I mean, yes, they gave him that title. Roughly translatable as "the leader" or "the chieftain".
What's the problem?
Britannica, for comparison, has contained and still contains Armenian genocide denial in plenty of its articles touching upon Armenia even in little ways. It's honestly not that good on most other subjects I know anything about. It's good enough, I've heard, on scientific and technical subjects, point in time year 1960. And its articles are, eh, far less detailed than Wikipedia, usually. Yet people don't bark at Britannica because that's not in fashion. Actually people still recommend Britannica as a beacon of sanity in the age where anyone can silently abuse a Wikipedia article, or something like that.
Come on, it's just another internet encyclopedia which is like Wikipedia, but with creators' truth not burdened with proof and all wrong people banned without bureaucracy, "truth" and "wrong" being up to subjective interpretation here.
