarer since the author does not even bother to mention it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You have no answer at all to Marc Nichanian's plain statement that Aghed is a name in Armenian that did not really prevail in popular consciousness and therefore did not prevail in everyday language. That statement sums up why it has no place in the lede. By 'popular consciousness', it is obvious that Nichanian is addressing the Armenian world. How could he be addressing the 'wider world' concerning a word that not even most Armenians used? Interesting how you could arrive at such an idea. The use of Aghed as a proper noun for the Armenian Genocide is far from traditional and has been mostly, and legitimately, confined to philosophical discourse and exploration. It certainly does not warrant a place ahead of Medz Yeghern in the lede, and putting it in that position is a travesty of encyclopedic standards as well as an undue verbal overload of the section.

Taline Voskeritchian is a distinguished academic and writer in her own right, as well as the granddaughter of Hagop Oshagan, one of the most important Armenian authors of modern times, a survivor of the Medz Yeghern, and a leading exponent of the concept of Aghed. Dismissing her as 'a nobody' does nothing to advance your argument, quite the contrary. And please note: it is not 'my Medz Yeghern'. Such terminology only shows disrespect for the term and trivializes it.

Concerning your 'source', it is presumed to be that described in your footnote 10, e. g., 'Marc Nichanian, "Writers of Disaster: Armenian Literature in the Twentieth Century, Volume 1, The National Revolution", Gomidas Institute, 2002, page 12.' However, the quotation offered is unfortunately not found on page 12, but rather page 11, complicating matters. Furthermore, your claim on this page that "the source says Aghet/catastrophe has been used to refer to the AG since at least the 1930s and is far more 'traditional' than Medz Yeghern as well as predating its usage" is nowhere to be found within the specified parameters. These sorts of discrepancies and misconceptions make fruitful discussion of the topic very difficult if not impossible. In short, you have distinctly failed to justify insertion of Aghet into the lede. Diranakir (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have given you a full and careful answer to Marc Nichanian's statement. I wrote that the "popular consciousness" that Nichanian is talking about is the popular consciousness of the wider world (contrasting it with the wider - i.e., non Jewish - world's recognition and understanding of the word "Shoah", the equivalent of "Aghet"). Nichanian is not talking about the popular consciousness of the word amongst Armenians, this is clear from the context. Nichanian also makes it clear that it was being used in the 1930s by Oshagian, and the Peroomian source I cited is more specific about the work. Nowhere in either source does it say that Oshagian coined the phrase or was the first to use it (unlike what Voskeritchian claims to have seen in the Nichanian source). The Taline Voskeritchian article is irrelevant to this issue - all the source does is confirm that the word Aghet is used as a name for the genocide. However, only in America could presenting yourself as an anti-intellectual, as she does in that article, be considered a merit. The majority of AG survivors did not settle in America, they settled in the middle east, in Greece, in France, etc., so their opinions and usages are of crucial importance and Voskeritchian's casual dismissal of those communities of Armenians is distasteful. The AG did not take place in North America, most of the survivors did not end up in North America, your edit warring to remove the word that the majority of survivors would have used to refer to the Genocide, a word that is supported by numerous sources, is contrary to numerous Wikipedia standards, including guidance against geographical bias. It is "your" Medz Yeghern because you have edit warred your pov of it into this article over the course of several years and it has been your main editing aims on Wikipedia for several years, to the extent that at times you are almost a single issue editor. I see your desire to delete Aghet as just a continuation of that pov editing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd much rather we reduce the amount of "also known as..." to a bare minimum in the first sentence of the lead. It already looks pretty confusing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: You say, 'Nichanian is not talking about the popular consciousness of the word amongst Armenians, this is clear from the context.' It is not at all clear to me. What in the context convinces you of that? Give me a line, a phrase, a page number, a hint that indicates he was talking about the 'wider word', not Armenians. I believe for most readers that idea is a non-starter. Diranakir (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nichanian work is a piece of academic writing intended for an international audience of his peers, not a parochial Armenian audience. His peers are not Armenians, his peers are academics (some of whom might be Armenian). The text wording will thus follow the standard of all academic writings intended for an international audience. Unless Nichanian explicitly says "Armenian popular consciousness" he will not mean Armenian when he writes "popular consciousness". And the context, his mention of the extent of the popular consciousness of the word Shoah amongst non-Jews, further indicates his meaning. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Nichanian is addressing anyone interested in the subject, peers or non-peers, Armenians or not, Armenians 'parochial' or otherwise. He is clearly saying that Aghed never really caught on among ordinary Armenians. His subsequent comparison of the meaning of Aghed and Shoah does not alter that fact. His subject is the Armenian world, knowledge of which he is conveying to an international readership. It is a self-induced chimera to see him, in this, addressing the frequency of use of Aghed among non-Armenians. Diranakir (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nichanian does not write "Armenian popular consciousness", so no amount of assertions by you that this is what he means makes it anything more than your assertion. And like your whole opposition argument, it is entirely meaningless. The Nichanian source indicates the term Aghet exists, and it and the numerous other sources I have presented indicate that it is an alternative name for what is generally known as the Armenian Genocide. I have also said that further discussion here is fruitless given the poverty of your arguments. Either retire your objection, allowing Aghet into the lead, or succinctly restate it at the moderated discussion [1]. I will not be responding to any more of your posts here unless you reject the moderated discussion offer. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

To Etienne Dolet: I agree and that is a large part of the reason I am against adding Aghet to the mix, but not the whole reason. I have stated myself as clearly as I can as to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If Aghet goes, then Medz Yeghern certainly must also go. In contrast to the online sources written by amateur or activist contributors cited for Medz Yeghern, those cited for Aghet are printed books by noted academics and thus of far greater status as sources. I urge Diranakir to desist with this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: 'If Aghet goes, then Medz Yeghern certainly must also go' shows breathtaking dogmatism and tremendous exaggeration of the significance of the bookish sources you have compiled. You can add another twenty or fifty of them, but it will not change the fact that Medz Yeghern lends its name to the Genocide Memorial in Yerevan and Aghed does not, and that the term Medz Yeghern is always a central part of Genocide commemorations around the world whereas Aghed is not. That makes them very different. I repeat, there is no parity at all between the two terms and your effort to equate them has no legitimacy whatsoever. Diranakir (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Claude Mutafian, from Nor Haratch (French weekly), issue 246, page 5, 28 January 2016, 'The Curse of the "Catastrophe" '

Ce terme de « catastrophe » est à reléguer aux oubliettes : c’est un mensonge, qui de plus donne des armes à l’adversaire. . . . Le plus extraordinaire film sur le Génocide, celui d’Eric Friedler, n’a qu’un défaut, son titre « Aghet 1915 ». On ne peut pas le reprocher à l’auteur, quand ce sont les Arméniens eux-mêmes qui véhiculent cette erreur !

This term 'catastrophe' should be consigned to oblivion: it is a lie that gives more ammunition to the opponent. . . . The most extraordinary film about the Genocide, the one by Eric Friedler, has just one fault, its title, "Aghet 1915". The author cannot be blamed, when it is Armenians themselves who transmit this error! Diranakir (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In the above you make it clear you are opposing entirely for pov reasons - you simply do not like the term "Aghet". This is the sort of opposition that has no validity on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Opposing what? What sort of opposition? Are you Wikipedia? Diranakir (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This sums up your opposition: WP:I just don't like it. You have expressed nothing that goes beyond that in your argument. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Pointing to WP guidelines is no answer. I presented a quotation from a historian which apparently rubbed you the wrong way. You translated this as 'my opposition'. So who is engaging in 'I don't like it'? I ask you again: my opposition to what? Opposition requires a direct object. What is the object you find me opposing? Or are you just throwing the English language around to convey your emotions without regard for meaning? Diranakir (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources mentioning "Aghet" as a name for the Armenian Genocide (in addition to the 4 sources cited earlier)
Mark Levene, "Devastation: Volume I: The European Rimlands 1912-1938", OUP Oxford, 2013. Page 96: "If the Armenian Genocide turns out to be part of a pattern of violence ... its singularity .. may itself be jeopardized. The Aghet was certainly not the first genocide of the twentieth century." And the index on page 529 has "Aghet (Armenian genocide)" listed. [2]
Mark Levene, "Genocide in the Age of the Nation State: Volume 1: The Meaning of Genocide", I.B.Tauris, 2005, page 70 has a section titled "The Armenian genocide (the Aghet): Attempted extermination of the Ottoman Armenians." [3]
Christian P Scherrer (ed) - Iraq: Silent Death. 2015. Has as Topic 8 "Turkish Genocide of Armenians (Aghet). [4]
Kristin Platt, Mihran Dabag - "Generation und Gedächtnis: Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitäten", Springer-Verlag, 2013, p193 "Die Armenier Haben einen .... Ermordung yeghern, dt. Verfolgungsungluck, und aghet, Katastrophe". [5]
Hannah Jones (ed), Emma Jackson (ed.), "Stories of Cosmopolitan Belonging: Emotion and Location", Routledge, 2014, page "... what Armenians term "the Aghet" (which translates as "catastrophe") ..." [6]
Günther Fuchs, Hans-Ulrich Lüdemann," Mördermord: Dokumente und Dialoge", 2012. Page 164, "Das titelwort "Aghet" bezeichnet im Armenischen (ahnlich wie Shoah im Hebraischen) das Unheil und die Katastrophe schlechthin". [7]
Rolf Hosfeld, "Tod in der Wüste: Der Völkermord an den Armeniern", C.H.Beck, 2015, has in its introduction "Aghet - Katastrophe - so nenned die Armenier jene grauenvollen Ereignisse, die im Fruhiahr 1915 begannen", has its first chapter titled "Aghet" where it says "Fur die Armenier das Aghet, die grose Katastrophe ..." [8]
Krikor Beledian, "L’Expérience de la Catastrophe dans la Littérature Arménienne" in Revue d'Histoire Arménienne Contemporaine no 1, 1995. [9] p5 of the pdf version has "C’est le mot aghéd qui a été le plus souvent employé pour nommer la catastrophe de 1915 et c’est à ce titre qu’une étude lexicale de celui-ci s’impose."
And a few online usage examples.
Assyrian International News Agency press release from 2010 "While Assyrians call the genocide Seyfo (Sword), Armenians refer to the events as Aghet (Catastrophe)." [10].
Christopher Atamian - The Armenian Genocide: A Selected Bibliography and Videography, "Books about the Armenian Genocide have been published on a regular basis since the calamitous events of the Aghet came to an end in 1923." [11]
There is also a large number of online sources about the 2010 documentary film titled "Aghet". Where they explain the meaning of the word Aghet they all essentially say the same thing, so I think quoting from the Wikipedia article is enough to sum them all up: "The documentary has been praised for introducing "Aghet", the Armenian term for the Turkish massacres, to an international audience".
Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with removing Medz Yeghern. Its modern definition is far from 'genocide', as far as I know. And isn't that what Obama called it? We all know that Obama refrains from acknowledging it as genocide. So that can create confusion for our readers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

That insincere Obama-type usage of Medz Yeghern is what I was thinking of when I said its "euphemistic usage". My preferred solution is to include both in the lead, but there is not a case that can be made to exclude Aghet and keep Medz Yeghern because Aghet has plenty of sources that justify it being there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Then why is it that if you type in Medz Yeghern, Meds Yeghern, or Mets Yeghern into the search field of any WP page it takes you to the AG article? No confusion there. Diranakir (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but renaming articles is different. There's thousands of words that may denote the AG. For example, we can add "Armenian tragedy", "Armenian atrocity", "Armenian extermination"....but we don't. There's no stop to the different names used to describe the AG. But look, I'm not calling for the removal of Medz Yeghern all together, it can be placed elsewhere in the article. I'm just thinking about the average English reader here who has to read Medz Yeghern, Tseghasbanutyun, Aghet, and all these other names in just the first sentence of the article. In other words, I'm for anything that'll make it easier for the English reader, and that's what counts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: My point was that if WP has no problem equating Medz Yeghern, Meds Yeghern, Mets Yeghern with the Armenian Genocide, why should you or any other proficient reader of English have a problem with its modern definition as genocide? Diranakir (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I get what you mean. But I think it would still be confusing. For example, Obama stated Mets Yeghern in his address, while every one in the world claims he refuses to recognize the AG. Mets Yeghern can't be considered genocide then, can it? Yet, when a curious English speaker searches Mets Yeghern, he'll be redirected to the AG article. I'm sure that can cause confusion. Anyways, I think we're digressing. Like I said, my main concern is the first sentence of the lead being bloated with alternate names. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been reading the postings of Tiptoethrutheminefield and I think that it would be extremely useful to know his/her credentials to judge about who is "nobody," who is "amateur or activist," or who is "noted academic." If s/he doesn't want to show them, which is perfectly right, then s/he should abstain from making value judgments. Also, it would be useful to know his credentials to judge about the more or less reliability of an article compared to another article or a book. It is not sheer chance that he dispatches a series of 11 (eleven) scholarly-written articles (which were not "online") with the words "amateur or activist," just because they don't fit his agenda. Finally, since s/he appears to be an extremely knowledgeable person in all matters related to the Armenian language, but unable to spell Aghed in Armenian with uppercase and unable to correctly read the English language (judging from his ludicrous interpretation of what Marc Nichanian has written and his obstinate insistence on it), one should be grateful if s/he could produce an article to prove that the majority of the survivors used Aghed and that Medz Yeghern means "Great Calamity," since the four-year-old edit warring of one previous reincarnation --which he took the pains of digging out from its archival grave -- falsifying the meaning of Medz Yeghern was unable to do it despite his/her considerable display of empty verbiage and zero proofs. He may pile up to death contemporary scholars that say "Aghed," but it doesn't prove anything. One can pile up an equal number of scholars saying "Medz Yeghern."

To Etienne Dolet: Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister of Canada, recognized the Armenian Genocide on April 19, 2006. Please take note that Harper wrote/quoted both "Medz Yeghern" and "Armenian genocide" in the same statement:

"I would like to extend my sincere greetings to all of those marking this somber anniversary of the Medz Yeghern.

Ninety-one years ago the Armenian people experienced terrible suffering and loss of life. In recent years the Senate of Canada adopted a motion acknowledging this period as “the first genocide of the twentieth century,” while the House of Commons adopted a motion that “acknowledges the Armenian genocide of 1915 and condemns this act as a crime against humanity.” My party and I supported those resolutions and continue to recognize them today."

Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, April 24, 2015 (idem, "Meds Yeghern" and "Armenian genocide" in the same sentence):

“Today, we commemorate the Meds Yeghern and honor those who perished in the Armenian genocide 100 years ago in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, when over a million Armenians were subjected to state-sanctioned murder, rape and massive forced deportations.”

So much for the "insincere Obama-type usage" and the remaining empty verbiage coming from your interlocutor.

Let me add another quotation that shows the equivalence of "anniversary of the Armenian Genocide" and "anniversary of Medz Yeghern":

"Next year will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. However, it is a well-known fact that the statutory limitation can’t be applied to the crimes against humanity. The 100th anniversary of Mets Yeghern is not an endpoint; it is just a unique destination" (Serzh Sargsyan, July 2014, Buenos Aires, in “Breaks Ground for Armenian Genocide Museum in Buenos Aires,” The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, July 18, 2014).

If you are worried about too many Armenian words in the lead, please note that there is only the Armenian literal translation of "Armenian Genocide" and the traditional name Medz Yeghern. No English reader will be confused for reading two names in Armenian. (Look at the beginning of the article "Holocaust.") Aghed is just an addition made with the purpose of muddying the waters and, in the end, causing the disappearance and/or displacement of Medz Yeghern. Let me remind you that "Armenian Genocide" is not the proper name of the genocide, but only the combination of a generic name for a type of crime and an ethnic name that has been uppercased for the past 30 or 40 years. Your examples of "Armenian tragedy," "Armenian atrocities," etc. are not pertinent, because those are not proper names. In any case, there wouldn't be any need to use them in the lead. Armen Ohanian (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Armenian extermination, for example, is cited by many scholars and more importantly, by contemporaneous witnesses of the AG. Even in Hovanissian's book, an academic notes: "the United States media (periodicals as well as newspapers) gave extensive coverage to what was then called the Armenian 'extermination.'" Hence, the contemporaneous witnesses are a big issue when it comes to the AG because the term 'genocide' wasn't coined at that time. That's why we have a plethora of words used by them that are now equally valid for inclusion in this article. So I can make a very good argument here to add many different words to the first sentence. But I won't, for the reasons I have mentioned in my previous comment. Right now, I see four names in bold in the first sentence of the lead that, in my view, are four too many. Armenian holocaust? Armenian massacres? Really? I think the redirects are suffice for that. So how bout this...why don't we place all of the alternative names in [note 3]. That way, the first sentence won't be so discombobulated. Here's a proposal for [note 3]:

Spelt Հայոց ցեղասպանութիւն in classical Armenian orthography. In English, the Armenian Genocide is also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime") etc. etc. etc.

Or we can just add all that information somewhere in the body. Perhaps in the Armenian_Genocide#Studies_on_the_Genocide section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

To Etienne Dolet: Some of your ideas seem worth to think about. I'll come back about them. Meanwhile, it is clear that witnesses would have used a dozen names, particularly in the first years or decades, as they did. I'm pretty sure I don't need to make a list for you here. However, when we speak about a particular *proper* name, as in the case of Medz Yeghern, we mean the name that became most used. I would be interested to see a sample of a dozen Armenian-language newspaper ads spread over the past hundred years (at least, their dates) that have announced the April 24 commemoration as "1915ի Աղէտի ոգեկոչում." If needed, I can offer a gazillion that have used "1915ի Մեծ Եղեռնի (or Ապրիլեան Եղեռնի) ոգեկոչում." That should mean something for the actual people who read those newspapers, right? If those are found, then we can start talking whether "Aghed is the most frequent name used to name the catastrophe of 1915" (my translation of Beledian's French quote), which means exactly that: the *catastrophe* of 1915 is called "Aghed," whereas the **crime** of 1915 is called "(Medz) Yeghern," and the catastrophe of 1915 wouldn't have existed if there wasn't a crime before: there is one reason why the Young Turk criminals were called եղեռնագործ (criminals) and not աղէտագործ ("catastrophe-doers," a word that doesn't exist in any language that I have been looked into, at least not in Armenian, English, French, Spanish, Turkish, or Italian).

By the way, I could argue that the Holocaust is called "hurban" by the Jews (which is not even a Hebrew, but a Yiddish name), because it was frequently used by the survivors in the first years, and impose it on the lead of the Holocaust article because "I" say so, and put fifty scholarly sources that repeat that to "prove" my point without even knowing Hebrew or Yiddish.

When I spoke about "Armenian extermination," I meant that it wasn't called "Armenian Extermination," with uppercase, which is the only way that it might have pretensions to be a proper name. (Otherwise, "Armenian genocide," with lowercase, is not a proper name; it is the simplified way to say "genocide of the Armenians," as you would say "Tutsi genocide" or "genocide of the .) The US media (say, the NYT) called it "extermination", not "Armenian Extermination" or even "Armenian extermination," as your own citation makes clear, so they didn't give it a name. Proper names usually come after the event, not during the event. Armen Ohanian (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Tell me then Armen Ohanian, what was the proper name for the AG prior to the term 'genocide' being coined? I can't think of one, but I'm sure there's probably dozens. I've stumbled upon many: Armenian Catastophe, Armenian Tragedy, etc. etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

To Etienne Dolet: if you're asking about names in Western languages, I think that the most usual name was "Armenian Massacres," capitalized. This is the most frequent one I have stumbled-open in the English-language press of the time until 1965 at least. (I believe this is the reason that name has been in the lead for several years, at least since 2010, if I'm not mistaken.) I have mostly seen "Armenian catastrophe," "Armenian tragedy," "Armenian extermination" in lower case, which means that these are not proper names in English. However, this is not what this thread has been discussing. The discussion centers around the suitability of "Aghed" as proper name. On this, we may say a few things:

a) If we consider "Aghed" an Armenian proper name for the annihilation of 1915, we have also to consider whether this name was systematically used to communicate with the public. This why I have said that it is not a matter of piling up a dozen of secondary sources (mostly non-Armenians who don't know a iota of Armenian, and are simply repeating what they have read elsewhere). If someone wants to prove that "Aghed" must be up there and, moreover, as first choice of Armenian proper name, then s/he has to show that it has been more relevant that "Medz Yeghern" from 1915 to 2015. How do you do it? By going to the sources. As I wrote before, newspapers are one such source. Go and find ads in Armenian for the anniversaries. If someone finds a dozen that say "Xth anniversary of the Aghed" over the course of the years, this would amount to something.

b) It has been written before: "Nichanian work is a piece of academic writing intended for an international audience of his peers, not a parochial Armenian audience. His peers are not Armenians, his peers are academics (some of whom might be Armenian). The text wording will thus follow the standard of all academic writings intended for an international audience. Unless Nichanian explicitly says "Armenian popular consciousness" he will not mean Armenian when he writes "popular consciousness". And the context, his mention of the extent of the popular consciousness of the word Shoah amongst non-Jews, further indicates his meaning."

This is, as the author of those lines is fond to say, built entirely out of sheer personal POV (the emphasis and the uppercase are mine). Of course, Nichanian writes for whoever can read in English (or the original French). Anyone writing on this "Talk" page writes for an international audience! The only way to write for a "parochial Armenian audience," as it is implied by this insulting comment, is to write in the "parochial" Armenian language. And the POV wants to make us believe that "unless Nichanian explicitly says... further indicates his meaning." I'm not going to quote page 11-12 of Nichanian's "Writers of Disaster" to prove that the author of the abovementioned paragraph doesn't know/want to read (read = "to have the ability to look at and comprehend the meaning of written or printed matter") those two pages. I'm going to quote from his dialogue with David Kazanjian (David Kazanjian and Marc Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” in David L. Eng and David Kazanjian (ed.), Loss: The Politics of Mourning, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003, p. 128):

“Now, how Armenians "suppressed" this word, Aghed? Not really. We could say so if the word had been in use at some place or some time during this century and had been supplanted by (for me) the ominous and disgusting one of "Genocide," ominous and disgusting because of its use as a proper name. But this is not really the case” (emphasis added).

Here, Nichanian explicitly says "if the word had been in use at some place or some time during this century." In plain English, the use of the conditional means the word was not in use at some place or some time. Of course, this is not entirely true. The word was used here and there; it appeared uppercased in some cases, but it didn't have a systematic, easily recognizable and identifiable use, unlike "Medz Yeghern." It was used along with the other names employed here and there. Because it has been said that I only write pov and not facts, here is a source from someone who has actually researched newspaper editorials:

"Survivors of the Armenian Genocide used a number of terms to refer to the destruction of their people in the Ottoman Empire. In the editorials under study, the term most commonly and consistently used from the 1920s to the present is Yeghern (Crime/Catastrophe), or variants like Medz Yeghern (Great Crime) and Abrilian Yeghern (the April Crime). Other terms include Hayasbanutyun (Armenocide), Medz Voghperkutyun (Great Tragedy), Medz Vogchagez (Great Holocaust), Medz Nahadagutyun (Great Martyrdom), Aghed (Catastrophe), Medz Nakhjir and Medz Sbant (both, Great Massacre), Medz Potorig (Great Storm), Sev Vojir (Black Crime) and, after 1948, Tseghasbanutyun (Genocide), or variants like Haygagan Tseghasbanutyun and Hayots Tseghasbanutyun (both, Armenian Genocide).

Yeghern was the word most frequently used when referring to the destruction of the Armenians before the term 'genocide' was coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944 and incorporated into the 1948 UN Genocide Convention. Even after that, Yeghern maintained its prominence for a number of decades" (Khatchig Mouradian, "Explaining the Unexplainable: The Terminology Employed by the Armenian Media when Referring to 1915," The Armenian Weekly, September 23, 2006).

Now, some of the translations are debatable in my opinion (yeghern, nakhjir, and sbant), but that's beside the point. I only wanted to show where Aghed stood in the post-1915 panorama of vocabulary on the genocide.

c) Beledian has written "It is the word "aghed" that has been the most frequently employed to name the catastrophe of 1915..."

The fact is that Beledian writes in lowercase; I believe that we all know here that there is a clear-cut difference between a common name and a proper name. If 1915 was a catastrophe, which it was, then it was naturally going to be said that "it is a catastrophe." It is quite interesting the following comment:

"Selon Krikor Beledian, le terme le plus communément employé dans la littérature arménienne moderne pour rendre compte du processus d’anéantissement programmé qu’est 1915 est la « catastrophe » (aghéd). [According to Krikor Beledian, the term most commonly employed in Armenian modern literature to give an account of the process of programmed extermination that is 1915 is "catastrophe" (aghed) (emphasis added]. Pour une histoire de ce concept voir « L’expérience de la catastrophe dans la littérature arménienne », Revue d’Histoire arménienne contemporaine, 1995, tome 1" (Martine Hovannessian, "Diaspora arménienne et patrimonialisation d’une mémoire collective : l’impossible lieu du témoignage ?," Les cahiers de Framespa, 3, 2007, https://framespa.revues.org/314).

So, we may say that Beledian, who makes a masterful study of literary works of the 1930s in his article of 1995, talks about Armenian modern literature and not the entire spectrum of the Armenian language. In any case, his quotation, which has also been unfairly exploited as a "cheval de bataille," does not say "It is the word Aghed that has been the most frequently employed proper name to name the catastrophe of 1915..."

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)

All of the above, with the exception of the wording of the lead suggestion, is OR and so can be dismissed as OR, though I expect we will soon see a new article on Armenian Weekly containing similar content. I absolutely oppose the aforementioned suggestion. It is a sideline - it does not address the insertion of Aghet (which is the subject of this discussion) - and it contains propaganda text, the "inside their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey" lie, and the pov "Great Crime" translation while omitting the alternative translation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are, of course, in a Catch-22 situation: if you write something without a shower of sources, it is POV. If you toss several sources to back your saying, it is OR. Unless you're, of course, the one and only who is the arbiter of truth, whose cherrypicking from the beginning of this thread is and should be dismissed as OR, and who works by denigrating whoever and whatever doesn't suit his views as OR and/or POV.

To summarize:

1) I have addressed the insertion of Aghed, and rejected by quoting a source that says more than your piled-up secondary references, and explaining what the main sources that you have carefully misinterpreted actually say.

2) "Carried [out] inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey" tries to address the fact that Armenians were annihilated inside the portion of their historical homeland lying within present day-Turkey, as well as around it, meaning the rest of Asiatic Turkey. There is no lie there. Of course, the phrasing can be improved. Perhaps the sentence might be rewritten into two sentences.

3) Since you appear to know Armenian so well, please enrich our knowledge with a study of the "alternative translation" that proves its reliability. The articles that you dismiss as the work of "activists" are based on primary linguistic and literary sources to show what, of course, is sheer "pov" for you. Armen Ohanian (talk) 20:45, 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)

"C’est le mot "aghéd" qui a été le plus souvent employé pour nommer la catastrophe de 1915 et c’est à ce titre qu’une étude lexicale de celui-ci s’impose." ("It is the word "aghed" that has been the most often used to name the catastrophe of 1915, and as such a lexical study of it is essential") - p131, Krikor Beledian, "L'expérience de la catastrophe dans la littérature arménienne", in "Revue d’histoire arménienne contemporaine", No. 1, 1995. Armen Ohanian brings no sources and, like Diranakir, an argument built almost entirely out of personal pov, plus something new - snide personal attacks. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, you don't need to quote once again Beledian's passage to tell me what I have known for 20 years, since the article was first published, and if you're talking about "snide personal attacks," please look at your own record. I already brought you plenty of reasoning about facts that you are unable to figure out, because you can only rely on translations or secondary sources, and you think that piling up fifty sources saying the same is a way to open room to your own pov. Because you simply don't have arguments, you use the "best defense is offense" argument. If you want me to start piling you original sources in the Armenian language that you will surely be able to read, just let me know. Meanwhile, now I'm telling you: put together a dozen of Armenian-language examples of newspaper ads that gave the name "Aghed" to the event in 1915 at any moment of the past hundred years. I'm pretty sure your advanced knowledge of the language will help you find them easily. If you do it, then you will have a point that Aghed had a real use in real life, rather than being a word mostly used in literature, and today, by accomplished philosophers and literary critics (not historians, not political scientists, not genocide scholars) like Beledian and Nichanian, whose scholarship I know in detail, starting with their Armenian writings. In case you haven't noticed, I'll remind you: one says that Aghed is "most frequently used to name the catastrophe of 1915" (I told you what it means, and you simply dismiss it as "pov" and/or "snide personal attacks"), the other says that "Aghed" did not really prevail in popular consciousness and therefore did not prevail in everyday language, and when told you, you invent your pov explanation of "the popular consciousness of the wider world," which has no ground whatsoever. You just need to read Nichanian a little more than a random page of "Writers of Disaster," in case you want to really understand what he means (which, I'm afraid, you don't really want because it won't suit your own personal viewpoints, abundantly exposed before). And if you think that piling up contemporary works of scholars (which is the only source you may have, because the Internet doesn't readily furnish you the actual Armenian sources to pick and choose without context, as you love to do) may convince anyone that you have a point, feel free to live in your world of delusion. Armen Ohanian (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see an obvious overloading of the lead. If Aghet and Medz Yeghern are excluded from it then they will need to be inserted and explained somewhere else in the article. However, there is not a legitimate argument to include (be it in the lead or elsewhere) "Medz Yeghern" and exclude "Aghet". I have presented plenty of suitable sources that explicitly show Aghet is a name used to refer to the event more generally known as the Armenian Genocide - and of course it predates the term "Armenian Genocide" since it predates the coining of the word "genocide". In addition, I have earlier mentioned my intention to improve the Portrayal in the media subsection, to perhaps change its title to something like "Artistic responses to the Genocide" and to include content on that, with the content based on what sources have written about artistic responses rather than a mere list of titles. Those sources often mention "Aghet", never "Medz Yeghern", which would make the exclusion of Aghet as an alternative name quite ludicrous. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Since numerous additional sources have been presented to show that the word is used as a name for the Armenian Genocide, and in the absence of any legitimate arguments against its addition, I have restored "Aghet" to the lead until it is decided whether both Aghet and Medz Yeghern should be removed from the lead or remain in it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Some related discussions from the archives:
[12] - Discussion on variations in the translation of "Medz Yeghern". Diranakir opposes an alternative translation, "Great Calamity", despite sources being presented that have this translation.
[13] - Discussion on whether "Armenian Holocaust" should be inserted into the lead as an alternative name for the Armenian Genocide. In it, Diranakir argues that it should be inserted, saying "'Common use' is not a standard that can be mechanically applied to Armenian matters. The purpose of the article is to inform, give historical perspective, That is what the alternative terms after Genocide do". But, in his opposition to "Aghet" here, he is arguing the exact opposite!
I think these two discussions reveal Diranakir's agenda - that of Armenian activists in North America obsessed with obtaining Armenian Genocide recognition at a political level and wishing to usurp the real meaning of terms in order to make all references or words used for the Armenian Genocide appear to unequivocally support the "genocide" assertion. He is for "Armenian Holocaust" because it has the word "holocaust" in it, he is against "Aghet" because it does not. He is for "Medz Yeghern" being translated as "Great Crime" because it has the word "crime" in it; he is against "Medz Yeghern" being translated as "Great Calamity" because it does not have the word "crime" in it.
Diranakir's editing regarding "Medz_Yeghern" and the "Great Crime" translation
At [14] we have the observation "Is it acceptable for a wikipedia editor to use a large number of recently written articles by the same person to support what looks like an on-going personal agenda? Especially since some of those articles seem to have been written after this discussion about "Great Crime" translation began on Wikipedia". I wrote this (I was new to Wikipedia then and forgot about the signing thing), and the editor I refer to is Diranakir. The "same person" is Vartan Matiossian. Diranakir and Armen Ohanian, opposers of both "Great Calamity" and "Aghet", have worked on the Vartan Matiossian Wikipedia article, an article which was created by a single issue editor and which is almost entirely unsourced. I see an attempt to influence Wikipedia content by producing off-Wikipedia material in order to use that material to support on-Wikipedia content. See this, yet another discussion on the "Great Calamity" / "Great Crime" translation issue[15]. In it Diranakir presents 11 sources for the "Great Crime" translation. All of them are recent, are by the same person (Matiossian), and are published in the same source. I observed at the time "Matiossian has gone to the bother of writing article after article aggressively asserting that the only translation of "Mets Yeghern" can be "Great Crime" because there is an existing controversy about that translation and because there are alternative translations being used". Thanks to relentless low-scale edit warring, Diranakir has been able to exclude sourced content he does not like (alternative translations and alternative terms) and distort the lead of this article for his own agenda, turning the content mentioning the various alternative terms for the Armenian Genocide into a mirror image of a Matiossian ideal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Since we're delving into the archives, let us get it all out into the sunshine. Did you withdraw the comments or not? Here they are for everyone to see without having to leave this page and to show the calibre of thought being exercised [emphasis supplied]:

Is it acceptable for a wikipedia editor to use a large number of recently written articles by the same person to support what looks like an on-going personal agenda? Especially since some of those articles seem to have been written after this discussion about "Great Crime" translation began on Wikipedia (That is why I think it important to know whether the author of the cited articles and Diranakir might be the same person, and for that reason I can't see how it is a personal insult to do it. Are articles being written in other sources as direct responses to problems the author has had in getting his pov placed into this wikipedia article?). Why is Diranakir so against any compromise, such as placing the "great calamity" translation, which is supported by sources, into the article? EtienneDolet is right - the Armenian Genocide wikipedia article is in such a problematic state that to continually and exclusively dwell on this one tiny issue shows a complete lack of proportion by someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.242.66 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The personal attacks on me with provocative suggestions that I am the same person whose work I cited have gone too far. A full and fair discussion was held to arrive at the definition of Medz Yeghern presently reflected in the lead paragraph of the article. All sides made compromises. It is unfortunate that reckless claims of a personal nature have now intruded this page to obscure the productive discussion held. Diranakir (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you feel my question amounted to a personal attack then I do apologise - it was not meant to be seen like that. I felt it was an acceptable question, but because you clearly think it is not, I withdraw it.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Diranakir - since both myself and EtienneDolet have moved such of our comments that are relevant to content discussion out of this section, and that I have withdrawn my question, would you agree that it is OK to now delete this section from the talk page? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Diranakir (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Your speculation about my motives and your description of 'Armenian activists in North America obsessed with obtaining Armenian Genocide recognition at a political level' are simply egregious. Your attempts at a psychological approach are ill-conceived. Medz Yeghern does not have two definitions, either of which can be chosen according to one's agenda. But it seems a vital matter for you to use the concept of calamity in naming the Genocide in the lede. When it could no longer be used to define Medz Yeghern, you discovered aghet. The interesting point in this is that, yes, aghet means catastrophe and has always meant catastrophe, which is precisely why you were in error stubbornly trying to attach its meaning to yeghern all along. In consequence, Medz Yeghern has no value for you any longer and you are grooming a new stand-in for it. That's why you called it 'your Medz Yeghern', meaning me. No, it isn't mine. It has been and will remain at the center of Armenian Genocide commemorations around the world and the lede. Diranakir (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Once more, Tiptoe attacks the person instead of dealing with the issues on their merits. Seeing a series of scholarly articles as aggression is indeed a novelty in literary criticism. Maybe all the presses should be stopped until aggression is certifiably rooted out. Who knows, one of them might be cited by a Wikipedian. Diranakir (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed moderated discussion elsewhere [16] because I think that this talk page discussion has reached an end of its usefulness. I have linked the archived discussions so that they can be looked at and your stance here can be understood to be part of a longer editing history. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

A notice to all concerned. The following statement at Dispute Resolution is in error: ' There has been adequate discussion at the talk page.' Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)'. This discussion is still very much underway and should not be closed off without the consent of all the parties involved. The issue at stake is of serious importance and much remains to be dealt with. Diranakir (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do I take it from the above that you are rejecting the proposal of moderated discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Three of the four parties to this discussion have reached a satisfactory compromise and agreed on the following wording for the first sentence of the lede: "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 out inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey." Diranakir (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if we should simply limit the alternative names to legalistic names of the Armenian Genocide. In other words, let's use less traditional and emotive names (which often times creates vague interpretations) and retain more precise alternative names for the AG. For example, Mets Yeghern, Armenian Holocaust, Armenian Massacres all have legal connotations to them. Can we say for certain that Aghet has the same legal signification as these alternative names? To me Aghet is emotive, it can be used for any tragedy or catastrophe, such as a lost of a loved one or if your house gets burnt down. The same can't be said for Holocaust, Massacres, or Mets Yeghern. Just a thought. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Diranakir and Armen Ohanian are you both in favor of excluding Aghet in the body as well? Or just the first sentence? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet If I understand you correctly, I agree that the names that have legal connotations are the most appropriate for the lede. I think the agreement we reached above presents two precise terms, one in English and one in Armenian (Armenian Genocide and Medz Yeghern), that succinctly and adequately address that standard. Aghed clearly does not belong in the same category, being a broad term that some apply to the mass killings of Armenians from 1894 to 1923 and others apply to the annihilations that began in 1915. It also has no legal connotations. I have no objection to its being mentioned in the body or in Note 3, being an important part of the literature on the genocide, but not in the lede overshadowing Medz Yeghern, which still occupies a unique role in Armenian discourse and has its name inscribed in genocide memorials around the world.

There are two main reasons I initiated this discussion: in addition to the four names for the Genocide found in the first sentence of the lede, which you already considered excessive, Tiptoe added Aghet. Not only that, he placed it ahead of Medz Yeghern and made the adjectival phrase '[known] traditionally by Armenians' seem to apply to it, whereas that is totally false. It only relates to Medz Yeghern.

The other reason is that Aghet, while a meaningful term in literary, philosophical and scholarly treatments of the genocide, is in no way on a par with Medz Yeghern in terms of its popular and commemorative significance. Placing it in the lede gives the false impression that it is. The following concise wording for the lede is an effective, truthful and straightforward way to introduce the article. It is what we agreed upon:

'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 out inside and around their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey.' Diranakir (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add my 2 cents about this issue, as someone who is quite knowledgeable about much of the writing on the topic, and about what Armenians in the Diaspora and Armenia say. I have only heard the term Aghet used in one place in my life, ever. The movie. And I did not know what it meant. I also don't hear Armenians use the term Medz Yeghern really, for that matter. I know it has a history of use, but there is no question that Armenians call it the genocide in English or Armenian the vast majority of the time. If anything was to come in a distant second I would say it's simply calling it THE massacre in Armenian (chart@), and calling that period (charti aden - the time of THE massacre). So I have to say I don't see Aghet as a useful addition, especially in such a prominent place. Maybe in a section where the terminology and such are discussed, it could warrant a mention. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, there is a difference between what people call the event in colloquial language or what call them in writing (I'm always talking about the Armenian language, not English), but when you talk about the history of a name, it is basically what is fixed in writing. That's why I asked to find the use of Aghed as the name of the event in media advertisements, for if they called it Aghed, it would mean that the receptors would understand what it meant. The "objector of conscience" who speaks of Armenian language matters every two years as if he knew the language has now discovered the existence of Aghed as a mean to disrupt the beginning of the article, and piled up sixteen sources, as if to asphyxiate us under its weight. (I can pile up fifty sources that tell you that Armenians are monophysite; it doesn't give me the right to write that the Armenian Church is monophysite.) I have already shown beyond doubt --called POV by this "king of misinterpretation"-- that 1) Aghed was/is not part of "popular consciousness" (Raffi Kojian's remark reflects that), 2) It was one of many other names, far below Medz Yeghern. I would also suggest to go and look for any inscription on any memorial of the genocide throughout the world (because it was argued that "the majority of AG survivors did not settle in America, they settled in the middle east, in Greece, in France, etc., so their opinions and usages are of crucial importance") that has used the word Aghed in the past 80 years or so. Therefore, I stand for what I suggested for the lead. If someone is willing to open a section on the history of names of the genocide and to include Aghed in there (its usefulness within the context of this article is another issue) with a careful discussion of its actual literary-philosophical meaning, that's a completely different subject. Armen Ohanian (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

With all due respects, Raffi, but your argument is a non-argument for Wikipdia. Personal ignorance of the fact of its use is not a reason to exclude that fact of its use. And the opposite is also true; personal knowledge of a fact is not a reason to include that fact (since it would be OR). Wikipedia content is based on published sources, intelligently used, and needs to reflect what sources are saying. So there has to be sources for everything. 16 sources have been presented that state, without any shades of doubt, that Aghet (or its variant Aghed) used as a Proper Name is a word that is used as a name for the Armenian Genocide. Nobody (i.e., no source, which is all that matters) is saying it is the most used, however there are sources saying it is the most used Armenian word (excluding of course "Armenian Genocide" directly translated into Armenian). Most used Armenian word means most used in total, not the most common in use today. There are far more academic works stating that Aghet = Armenian Genocide than Medz Yeghern = Armenian Genocide (check Google Books). (And incidentally, many of the Medz Yeghern = Armenian Genocide sources DO NOT translate it as "Great Crime"). Please do not in a way continue the Genocide by denying one of the names, the most eloquent and precious one at that, that its survivors used to self-identify their experiences. Nichanian writes "Aghed is a secret word for the event". You should check out some of the thoughtful and carefully-considered writing by Nichanian on "Aghet", and contrast it with the crude, thuggish, short-term, and firmly North American polemics of Matiossian on "Medz Yeghern"". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, people are good at trying to masquerade themselves as the apologists of humanity and to shed crocodile tears: "Please do not in a way continue the Genocide by denying one of the names, the most eloquent and precious one at that, that its survivors used to self-identify their experiences." As if they were not in the actual business of "denying one of the names, the most eloquent and precious one at that" and trying to impose their utter ignorance of the Armenian language.

Since you have already taken up the pseudo-business of speaking on behalf of the survivors (your "predecessor" did exactly that... four years ago), please let me enlighten you with another quote from Nichanian: "Yes, the survivors are sometimes using this name [Aghed] as a proper name for the event, but very scarcely" (David Kazanjian and Marc Nichanian, “Between Genocide and Catastrophe,” in David L. Eng and David Kazanjian (ed.), Loss: The Politics of Mourning, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2003, p. 127, emphasis added). Do you need me to translate this into plain English? Moreover, here is something about why "Aghed is a secret word for the event," which you thuggishly detach from its context as usual (the standard way for misinterpretation): "Now I repeat: if there is a loss, it can only be the loss of a law. The catastrophic loss is the loss of the law of mourning. And what makes it "catastrophic" is not the loss itself, in itself. There is no recovering from this loss. What makes it catastrophic is the fact that it has to be denied, that is denied in the very moment that it happens. This is why "Catastrophe" [Aghed] is but the secret name of what happened" (idem). Armen Ohanian (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Armen Ohanian, your continual use of personal attacks in the form of abusive language will not be tolerated any further. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Four out of five contributors to this discussion have concurred that 'Aghet (Catastrophe)' does not belong in the lede. Three have preliminarily agreed on an abbreviated version of the lede which drops Armenian Massacres and Armenian Holocaust in the interests of readability. Diranakir (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, as a complete newcomer who has just skimmed the article, and only saw this discussion over at the WP:DRN, my view is that only one Armenian term for the genocide should be used in the lead, as long as we're going to have two other English names and the full thing in a foreign script. Frankly, I would vote for removing all of those alternate names until the second sentence, because it is just irrelevant to the vast majority of readers.

As for which Armenian term to use? I think the simplest method, like counting Google scholar and Google book hits, should be used.

Note that I say this as someone who, on the WP:DRN page, felt instinctively that Aghet should be used, because I thought that it might have some particular significance for victims, and I think it's important that histories respect victim experiences. (Oh, and the reasoning on WP:DRN was very persuasive, whether manipulative or not, in which the writer explained that the only reason for objection was due to the personal whims of the objectors.) However, now that I see the actual text, it's already quite unwieldy and the last thing we should do is pile on more unfamiliar words.

I want to emphasize again that I think the current first sentence is already far too inside baseball. Just two cents from a complete outsider. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cleopatran Apocalypse: I appreciate your interest in the topic. A fresh perspective is always helpful.

Let me ask you a question to get down to brass tacks. You say, 'However, now that I see the actual text, it's already quite unwieldy and the last thing we should do is pile on more unfamiliar words.' That being so, do you think Aghet should be added to the others or rather take their place as the only Armenian name?

One more question: What was 'very persuasive' about the posting at WP:DRN which attributed 'personal whims' to those objecting to Aghet? The objectors posted good faith explanations of their positions. Is the mere charge somehow meritorious in and of itself, or wouldn't it need some evidence that goes beyond the author's unsupported assertion? Diranakir (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

To your last point first: of course the charge is not meritorious. But I assumed it was true, and who could object to support if it was indeed so? But then I scanned the conversation and felt slightly taken in by the DRN summary. Clearly the objections to Aghet are not because "I personally don't like it."

Anyway, I made my opinion clear: I think burdening the first sentence with yet another foreign term is unnecessary. Pick either Aghet or Medz Yeghern. I don't understand the substantive difference or cultural connotations between them. I suggest simply using the one that is most widely used and accepted and adopted in the best sources. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, Cleopatran Apocalypse. If Diranakir wished to dismiss the assertion that his argument against Aghet is substantially "I don't like it" material, he should have taken up the offer of moderated discussion at WP:DRN. That forum gave the opportunity to restate arguments carefully and structurally and free from all the disorder of a talk page. The suggestion to have only one alternative name in the lede has to be founded on what sources say. If sources say there is more than one alternative, or more than one English translation of only one alternative, that makes the suggestion all but impossible to follow if we want to maintain a npov. However, I think the lede length issue has become a distraction because nothing is solved even if all the alternative terms were removed from the lede. Diranakir position is against mention of Aghet anywhere in the article (even though 14+ sources have been presented for its use) and all alternative translations (even though numerous sources have translations other than "Great Crime") of Metz Yeghern deleted from the article, be it in the lede's first sentence, or elsewhere in the lede, or anywhere in the body content. If I am misinterpreting Diranakir's position, he can easily correct my misinterpretation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There are ongoing issues with "Medz Yeghern" that do have cultural and political connotations. President Obama before becoming president used the word genocide to define what other presidents had just called "a tragedy" or suchlike euphemisms. When president he searched around for a way to not mention the genocide word again, in order to not offend Turkey. He settled on calling it "Medz Yeghern", which was usually translated (if at all) as something like "great tragedy" or "great calamity". As a response, Armenian activists in North America began promoting the "Great Crime" translation, so that they could say Obama was accusing Turkey of having committed a great crime. The main source for the "Great Crime" translation argument is a series of recent articles in the Armenian Revolutionary Federation affiliated newspaper Armenian Weekly (source for this statement: "For more on the etymology and historical usage of the term Medz Yeghern, see Vartan Matiossian's eleven articles in Armenian Weekly" [[17]]. Diranakir has been citing these articles as sources for "Great Crime"). The exclusion of Aghet is part of the same process - ideologically, Medz Yeghern / Great Crime is now the only permitted term and translation allowable. I admit it all sounds rather petty, but it has serious issues in that the meaning of words are being altered and genuine history is being distorted or eliminated. And it seriously distorts Wikipedia's editing standards by excluding sourced material and making content obey what recently-produced opinion piece sources say is correct. It is also giving undue weight to North American current opinions and sources, given that the genocide did not take place in America and the majority of its survivors did not settle in America. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: The following statement was posted by you today at 16:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC):

'Diranakir position is against mention of Aghet anywhere in the article (even though 14+ sources have been presented for its use) and all alternative translations (even though numerous sources have translations other than "Great Crime") of Metz Yeghern deleted from the article, be it in the lede's first sentence, or elsewhere in the lede, or anywhere in the body content. If I am misinterpreting Diranakir's position, he can easily correct my misinterpretation.'

Your interpretation is completely and absolutely false. The following is my correction:

'I have no objection to its being mentioned in the body or in Note 3, being an important part of the literature on the genocide. . . .' signed by me at 06:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC) in this very thread. Diranakir (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you insisting that "Medz Yeghern" remain in the lede and that it is the ONLY alternative term allowed in the lede? Or will you agree to removing all the "also known as ..." alternative terms, including Medz Yeghern? If the former, how do you address the obvious npov issues, given that numerous sources exist for the alternative terms you want excluded, as many or more sources as those that exist for "Medz Yeghern". BTW, Diranakir, there is no need to make verbatim duplications of my text - just reply to my question below the post containing my question and indent your reply to indicate it is a continuation of the same conversation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: There is no use raising further questions until you have forthrightly and unequivocally acknowledged that you made a serious error at 16:35 above in your allegation concerning my position and assure me that before you make remarks about me and my positions you will carefully read the contents of the thread. Diranakir (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? Sigh, OK. I forthrightly and unequivocally acknowledge that Diranakir has replied to the call for a clarification of his position detailed in my "If I am misinterpreting Diranakir's position, he can easily correct my misinterpretation" request, and has clarified his position and corrected my misinterpretation. Now, to make progress, Diranakir, could you please also clarify your position regarding exclusivity of Metz Yeghern in the lead? My position is that it is pov to cherrypick it to be the only alternative term there since plentiful sources exist detailing alternative terms. I also do not see a functional reason why the lede cannot contain four alternative terms, one more than present, and still remain perfectly readable. But if it is decided that four is one or two too many, to ensure agreement with sources and to maintain npov, all the alternatives need to leave the lead; I suggest a new section within the article to deal with them all together.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar results
Aghet + Armenian Genocide, 66 results [18]
Aghed + Armenian Genocide, 48 Results.[19]
Medz Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 60 results [20]
Medz Yeghern + Great Crime, 19 results [21]
Medz Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 13 results [22]
Medz Yeghern + Great Calamity, 9 results [23]
Mets Yeghern + Armenian Genocide, 15 results [24]
Mets Yeghern + Great Crime, 3 results [25]
Mets Yeghern + Great Catastrophe, 3 results [26]
Mets Yeghern + Great Calamity, 4 results [27]

There seems to be no overlap in the alternative spellings. There is overlap in the Medz Yeghern / Mets Yeghern translations, the same source will often give two alternative translations. The results show that of the two terms, the most common term used in sources in association with the term "Armenian Genocide" is "Aghet" or its alternative spelling "Aghed", with 114 hits in total. "Medz Yeghern" and its alternative spelling "Mets Yeghern" get 75 hits in total. "Medz Yeghern" on its own gets 81 hits, "Mets Yeghern" on its own gets 19 hits, "Aghet" means something in other languages so results for "Aghet" on its own are not usable. Armenian Genocide on its own gets 13,000 results, which indicates that the both alternative terms rarely get mentioned in sources (an argument perhaps for both being removed). "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. But obsolescence could also be an argument for exclusion from the lede. Armenian Massacres" gets 2760 but those results will include massacres before 1915. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I present the following as a sober scholarly assessment of the importance of the role of the word yeghern in naming the Armenian Genocide. Google Scholar hits may be informative, but they are not dispositive.

From "The Word Yeghern and the Semantic Field of its Equivalence in English" by Seda Gasparyan - Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor Armenological Researches Institute of YSU, Armenian Folia Anglistika. International Journal of English Studies. No1-2 (7), Yerevan, Lusakn Publishers, 2010, pp. 138-148. [emphasis supplied]:

"The word calamity (աղետ) used in this context may be characterized as a lexical unit with an extremely general and non-differentiated semantic meaning. From a study of the wide array of synonyms of calamity in dictionaries of English synonyms18 (1. trouble, distress, misfortune, misery, unhappiness, affliction; referring to an instance of what is calamitous: trouble, misfortune, misery, distress, disaster /implying unforeseen and adverse forces/, catastrophe /with implications of finality/, blow, scourge /implies severe and continued calamity/; curse/spec./ fatality) the following conclusion may be drawn: although any tragedy or evil, including wars, massacres and devastations may be termed a disaster in the broadest sense, the word calamity appears unable to convey the global meaning of the Armenian Genocide in all its manifestations.'

Then follows 'Conclusion: the adequate English equivalent of yeghern (եղեռն)'. In answer to the ultimate question of the article, i. e., what the adequate English equivalent of yeghern is, Gasparyan concludes with a diagram that consists of an arc of 11 crimes ranging from left to right, each pointing directly down to the word "yeghern/genocide" centered beneath it. The five terms on the left are: "destruction of language (crime), carnage (crime), massacre, mass killing (crime), victimization (crime), forced relocation of children and grown ups (crime)". The five terms on the right are: "ethnic cleansing (crime), race murder (crime), slaughter (crime), racial extermination (crime), destruction of religion, culture (crime)". These ten crimes are divided at the middle by the term "annihilation of a race (crime)" and this points directly down to the central word "yeghern/genocide". [28]
Diranakir (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Again you confirm my assertion that your objection to "Aghet" (along with your objection to all alternative translations of "Meds Yeghern") is based on nothing more substantial than I Don't Like It. You want Wikipedia content to blindly obey the command of selected sources and opinion piece articles that you agree with rather than Wikipedia content reflecting the broader reality of usage that is indicated in the totality of sources, many of which I have presented. You also fail to understand that sources which express dislike for the use of the word "Aghet" or for translations that differ from "Great Crime" cannot be used as a reason to exclude that word or those different translations because those very same sources indicate that the term exists, is used, and is notable, and that different translations exist, are used, and are notable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

'Wikipedia content reflecting the broader reality of usage that is indicated in the totality of sources' is well manifested in the fact that if one types Medz Yeghern into the search field of any WP page one is immediately taken to the Armenian Genocide article, whereas if one types in Aghet, where is one taken? To the movie. Diranakir (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is not a source for Wikipedia content, I or anyone can easily direct Aghet to Armenian Genocide by simply editing Wikipedia! In my list of quotes taken from Google found sources mentioning "Aghet", I purposefully left out those dealing exclusively with the film named "Aghet", and I noted this fact at the bottom of the list. Only five of the Google Scholar citations mentioning Aghet appear to be mentioning the term in the context of the film. Why did I omit the Google found sources mentioning the film? Because it is a recently-released film and recent sources should not be used to decide on content relating to the long-term usage of phrases or their meanings. You ignore that sensible precaution - you have cited (n the archived discussion I linked to earlier) a dozen or so opinion-piece articles by Vartan Matiossian, all produced within the last 5 years, as "proof" that Great Crime is and always was the only permissible translation of Medz Yeghern. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

'You want Wikipedia content to blindly obey the command of selected sources and opinion piece articles. . . .' (Tiptoethrutheminefield, 02:22, this date). First, sources do not command anything. The problem there is in your POV. Sources provide relevant information. Your classing Seda Gasparyan's monograph and Vartan Matiossian's 11 part series, two works of serious scholarship, 'opinion-piece articles', shows how far you are willing to go to impose your POV on any discussion. It in fact blinds you and makes you hostile to good faith reasoning which differs from your thinking. You have no answers and therefore brand them 'opinions'. Your Google hits will not change the historical fact that Medz Yeghern has been the most traditional Armenian proper noun for the genocide from 1915 until the present. Diranakir (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To Etienne Dolet: I am forced to remind you to what "we agreed ... quite some time ago" was not the change that you have made in the lead. Either 1) you have had a sudden bout of amnesia (excuse the sarcasm), 2) you forgot what the agreed version was (we are all human), 3) or you have done this in blatant bad faith, because my proposal was the following:

"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)

I believe I do not need to show you the differences with your edit. So, still in the belief that this may have been a simple case of forgetting, I would kindly suggest you to amend your edit to bring it along the lines of what had been actually agreed on April 11 in order to avoid any kind of edit war or whatever you would like to call it. Armen Ohanian (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140429080605/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-194672-100-report-12000-armenian-citizens-working-illegally-in-turkey.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-194672-100-report-12000-armenian-citizens-working-illegally-in-turkey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One of first mentions of "Armenian Genocide" in a monument

To Etienne Dolet: I see that you're suggesting WP:RfC. Since I'm not into Wikipedia legalese as you evidently are (I'm not here to delve into controversies), and I believe that matters are related to logic, and not to personal taste, I only read the first two lines of the entire explanation. They say: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page" (my underlining). Did you do such thing? No. You just reverted once with a personal opinion, and then someone came in your help to re-revert it with the argument of too many pictures and verbosity. And since you don't seem to have an objective argument, now you submit it to outside editors. On those ground, we could submit every single sentence of the Armenian Genocide article to that procedure, why not?! I took up to clean up the verbosity of all captions, except one lengthy caption that it is a caption by itself (Morgenthau's quote), and eliminated one picture that is unrelated to the topic (although frequently linked to the genocide in the past). (I didn't took up with eliminating other pictures, even some evidently deserve it, because it's not up to me to do so, since I don't own the article. A consensus should be looked up on this point.) Then I proceeded to restore the picture with an objective argument that it is more powerful that any personal opinion of mine, yours or anybody else. If this is the article on the Armenian Genocide, then it is perfectly pertinent to put one of the earliest mentions (I don't know if it's the first, I'm not into that) of "Armenian Genocide of 1915" in a monument related to the topic of the section (Tehlirian) is perfectly pertinent. It is as pertinent as the facsimile of Morgenthau's telegram mentioning "campaign of race extermination." If your beef is with the quote of the translation of the Armenian text, that is also pertinent, because you and I may read Armenian, but it's addressed to people who do not read it and could not perceive the difference. This is all that it is, and there is nothing to warrant your submission.Armen Ohanian (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you to explain why such a picture is worthy of inclusion into this article. Therefore, a RfC is only helpful if you want to garner support. As of now, several users have reverted you and not a single user, other than yourself, has considered reinserting that picture into the article. Therefore, my suggestion of a RfC was only made so as to help your cause, not undermine it. I'd much rather see you open a RfC then slow edit-war at a 1RR article over this. At any rate, Morgenthau's quote is lengthy but powerful, significant, and most importantly, relevant. I'd welcome a reduction of words in that long quote of his, but it's quite difficult to do so since every single word of that quote is noteworthy and relevant to Morgenthau's strong convictions against the massacres. But your picture of the tombstone inscription brings nothing new to the article. It's just inscribed text that by no ways or means illustrates something that the text should not have already covered. I don't understand why you're so adamant on inserting such a photograph. Frankly, I'd much rather have a photograph of Soghomon Tehlirian himself, as it would actually illustrate who the person is, rather than a tombstone inscription of redundant information. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Side note: I have also noticed that you were the one who took that photograph and uploaded it. Might I also add that the photograph is not in PD because it violates this the United States' strict laws on the Freedom of Panorama. I won't go so far as to have the photograph deleted but I strongly discourage any placement of non-free photographs in this article, or any article for that matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I unloaded my burden about "why such a picture is worthy of inclusion into this article" with the previous comment, so I'm not going to delve into it. So far two people reverted me (not several users), one of which is yourself. None of the two have given sounding reasons, other than personal taste ("don't think it adds much," "too many," "verbosity"), for the reversal. I believe to have solved the verbosity of most captions, except for Morgenthau's picture, of which there is nothing else to do, except if someone could find where it was taken, which I think it's unlikely. I already talked about the value of having so many pictures, which is not up to me to decide. So what are we are left with? The "inscribed text" illustrates something that the next has not covered. I have explained what, as well as why I'm so "adamant." It's not a matter of being adamant, indeed. When someone insists on something, unless s/he is a denier, may have valid reasons, whose ground should be examined. Tehlirian's picture would not illustrate much the person; on the same token, you could include Morgenthau, or anyone else you found relevant there (in the same way that Mehmed Celal was included, perhaps because it's the only one of those virtuous Turk whose picture is available).

Re your side note: I'd like to know why a picture of an inscription is a "non-free photograph." Who copyrighted the picture of Tehlirian's monument? On the same note, you should take away the facsimile of Morgenthau's cable, and perhaps "The New York Times" headlines, because they were published in copyrighted sources. Armen Ohanian (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times article is in the public domain because its copyright has been expired (published before 1923). Same goes for Morgenthau's cable. Soghomon's tombstone is non-free because it is a copyrighted 3D artwork and there is no Freedom of Panorama for 3D artwork in the US. It is for this reason that this photograph is uploaded under a non-free premise. This inscription is part of that very same monument and therefore illegal to consider it PD, even if you're the creator of that photograph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: "several users have reverted you" ? ? ? Diranakir (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, two users. Iryna Harpy and I. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Two users are 'several' in your book? Hmm. . . That's a new one on me. In all fairness, I think we should be more precise in our use of words. Diranakir (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll use the word two. But keep in mind that this is a 1RR article, two reverts by two separate users is a lot more influential than two reverts by two separate users in a non-1RR article. This is not to say that we're in an edit-warring competition, but it should be noted that the picture is not really gaining much support at the main space. Hence why we should have a RfC. But the picture needs to overcome its serious copyright issue before anything else. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to have you recognize the difference between 'two' and 'several'. That helps the discussion enormously. Diranakir (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You could be less sarcastic Diranakir, especially when I made to good faith effort to be more precise at your behest. So I don't get why you would want to focus on such trivial matters when there's illegal photographs being placed in one of the most important articles concerning Armenians, and perhaps all of Wikipedia. Let's reconsider our priorities here please. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The photo adds nothing to the article and is wasting space in an article that is already overly long: it brings no content and does not expand on or additionally explain anything that is already in the article. An assertion that it is 'one of first mentions of "Armenian Genocide" in a monument' is OR both in the assertion and in the premise that this is a notable thing even if true (and it is also a dubious assertion since there were plenty of monuments erected in 1965, the 50th anniversary). There are probably copyright issues with it too, since the inscription is less than 50 years old and someone carved it (which might also be why the photo of the whole monument on Soghomon Tehlirian is so small). If it is usable, then the Soghomon Tehlirian article is where it should belong. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Diranakir, can I use the word several now? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times articles (there are two) were published in a book copyrighted in 1980, and the heir of the author is still alive. I don't know whether the grandsons or great-grandsons of Morgenthau have any right on the documents he wrote, but it doesn't matter in the end. What matter more is: 1) Tehlirian's monument is not a "tombstone," that why it's relevant. If it were a tombstone, I wouldn't even care about it, since it would be a private endeavor. It's a monument erected by the Armenian community, a public endeavor, and that's why it's relevant for the use of "Armenian Genocide" as a name. 2) "Copyrighted 3D artwork." Who copyrighted the monument? (Mind you, the photograph has nothing to do with the one you refer to, except that they are related to the same object.) On those same grounds of copyrighted 3D artwork, I would suggest that any editor should urgently revert most of this article [29], or at least all the pictures of monuments built in the US since 1965 and displayed there, because they are illegal (copyright law in the US is 70 years after the death of the author). Long before the present discussion, the pictures of the memorials of Tsirtsernakaberd, which was erected in 1967, or of Larnaca, which is even newer, from the present article, should have also been reverted, because copyright law in Armenia or Cyprus might protect them, and they would be illegal. Armen Ohanian (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The use of the image and added caption only increasing image clutter rather than enhance the reader's understanding of the subject (per WP:TITLE). The article needs to stay on topic, not drift from WP:PPOV content and images on the understanding that the inclusion is WP:ITSIMPORTANT or WP:ITSINTERESTING (we can even exclude the distinctly salient "it's WP:OR" argument at this point). Direct relevance is the primary concern. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

When the response in a fact-grounded discussion is based on pov (meaning, shifting perception of one editor) or legalese ("direct relevance" has been abundantly explained above), it becomes useless to continue such discussion. Armen Ohanian (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman massacres in neighboring Persia

Hello editors,

I believe we should form a proper, small and coherent sentence that can be put in the lede about the Ottoman massacres in neighboring Persia, that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Armenians. As of currently, the way it is put, its as if only the Armenians inside the Ottoman Empire were massacred, even though many native Armenians in Iranian Azerbaijan, e.g. in the towns of Salmas, Maku, Khoy, and Urmia perished as well. Though obviously comparatively less, it is still a part of this event. As this article is very sensitive to some people, and as it receives alot of attention/"care", I'd like to ask others about what would be the best to add in the lede, and also where in the lede precisely. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it needs to be mentioned in the body of the article first - chronologically it would be before the events at Van. I had earlier put Persia and Russian Empire into the infobox, but they were recently deleted. I see you have now restored Persia to it, I have also now restored Russian Empire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I placed it in a form of a note because the central figures of the CUP never intended on massacring the Armenians in Persia or the Russian Empire. The underlining goal was to annihilate all Armenians living within the Ottoman Empire. Sure, some massacres did spread into other countries, but it was never intended on being so in the initial planning and execution of the AG. Also, there's no need for so much sources in the infobox. The article has sourced content about those massacres already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the sources in the infobox - they are not needed. Of the rest, I disagree, what you are asserting is not historically or chronologically correct. The genocide did not spread outward into other countries, it spread inward: the massacres in Persia occurred before any massacres happened inside Ottoman territory. The actions of the Ottoman Empire indicate a twin intent of expansive invasion and of committing genocide against non-Muslims from the outset of its entry into the war. Persia was the first to be affected by invasion and the civilian Christian populations in Persia were its first victims of genocide. For that reason I have restored the infobox mentioning of Persia and the Russian Empire. I've left the sources for Persia there for now - they could be used for article content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the simple solution here is to say that massacres took place in Russia and Persia in the form of a note. But let's not forget the underlining premise of the Armenian Genocide, the annihilation of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian subjects by the Ottoman government. The final solution to the Empire's Armenian question. So I don't think we should be putting the massacres that happened in Persia and Russia in the same basket. That misrepresents the intended purpose of the AG as a whole. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should a note be suitable for this? The location category in the infobox is just there to succinctly state where the event detailed in the article took place, not to do anything more than that, so having "Ottoman Empire", "Russian Empire", and "Persia" as the locations is correctly giving the locations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Because when it concerns genocide, the intent is key. There was no intent in massacring the Armenians in Persia or Russia by the central CUP authorities in the initial planning of the AG. This is evident by the Tehcir Law itself, which only affected Armenians living the the OE. This was not the case in Russia or Persia. To give equal weight to Russia and Persia, two countries where the Ottoman government never initially intended on annihilating the entire Armenian population, would be to misrepresent the systematic nature and goal of the policy. Again, this is not to say those massacres didn't occur. So I think the note is a suitable compromise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

But that is not the function of an infobox. For example, the conflict infobox has a category named "Belligerents" and in it all the belligerents should be mentioned, not just the main warring parties or those that started it, and in the Location category all the theatres of the war should mentioned, not just the main ones. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But genocide is different from war. When we discuss things like genocide, we need to focus on the intent of the perpetrator. Otherwise, it can't be considered genocide. In this case, the Ottoman government's intent was to annihilate the Armenians found within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, if we don't find a genocidal intent behind the massacres of Persia and Russia, then we cannot argue that it's part of that same policy. This is why I find that separating these entities from the OE in a form of a note is a simple solution. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't have a genocide infobox, it is just a civilian attack infobox, and the location field is a required field to detail the physical place where it took place. If there are sources connecting the massacres in Persia, and the massacres in the Russian Caucasus with the Armenian Genocide then that is enough to have these additional places there. There are certainly sources that mention the massacres (and of refugees fleeing the certain expectation of massacre) inside Russian territory in the context of the Armenian Genocide. Arguably, maybe we should say northwestern Persia, or Russian Caucasus. Or perhaps Russian Empire and Persia should be wikilinked to articles about the actual regions where massacres took place rather than the main articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)