Talk:Armenian genocide recognition

Bolivia

I believe Bolivia has just recently recognized the Armenian genocide? http://hetq.am/eng/news/57584/bolivias-parliament-recognizes-1915-armenian-genocide.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melting Pot of Friendship (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: UN Sub-Commission

Dispute over whether to include a more detailed paragraph on the UN Sub-Commission and its attitude over the Whitaker Report (United_Nations) --PBS (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph:

In 1985 the now-defunct United Nations think tank, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities took note and thanked the Special Rapporteur, Benjamin Whitaker, for producing his report called the Revised and Updated Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Whitaker Report). The report was controversial for several reasons including the contents of paragraph 24 which listed some genocides in the 20th Century. One of the genocides that the report listed was "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916", the earlier report in 1973 (which is the report being revised and updated by the Whitaker Report) to the Sub-Commission called The Study on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocde (Ruhashyankiko Report) had contained a similar allegation which had been withdrawn in the final version under pressure from Turkey, and although the Whitaker Report mentioned some genocides in the 20th Century, due to disagreements over its content by the members of the Sub-Commission, unlike the Ruhashyankiko Report, it was not forwarded to the parent orgnisation, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, for approval and wide dissemination.

References

---

We have reliable official source on official recognition by UN Sub-Commission:

Both the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized the massacre as genocide, as has the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. [1]

You can not delete this! And it is about 1985, when the Sub-Commision functioned. it is completely irrelevant, if it is defunct now, after 24 years.

What the cited book writes, I dont know. How it can say something different? A citation please. Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We have been through that See #International Center for Transitional Justice link you have provided Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide by CTV News Net is not a reliable source.

Besides, I have not deleted it I have expanded it with a whole paragraph, and the books given are far more reliable than a cable TV channel. Why don't you read the details in the links provided and see it the paragraph I have written is accurate instead of deleting the material without verifying what I have written is accurate? --PBS (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sources you will see that the two sources are:

• Inazumi, Mitsue (2005). Universal jurisdiction in modern international law, Intersentia nv, ISBN 9050953662, 9789050953665. pp. 72–75

See these biographical details: p.8[2][3]

• Schabas, William (2000). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521787904, 9780521787901 465–468

If you look at the letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, June 13, 2005 which is used as a source for the mention of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in the same section you will see within it the following:

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

I hope that puts your mind to rest over the difference in quality between the authors of the two books I cited, and an anonymous reporter in an article from a cable TV company. --PBS (talk) 12:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just removed a chunk of off-topic and weasel-worded material from that section. The obvious implication meant by the the words "now defunct" is that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was either unimportant or disfunctioning and thus its opinions regarding the genocide were not worthy of consideration. Equally unsatisfactory was the pedantic wording meant to imply that the report mentioned was not actually a report produced by the Subcommission. The exact nature of the report, and it's reception, is fully dealt with in the article dedicated to it. Meowy 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which bits do you consider to be weasel wording and which bits are off-topic?

Why do you draw the conclusion that the Sub-Commision was either "unimportant or disfunctioning" it is not asserted in the text so why do you infer that from the text? I don't so it is not an "obvious implication". The fact that it was a think-tank is noted in many reliable sources eg Global human rights institutions: between remedy and ritual by Gerd Oberleitner, Polity, 2007 ISBN 0745634389, 9780745634388 pp. 76,77 including UN reports eg: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights By United Nations Publications, United Nations. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations: General Assembly, United Nations, Published by United Nations Publications, 2000 ISBN 9218101633, 9789218101631, p. 5. That it is now defunct is also mentioned in reliable sources (although they have to have been written and published in the last three years eg The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: The System in Practice 1986-2006 by Malcolm Evans, Rachel Murray, Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521883997, 9780521883993 p. 380. So obviously this information is considered important in reliable sources. BTW if you do a Google book search on ["Sub-Commission" UN OR United-Nations], you will see that many reliable sources think it important to mention that an orgnisation is defunct when mentioned their positions on a subject.

"Equally unsatisfactory was the pedantic wording meant to imply that the report mentioned was not actually a report produced by the Subcommission." Are you suggesting that we should not report things accurately? How can it be pedantic to point out that the report was noted and not accepted by the Sub-Commission?

It is inaccurate to state as is done in the version you reverted to "Among the organizations asserting this conclusion ... Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities [in its Whitaker Report]" because it is misleading as the Sub-Commission did not accept the Whitaker Report, and therefor did not endorse or accept any of the report. Further it can not be "asserting this conclusion" because the Sub-Commission no longer exists. Either we should put in a full explanation or we should --PBS (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator,when you reverted Anthon.Eff's revert in which he wrote in the history "Thought the PBS edits were extremely informative. Shame on you Meowy, for your tendentious reversion!" you wrote in the history "to Meowy's version. make a consensus" what did you mean by that statement?

Further when reverting out for the second time the new paragraph I have added to the article you wrote in the history of the article "rv weasel worded irrelevant information". Which parts do you consider weasel worded and which parts do you consider irrelevant and which parts weasel worded and irrelevant? --PBS (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, I am not sure why you moved a 1985 section paragraph after a 2007 paragraph. It makes more sense to put them in chronological order. I put back the wording in the paragraph that was changed because the first "think tank" is used in a more recent UN citation than the one you included which was written in the present tense and was out of date. I put back the second sentence that you removed because both cited sources say that a number of items in the article were controversial including paragraph 24. Do you dispute that there were a number of controversial points in the report or that paragraph 24 was controversial? --PBS (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The topic of Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a controversy itself. Many people recognize it, and few ones, included countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan deny it. According to such a logic, we will add the word of "controversy" everywhere. We keep paragraphs according to their notability, not according to POV, you're pushing here, and Meowy already criticized your actions. As you say, the sub-commission is defunct now, so we must use the present official description. Gazifikator (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence says "The report was controversial for several reasons including the contents of paragraph 24 which listed some genocides in the 20th Century." it does not say that it was only controversy over the inclusion of the Armenian Genocide that it failed to be adopted. (It may be that if that was all that was controversial it might have passed) That is why the sentence is important.

The UN source I included calls the Sub-Committee a think tank, which is a useful description for those who do not know what its function was. Here is another one:

• THE 57TH SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMISSION ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Geneva (25 July to 12 August 2005) "The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) created the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1947 as a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights. It was designed as a "think tank" body for human rights issues, where 26 independent experts could study cases of human rights violations, examine obstacles to human rights protection and develop new international standards."

You have not addressed the issue of why you have moved the paragraph from a chronological position to the end of the section. Why did you do it? --PBS (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets not push pov here! The source clearly says it was a subsidiary body, and was just designed as a "think tank". It never means it was a "think tank" per responsibilities. If someone looks like Silvester Stallone, and even is 'designed' like he, he never became the Stalone. So we need to cite sources rightly, no reason for such a misquotings.Gazifikator (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(1)It was a think tank, (2) you have not edited the paragraph you have reverted the edit, which moves the paragraph down to the bottom of the section and out of chronological order. Why do you want the paragraph at the end of the section? -- PBS (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The list is much more important, that the detailed chronology. It is according to Wikipedia rules. Your entry is too dubious and pov, to have it at start. Gazifikator (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What is dubious about it? What does it say that is not in the citations? --PBS (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The official source for Sub-commisssion never describes it as a think tank. Gazifikator (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

However if you remove the term think-tank, (although there are at least 2 UN sources that use that term), then what is the justification for moving it down the page and out of chronological order? -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS, I explained the reason several times. While the info you're pushing is a POV, it is also can only came after the lead of section and the list. It is according to Wiki rules. If the Uruguay was the first country recognizing the Genocide, we do not start article with the description of this recognition. We have start section, then some lists, then more important events, and only after it some pov info on how a UN Sub-commission was "designed" and when it stopped to funct. It is not the main and central issue for the Armenian Genocide recognition! Gazifikator (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If your are to be consistent in your position why do you leave it as the first entry in "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:"? BTW why should it come after the list when the paragraph for "Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity" comes before the list and has done for a long time? --PBS (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Noone doubts that Wiesel foundation recognized the Armenian Genocide, so why it is there. But if no objection, I agree to have it after the Sub-commission. Gazifikator (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I object. further you have not explained why the UN entry remains first in the list if as you put it there is doubt about that entry. What is the justification for the ordering of the list. Better to have paragraphs than bullet pointed entries.-- PBS (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

PBS, your pov-pushing must be reverted since you're even not agree for any compromises. We discussed that the term 'think tank' is a misinterpretation by you, and other users also considered your text on "sub-commission" dubious, as other sources do not support it. And until you do not reached consensus and even seems are continuing the old pov-pushing, please leave article for others to not start a useless editwarring and achieve a consensus here for the beginning. Gazifikator (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"PBS, your pov-pushing must be reverted since you're even not agree for any compromises." What is the POV that you think I am pushing? That sort of argument is a resort to rethoric because by using such language you are implying that it is I who is biased and not you. Yet you have not presenteed any evidence to support your contention.

For example with my last edit (made at 13:12) that you reverted, I commented "Take out the phrase think-tank for the moment, to see if we can then agree on the ordering", yet you still reverted the edit AFAICT without even bothering to read the text as you commented above at 13:19 "We discussed that the term 'think tank'..."

As two UN sources call the sub-commission a think tank why is it that you object to the description. Who are the other users who have described the use of the term 'think tank' is a misinterpretation? What was the committee if not a think-tank? Other sources are available which also describe the sub-commission as a think-tank as a Google search of Books shows --PBS (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no sources calling it think tank, its your misinterpretation. Make a citiation, please! Gazifikator (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already listed several examples in this section (and included the second of these two sources as a citation in the article, but here yet again are two UN examples:

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) created the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1947 as a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights. It was designed as a "think tank" body for human rights issues, where 26 independent experts could study cases of human rights violations, examine obstacles to human rights protection and develop new international standards.

— 

• THE 57TH SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMISSION ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Geneva (25 July to 12 August 2005)

25 August 2006 – The United Nations “think tank” on human rights ended its last meeting today, presenting its vision of how a future advisory body could service the recently established Human Rights Council.

Meeting in Geneva, the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights – whose parent body, the Commission on Human Rights, was abolished in the reforms that brought the Council into being earlier this year – propose that a human rights consultative committee of 26 experts should assist the new Council.

With reference to this second source this reliable source (Global human rights institutions: between remedy and ritual by Gerd Oberleitner, Polity, 2007 ISBN 0745634389, 9780745634388 pp. 76,77) quotes that the Sub-Commission itself suggests that it needs to be replaced with an organisation like itself which it describes as a "human rights research" or a "think-tank" --PBS (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So obviously both are misinterpretations by you. First source describes it as a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights, not a 'think tank', and for the second it is even not clear, what body is the "United Nations “think tank” on human rights", and this source is from 2006 event, when Sub-Commission became a support body for newly established Human Rights Council. Gazifikator (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How "it a misinterpretation", in the first one what do you think "It was designed as a "think tank"" means? What do you think the "It" in that phrase refers to if it is not to the Sub-Commission? In the second one is under the headline "UN ‘think tank’ winds up by proposing expert body to advise Human Rights Council". The Sub-Commission DID NOT become a support body for newly established Human Rights Council, it was wound up recommending that a new think-tank like itself was set up (see the third source). --PBS (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I must repeat myself!: "The source clearly says it was a subsidiary body, and was just designed as a "think tank". It never means it was a "think tank" per responsibilities. If someone looks like Silvester Stallone, and even is 'designed' like he, he never became the Stalone. So we need to cite sources rightly, no reason for such a misquotings." Gazifikator (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Silvester Stallone is not a good example(people are born not designed). The government of the UK is not the government of the UK, it is technically Her Majesty's Government but few people would argue that to describe it as the government of the UK was not accurate. In the same way the Queen is not head of state because she is much more than that she is the embodiment of the state. "In 1985 the now-defunct United Nations think tank" is an accurate description of the body. We can re-arrange the sentence if you like:

In 1985 the now defunct United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, a think-tank for the United Nations Human Rights Commission, took note and thanked the Special Rapporteur ...

--PBS (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like an acceptable wording, although I don't see why the word "defunct" is absolutely necessary here. I believe the current ordering of the paragraphs is only appropriate if the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities is removed from the bullet point list of international organizations that recognize the Armenian Genocide. The Whitaker Report was published by the Sub-Comission, but it was neither widely accepted nor disseminated by the parent UN body. As such, presenting the UN in this list seems all but misleading. That being said, I believe presenting the UN report after the Elie Wiesel Foundation letter would prevent any obstruction in the flow of the article. At one point, you're talking about the organizations that recognize the genocide, and then switch off to the unresolved issue of the Whitaker Report and then back to an organization that recognizes the genocide. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're pov-pushing, Nishkid:

(23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled `Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,' which stated `[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the 20th century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916'.

(24) This report also explained that `[a]t least 1,000,000, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany.'[4]

Gazifikator (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked on the talk page of user:Nishkid64 to if (s)he could try to mediate on this issue, as the two of us seemed unable to reach an understanding and the RFC did not bring any new parties to the discussion. The details of what happened with the Whitaker Report are detailed in the link. Most of it is based on the book by William Schabas (who is mentioned by name as an expert in this field the letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan). This is what Schabas writes about the political machinations that surrounded this report:p.467

At the conclusion of the debate in the Sub-Commission, two resolutions were proposed. The first endorsed Whitaker's proposals, including amendment of the Convention; the second merely received and took note of the study, thanking the Special Rapporteur [Whitaker] for his efforts. Opinions about Whitaker's conclusions so divided the Sub-Commission that even the more modest of the two resolutions could only be adopted with difficulty. A paragraph was added to not 'that divergent opinions have been expressed about the content and proposals of the report'. An attempt to strengthen the resolution by expressing the Sub-Commission's thanks and congratulations for 'some' of the proposals in the report was resoundingly defeated. The resolution thanking Whitaker, as amended was eventually adopted. The second resolution was eventually withdrawn by its sponsors.

So to say the Sub-Commission "accepted" the report, is an oversimplification (particularly when compared with what they did with the earlier Ruhashyankiko Report). Further the source you are providing the quote from that it was "accepted" is not a reliable source as defined by WP:V. Also like the Sub-Commision, I intend to write a detailed paragraph on what the International Center for Transitional Justice has done if we are not going to remove it (see the appropriate section above). --PBS (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone like Nishkid is going to mediate for us, it is better to agree with me his candidacy, otherwise why to not welcome all the WikiProjectTurkey member's to support you as well? It seems your citation have nothing common with mine, its rather about a separate discussion at Sub-Com. (maybe of 1970's). Gazifikator (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote cited above by PBS refers to the Sub-Committee's activities in the 1980s, so I don't know where you're getting the 1970s from. As for mediation, I came in here as a neutral party. I have no biases toward Armenians or Turks (despite the fact that I've oddly enough been accused of being pro-Armenian), and I'm only here to propose a neutral presentation for the article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For whom you're telling this? Few days ago you were so much 'neutral' to my person [5], that even a deep idiot will understand what's going on. Gazifikator (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So, by enforcing policy, I am not neutral? You were given sufficient warning by Sandstein, yet you chose to ignore it. You're the only one to blame for that. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no rules and no policy there, just some dirty game. You blame me, I and some other people blame you and Sandstein. That's the reality! Gazifikator (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

When I made the request I only knew that Nishkid64 had protected (the wrong version) this page from editing for a week. It seemed sensible to me to ask him/her to mediate as only two of us were currently involved in this dispute. If you think that Nishkid64 good faith effort to mediate is counter productive, I will not object if Nishkid64 decides to withdraw. But, as an RfC has failed, I think it necessary that we go for another form of informal mediation through the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal --PBS (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that Nishkid's effort to mediate is counter productive, so any other solution without Nishkid's, Sandstein's participation will be only welcomed by my side! Thank you! Gazifikator (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You were given multiple chances to reform your ways. You were notified of the AA2 case by Sandstein in May 2009. Then you were given a warning not to engage in edit warring and a notice about possible sanctioning on June 24. Immediately after returning to WP, you continued an edit war on this article. Hence, the sanctions. If Gazifikator does not want me to mediate, I'll gladly remove myself. I just don't like seeing someone mistake policy enforcement for non-neutrality. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-30/Recognition of the Armenian Genocide --PBS (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As the mediation has not yet started I have reverted to the last version by PBS, as the other version has been in place for 3 weeks. --PBS (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Turkish denial

It is evident that Turkey is denying the Armenian Genocide. Should we discuss the denial in this article?--Clear Discoherency (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in favour of merging the Denial of the Armenian Genocide and this article into one See Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article --PBS (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That matter has been settled. All your previous arguments (along with your unilateral page renaming) were effectively countered and you are presenting no new arguments. There is no need to go over this again. Meowy 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

French law

The article initially cited years 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2006, as though France had enacted 4 laws on the Armenian genocide. This was misleading. In 1998 a law was voted by the French National Assembly. However, in order for a law to be adopted, it has to be voted by both houses of Parliament. An identical bill was introduced before the Senate, and was voted there in 2000; then it had to be signed into law by the President of the Republic, which it was, in 2001.

In 2006, a member's bill was voted by the National Assembly. This bill criminalizes the denial of the Armenian genocide, just as the denial of the Jewish Holocaust. It however has not yet been brought before the Senate. It therefore isn't law. David.Monniaux (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

united states doesnt recognize genocide you cant put the usa flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.74.233 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

International Center for Transitional Justice

See Archive 1#International Center for Transitional Justice

I have move and expanded the mention of the ICTJ, into a paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Germany

Why is Germany coloured on the map when it has not officially recognized the genocide? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beowulf1978 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Use of "recognised" in general and for H. Res. 252.

The word recognised is being used too loosely in this article. Take for example the recent addition of the American Foreign Affairs committee. What did the resolution say? If it say "we recognise the genocide" then that is what we should use, but what it said was "Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes." So we should probably use wording like the committee "approved a resolution introducing a bill to find 'The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes'". Note the use of the word find because that is what the proposed Bill says.

Also McAfee SiteAdvisor warns against the current source http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-03/05/c_13197636.htm which it says is not safe: see this report

This CBC source states that this is not the first time the this committee has approved such a resolution: "The Foreign Affairs Committee approved a similar genocide measure in 2007, but it was not brought to the House floor for a vote following intensive pressure by George W. Bush, the president at the time."

Here a copy of the opening remarks by Howard L. Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at markup of the Armenian Genocide resolution, H. Res. 252.

Here is the wording of the resolution and the Bill attached to H. Res. 252.

-- PBS (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ally

Azerbaijan, as an ally of Turkey and in a state of war against Armenia? In which war? Recent Azerbaijan-Armenia war or World War 1? In World War, is there an internationally recognized Azerbaijan? If the article refers to Azerbaijan-Armenian War, was Turkish army involved in this war? Please, correct it and remove disambiguity. Kavas (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

sweden

News about sweden recognizing... http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=14907386&PageNum=4 (LAz17 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)).

Armenian National Institute, Inc.

See Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 1#RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc.

I propose that all facts only supported by citations from the unreliable source http://www.armenian-genocide.org/copyright.html be removed. If the facts which they present can be found in reliable sources then they can be put back. There is no reason why the site can not be used for research but pages of their unsupported by reliable sources, should not be used as sources for facts in this article. -- PBS (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

if the facts can be checked from other sources then there no sense in claiming this source unreliable before that is proven. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SOURCES it is not a reliable source. Further there have been a number of times that this source has been proven to be unreliable. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES says "this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles". Show unverifiable claims or any of the above violations in the references of these article. In 1 word, what is in the Article, that you claim, that the source lied about and so it is unreliable? Aregakn (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a bias website that promotes one point of view, it does not meet the requirements laid out in WP:SOURCES for a reliable source as it falls under WP:POORSRC. It also has inaccuracies that it has carried for years. Here is one I provided earlier: "Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454" is incorrect see Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 1#Wales National Assembly.

There is no reason why the AMI institute can not be used as a start of an investigation but it should not be cited as a source. Instead if it publishes a page like "Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454" that should be followed up with a verified citation to the original source that the AMI cites. In the case of the Wales National Assembly Resolution this turned out to be false. -- PBS (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, as I don't see that you bring any exact falsifications this article refers to as bases on that web, I do suggest you to find the same on other, as you say, reliable websites and change the references. For now the claim of it being non-reliable is only a claim with no provision of basis.

If you claim that Wales turned to be false, prove it please. I personally was connected to the Anglican Church of Walse, at the time the issue of recognition by their parliament was discussed. Any proofs? Aregakn (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide/Archive_1#Wales_National_Assembly and follow the links the site has mixed up the UK national parliament and the Welsh assembly. -- PBS (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The site is not a reliable source as defied in the policy WP:V because it promotes one point of view and therefore fall under WP:POORSRC "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are ... promotional ...". It promotes only one point of view affirmation of the Armenian Genocide "is a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide" -- PBS (hav) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Aregakn have you looked at the Welsh example yet. If so do you agree that they have confused the Welsh assembly with the UK parliament? -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I have not looked into it, as I don't see how it can be claimed a falsification. If I am an employee and I mixed the parliament of Wales with the UK parliament, or I am stupid enough not to distinguish those, the site itself is not falsifying anything. Anybody can make mistakes. Falsification is something one is telling themselves. A wrong citation doesn't show a source falsifying things.

Yet I didn't see that there is such a claim in this article, that the UK parliament has recognised the genocide. So can you show anything that is referred to the website and is not true or not? Aregakn (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was a falsification (you introduced that word). I said "The site is not a reliable source" and "It also has inaccuracies that it has carried for years."

The wrong information has been on that page for well over a year shows that their editorial oversight can not be trusted, this does not mean that they knowingly falsified the information, just that the site is not reliable (in the same way that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but such an error in Wikipeida is usually corrected more speedily). So although it is not a deliberate falsification the information is incorrect and therefore the site, not only is the site unreliable as defined in policy there is an example (and there are probably more) on the site which give support to the Wikipedia policy on not using unreliable websites for information unless that information can be verified from a reliable source.

All I am proposing is that information from that site should not be used on this page unless it can be verified using a reliable source. If the information is not backed up with a reliable source then it should not appear on the Wikiepdia page. -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all you used the word false yourself first "..Wales National Assembly Resolution this turned out to be false" and I continued. To be wrong and false are a bit different terms, aren't they?

Well, although there might be some possible technical mistakes or slow work of the website, the website itself cannot be claimed as unreliable. The information and documentation it has can be rechecked via 3rd sources or primary sources and there is no proper reason why the website can be claimed as unreliable.

By the way, can you please also give me the link to the Welsh Parliament "misinterpretation"? Couldn't find it yet. The only relevant thing I found is under the "Affirmation" division there is a subdivision "State and Provincial Governments" I can see a title "United Kingdom" which, when clicked, shows "Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454" of January 24, 2006 and there is nothing wrong or false with this. Aregakn (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

From the OED entry for false:

A. adj. I. Erroneous, wrong.

1. a. Of opinions, propositions, doctrines, representations: Contrary to what is true, erroneous.

From the OED entry for falsification:

1. The action of rendering (something) false; fraudulent alteration (of documents, of weights or measures, etc.); misrepresentation, perversion (of facts); counterfeiting; an instance of the same.

Just because something is false does not mean that it was falsified. They mean different but related things. If I had said it was a "..Wales National Assembly Resolution this turned out to be falsification" then I would be stating that it was a fraudulent alteration rather than contrary to what is true or erroneous.

I assume you have read the paragraph above: The information on "Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454" is incorrect see Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 1#Wales National Assembly. It explains why it is erroneous. But here it is again the term EDM stands for Early Day Motion (not a "resolution"). So although the contents of the page is a copy (and a breach of Crown copyright), It is not n EDM by a member of the Wales National Assembly (as claimed by armenian-genocide.org), it is an EDM by a Member of the UK Parliament (sitting in Westminster) http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29864 --PBS (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Website is unreliable both because it does not fit the definition of a reliable sources as defined in our policy and because in practice they have mistakes on their website that persist for years. -- PBS (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to achieve. First you are telling, that the website is unreliable, because it mistakenly claims that the UK has accepted the genocide when it was Wales. Now you are claiming that Wales Assembly did not accept it? Tell me exactly what the claim on the website is that is wrong and for this very reason it is unreliable. Aregakn (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)The web site does not meet the criteria of a reliable source as defined in Wikipedia policies.

(2)Further as an example of why we have these policies, the page on that the website with the title "Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454" has contents that is not a "Wales National Assembly Resolution" but is the text of Early Day Motion of the UK Parliament in Westminster.

(3) As the text on the page has absolutely nothing to do with the Wales National Assembly they would neither accept or reject is as the text is NOT in anyway connected to that Assembly. It only has any form of erroneous connection through the misattribution of this website. -- PBS (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

1) Yet a claim.

2) As talked about, one might be stupid not to understand that it's different from Wales Assembly but it doesn't make the website itself unreliable, because it cites the correct paper itself and does not intend to falsify anything. The one who didn't check what the paper was about and linked his edit to it was "wrong".

3) Are you arguing the content of this article and that Wales has not accepted the genocide? Or are you arguing that this acceptance shouldn't be linked to that source? Aregakn (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The false diplomatic moves of Turkey with a goal to delay the recognition

I guess this issue is important to be mentioned, that Turkey uses all sorts of diplomatic tricks to delay the international recognition. As 2 recent can be mentioned it's absurd proposal to create a historical committee to normalise the relationships of the 2 countries, then claim and convince others, that Armenia refused, when Armenia answered with a counter-offer to create intergovernmental commissions on broader number of issues than only historical, on the bases that only historical committee doesnt and cannot normalize inter-State relationships, and the refusal to ratify the recent protocals signed accompanied with contineuous preconditions and failing to comply with the initial framework. The main discussion is on the Armenian Genocide talk talk:Armenian_Genocide. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Ahmedov, I really do not know who was sincere in their offers. However Turkey is trying to have fair solution by having historians looking at Armenian and Ottoman documents. There is nothing false in these diplomatic moves. In fact this can fasten the recognition or destroy the recognition. Who would know, the history would know.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It is documented more than enough outside Turkey to be researched and understood and thus it has been so done, when for almost a century the Turkish archives are going through a clean-up, especially each time after the multiple Military Coups. The invite for historical commission has been responded by an offer for several commissions on all the issues existing between the 2 countries which was ignored by Turkey, thus emphasising the real intent of Turkey not to normalise relationships and find look for truths but to delay the international recognition by other states. It is exactly what Turkey did after signing the protocols;used them in different countries to underline that "don't interfere in any way, otherwise it will spoil things". Why would 3rd parties be able to spoil the true bilateral wish to normalise the relationships, nobody knows. But still it is was Turkey claimed. Afterall, the protocols were dismissed by all possible ways by Turkey and proven to be only for denialist goals, rather than stabilisation of the relationships, once again proving, that Turkey is not sincere in their offers and are pretending to wish to normalise the relationships. Armenia remains in the blockade, even the diplomatic relationships are not a wishful thing for Turkey to be established. In this light, I think it is pathetic to think that Turkey has ay positive intent towards Armenia, at least at this stage, if not the opposite - to weaken Armenia's ties with it's diaspora and the process of international recognition, leave alone tries to press Armenia in other issues, like Nagorno-Karabak conflict is. If you need me to clarify the latter, I can do it on your personal page, as this is not the talk-page for exactly this. Aregakn (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This subject is added to the relationships article and I'd like some help with how to include it in this one. Any ideas? Aregakn (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Article title change

I suggest to move the article to "Armenian Genocide recognition". shorter self explanatory and more rational i think. Let's vote:

• Agree as per above. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• I am against such a move. -- PBS (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there were mentioned reason for the move. As I want to express my opinion too, can you, PBS, please tell reasons why you are against?Aregakn (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Current name mirrors the Denial of the Armenian Genocide and I think that the two articles should be merged as they are currently two POV forks that make it difficult to write a balanced article. -- PBS (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be a different issue to discuss, but I don't see what it has to do with the name change. Aregakn (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are no reasons why to oppose, then the move will take place tomorrow. Aregakn (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the article's name should be changed. -- PBS (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting over such issues is not how moves are done. If you still want to move it then put in a WP:RM as the either name is descriptive and moving for the sake of moving is disruptive, for not appreciable gain. -- PBS (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree As per offer. I see PSB not getting to the point but just threatening which is surely not the way the consensus and community works. Aregakn (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What have I written that is threatening? -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Start an official move below. Aregakn (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide → Armenian Genocide recognition —

It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. It describes the variety of issues connected to the subject better and is more professional for an encyclopedia. Aregakn (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To keep it short: the proposed name is more Easy to find, concise and consistent. Aregakn (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The current name makes it clear what the recognition is for, as altering the name as suggested could be an taken as an article on the Armenian recognition of genocide. The search engine argument does not stand up to an empirical test. A Google search on Armenian Genocide recognition returns this article at the top of the list. No explanation is given for the assertion that "It describes the variety of issues connected to the subject better". How does it? No explanation is given for "is more professional for an encyclopedia". How is it more professional when it is less clear what the subject of the article is?
• Support: the capital letter of the word "recognition" (a typo in this case) is not a reason to oppose. "Armenian Genocide" is an event and "recognition" can't be interpeted otherwise, than the recognition of the event. The phrase "Armenian genocide recognition" would be what PBS notes and would be a very bad title for an article that wanted to describe the recognition of genocide(s) by Armenians. The search was about the search in WP and not engines so it is irrelevant to my reasoning. When one types in Wikipedia "Recognition of..." the majority of suggestions are about (the recognition of) same-sex marrages in different countries. The title isn't consistent at all in this case. If the title is changed to "Armenian Genocide recognition" when a reader searches articles with "Armenian Genocide" and types the phrase, WP shall suggest all the articles connected with it as well as this one, when moved. Again I see no reason why to oppose. Aregakn (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The last opinion expressed is by the nominator. Aregakn have you tired putting "Armenian Genocide recognition" into the search box a redirect will take you to the correct article. So there is no need to move the article to find the article. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't notice that in the rules, but is it prohibited to vote for the one who proposed?Aregakn (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per offer. the same as in the denial article move . IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, and I have the same question as with the denial article move (though I am now wondering if these both, even as titled presently, are not POV forks and whether that is acceptable). To wit: I agree about the ordering of words: this is more concise and does lead directly to the article. However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such, are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this? Also, is there any way to assess whether a google search on the new name would still lead directly to the newly named Wikipedia article, at first position, following the name change? Is that a relevant standard for assessing the appropriateness of the move? Duff (talk) 9:20 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Duff, I have some answers for this on the talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Regards Aregakn (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italy is missing from the list.

I haven't added Italy since I have no confirmation, but I believe Italy recognized the Armenian Genocide and is missing from the list. It is also marked in total green in the map of countries that have recognized the genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.63.148 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Iran in the map

Can somebody add Iran as green to the map, please? I cannot edit svg files. Thanks! Aregakn (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a statement made by an Iranian VP is enough. Unfortunately, Iran has not yet passed a bill officially recognizing the Armenian genocide.--Davo88 (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps painting Iran light green would suffice for now.--Davo88 (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. Read the sources carefully next time. --Quantum666 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a regular user and don't know much about this, nor how to edit the map, but it's pretty clear Iran should be removed. This should sum it up http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=turkey-seeks-explanation-from-iran-over-alleged-genocide-remarks-2010-08-28 . More recent websearches will tell you the same. (Robin Jayne Goldsmith (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC))

Controversial and or unexplained edits

I had to revert to the last stable version of this article following destructive editing by Quantum666: too much of his edits are controversial and PoV, and several are even not explained. They should all be explained here before. Sardur (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please define which of them do you see contraversial. For example how should I explain requesting a source if there is no source at all? --Quantum666 (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it was my mistake not to comment each of my edits so I do it now:

1. [6] this is the opinion of Azerbaijani community head, so I changed the sentence according to WP:NPOV

2. [7] I corrected the article according to the source that writes about 42 states and requested a source.

3. [8] added link to the genocide article. What is wrong here?

4. [9] added referenced information about activities of Armenian lobby to recognize genocide

5. [10] added referenced information about activities of Armenian terrorists to recognize genocide

6. [11] requested a source

7. [12] there is a dead link and I requested a source.

8. [13] requested a quotation as I hadn't found it myself

9. [14] requested a quotation as I hadn't found it myself

10. [15] requested a source

I'm still waiting for the details of Sardur's disagreements with my edits. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see several of your edits:

1. "This is not a direct recognition": according to? that's your PoV and OR + you made a partial quote of a clear text.

   This is a primary source and I took the direct quotation from it in order to avoid interpreting. Your edit is OR because you are interpreting the primary source and not using neutral secondary ones. --Quantum666 (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "This is a propaganda site": says who? that's your PoV + the link refers to a resolution.

   According to WP:SOURCES Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy;. Your source is non-neutral. And interpreting primary sources like resolutions is OR especially if it doesn't say "we recognize the genocide". --Quantum666 (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

3. "Massacre is not equal to genocide. Please read the source carefully": partial reading, the resolution also refers to "the organized extermination acts".

   Genocide is a concrete juridical term. "the organized extermination acts" is not equal to that. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

4. "This is a propaganda site": see above.

   See above. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Unexplained when edited; on top, I have doubts on the reliability of the ref.

   See p.1 of my comment above about NPOV. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

6. "Source needed": isn't it obvious?

   It is not. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

7. "See the source": PoV and controversial.

   See WP:NPOV. The source says what it says, nothing more. Please do not interprete the source. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

8. "Quotation for Turkey's pressure needed": why? consult the ref, it's not so difficult imho.

   That is why I requested quotation. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

9. Unexplained when edited, and in any case such a move is far from being neutral.

   Why? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Unexplained when edited, and insertion of an extremely controversial paragraph (an amazing partial reading of the source, btw).

    Why do you call it extremely controversial? --Quantum666 (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the intermingling of these edits, I had no other solution than reverting to the last stable version of the article.

On top, on the numerous "citation needed", please remember (see the page of the template) that "If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them." Let's take some examples:

1. "Source needed": in 5 seconds I found the correct link.
2. Unexplained when edited but easy to fix (your choice).

These two examples (but they are other easy ones) clearly show that your behaviour is far from being constructive.

Sardur (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent some time to find reliable neutral sources but unfortunately I couldn't. So I left the template to let other users to find them --Quantum666 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop mixing your posts with mine, or it will soon be impossible for anyone else to follow the discussion.

On this: I am interpreting? This is funny. I advise you to find a reliable secondary source if you want to contest a reasonable reading of this.

Is telling "funny" your best reasoning? If you want to insert any information into the article you must provide a reliable source without interpreting. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On this: "Your source is non-neutral" says who? you, thus OR; "interpreting primary sources like resolutions is OR": that's the responsibility of the provided secondary source.

Have you read WP:SOURCES? Especially about "third-party source". --Quantum666 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

On this: says who? you. AFAIK, I see there the two elements which constitute a genocide.

If you find any reliable source thinking the same, I will not doubt it. Otherwise it's your OR. --Quantum666 (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sardur (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I put the templates in the article until our dispute is resolved. --Quantum666 (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the indentation so I could work out who said what. (if you want to interpose a comment between numeric points that start ":#" do it by using ":#:" so the numbering is not broken) -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See above #Armenian National Institute, Inc. and Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 1#RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc.

I propose that all facts only supported by citations from the unreliable source http://www.armenian-genocide.org/copyright.html be removed. If the facts which they present can be found in reliable sources then they can be put back. There is no reason why the site can not be used for research but pages of their unsupported by reliable sources, should not be used as sources for facts in this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Recognition by media

Opinion of a journalist is not equal to opinion of a newspaper. So correct sources showing opinion of the newspapers must be inserted as it was made for The New York Times. Usage of the word "genocide" by some journalist is not enough. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A journalist would not have been allowed to call the events "Armenian genocide" if the newspaper itself did not recognize the events as genocide. That is why the sources presented in the article should be considered sufficient.--Davo88 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A journalist would not have been allowed to call the events "Armenian genocide" if the newspaper itself did not recognize the events as genocide. - can you give any source to prove this statement? Opinions of a journalist and a newspaper don't have to be equal. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Activities of Armenian diaspora

Armenian diaspora is playing very important role in recognition of genocide in many countries so it must be shown in a separate section. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In a lot of countries the Armenian diaspora does have an important role in the recognition of the genocide, but if we want to create such a section, a few sentences do not suffice, especially when half of it talks about "terrorist" groups. One should not forget that it is also Armenia's official policy that countries should recognize the genocide.--Davo88 (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can add more information into the section if you think that it is not full, but inserting the information about activities in many countries into the section about USA is not correct. --Quantum666 (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: it was written in a non-neutral way (using the word terrorist which is a WTA) and you also claimed that the ANCA has chapters around the world although this is not true. ANCA is the Armenian National Committee of America and is based in the US.--Davo88 (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" could me replaced with "militant" and the information about chapters is provided by the source. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

POV.Copy edit

I just went through part of the article and saw a lot of 1. missing ref (as tagged), poor grammar, and certain POV terms as gospel truth. Ive tagged the article as POV (although another tag may be better), for review. If no one else woffers to review it, ill go through it in the next few weeks (for the WP:GOCE drive).(Lihaas (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)).

I see that there is enough time passed from the tag and, though I did not go through any individual remarks, as well as did not see any mentioned, I can read that Lihaas - the tagger was going to go through the article and make corrections in a few weeks after the tagging. I sppose it is time to delete the Tag of pov. Aregakn (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Italy

I don't think that the Italian parliament recognizes it, only some cities.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Position of France - court ruling

French supreme court decided that the law penalising denial of genocide on Armenians is unconstitutional as it restrics the freedom of expression. Could someone please provide the links to translated reasons for the judgement and analysis on how is the ruling consistent with criminalising holocaust denial???83.7.165.30 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria

since 2012 Bulgaria dont recognize the armenian genocide. 88.64.182.125 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

On 24 April 2015 Bulgaria’s Parliament adopted a resolution recognising the 1915 "mass killing" of Armenians, refraining from using the term "genocide" after the intervention of the centre-right majority partner in government GERB, fearing negative reactions in neighbouring Turkey.

Kim Kardashian

Think there shouold be some mention of celebrity "awareness"? For example when Kardashian tweeted on 24 April this WP page got 37k+ views.Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Position of Israel and UK section

• I think this section should be transferred to Position of other countries. Only Turkey, USA and Armenia should have a section in the article.--Reality 17:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Israeli President to recognize the Armenian Genocide Urielevy (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Urielevy: excuse me, would you be able to find a source in Hebrew or English about this? If so, it's possible to include it in the list; it's quite a bold declaration. thanks in advance --92slim (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognition map problem

The map in the article shows countries that have officially recognised it in the national parliament in dark green, and countries where 'municipalities, or certain parties' have recognized it in light green. I think this is misleading. If some small, unknown political party in Russia released a press statement saying they recognised the genocide, then the entire country of Russia would be in light green. Similar, when 43/52 US states recognize it, it's also in light green - two obviously very different meanings of the term 'partial recognition'. Can I suggest only those particular regions be filled in dark green, like Cuera % Sao Paulo in north-east Brazil, and not the entire Brazil. I don't see any reason why the whole of Brazil should be light green. Similarly, those states not recognising it in the US should be grey, the entire united states shouldn't be light green.Oxr033 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Egypt on the map of the countries that recognised the Armenian Genocide

Post coup goverment in Egypt has officially recognised the Armenian Genocide in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptnews9 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Egypt has announced that it would recognise it, but as of yet has not recognised it--Behzat (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Lihaas

The Soviet Union has never formally recognized the Armenian Genocide. The claim is unsourced.

Egypt has not yet recognized it. The source is obvious "Egypt to Acknowledge Armenian Genocide". It hasn't yet done it. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

US Joint House Resolution Recognizing Armenian Holocaust in 1975

As stated in the resolution:

"House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: `[t]hat April 24, 1975, is hereby designated as `National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry . . .'."

The US should be added to the list of countries who have recognized the killings as genocide, even if they haven't reinforced that recognition with subsequent statements.--Urartu TH (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The recognition by a country, especially by diplomatically advanced countries as the USA, is a formal and careful procedure. The USA government clearly has not recognised it.--Behzat (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You just made up that statement, basically. --92slim (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Position of Russia

Both 1995 and 2005 positions of Russia are unsourced. Could anyone please provide sources? --Behzat (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --92slim (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 1919

The July 5, 1919 Verdict ("Kararname") of the Turkish Military Tribunal along with the preceding Indictment of the trial affirms that the government of Turkey acknowledges that the "The massacre and destruction of the Armenians were the result of the decision-making by the Central Committee of Ittihad ve Terakki". Therefore, it must be said the Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide. Shall this be included in the list of countries that recognized the genocide? Perhaps we can make a note that with the establishment of the Turkish Republic, the government of Turkey started its campaign of denial. I would like to hear the community's view on this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The term of genocide was defined in the 1944, but you say that the Ottoman Empire has recognized the "genocide" in 1919. --Esc2003 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The position of former states that do not exist today (Ottoman Empire, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, etc') is not fit the list of countries. I propose to remove Ottoman Empire and Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic from the list. Germany and the U.S.A as well as other countries also acknowledged during the 1920's that The massacre and destruction of the Armenians was a crime and they not appear in the list. I am proposing to add a new chapter which discuss this kind of recognition. Maybe it should be called "Acknowledging and mentions of the genocide" or something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urielevy (talk • contribs) 08:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Urielevy: The USA and Germany acknowledged it was a crime, but not a genocide (deliberately so). Only Reagan did so I recall, but the USA changed its position afterwards. In regards to the Armenian SSR, it still exists today but with a different political system, whilst the Ottoman Empire doesn't. Both states were precursors of the modern ones we have now, thus making them fit for mention regardless. Maybe for the Ottoman example there should be a former states section. --92slim (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Germany's position is not clear

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2015-04/armenien-tuerkei-massaker-voelkermord-papst-franziskus-erdogan

Auch die Bundesregierung spricht bislang offiziell von "Vertreibung und Massakern". Der Bundestag will am 24. April des 100. Jahrestages der Gräueltaten an den Armeniern gedenken. Ein Antrag von SPD und Union steht unter dem Titel "Erinnerung und Gedenken an die Vertreibung und Massaker an den Armeniern vor 100 Jahren".

The German goverment does not use the word genocide. 94.219.60.55 (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ammended. Someone added it back before, possibly in good faith. --92slim (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Syria's "recognition"?

Did Syria really recognize the Genocide? Dedicating a session to the Genocide does not mean recognition. Can someone please shed some light to this matter? Neo ^ (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The "session dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide" in the Syrian parlament can not be consider as a recognition. The Knesset (The Israeli only parlament) had sessions like this each year since 2011. Israeli parliamentarians from all of the parties mentioned the Armenian Genocide and spoke about the importance of the recognition and the fight against the Turkish denial, nevertheless, Israel is not to be considered to recognize the Genocide. I think syria as well shoud not be concidered to recognize it. Urielevy (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Because the State of Israel never mentioned the word genocide; neither did Germany (which should not be on the list). In regards to Syria: Speaker of the Parliament Mohammad Jihad al-Laham opened the session. In his remarks, he noted, “Looming days coincide with Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, that was committed by the Ottomans against the friendly Armenian people.. If that's not recognition, I don't know what is. --92slim (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

92slim, A lot of Israeli parlamentarians, as well as the Syrians, Israeli representives and even the Israeli president sayed the words "Armenian Genocide" and spoke about the importance of the recognition. Knesset members to attend Genocide commemoration events in Yerevan in the name of the all parliament. The israeli parliament stood a moment of silence each year (since 2011) for 1.5 million armenians died in the genocide. Representives of all of the political parties in Israel spoke in the parliament about the genocide using the word "Genocide" to describe it. I don't understand why Syria is considered to recognize the Genocide while Israel is not. Urielevy (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Urielevy: The first link that you have provided has mistakes; Rivlin did not mention the word genocide. Please read this link. Reuvlen Rivlin has stopped pushing for recognition of the Genocide, understandably as Israel is in a delicate situation and has always been. Are you sure representatives of all political parties have spoke about it? I am not a fan of Syria, but Israel hasn't officially recognised the Genocide, and if it had in the past (I am not aware), it has certainly changed its position. The US did recognise it before many times, but its not included because they changed their position. --92slim (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Syria recognizes the Armenian Genocide Urielevy (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC) committed by the Ottoman Empire, Parliament Speaker says

Czech Republic's "recognition"?

A panel of their Parliament passed a resolution. Did they recognize the Genocide as a Parliament or just the panel? Neo ^ (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The Parliament. Read the story. --92slim (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italy's recognition

Here. --92slim (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"The affirmation of the Armenian Genocide is mentioned in the resolutions of...Italy (November 16, 2000)." Find a source to prove the claims, or stop vandalising content. --92slim (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"The President also expressed his gratitude to Italy for continuedly giving preference to universal values over short-lived interests, emphasizing, particularly, the unanimous recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Italian Chamber of Deputies about 15 years ago." Source. --92slim (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the Guardian source, it supports the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Turkey's recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 1919

User:EtienneDolet suggested on this page earlier, under the same title, that Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1919 as a result of the decision of the Turkish Military Tribunal which defined the events as "war crimes". Two users objected, and one did not give an explicit answer, but ostensibly agreed with Étienne Dolet. Still, despite the lack of consensus, it seems he added the claim to the article anyway. If he thinks that the consensus may have shifted, then it is he who needs to start a new RfC to seek a new consensus. Until then, he ought not insist on adding that claim to the article.

When it comes to the edit itself, his argument is a non starter. The table is intended to show the countries that define the events explicitly genocide. If we decide on different criteria, then the whole table needs to be rewritten. If recognizing the events as "war crimes" is our basis, then the Allied Powers recognized the events as genocide during the World War I, long before the dates mentioned in the table. Indeed, we could say that currently the government of United States and Turkey recognizes the genocide as well. Just today Obama's statement reads: "the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred and marched to their deaths." This clearly corresponds to genocide (people belonging to an ethnic group being marched to death by their government). However even then the US is not added to the list, since the word genocide is not explicitly used. Or Turkey's prime minister said the other day that the deportations were a crime against humanity, but nor do we include Turkey in the list.

Étienne Dolet may suggest creating a new table for countries that recognized the events as crimes, which I imagine would include virtually every country that considered the matter. Or maybe a list for countries that recognized the massacres as genocide all but name, though that would be a highly subjective list, as it is hard to determine what would correspond to recognition of genocide without naming it. But we certainly cannot mix two things together. If Turkey (or Ottoman Empire) recognized the genocide in 1919, it is inconsistent to claim that France and other countries did not recognize it until 1998.--Cfsenel (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire recognized not just war crimes committed against Armenians, but systematic massacres that was orchestrated by the central government of the Ottoman Empire. That is by definition genocide, and we have many sources that word it as such. Again, just because the word 'genocide' wasn't invented then, doesn't mean that genocide cannot be retroactively applicable to what happened to the Armenians in 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It is an interpretation that Ottoman Empire would recognize it as genocide if the word had been coined by then. That interpretation of the decision of the tribunal may well be true, but it is an interpretation, and if we will go by that, we can certainly say that the Allied Powers recognized the genocide equally clearly during World War I (i.e. systematic massacres of an ethnic group), e.g. France did not wait until 1998. We could say the same for many other countries. If Ottoman Empire is to be included, we need to change the whole table. And the new table would be highly subjective, with disputes as to what constitutes recognition as genocide, especially pre 1945.

In any case, it should be quite clear to anyone with an encyclopedic interest that Ottoman Empire does not belong to that table, and insisting on placing it there is the result of ulterior motive which is not just giving correct information in an encyclopedia. I see that you did not revert the article back and wait for RfC. And I won't bother to persist, because I don't care Wikipedia giving wrong information so much that I will get into an argument with nationalists, the most wretched way of wasting one's time. I am sickened enough already by Turkish nationalists elsewhere, I'll pass this one. I can only hope someone with enough interest will bother to fix it at some point.--Cfsenel (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Bulgaria's parliament approved a resolution according to a source provided by another user. I tried to give details of the source and such as much as I could but wanted to make sure the source is ok.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Source looks good ZiaLater. It's also verifiable by many second hand Bulgarian sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thank you.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria did not recognose the Genocide. See this. --92slim (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, we need to discuss it among eachother as to whether the wording in the Bulgarian resolution equates to genocide. If you ask me, I'd definitely say so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria did not use the g-word. At least we must note this in the article. This is undoubtedly a very important point. 94.219.60.55 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because Bulgaria didn't use the G-word doesn't mean that we can't equate its definition of "mass extermination" with that of genocide. If the mass extermination of an ethnic group is not a genocide, then what is? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

92slim is right — Bulgaria did not recognise the Armenian genocide. The draft resolution as proposed by the ultra-nationalist party Ataka used the word "genocide", but during the hearings in Parliament it was replaced on motions by the ruling centre-right party GERB with the phrase "mass extermination". The situation is well summarised in this publication by the state owned Bulgarian News Agency (BTA): "Karayancheva moved that the word 'genocide' be replaced by the expression 'mass extermination'." Two other paragraphs referring to UN conventions on genocide were also dropped. This was made to avoid any unnecessary tensions in the relations with neighbouring Turkey and Bulgaria's own large Turkish minority. As the Armenian Genocide recognition article handles the explicit recognition of "genocide" against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire it is clear that the exact wording is important. Some would argue (as also pointed in the above BTA publication) that the Bulgarian Prime Minister stated that "mass extermination" was the Bulgarian idiom for "genocide", but this is simply not true. The word "genocide" (геноцид) is of Greek origin, it exists in the Bulgarian language and, as in the English language, is used to refer to a particular type of mass extermination events — see for example the definition of genocide (геноцид) (source in Bulgarian) in the Dictionary of the Bulgarian Language by the Institute for the Bulgarian Language at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. They all point out the recognition of "mass extermination"/"mass killing" – but not "genocide". --Goschko (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If "the source" is this source, then please read the first sentence of the publication that says: "Today the Bulgarian Parliament recognized the mass extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the period 1915 - 1922...". Please also note that within Bulgaria the website Standart News and its parent Standart newspaper are not known for their high journalistic standards, but rather for their inclination to misleading topics and cheap sensation. Other news sources: Bulgarian News Agency (BTA), Sofia Globe, Dnevnik (in Bulgarian), Bulgarian National Television (BNT) (in Bulgarian). They all point out the recognition of "mass extermination" (or "mass killing") – but not "genocide". --Goschko (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Chronological

Why not make the list of recognisers chronological? It may seem confusing as it is now. --Ahmetyal (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If no one disagrees, I will make the list chronological. --Ahmetyal (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You can make the table sortable. This can be of help: Help:Table/Sortable_tables. That will address the concerns you've raised. Also, please don't remove the Ottoman government without discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: It is basically wrong to have more than one date for one country, for example with Argentina and Chile. Chile recognized the genocide in 2015, while the Parliament urged the Government to do so in 2004. BTW if you research about Switzerland you'll know that they never recognized the genocide, but the lower house urged the Parliament to do so in 2003. The Netherlands and Chile recognized the genocide last week, its wrong to have earlier dates in the table.

I removed the Ottoman Empire because they never officially recognised the Armenian Genocide, with a bill etc? But I could be wrong. --Ahmetyal (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Also only years are in the table, not full dates. --Ahmetyal (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Switzerland

"The House of Representatives recognised the Armenian massacre as genocide in 2003, but neither the Senate nor the cabinet has officially done so." [16]

The Swiss government not only recognized the Armenian Genocide, but sentences to prison those who deny it. I don't think there's anything debatable there. The parliament of Switzerland passed a unanimous decision in 2003, that's the equivalent of recognition by the government itself. The same goes for Chile, Sweden, the Netherlands, and many other countries that have used that process. Therefore, the government of Switzerland and its bylaws must follow suit. That's why the denial of the Armenian Genocide, for example, is outlawed in that country. Anyways, I don't believe we should be too caught up with the intricacies of the government's of each of these countries. Also, there's nothing wrong with including several dates of recognition. Governments of these countries change completely about every couple of years and the continuous recognition of the Armenian Genocide by these governments are worthy to be mentioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Won't it be unnecessary to mention, if every Swedish government in the future mentions the genocide. Also I think states recognize not governments. --Ahmetyal (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Recognizing the Armenian Genocide is not like implementing a rule or regulation which the state has to approve in order to be enacted. Recognizing a historical event is nothing more than a formal declaration. Indeed, the Parliaments of these countries can request heads of state to recognize it as well, but this doesn't mean that the recognition by these governments cancels or becomes nullified due to the state. I also think it's important to mention the continuous years of recognition. It goes to show that even through long periods of time, these governments stay focused on their plans of recognition. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

44 US states - Texas included

The Armenian Genocide Institute (ANI) says that Texas has recognized the Armenian Genocide. Together with South Dakota's recognition, this makes 44 US states. Please correct it.

@Neo ^: I looked around several websites and don't see anything that can verify that resolution. Besides the ANI website, do you think you can find a second hand source that says Texas recognizes it? The ANCA website surely doesn't include Texas. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI is more of an authority than ANCA. Neo ^ (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we fix it to 44 please? Neo ^ (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. But you could've fixed it yourself too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Again someone wrote 43 states, it is 44. Please correct it. Neo ^ (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this statement. --92slim (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This article has gone through a large expansion this past month due to the centennial. Minor events, such as the rally in Toronto, was added during the centennial hype. To maintain the expansion in this article, we should limit the information that goes into the article by excluding mere demands of recognition, and including recognitions by governments, organizations, and etc. I'd rather have, for example, information about a city in Spain recognizing the Armenian Genocide than details about some rally in some country that has done nothing more than demand recognition. And indeed, I don't suggest we have both. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Bulgaria = not recognition

It is not a recognition of the Genocide, only mass killings. I propose we remove Bulgaria. Neo ^ (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, someone added that it's the Bulgarian idiom for genocide. No, this is wrong. Genotsid is the Bulgarian idiom. Please remove Bulgaria. Neo ^ (talk) 04:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)