Talk:Armenian genocide

armenian genocide

To correct a point of fact in this otherwise excellent article, the painting by Arshile Gorky "the Artist and his Mother" is not in the Cafesjian museum in Yerevan. It is in the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Other paintings by Gorky are in the MoMA and Metropolitan museums in that city. ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshilovna (talk • contribs) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed that incorrect information. But I think your "this otherwise excellent article" comment is equally incorrect! I don't know of a worse-written article. Meowy 01:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is a horribly biased article. For example - the recounting of every politician who has failed to "officially recognize the genocide" smacks of outrageous bias. It is also a catalog of weasel words from start to finish. Even if this article is entirely accurate accurate (I'm not equipped to judge) the lack of a neutral tone immediately renders me suspicious of heavy nationalist bias. Manning (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are not equipped to judge, maybe you should have kept your opinions to yourself until you get equipped? However, this article will not help much in the equiping. The problem with this article is that it is far too long and far too convoluted, is full of off-topic material, and seems to have been written for the editors who wrote it rather than for any users who would wish to read it. Its bias arises from the fact that much content has been put there as a response to genocide deniers. This is an entirely wrong way to write an article. Do we write articles on geography for those who think, and who will always think, that the earth is flat? Meowy 18:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Մեծ Եղեռն translated incorrectly

Մեծ Եղեռն does not mean the Great Crime. The literal translation is the Great Enormity or the Great Atrocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotbandito (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought "The Great Calamity" was the usual translation. Meowy 02:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Մեծ Եղեռն does mean Great Crime or Great Atrocity. Եղեռն even by itself means a heinous crime. Rotbindo, for unexplained reasons, thinks that "Great Calamity" is the correct translation. Thinking and knowing are two different things. What is the basis and reasoning for the change from "Great Crime" to "Great Calamity" which occurred on April 24, 2012 at 2111? This is a crucial historical question, not one that can be consigned to well-intentioned but faulty guessing. I will await a response before making a definitive move to correct the error as an editor. Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My dictionary translates Եղեռն as "slaughter," "carnage," "genocide," "crime," and "evil deed." I was under the assumption that "calamity" was a word that had long been agreed under, but it looks like that among all of these "slaughter" or "crime" would be the most apt definitions here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

To Marshall Bagramyan: Your dictionary supports my dictionaries. I therefore intend to correct "Great Calamity" back to "Great Crime". I am completely puzzled by what made you change your mind about the meaning of the term after it had stood at "Great Crime" since April 9, 2010. This is a matter of concern to me both as an editor on Wikipedia as well as student of the Armenian Genocide. I hope whatever came to bear in the reversion to "Great Calamity" will not happen again. I am prepared to go the length in presenting not only the consensus of meaning of "yeghern" from one dictionary, but from numerous dictionaries--Armenian-Armenian, Armenian-English, English Armenian, as well as put the usage of the term in its historical context, particularly in its relation to the other terms used such as "Aghet". Thank you for your response. Diranakir (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: I had mistakenly confused Rotbindo's and Meowy's comments at the top. My "thinking and knowing" comment was addressed to Meowy. To Rotbandito: that "Great Enormity" (aside from its awkwardness as an English term) and "Great Atrocity" capture aspects of the meaning of "Medz Yeghern" offers no grounds for declaring "Great Crime" wrong. Agreed? "Crime" is the essential concept that weaves together all the other possible renderings of "yeghern". As such, it is both conservative and responsible and has a solid tradition of use by responsible thinkers. The impression that "yeghern" means simply "calamity" has been widely promoted, and that is probably why Meowy was thrown into confusion. Diranakir (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. And I do not get "thrown into confusion". It should be "Great Calamity". It is not correct to give direct translations where the direct translation alters the essential meaning of the original. Nor is it correct use modern meanings to translate a phrase that was coined almost a century ago. What is required is a translation which communicates the full meaning of the original. Most sources do use "calamity" as the translation, and do not use a pov word like "crime". Personally, I feel it is particularly objectionable to use the "great crime" translation: it is a corruption and distortion of the original meaning. It was a phrase that was used INTERNALLY, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, by those who survived the genocide as a way of trying to define and describe events which could otherwise not be defined and described. They would not have used a trivial, everyday word like "crime" to define the disaster that fell upon them and I think that it is an insult to their memory to advocate such a useage. Meowy 16:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: You say "It is not correct to give direct translations where the direct translation alters the essential meaning of the original." You are here begging the question. This discussion is precisely about that question. Please state what dictionary or dictionaries you cite as proof that "crime" is an alteration of what you take to be the original meaning. Where can I find that "original meaning". Please provide the reference. Besides that, saying "It is not correct to give direct translations" is not an intelligible statement in itself. Please explain. For my part, I will propose that you look up Եղեռն in Mesrob G. Kouyoumdjian's "A Comprehensive Dictionary Armenian-English", 1970, Atlas Press, Beirut and tell me how he defines the word. Transliterating the Armenian title, it is "Untartsag Pararan Hayeren-Ankleren". You should also pay attention to what Marshall Bagramyan has clearly told us his dictionary states as the meaning of Եղեռն. Can you refer me to any English-Armenian dictionary that defines "calamity" as Եղեռն? Furthermore, your idea that the meaning of Եղեռն has substantially changed over the past century does not hold water and cannot be demonstrated. Diranakir (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not debating this further because I do not need to: you have presented no legitimate arguments! Dictionaries are not sources, and we are not translating single words but the meaning of a phrase. There are numerous sources for "Great Calamity". Meowy 17:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: You are debating this no further because you have nothing tangible to support your point of view. I welcome the end of our discussion. Diranakir (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I check the greatest authority Hrachia Acharian's dictionary he translates Yeghern both as "calamity, evil (and in new literary Armenian as crime)" [1]. Gazifikator (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: Ashot Sukiasyan, recipient in 2004 of the highest award in philology of the Republic of Armenia for his 1967 work, Thesaurus of The Armenian Language [Hai Lezvi Homanishneri Patsadragan Pararan], gives the following meanings of "yeghern" (very partial list):

1. crime 2. slaughter 3. Evil act, calamity.

If you take the consensus of all the definitions offered in Sukiasyan and other Armenian-Armenian, Armenian-English, English Armenian dictionaries for the word "yeghern" it will be clear that malicious human agency is at their root. A calamity can be a flood or an earthquake, in other words an "act of God". This is not the sort of "calamity" meant by "yeghern". "Yeghern" denotes an egregious evil act, not an "act of God", and that is why "crime" is the best translation. Diranakir (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There is also Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն. Gazifikator (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: In my reading, with the characteristic economy of the Armenian language Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն means "the great crime [or atrocity, or massacre, or slaughter] to which the Armenian people were subjected." Calamity, catastrophe, tragedy are definitely connotations of the word, but do not reflect its fundamental meaning. Please see Եղեռն at http://www.nayiri.com/imagedDictionaryBrowser.jsp?dictionaryId=25&pageNumber=179 Diranakir (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your incorrect edits are compounded by your ignorance about Wikipedia editing practices. Your "my reading" reasoning is unimportant because "my reading" is original research. You have removed a properly cited fact from this article and replaced it by your pov opinion unsupported by any sources. The "Great Calamity" translation will ALWAYS be returned to this article because it is supported by hundreds of sources. Your edit will be removed and will continue to be removed because it is supported by no sources. Please stop wasting our time here. Meowy 14:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Armenian is strange, in Հայոց Մեծ Եղեռն it is impossible to use Հանցանք in place of Եղեռն, even if you believe that both mean "the great crime [or atrocity, or massacre, or slaughter] to which the Armenian people were subjected." The rules of Armenian are one, and in this case thay are similar to English. The Great Armenian Calamity sounds normally. The "Medz Yeghern" was first used in the circle of Constantinople Armenians (by Teodik, as I know), not by Ashot Sukiassian in 1960's. Sorry, but your research is completely useless and is really a wasting of time... Gazifikator (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Meowy: On May 5 you said "dictionaries are not sources", and yet used a dictionary entry to make a reversion. Aside from that, everything you said was strictly POV.

Gazificator: I assume that in your view, because of its use in the term "Hayotz Medz Yeghern" and the Armenian construction of that phrase ["The Armenians' Great 'Yeghern'] the word yeghern must shed all its meaning of evil, moral outrage, slaughter, atrocity in favor of a term that has no moral implication at all and can easily be interpreted in English as something that just occurred out of the blue. You have cited one dictionary definition and what you privately know and believe. Let me offer something more specific:

The following open letter was sent by Doctor Claude Atamian, grand-nephew of the great Armenian poet Siamanto, to Madame Valérie Hannin, Director of the French monthly "L'Histoire" on April 24, 2009. I present the 11th paragraph of the French original, followed by my translation of the opening lines.

The French Original

Un élément essentiel de la désinformation au sujet du thème « Génocide arménien » concerne la traduction volontairement biaisée et en fait totalement erronée du vocable désignant en langue arménienne la tragédie de 1915 : « Medz Yeghern » c’est-à-dire le « Grand Crime» et non pas la « Grande Catastrophe », terme systématiquement utilisé par tous les pétitionnaires turcs exprimant en ce moment leur « sincère compassion » envers leurs amis arméniens. Fuad Dundar lui-même, à la fin de son interview, cite «... les massacres de Medz Yeghern (« la Grande Catastrophe » selon la terminologie arménienne)». Or, une catastrophe, c’est un événement qui ne relève pas forcément d’une décision humaine. Le Petit Robert la définit comme suit : accident, sinistre causant la mort de nombreuses personnes. S’agissant d’une grande catastrophe, on peut penser au tsunami ou à un tremblement de terre etc. D’ailleurs, le terme qui désigne la zone sinistrée du tremblement de terre de 1988 dans la République d’Arménie est « aghèti goti », mot à mot « la zone de la catastrophe ». On pense au destin, à Dieu, mais pas à la responsabilité de gouvernements criminels comme le furent indubitablement ceux des Jeunes-Turcs ou des Nazis. Cette dénomination de Grande Catastrophe permet tout compte fait de ne pas désigner l’Etat assassin, contrairement à la traduction correcte de « Medz Yeghern ». Il n’est pas étonnant que la « campagne de pardon » de quelques intellectuels turcs, (d’ailleurs tournée en dérision par Fuad Dundar lui-même à la toute fin de son interview, sous prétexte qu’elle n’a été signée que par 30.000 personnes), insiste lourdement sur cette dénomination de « Grande Catastrophe », adoptée par la plupart des Turcs, négationnistes ou pas, dans le but de masquer l’étendue du crime perpétré par leur gouvernement en 1915. [3]

The Translation

One of the essential elements of disinformation on the subject of "The Armenian Genocide" is the willfully biased and totally false translation of the Armenian term that designates the tragedy of 1915. "Medz Yeghern" means the "Great Crime" and not the "Great Catastrophe". . . . A catastrophe is an occurrence that does not necessarily involve human decision. . . . The term "Great Catastrophe" in the final analysis permits one to avoid indicating the state that kills, in contrast to the correct translation of 'Medz Yeghern".

The Link http://www.armenweb.org/espaces/louise/reportages/revue-histoire.htm

Diranakir (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish name for Holocaust is Catastrophe (Shoah), and the Armenian case seems to be the same. What's the problem? I don't understand how can we change a meaning which was given by the whole nation? It's sad that Medz Yeghern became a part of great game played by dirty politicians, and for sure that is not enough reason to change the meanings of terms. We all are spending a lot of time on this useless (and disruptive, please read WP:Disrupt) conversation, so sorry, I'm leaving this... Gazifikator (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's rather sad that Diranakir cannot seem to comprehend what deep meaning "Medz Yeghern" actually has. It and the Shoah = Catastrophe example are cases of catastrophic events (man-made or natural) being named by those who survived them using non-specific and almost euphemistic terms (another example would be the 19th-century potato famine in Ireland and Scotland being decribed as the "Great Hunger" or the "Bad Times" - there are probably many more examples). Meowy 19:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To Gazificator: The problem is the radical difference between the two cases. Responsibility for The Shoah, more widely known as The Holocaust, was long ago accepted and firmly established by the perpetrator state (and therefore the world) as a genocide for which it was responsible.. Germany has since offered recognition and restitution to Israel and the Jewish people on many occasions as a token of that fact. In the case of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish state has for one century adamantly and categorically denied any responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, let alone offered any compensation individually or collectively. The Armenian Genocide came first. As such, the Armenians were the first to name their genocide. That name does not need to conform to or be parallel to the Shoah or Holocaust. If this ccnversation seems useless to you then you are free to leave it. It will remain a crucial issue. Diranakir (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are here doing some agenda warring. Maybe you should leave, given that the issue has not been that important to you over the past two years: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=354885245. Meowy 20:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: I am saying things in exactly the words I mean. I'm not going anywhere. Diranakir (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edit, however, is going unless you can provide suitable sources for your claim. I have fact tagged the "Great Crime" translation. The letter you cited is not a source, it is someone expressing their opinion in a letter and has no more weight here than your own opinion. Meowy 18:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed#When_not_to_use_this_template While an editor may add this template ["citation needed"] to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Diranakir (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that the phrase has been fact tagged, I am giving you two weeks to provide a suitable source for your claim. That is more than sufficient time given that you have been edit warring this issue for two years. If you do not provide a source, I will deleted the "great crime" translation. If you revert my edit I will raise the matter with administrators and recommend that you are blocked from editing this page. Meowy 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We have arrived at a point in this discussion where a compromise in which two related English renderings of "Medz Yeghern" will not be allowed to stand by Meowy. The core meaning of "yeghern" in all Armenian dictionaries is: an illegitimate, perverse, immoral, evil act. According to Meowy, this meaning is to be completely sacrificed because it is part of a "phrase". For one thing, "Medz Yeghern" is not a "phrase". It is a proper name like "The Civil War".

Translating it as "Great Calamity" has recently become a powerful tool in the arsenal of historical revisionism about the Armenian Genocide, covering up the fact that the Armenians who survived it were very clear about the criminal nature of what had just happened to them and therefore chose "Medz Yeghern" as the principal name, among many others, for designating it. Additionally, Meowy has not on his/her own presented any citations, good or bad, to back up his/her position. Meowy has only carped at the sources I have presented as non-sources--even dictionaries-- but has never seen fit to engage the points presented in them.

One final point: proper citation for the translation "Great Calamity" is long overdue if mere dogmatism is not to be the order of the day at Wikipedia. Diranakir (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You just do not seem to get it - even though it has been repeated to you again and again and again! A dictionary is not a suitable source. Using a dictionary, you have been cherrypicking the meaning of one word then cherrypicking the meaning of a second word, and then joining them together to translate a pre-existing phrase so that it fit your pov. That is called original research. You have presented NO SOURCES that render the phrase "Meds Yeghern" as "Great Crime". You have provided not one source for your "Great Crime" in over two years of edit warring about it! There IS a citation for "Great calamity". I found many, but I simply chose the most recent. If required, I could provide dozens of different ones. However, I am no more willing to pander to you than I am willing to pander to some genocide denalist who comes demanding dozens of sources before he accepts the word "genocide" is the standard description of the events. Meowy 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy, the following are a couple of quotes from your comments:

1. The "Great Calamity" translation . . . . is supported by hundreds of sources. 7 May 2012

2. There is a citation for "Great calamity". I found many, but I simply chose the most recent. If required, I could provide dozens of different ones - 14 May 2012

My question: I don't find a single citation in your comments of any of the hundreds of sources you indicate exist. Please tell me by date where you have cited them in this discussion and what they are. Diranakir (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that you have now added a citation, but an incomplete one (we need to know the actual issue of Armenian Reporter you are citing). I will also find some ten or more different citations for "Great Calamity". After this, unless you provide more sources for "Great Crime" (and they have to be examples of it being used by different people) I will remove "Great Crime" because it will be a case of undue weight. Meowy 20:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To Meowy: I have sufficiently identified the source. This is more of your discounting sources you can't handle. After saying you had cited sources in our discussion on the talk page (which you had not and still have not), you abandoned the discussion to surreptitiously add a citation to the term you favor (Calamity) on the article page. This because you could not discuss things rationally and convincingly on the Talk page. This approach is totally counter to the purpose of the Talk page, which is to prevent edit warring. But you are constantly reminding me that an edit war is what you want. I will vigorously defend the rightful place of the term "Great Crime" in the article whatever you choose to do. After providing no sources at all in our Talk page discussion, you are in absolutely no position to demand more sources from me. Diranakir (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are now refusing to give a correct citation for your source (author, year of publication, and issue number are missing) I have to assume there is something wrong with the source. As it stands now, it is not sufficient to justify the "Great Crime" content. Meowy 02:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

A recap of some key points in my discussion with Meowy thus far:

1. "Original Meaning"

On May 4 Meowy twice referred to an original meaning of the term "Medz Yeghern" (which he/she was presumably aware of) and blamed me for altering it with "Great Crime". On May 5th I asked Meowy where he/she found that original. I have still not received an answer. The "original meaning" argument and the "modern vs. old meanings" is a complete myth and Meowy has not even lifted a finger to substantiate it.

2. "Dictionaries Are Not Sources"

When we are talking about the correct translation of a word in a foreign language, dictionaries are most definitely sources, otherwise there is no objectivity. And the argument that "yeghern" changes meaning when preceded by "medz" (great, large, big in Armenian) is an absurdity. If anything, its essential meaning is magnified.

3. Concerning the "Open Letter" of Docteur Claude Atamian cited by me on May 7

On May 11 Meowy dismisses the "Open Letter" as worth no more than "my own opinion", thereby absolving him/herself of any obligation to respond to the points made . I hereby cite the particulars of its publication in "Nouvelles D'Arménie Magazine" [NAM] , a publication at least as important as the one he/she cites in footnote #5 on the article page. It was published in NAM on Sunday, May 31, 2009.

4. On the necessity of "euphemistic and non-specific" terms:

On May 7 Meowy advances his/her psychological theory explaining the use of "calamity", basing it on a psychological need to soften the pain of a catastrophic event. When we are talking about genocide, it is extremely out of place to be justifying euphemism. Is that really what Meowy is after or the truth? The reason "Medz Yeghern" became the leading term for the Armenian Genocide among Armenians is because it is much more specific than "Aghed", which is another name for the Genocide and the proper Armenian term for "calamity". Meowy is here suggesting that the Armenians wanted to fool around and hide the truth from themselves! This is an affront to their dignity and intelligence.

What is clear is that Meowy is very wedded to neutralizing the true meaning of "yeghern". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What is very clear is that you are here only to pov edit war. You had better start to find more sources (one source containing an anonymous individual's passing opinion is not sufficient). Meowy 19:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note: Meowy has still not answered any of my questions but continues instead to bluster and issue threats. Apparently, anything that contradicts Meowy's position on the meaning of "yeghern"--even something published in a major French-Armenian publication, running 8,000 words, with 5 footnotes, 8 attached documents--is a "passing opinion". Diranakir (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Original Publication in NAM of Docteur Claude Atamian's "Lettre Ouverte" http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=52134 Diranakir (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

                           MORE SOURCES FOR "GREAT CRIME"

Citation A.

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, (in English:

Quote 1. "A study of the data presented in Armenian-English dictionaries provides the following explanations of the word yeghern (եղեռն): crime (ոճիր), misdemeanor (չար ընթացք, վատաբարոյություն), offence (անարգանք), rascality (ստորություն, անըզգամություն), slaughter (սպանդ, նախճիր, կոտորած, ջարդ), carnage (նախճիր), massacre (կոտորած, ջարդ) and genocide (ցեղասպանություն)."

Quote 2. "A. Sukiasyan suggests a whole range of synonyms in his “Monolingual Dictionary of Armenian Synonyms”: ոճիր /crime/, ոճրագործություն /felony/, եղեռնագործություն /villainy, crime/, չարագործություն (մարդասպանություն) /malefaction, murder/, ծանր հանցագործություն /grave, serious crime/, սպանություն /killing, murder, homicide/, կոտորած /massacre/, ջարդ /mass killing, massacre/, նախճիր /carnage/, սպանդ /slaughter/, արյուն/ա/հեղություն /blood-shed, carnage, massacre/, սրածություն /massacre, butchery, slaughter/, յաթաղան /killing with a Turkish dagger/, խողխողում /killing cruelly, butchery, slaughter/, եղեռնություն/հնց./ /harm, malice, rascality/, ցեղասպանություն /genocide/. These are not absolute synonyms, of course, but they all have the semantic constituent to kill (i.e. to commit a crime) in their semantic structure.7

Quote 3. "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."

Comment: In answer to the ultimate question of the article, i. e. what is the adequate English equivalent of yeghern, Professor Gasparyan concludes with a diagram. It shows an arc of 11 crimes ranging from left to right, each pointing directly down to the word "yeghern/genocide" at the center. The five terms on the left are: "destruction of language (crime), carnage (crime), massacre, mass killing (crime), vicimization (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 in the middle by the term "annihilation of a race (crime)" and this points directly down to the central word "yeghern/genocide".This shows very clearly that translating yeghern as "calamity" is a serious misrepresentation of its meaning. This is why "Great Crime" is the best translation that Wikipedia can offer the reading public.

Citation B.

Source: "Armenian Foreign Policy Between Russia, Iran And U. S " [article] published in "Eurasia Review" on March 26, 2010. Author: Mikayel Zolyan, Yerevan.

About the author: Mikayel Zolyan is assistant professor at Yerevan State Linguistic University. He received his Ph. D. in history from Yerevan State University and has studied at the Nationalism Studies program of Central European University in Budapest.

Quotation from the article: 'During the latest election campaign, Barak Obama issued several strong statements advocating the need to recognize and condemn the genocide officially. Although it can be argued that Obama has come closer to fulfilling his promise than most of his predecessors – in his April 24, 2009, address to the Armenian community, he announced that his views on the issue are on the record and have not changed and used the Armenian term Eghern (literally – “a great crime, a man-made catastrophe"].'

Citation C.

A quotation follows from the European Armenian Federation for Justice & Democracy. The European Armenian Federation is a Non Governmental Organisation representing the European citizens of Armenian origin at the European institutions. The Federation was founded in 2000 in Brussels, is the well known interlocutor within the institutions of the European Union, as well as the Council of Europe. As noted in its mandate, the Federation expresses European Armenians’ political views, explained in a Charter, which is the attachment to the European values regarding the Human and socio- cultural rights.

The European Armenian Federation’s actions touch on several European policy areas, especially in its external relations with theSouth Caucasus (including Armenia) and Turkey.

Regarding the latter, the Union’s main problem obviously remains the State denial of the Armenian Genocide and the perpetuation of the occupation of Western Armenia.

The quotation is from the article "Armenian Genocide: Obama Broke His Pledge", dated 28 April 2009:

As expected, the U.S. President, Barack Obama made a statement about the Armenian Genocide, this Friday 24 April, the commemoration day of the Genocide. Terming the Genocide as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century,” the U.S. President declared that “The Meds Yeghern [Great Crime in Armenian] must live on in our memories. . . . ”

See: http://eafjd.eu/spip.php?article539

Citation D.

From "Armenian Weekly", May 1, 2012, "Legislators Mark Genocide in Senate, House Floor Statements" [article]. Statement quoted from Rep. Anna Eshoo: " Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commemorate a solemn occasion of deep personal significance. Today marks 97 years since the infamous episode in which the Ottoman Empire began rounding up and murdering Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. By 1923, some 1.5 million Armenian women, children, and men were dead from a systematic campaign we now know as the Armenian Genocide, or Great Crime."

Rep. Eshoo's full speech can be found at:

http://capitolwords.org/date/2012/04/24/E631-2_commemorating-the-97th-anniversary-of-the-armenian/ dated April 24th, 2012.

Diranakir (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me say that, personally, I think your aims are obnoxious. You (and those whose works you cite) are propagandists who seek to exploit for their vain and selfish reasons the deaths of some two million people - and are so shameless that you try to alter even the wording the survivors used to define the disaster that fell upon them. Just because some Armenian nationalists have, over the last few years (no source you have cited is older than 2009), been engaged in producing their "Great Crime" propaganda campaign does not mean that this very recently-coined distorted meaning can enter the article (any more that the words "so-called" can enter it because some Turkish nationalists use that wording). Meowy 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Google search results:

"Medz Yeghern" 131,000 hits

"Medz Yeghern" genocide 13,000 hits

"Medz Yeghern" "Great Calamity" -"Great Crime" 2650 hits

"Medz Yeghern" "Great Crime" -"Great Calamity" 694 hits

"Medz Yeghern" + "Great Calamity" + "Great Crime" 148 hits (these are almost all arguments about whether "Great Crime" should be used instead of "Great Calamity").

So, usage of "Great Calamity" is almost 4 times more common than "Great Crime", and about 15% of all usage of "Great Crime" is in the context of an argument about whether "Great Crime" should be use instead of "Great Calamity". The most interesting aspect perhaps is the huge number of usages of "Medz Yeghern" without any translation into English, and the relatively small number of usages where it is accompanied by "genocide". This suggests that most readers and users of "Medz Yeghern" do not think an explanation of what it means in necessary, and are using it as an alternative to the word genocide. Meowy 20:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Google results above, I'm starting to believe that the best solution, given that "Medz Yeghern" almost never appears alongside an English phrase that claims to be a translation of it, ond only very rarely appears alongside the word "genocide", is to say "in English, usually rendered as 'great clamity'". Meowy 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Words matter. Linguists count. This is not a popularity contest. Read the entire article: http://www.armin.am/images/menus/496/GASPARYAN-Eng..pdf Diranakir (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a shoddy piece of work! She never once even examines the origin of the phrase's use - when was Medz Yeghern first used in connection to the Armenian Genocide, and where was it first used. And of course the date of its production, 2010, backs up my assertion that this "great crime" translation is a modern invention created for propaganda use. Meowy 16:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Claiming That The Impossible Happened

Extended content

TO GAZIFICATOR: Regarding your post today at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=495790789&oldid=495787044 you have just made a grave mistake. You posted a forgery of an edit that I did not do on the date and at the time indicated. My edit today was on section 2.1 "The Young Turk Revolution of 1908", the last paragraph. This reflects very badly on your judgement and constitutes an unethical attempt to impeach my credentials as an editor. I did not touch line 37 in my last edit. Please take note. Diranakir (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC) I am a volunteer clerk/mediator at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. What Diranakir is claiming did not and can not happen. It is not possible for someone to modify a diff while leaving your name on it. (Admins can delete, nobody can modify.) This was explained to Diranakir in great detail by two different mediators at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Armenian Genocide, but Diranakir refuses to accept the facts. Diranakir's continued false accusations against Gazifikator after being informed that they are impossible are bordering on WP:HARASSMENT. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC) It can happen if my account is compromised. I repeat that I did not touch any part of the text except line #89. This is as clear as I'm sitting here. You can draw your own conclusions and take whatever action you want. Diranakir (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC) If your account is compromised it must be blocked immediately until such time as you prove that you regained control of it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC) No need. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. Try it yourself. You, of course, have the password to your own account, right? Pretend you are someone else and try to change a single character in your edit history. You can't, can you? It's not possible. Diranakir is claiming that something that is impossible happened. He might as well accuse Gazifikator of flapping his arms and flying to the moon. This has been explained to Diranakir several times by at least three administrators and mediators. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I changed my password today. What else needs to be done to prove it is in control? Diranakir (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC) You just did, by posting the above. And if someone had gotten your password, they don't have it any longer. (The "proving" step is for situations where someone else changes the password, locks you out, and claims that you are the imposter.). This does not change the fact that someone who had your password still could not edit your posting history. Because you cannot edit your history, someone pretending to be you cannot edit your history either. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=495787044 is a true and accurate record of your edit in "before/after" format. Nobody changed it. Nobody can change it. Not you, not Gazifikator, not an Administrator, not even Jimbo Wales. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC) There is a difference between what you say and what other editors say. You say it is impossible, they say it is only possible if someone compromised my account. This means it is possible. Which is it? I'd love to know. In the mean time: I did not revise anything except line 89. I did not even get close to anything else. I simply put in my 2 sentence revision, saved, and got out. The idea that I made several other edits in different places, let alone an edit to the first paragraph which has been hotly contested up to now, is pure fiction. I don't know how it happened but it happened. You can interpret my position any way you want. I will not change it. Draw your conclusions and take whatever action you choose. Diranakir (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) After I read more details and Guy's comments I am certain now that what you are saying is impossible. It is however possible that you made the edit but you do not remember all the details. Things happen. When people are tired, absent-minded, etc. they do things they can't recall later. It happens all the time. So I believe you mean it when you say you didn't do it. One thing that you must not continue doing however is keep accusing Gazifikator for doing it. That's flat-out wrong. So please don't keep repeating it. As far as I can see this is the only thing that can get you in trouble. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Re "You say it is impossible, they say it is only possible if someone compromised my account. This means it is possible. Which is it?", the answer is that Diranakir has a bad case of confirmation bias. Wikipedia has an excellent article on it at Confirmation bias. The reality is that not a single person on earth other than Diranakir himself has ever said that it is possible. He just thinks they did. They have all told him that if [something other than what Diranakir claims - see below] happened, then Diranakir needs to change his password. The reason they said that was that Diranakir has, at times, been less than clear as to exactly what he was claiming. For the benefit of anyone who wants the technical details, I am going to explain that [something other than what Diranakir claims] above. Lets say Diranakir decided that "secret" or "123456789" were nice passwords to have and someone else guessed the password. What can they do and what can't they do? They cannot alter Wikipedia history. As I have explained repeatedly, that cannot be done. Admins can change the visibility so that only admins can see it (this is done when someone posts an editor's home phone number, for example) but everything Diranakir (or an imposter) does on Wikipedia is permanently recorded, and cannot be altered or deleted. Which means that whatever the imposter does after compromising Diranakir's account is also recorded. The basic rule is that the imposter cannot do anything that the real person cannot do. The imposter can change the password, thus locking Diranakir out. Think about that for a minute. what happens if you complain to Wikipedia's admins and the imposter calls you a liar and says he is the original owner of the account? What happens if it was you who changed your password and someone else claims that you are the imposter? Who do the admins believe? All they can do is to ask each of you to try to prove you were the one who created the account. And they have to do it while protecting both party's privacy (yes, Wikipedia will protect your privacy after you impersonate another user, You might get banned, but you won't be outed.) I, on the other hand can prove my identity without anyone being able to dispute it, because it says this on my user page: {Committed identity: c0c5e71bca550e99a8ae6641e66c428e232051bade39cd47355634ff159c9475fffa1d12eee339aa401bfe5b31ff7fc352c2b9c6f002bfe82d03a6b3f9e40047 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity. (See Template:User committed identity for details.) Another thing an imposter who has your password can do is, of course, post things and make edits using your username. That's because Wikipedia has no way of knowing who you are -- Wikipedia only knows whether you have the correct password. Note that this is not what Diranakir is claiming. He is claiming that he made this edit and that line #89 of the edit is from him but the other 19 changes are from someone else, who with his magical psychic superpowers has somehow determined to be Gazifikator. Which is impossible. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC) On the date in question I made a 2 sentence edit that took about 2 minutes. I saved and got out. That is all I did on that date. I was well rested and very focused and thought I had made a good improvement in the article. I have made undiscussed edits in the past, but in my recent activity have resolved to follow guidelines more closely and discuss things beforehand. For that reason, I avoided the first paragraph like the plague since it has been and remains a subject of hot controversy. This is why I was totally shocked and blind-sided by the diff attributed to me, let alone by a number of other miscellaneous edits also attributed to me. If your final word is that such a phenomenon is impossible, this means you think I am mentally unstable. This has already been suggested by Guy Macon. If that's the consensus, then I have no more reason to remain part of the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I am not qualified to offer an opinion on your mental stability. All I can do is examine your behavior. You appear to be unwilling or unable to read and follow simple instructions, as evidenced by your continued failure to follow the "Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)" instruction which is at the top of every edit page. You do not follow indentation rules. And you keep insisting that the impossible is possible. You say that you made an edit at 15:50 on 3 June 2012 (UTC)[2] but that you only changed line 86, when the record clearly shows that you altered lines 6, 14, 37, 50, 61, 71, 79, 89, 96, 149, 167, 204, 218, 354, 486, 554, 576, 596, 612, 713, 718, and 730. You claim, against all evidence, that someone edited the diff, and it does not seem the least bit odd to you that all they did with this supernatural ability is things like changing "19th" to "nineteenth". You somehow decided that you know who did this magic, but you won't tell us how you know this. These are all easily observed behaviors. If you think these are indications of mental instability, I suggest that you see a mental-health professional. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I did not do any of the edits you ascribe to me in the series you cite except at line #89. To say I did is a complete falsehood. I cannot account for how the record you cite came into being. Is there some automated process whereby when making a change on one particular line and one particular line only that a whole set of other changes could be triggered without my going to those lines manually or being aware of them? I have no question about my mental stability and therefore find your suggestion highly offensive. As I said, if this is the consensus then Wikipedia is not the place for me. As for my signature errors, this seems a fairly common error at Wikipedia and results from my forgetting to log in first. I will admit to not being technically adept in the various operations. But no one is going to tell me I did edits I did not do. The rest is in your hands. Diranakir (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I am sorry that you were offended, but it was you who raised the question of mental stability. Again, I am not qualified to offer an opinion on your mental stability, but if you think you have a problem, see a mental-health professional. You having no questions about your mental stability is not very convincing evidence. You also have no questions about your claims that the impossible is possible. Obviously I am never going to convince you, so here are the rules that you are expected to follow. You are free to believe what you believe - there is no rule against claiming the the impossible is possible. You can vigorously disagree with my conclusions - I invited such criticisms by offering my professional opinion as an engineer and software developer. You can try to convince the developers of the Wiki software that they have a serious bug. The right place to do that is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). There is one thing that you are not allowed to do. You must never again accuse Gazifikator of editing that diff. If you do that you will be warned, and if you persist, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Feel free to have the last word. I am done here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC) I think all of the above should be deleted from this talk page given that none of it is to do with article content discussion and this talk page is already getting full with on-topic things. It's pretty clear what must have happened: Diranakir must have mistakenly done his "To correct grammar and improve wording" edit on a previous version of the article and not on the one that was current at the time of his edit. Meowy 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC) I thought of that, and went looking for candidate versions so I could say, "look, you pulled up old version X on your screen, edited line 68, them saved the old version over the new." I could not find any evidence to support the theory. The claim really is impossible. Alas, past experience shows that Diranakir will now claim "Meowy said it was possible!" even though the claim clearly is not. In particular, look at line 14 of This diff, where InverseHypercube changed two spaces and a hyphen to a dash, This diff, where Diranakir changed it back to two spaces and a hyphen. I do agree that this is off topic, so I am collapsing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of Discussion On Medz Yeghern

To Gazificator: In the previous section of our discussion you and Meowy have made much of the idea that there has been such a change in the meaning of "yeghern" over the last hundred years that the present-day meaning is different from that used by Armenians in 1915 and after.

Examples of this position:

1. Meowy 16:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nor is it correct use modern meanings to translate a phrase that was coined almost a century ago.

2. Gazifikator (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

When I check the greatest authority Hrachia Acharian's dictionary he translates Yeghern both as "calamity, evil (and in new literary Armenian as crime)" [1].

3. Gazifikator (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Medz Yeghern" was first used in the circle of Constantinople Armenians (by Teodik, as I know), not by Ashot Sukiassian in 1960's. Sorry, but your research is completely useless and is really a wasting of time...

Question on your citation of Hrachia Acharian in #2 above:

Do you dispute that when he gives "crime" as the meaning of "yeghern" he is telling us that is its meaning in modern Armenian, i. e., the Armenian of his own day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Diranakir (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Review & evaluation of definitions cited for Եղեռն [yeghern] from April 24, 2012 to the present in sections 2 & 4 of this Talk page discussion:

1. Rotbandito initiates the topic on April 24th with a Google machine translation giving "the Great Enormity, the Great Atrocity" for "Medz Yeghern". On this basis he/she claims that crime is the wrong translation. This does not follow, which I point out at the time. Rotbandito has remained silent on the issue ever since.

2. Marshall Bagramyan, who reverted "Great Crime" last April 24th, tells us his dictionary (not named) gives "slaughter, carnage, genocide, crime, evil deed" as definitions and concedes that "crime" is the best definition. He has remained silent on the issue ever since.

3. Gazifikator cites Hrachia Acharian's dictionary entry for Եղեռն [yeghern] as support for his "calamity" translation, whereas what Acharian actually says is that "yeghern" means "crime/ոճիր" [ vojir] in modern Armenian. At the same time, if one looks up ոճիր in the same dictionary one sees that Acharian in turn defines it with Եղեռն [yeghern]. See: http://www.nayiri.com/imagedDictionaryBrowser.jsp?dictionaryId=7&pageNumber=1952

4. I refer my opponents to Ashot Sukiasyan's thesaurus of the Armenian language and subsequently provide the link to the page where Sukiasyan lists 16 synonyms for Եղեռն [yeghern], each of which is a word for extreme violence.

5. I next cite a monograph by Professor Seda Gasparyan [Doctor of Philological Sciences at the State University of Yerevan] entitled The Word 'Yeghern' and The Semantic Field of Its Equivalence in English. In her analysis Professor Gasparyan repeatedly and consistently returns to the point that the concept of crime is the core meaning of yeghern. In the course of doing so, she cites Sukiasyan's entry, the same one I mentiioned above but which was dismissed at the time as completely irrelevant by Gazifikator. Furthermore and very significantly for the purposes of this discussion, Professor Gasparyan explicitly and categorically rejects the concept of "calamity" as in any way expressing the true meaning of "yeghern".

I think it's time to bring this discussion to a close. It's lasted several weeks now and I have given it my all. I don't think the same can be said for my opponents who have so far not cited a single reputable, scholarly source to back up their notion that "calamity" is an accurate translation of 'yeghern'. All I have from them are a couple of whopping red herrings. I have proved in this discussion that yeghern=crime and that Medz Yeghern=Great Crime. If there is anyone out there (other than Meowy and Gazifikator) who disagrees with me and still thinks "Great Calamity" is the right translation I would like to hear from you, but only if you can document your position with respectable, verifiable sources. When I finally replace "Great Calamity" with "Great Crime" in the lead paragraph of the article I don't want anyone to suddenly jump up and find their tongue and accuse me of acting without proper discussion when there have been weeks to discuss it without my hearing a thing from them. Your silence now will not recommend your comments later. Now is the time to declare yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

death count?

1st paragraph: ..."to have been between 1 million and 1.5 million." sidebox: Deaths 600,000 - 1,800,000[1][2][3] Smashkeyboardcreateusername (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WWI

There is a fake info. Persian campaign and Caucasus campaign may affect Armenian people. But do you know where Gallipoli is? In west parts of Turkey Armenian people live only Smyrne and Constantinople. So you may have to clarify this info. Youcan also check the article Gallipoli campaign out. All you have to do is to start a search button (Ctrl+F) and write "armen" in... You'll see what I mean.Entuluve (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn more about where Armenians lived in the Ottoman empire. For the Galipoli area, I do remember reading somewhere that the Greek and Armenian inhabitants of Galipoli were deported early on after the Allied landings, though not for specific genocidal purposes but because the Ottoman authorities did not want the Allied forces to have access to a local population who might help them. However, that paragraph could also be saying that the Gallipoli fighting affected the Armenian population in other parts of the empire in an adverse way, in a similar way that the Ottoman defeat at Sarikamish did. Meowy 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You should learn where Armenian people lived, before, and now. This never happened. There is another problem. There was other Armenian conflict of Ottoman Empire during Balkan Wars, not in Chanakkale (or Gallipoli). Greek peoples are also massacred but not in Gallipoli, it was all during Balkan Wars of Ottoman Empire. When it comes to Gallipoli, "Ittihat ve Terakki" were no longer powerful in government, which is the responsible of genocide the political party of "Young Turks".

Migration of Armenian people from Marmara,not only Gallipoli, has charged after intelligence of Russian Csardom attack plans. So Rumelian Armenian people are either killed or forced to migrate by government. Please read carefully the Article: Gallipoli campaign in wiki.

No, if you remember you read please show us with source. Some citation.Entuluve (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles or mirror websites co not serve as a basis for writing or editing other wiki articles. Aregakn (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Toxic gas??

It reads, "Toxic gas: Dr. Ziya Fuad and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits reporting cases in which two school buildings were used to organize children and send them to the mezzanine to kill them with toxic gas equipment." I checked this reference articles and there is no such statement. No toxic gases. This statement has to be improved with a more serious reference. (57th and 58threferences have no relation with statement.) Otherwise the statement has to be removed from article. Entuluve (talk) 10:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source to check, however a quick internet search found something that appears similar (from http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6825) the text:

"Here is the first methodical introduction of gas chambers. A testimony of the gas chambers during the proceedings of the military tribunal was published in the Istanbul Newspaper Renaissance, 27 April 1919.
First we didn't realize what was happening. But one day we heard cries that abruptly ceased and were followed by a deathly silence. We then paid closer attention to what was happening. The baskets at the door of the "disinfection" hall told everything. It appears that Dr. Saib trapped the victims in a chamber equipped with some kind of toxic gas equipment with fatal effects. Those baskets were used elsewhere, such as at the Red Crescent Hospital, then the bodies of the dead or dying were disposed by dumping them in the Black Sea nearby."

Dadrian is cited as the source for this (presumably Dadrian's "The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I Genocide of Ottoman Armenians") Meowy 19:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This website that you linked here is obviously a racist website. And there is no real sources. Only rumors. Here you can find the source article that i criticised. http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/2/169.abstract

Even this article has not enough citations too, this topic is mentioned only as a rumor. No evidence.

So those are citated are completely weak evidences and must be considered. Wiki is a good foundation but we must check every sources, everybody gives any sources, and we do not know what is inside. Is it true or amazingly fake.

This is not history but only a story here.Entuluve (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody said anything for two weeks, I removed this false information from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entuluve (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources cited are both reliable. the last one, that 'you criticized', is an academic article. Gazifikator (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

However, it could be argued that the content is there for effect only (to make a rather heavy-handed comparison with the Holocaust), and is a case of undue weight. For every one person who died by toxic gas, how many hundred thousands were burnt alive, or died by blows of an axe, or through forced starvation or dehydration? Meowy 19:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at that section again, I think my undue weight verdict was correct. It really sticks out as text just placed in the article for propaganda purposes. Because of that, together with the concern expressed about the citations, I think it is correct to have the section deleted and I have deleted it. In some future version of the article, when it is better written and more organised, maybe a small part of it can be restored. Meowy 17:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tone of a section

The section "study of.." has a sentence that starts: "For Turkish historians, supporting the national republican myth is essential...". This is effectively a statement/opinion in Wikipedia's voice that this is indeed a "myth" (according to whom?), that it is held by "republicans" (which?), and asserting that Turkish "historians" (which ones?)(just historians?) see it as "essential" for unity. All three claims are uncited and the tone is not neutral.

Similarly "The usual Turkish argument..." Who exactly has said what exactly? "The usual arguments" can come across as a non-neutral way of subtly disparaging speakers on one side of an issue, as spoken by the other side.

Can someone rewrite these two sentences in a better style? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2012

Template:Disputed title Whatislife2012 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. You can seek consensus merely by beginning a discussion on this talk page; making an Edit Request is not necessary. Before starting a discussion, however, please review past discussions, including the archives linked at the top of this page, and proceed only if you believe there is a reasonable chance of persuading a sufficient number of other editors. Rivertorch (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Diranakir

Diranakir, you have been indulging in a disruptive low-level edit war on this article. You have repeatedly deleted reference content from the article and have replaced it with your own crudely-worded POV and OR material.

"Great Calamity" must remain as a translation for Medz Yeghern because it exists in a cited source. Is there something about that fact you do not understand? Stop deleting properly referenced content! You have been warned repeatedly about this in the edit summaries. Also, "Great Calamity needs to remain as the primary translation because, as was carefully explained to you many months ago, Google search results suggest that usage of "Great Calamity" is almost four times more common than "Great Crime" (and about 15% of all "Great Crime" usage is in the context of an argument about whether "Great Crime" should be use instead of "Great Calamity").

You have also been deleting accurate content and replacing it with inaccurate content for propagandistic reasons.

You added the text "systematic extermination of the Armenian population its historic homeland in Asia Minor" This is inaccurate. The historic homeland of the Armenian population is not "Asia Minor", and the majority of Armenians who were killed during the Armenian Genocide lived nowhere near their "historic homeland". I think that "Extermination" is also pov and insulting terminology to use (do you consider a word used to describe the killing of household pests suitable for the mass murder of humans?). When inserting your inaccurate content you deleted the accurate content: "systematic destruction of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire". That content also had a citation.

You added the text "was implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and forced labor, and the deportation on death marches to the Syrian Desert of women, children, the elderly and infirm." Not only is this an inaccurate characterisation of the events, you actually give it a fake citation! When adding that inaccurate information you deleted the accurate content: "It was implemented through wholesale massacres and deportations, with the deportations consisting of forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees." That particular sentence was arrived at after much discussion on the talk page and after very many small edit changes: it contains carefully-crafted nuances that you, with your very limited knowledge of the Armenian Genocide, seem incapable of understanding.

You added the text "The word genocide was coined in order to describe these events". This is untrue – the word genocide was coined to describe all such massacres. When adding that inaccurate information you deleted the accurate content "The Armenian Genocide initiated Raphael Lemkin to invent the term genocide to describe such events" but you still kept the citation that went with that content, deceptively using it to support your own inaccurate claim.

If, after reading all of the above, you still decide to continue with your disruptive editing style, I think that sufficient evidence will exist to get you blocked permanently from editing this article. Meowy 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Response To Latest Criticisms

1. "Disruptive editing" is an accusation and not a fact.

2. Yeghern means crime. Medz Yeghern means Great Crime. That is a fact my sources prove and one that can be proved by many more sources, reputable and scholarly ones. There is no parity between crime and calamity in translating Medz Yeghern. Calamity is simply wrong, and there is definitely no basis for giving it priority.

3. The term "extermination" has been in the lead paragraph for many years but has occasioned no objection from Meowy until now. Furthermore, Meowy has misquoted the phrase containing "extermination" by omitting the very important preposition "from", e. g., "The Armenian Genocide. . . . was the systematic extermination of the Armenian population from its historic homeland in Asia Minor". Meowy also makes the preposterous assertion that 'the majority of Armenians killed during the Armenian Genocide lived nowhere near their "historic homeland" '.

4. I have provided solid references concerning the two phases of the genocide process. Meowy suggests I have given just one reference and calls it "fake", whereas I have given two, each of them from authoritative sources. Meowy is obliged to prove the accusation of "fake".

5. Meowy erroneously attributes to me the phrase concerning the coining of the term genocide and the reasons behind it. I had nothing to do with that text. Furthermore, Meowy's innovation on that phrase is ungrammatical in the extreme ("initiated Raphael Lemkin to invent. . . ."). 67.169.127.31 (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)