:You need to check your priorities. Inclusion of an obscure factoid, namely a 100-year-old erroneous or libelous misidentification of B. as having Jewish ancestry  and presentation of this misinformation as deserving first mention and more space than the truth? Now THAT'S both undue AND misleading! (Note that the factoid was introduced via persistent edit warring by an editor who was later kicked out from Wikipedia for being a Nazi propagandist  the compulsion to "unmask the closet Jew" is a surefire way to identify both Nazis and people suffering from an unhealthy fascination with Jews.) Feel free to remedy this, if you can stomach the inevitable outrage from... well I don't need to spell out from who. 
 :As far as B.'s determined non-intervention in Turkey's genocide of the Armenians, of course it belongs. It sheds light on B.'s character and the principles by which he governed and conducted the war. Should a quarter of the article be devoted to this important aspect? No, of course not. But the solution is not to delete something that is both relevant and well-sourced. Rather, get off your duff and start adding relevant and well-sourced information to make this article more complete!