Talk:Armenian genocide recognition/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

2. [10] I corrected the article according to the source that writes about 42 states and requested a source.

3. [11] added link to the genocide article. What is wrong here?

4. [12] added referenced information about activities of Armenian lobby to recognize genocide

5. [13] added referenced information about activities of Armenian terrorists to recognize genocide

6. [14] requested a source

7. [15] there is a dead link and I requested a source.

8. [16] requested a quotation as I hadn't found it myself

9. [17] requested a quotation as I hadn't found it myself

10. [18] 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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [19]

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)

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)

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)

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)

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/current_category.11/affirmation_list.html gives 43 states, not including South Dakota (they need an update). Therefore, if we add South Dakota, we get 44 states. Neo ^ (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources at the armenian-genocide.org site list a press release from Governor Rick Perry and a proposed resolution. Governor Perry's press release on the signing of "Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission Act" does declare the Armenian Genocide as a genocide.[20] The text of the act doesn't mention Armenia however. The proposed Texas resolution by Burt R. Solomons does explicitly list the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide: [21]. However, on the Texas Holocaust and Genocide Commission website (which was created by the signing of that act) it explicitly lists the Armenian Genocide as an example of "politically motivated mass murders", right before a list of examples of "genocide". [22] Look at World History Studies -> (22) -> (C) & (D). I couldn't find anything on the Burt Solomons proposal, not even at texas bill search, so no idea whatever happened to that. ― Padenton|✉   16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Unable to find an updated map showing which states have recognized the Armenian Genocide, can anyone else find an accurate one that includes South Dakota but not Texas? Or perhaps one that denotes Texas as an unofficial acceptance? 08:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Sarahg312

Paraguay”s Senate Recognizes Armenian Genocide

Here it is Paraguay”s Senate Recognizes Armenian Genocide Urielevy (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Cities

We should not be listing individual cities that recognizes the genocide--these things aren't notable in their own right, they contribute nothing, they are merely ceremonial though, no doubt, there's a feelgood factor. But encyclopedic it is not. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

False claims throughout article say that Brazil recognized the genocide - it didn't

The whole article is quite misleading, coloring countries green - as if the country itself recognized the genocide - even when only -for example in the case of Brazil- one house of a bicameral legislature (who even as a whole would have no power to make such an international recognition independent of the Executive Power) did so.

Anyone up to edit the article and make it more trustworthy accordingly? MissionFix (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The resolution approved by the Brazilian Senate, by the way, clearly states that the recognition was being made solely on the Senate's capacity (the Senate being the much smaller one of two houses of Brazilian Congress, itself independent from the Brazilian Executive Government, which - the Resolution itself emphasizes - has NOT recognized the Armenian genocide. MissionFix (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice POV fantasy. The Senate has recognised the Genocide, and it is nowhere stated that Brazil hasn't recognised the Genocide as far as I have read (in the document it reads in Brazilian Portuguese that the government of Brazil as it was before the passing of the resolution didn't recognise the Genocide). As far as Brazil's current legislative is concerned, the Federal Senate of Brazil is the superior legislative body to their House of Deputies; their decisions are what bring the proposed Brazilian laws and resolutions into effect. --92slim (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You can call it fantasy if you wish (and if that suits your agenda), but your attitude doesn't suit Wikipedia. Even if you were right (and you are not, it is a fact that Brazil has not recognized the genocide), it would be your call to provide valid source saying so pretty clearly (which there isn't), not our call to find a source saying it hasn't (we can't prove something that didn't happen). Anyway, just so you can no longer claim ignorance rather than bad faith, the approved resolution, available in http://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/materia/getPDF.asp?t=166535&tp=1 , says pretty clearly "The Senate of Brazil recognizes the Armenian genocide" (not "Brazil", not "the Brazilian government", not "The Brazilian Parliament", "Brazil's Legislative", "The National Congress", etc, as the Senate cannot alone speak in any capacity other than its own), and (it feels like beating a dead horse, but anyway), the statement (that the Senate of Brazil recognized the genocide) is accompanied, textually, explicitly, literally (read it yourself: http://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/materia/getPDF.asp?t=166535&tp=1 ), by "O Governo brasileiro, lamentavelmente, ainda não reconheceu o genocídio armênio. Entretanto, alguns Estados já o fizeram. No Brasil, as Assembleias Legislativas dos Estados do Ceará e do Paraná já reconheceram o genocídio armênio." ("The Brazilian Government, unfortunately, has not yet recognized the Armenian genocide. However, some Brazilian states already have. In Brazil, the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Ceará and Paraná have already recognized the Armenian genocide".

It can't get any clearer and more explicit than that... MissionFix (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

...And if it wasn't enough: one week later, on 9 June 2015, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry issued a Press Statement, fully available in http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10130:decisao-do-governo-da-turquia-de-chamar-para-consultas-seu-embaixador-no-brasil&catid=42&Itemid=280&lang=pt-BR , recalling that in Brazil there is a separation of Powers (meaning that even if the entire Legislative had recognized the genocide, which it hasn't, it wouldn't affect the Executive's position), and stating that the Brazilian government's official position on the issue had not been altered or affected by the Senate's resolution. MissionFix (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Turkey wouldn't have withdrawn its ambassador then. The Senate is the Brazilian government. It's not the Brazilian state, Foreign Ministry, or any other governmental agency. It's a unanimous position by the government of Brazil and its respective parliament and senate, as it is with many other countries in the world (i.e. Sweden, Netherlands, and etc.), which is of utmost importance when it comes to recognition. The ministry of Brazil, even the head of state of Brazil, can oppose all it wants to unanimous measures carried by the government, but it can never suppress the fact that Brazil has recognized the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, Etienne; the Parliament did not recognise it. One of two houses passed a "motion" expressing their solidarity at the anniversary of the genocide. That's the basis for claiming "Brazil" recognised it - lol. More especifically, less than 09% of the Parliament's congressmen signed the motion. And Brazil's constitution clearly states that the conduct of Brazil's foreign affairs is the prerrogative of the country's Executive Power. And the country's Government has expressly said that the Senate's resolution did not affect or change Brazil's officia position. And the Senate motion itself regrets that Brazil's government does not recognise the genocide. In other words, it is false to say that "Brazil recognized the genocide"; I will leave Brazil on the list, explaining that it is a position of the Senate, not of the Executive, and we'll be okay. Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't even say that "Brazil's Congress" or "Brazil's Legislature" or "Brazil's Legislative" power/branch recognized it - only one of the two Houses issued a "motion of solidarity", signed as you said by less than 10% of congresspeople. I understand that if you are pro-recognition you'll get overexcited about anything related to the theme - let's face it, over half of the recognitions listed in the Wiki page haven't been real national recognitions - but it just seems stretching it waaaay too much when the "motion of solidarity" itself is pretty much a bashing of the Brazilian Government for its known refusal to recognise the genocide as such... MissionFix (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious Brazil shouldn't be on the list. What if the same dozen senators had expressed "their solidarity to Taiwan, the legitimate Republic of China", differing from the Government's position? Would Wikipedia include Brazil as the one and only country in the world recognizing BOTH China and Taiwan? lol Wikipediaissoreliable (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Brazil should not be on that list: "The Brazilian government has not yet recognized the Armenian Genocide." [23] Armenian Weekly 3 June 2015 —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikimandia (talk · contribs) How is the Brazilian Senate not part of its government? That's like saying the House of Reps is not part of the American government. The resolution was unanimously adopted by the Senate, just like many other countries have. The Senate or legislative bodies of certain countries can indeed have policies different from that of the Brazilian state (i.e. heads of state, foreign ministry, and etc.). Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

EtienneDolet: The Brazilian Senate is part of the government but it is not THE government, nor is it the highest level of the government. As is said specifically in the RS, Armenian Weekly. Senates and parliaments and Houses pass resolutions all the time, it does not mean it is the official state position. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Who said we are concerned for official state positions? We must respect the resolutions passed by parliaments because they represent the federal level of government. It's entirely wrong to simply dismiss such a resolution just because the executive branch of government differs from its legislative. The Armenian Weekly is therefore entirely wrong to even suggest that the Brazilian government didn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. Also, there's nothing wrong with including a note that specifies all of what I have just mentioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is entirely ABOUT official state positions. The Armenian Weekly is right. The other sources mentioned here are right. Again, a senate is not the top level of a government. Again, congressional pass resolutions all the time, none of which are "official." Many, in actuality, are ridiculous, such as the many laughable resolutions by the U.S. congress, including recognizing NASCAR for being awesome, that Kentucky fast food restaurants are awesome, and celebrating the 50th anniversary of Marshmallow Peeps. I don't think the Brazilian senate's resolution of the Armenian genocide was ridiculous, but it shows that resolutions are not official policy nor are they official viewpoints. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The senate, being part of the federal government, is the top level of government. Therefore, Armenian Weekly is wrong to say that the government has not recognized the Armenian Genocide. There's dozens or more sources that see this as the government of Brazil recognizing it. Indeed, motions that express moral sympathy for events around the world, whether they be historic or current, do express the views of a government. In this case, the upper house of the government of Brazil. Placing this in the regional section is simply wrong. I'll have to boldly remove it from there and replace it in the appropriate section. I find nothing wrong with making a specification in the notes section for Brazil that the resolution was passed unanimously by the Senate to help clarify things. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

EtienneDolet: That table is clearly for the sovereign nations ONLY. A Senate resolution is NOT the official government position. The Armenian Weekly AND the Brazilian news stories are right and you need to stop refusing to believe what a reliable source said and insisting it's wrong. I'm sorry you cannot understand the difference, but that is really your personal issue. I remind you there are discretionary sanctions imposed on this topic; if you continue to reinsert this I will skip the edit warring board and take it to ANI and ask that you be temporarily blocked from editing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

What part of that table says 'sovereign nations'? Better yet, what makes you think the federal senate of Brazil is not part of the sovereign nation of Brazil? You need to show how the Senate of Brazil is not part of the Brazilian parliament before we proceed. Also, I just made one revert regarding your recent edit. That's nowhere near the 3RR for such an edit. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Two different voices here, Dicionário Houaiss da Língua Portuguesa and Wikipediaissoreliable have been blocked as obvious socks and may be disregarded.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note on socking: MissionFix and other of his socks have been blocked on pt.wikipedia for block evasion and grossly insulting. Regards.—Teles «Talk to me˱_{M @ C S}˲» 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The resolution approved by Senate itself explicitly REGRETS that "the Brazilian government does not yet recognise the Armenian genocide" ( http://www.senado.leg.br/atividade/materia/getPDF.asp?t=166535&tp=1 ). Also, after the approval by the Senate there were much criticism from Sentors exactly for the Brazilian government not recognizing the genocide. The fact that Wikipedia says that "Brazil recognizes the Armenian genocide" when the Brazilian government (and the Brazilian Senate) say explictly that "The Brazilian Government does not yet recognize the Armenian genocide" is a WONDERFUL indicator of how seriously every other claim in this article should be taken and how ~unbiased~ this counting is... 177.18.28.59 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Forwarding response to user @Teles:}. At this point, MissionFix, you must be trolling. First, stop socking. Secondly, the Senate Resolution states that it regrets that the government doesn't recognise it, therefore changing that fact with that same resolution, since Senate resolutions are binding inside the government of Brazil. It doesn't take a bright mind to understand that. --92slim (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Armenian Genocide recognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090314082403/http://genocidescholars.org:80/resolutionsstatements.html to http://www.genocidescholars.org/resolutionsstatements.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060629155237/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/europe/4092933.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/4092933.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Armenian Genocide recognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120725071044/http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3322&dok_id=GV01UU9 to http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.aspx?nid=3322&dok_id=GV01UU9

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Armenian Genocide recognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721083219/http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Resolution_1997_on_the_Armenian_Genocide.pdf to http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Resolution_1997_on_the_Armenian_Genocide.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721083553/http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf to http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.genocidescholars.org/resolutionsstatements.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721083553/http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf to http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/IAGS_Obama_Letter.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070830084411/http://www.adl.org:80/PresRele/Mise_00/5114_00.htm to http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/5114_00.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402104820/http://www.epp.eu/sites/default/files/content/documents/Final_Res_Armenian%20Genocide.pdf to http://www.epp.eu/sites/default/files/content/documents/Final_Res_Armenian%20Genocide.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150403103711/http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2014/07/u-s-presbyterian-church-recognizes-armenian-genocide/ to http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2014/07/u-s-presbyterian-church-recognizes-armenian-genocide/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928090301/http://www.financialmirror.com/more_news.php?id=6728&nt=Politics to http://www.financialmirror.com/more_news.php?id=6728&nt=Politics
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119075550/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19970417004 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA19970417004
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100314045703/http://www.armradio.am:80/news/?part=pol&id=16947 to http://www.armradio.am/news/?part=pol&id=16947
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130313035504/http://www.guiaturisticadelquindio.com:80/historia-del-quindio to http://www.guiaturisticadelquindio.com/historia-del-quindio
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012021808/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_co/us_armenia_genocide to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_go_co/us_armenia_genocide
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090623213646/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/tz-web/yazarDetay.do? to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/yazarDetay.do;jsessionid=BB087D1762D44E2FD55339250DD532D1?haberno=208482
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927203740/http://www.internethaber.com/news_detail.php?id=47327 to http://www.internethaber.com/news_detail.php?id=47327
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111015185125/http://www.todayszaman.com:80/news-259860-sarkozy-in-bid-to-make-up-for-armenia-remarks-through-aide.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/news-259860-sarkozy-in-bid-to-make-up-for-armenia-remarks-through-aide.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100326220751/http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk:80/files/Armenian%20genocide1.pdf to http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/files/Armenian%20genocide1.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927184444/http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26904 to http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26904
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120325184359/http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=118955 to http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=118955
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071013142326/http://euractiv.com:80/en/enlargement/parliament-faces-crucial-enlargement-decisions/article-158105 to http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/parliament-faces-crucial-enlargement-decisions/article-158105
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930181315/http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=56157 to http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=56157
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100327080231/http://www.b92.net:80/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=03&dd=25&nav_id=66050 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=03&dd=25&nav_id=66050
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131215113006/http://armenocide.am/International_recognition.html to http://armenocide.am/International_recognition.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide into this page

I propose that the page Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide is merged into the Kurdish position section of this article. I realize this has been proposed before, but I don't see that the discussion got very far. My reason for this proposal is primarily that Kurdish recognition of the genocide is self-evidently one aspect of overall recognition. Certainly, the substantial involvement of early 20th-century Kurds in carrying out the genocide makes recognition by modern-day Kurds a different thing than recognition by France, for example. However, this particular intersection of topics does not merit its own article in a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.

As to what gets merged, I suggest we look at a substantial rewrite of the content. The background on the genocide and Kurdish participation (in the current standalone article) should mostly be dropped as it exists in many other places on WP. If there is unique content in that first section, we might look at adding it to the relevant parts of other Armenian genocide articles. The bulk of the current article is largely a table citing primary sources for specific acknowledgements of the genocide. We should aim to instead have a summary that focuses on secondary sources, per Wikipedia policy. It would be useful for readers to know what types of Kurdish organizations have acknowledged the genocide and what types have not, plus whatever is know about motivations for either position. All of this needs to be WP:NPOV without WP:OR, of course.

I don't have an angle to push here (that's what they all say, of course). But I think all readers would be better served by high-quality content on this still-contentious topic. Thoughts on the proposed merge are welcome below. Rupert Clayton (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with this proposal. All of the information about the genocide itself in the Kurdish article can be removed and incorporated into the information within this article. Additionally, the format the other article uses is very bulky and unmanageable, so I propose removing many of the quotations, which all more or less express the same sentiment, and just giving a broad overview of Kurds and Kurdish organizations who have recognized/condemned the genocide or call upon Turkey to do so. I think a table is a very ineffective way to do this and we would probably want to convert the article into a paragraph format, which would allow us to use some specific quotations without giving the reader information overload. Gpapazian (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716082216/https://www.armtown.com/news/en/pan/20080612/26307/ to http://www.armtown.com/news/en/pan/20080612/26307/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207113656/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045838.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6045838.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark as of January 26 2017 recognized the Armenian genocide Jeffreyarmani (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

From what I can gather the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly has not recognised the Armenian Genocide. The source linked to states that 11 of 18 MPs voted to recognise it in the UK House of Commons, which is a separate legislature with different representatives. Either the source should be updated or Northern Ireland removed from the article. Sensavia (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wyoming

State of Wyoming has recognised the Armenian Genocide. Please, change its colour on the map to green.92.43.141.100 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Begabler

Indiana

State of Indiana has recognised the Armenian Genocide. Please, change its colour on the map to green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.199.209.2 (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple years of recognition

The chart listing multiple years of recognition is a joke. The first year is what that matters as the year of recognition. I will revise this chat in 30 days if I don’t see any reasonable objections. Bohbye (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Swedens official opinion

I believe Swedens position in the matter should be updated. In May 1st 2018 the Swedish prime minister announced that the government does not intend to follow the parliaments recommendation to recognize the genocide:

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/sodertalje/stefan-lofven-besoker-sodertalje-far-fragor-om-folkmordserkannande https://europa.blog/stefan-lofven-you-not-only-betray-seyfo-genocide-victims-but-also-swedish-democracy/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.115.51.6 (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Updating Sweden's policy

I, too, would like to see an update on Sweden's position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:77F:CB58:917C:5C80:1588:3A62 (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

U.S. States' Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

State of Alabama has recognised the Armenian Genocide. Please, change its colour on the map to green.

According to the Armenian National Institute, Mississippi and Wyoming do not recognize the Armenian Genocide, but Alabama does. Please correct the map.

https://www.armenian-genocide.org/current_category.11/affirmation_list.html

[[24]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.88.246 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Map of countries which recognize the genocide

I noticed that the US was recently added, however Alaska and Hawaii were omitted. Can an editor please add both Alaska and Hawaii to the map. Much appreciated! Archives908 (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconded Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

add US item?

• https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/470386-graham-blocks-resolution-recognizing-armenian-genocide-after-erdogan-meeting
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50418697
• https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sen-lindsey-graham-blocks-armenian-genocide-resolution-after-meeting-with-trump-turkish-president

Lindsey Graham blocked a resolution in the US Senate that would have formally recognized the Armenian genocide hours after meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The resolution passed the US House in a 405-11 vote. Graham claimed the bill was an attempt to "sugarcoat history or try to rewrite it." X1\ (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, this has happened many times before. Don’t see why we should single out Graham. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: US Senate passed a resolution officially recognizing the Armenian genocide per NBCNews. X1\ (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Update on Trump though; against Congress: here

X1\ (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

US Recognition

I don't think the US government has officially recognized it yet. The House has, but the Senate has not and the State Department still has a policy of denial IIRC. So I think coloring the US is erroneous, all that was passed was a "simple resolution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1314:D04:4D5D:32C1:B395:BBF0 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially in the light that State Department and Trump Administration still do not recognize it --> Source MosMusy (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll WP:BRD a removal of the United States. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The comments in this section are not up to date. The Senate passed a resolution. The US government’s recognition should not be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As I attempted to add to the article, Newsweek this month characterized the US government as not recognizing it. We defer to the WP:RS, which does not consider nonbinding resolutions from the House and Senate to equate to governmental recognition. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

As of 2020, the United States does not formally recognize the Armenian Genocide, according to Newsweek and Politico.

References

Who says it has to be binding? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, Newsweek. If you have strong sources claiming the US recognized the genoicde, feel free to provide them, but I didn't stumble across any during my search. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Étienne Dolet, does not have to be binding. Can't seem to find anything in WP:RS that clearly and definitively stipulates that either. I conducted a simple search and came across plenty of sources which hint that the US has recognized the genocide (in some varying capacity), despite the position of the Whitehouse. Furthermore, Newsweek does not have the authority to set Wikipedia standards or policies on what should or should not be included. Are there any other experienced editors which frequent this page that can give some feedback/ advice? Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources", rather than on Wikipedia page editors' judgement about the situation. A published and (reasonably) reliable source has explicitly stated that the United States does not formally recognize the Armenian Genocide. I don't know what "hint" or "varying capacity" mean in this context, but we should state what the sources state. If there are stronger sources explicitly stating that the US has recognized the genocide, then I'm happy to change my mind. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is disagreeing with you on that- Wikipedia should be based on reliable, published sources. That is not what editor Étienne Dolet or myself are discussing. For the second time, nowhere in WP:RS does it definitively and outright state that only binding government resolutions equate to recognition. If you can find where it states that, please do share. On October 30, 2019 the United States House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to recognize the events as Genocide. The resolution passed by a vote of 405 to 11. On December 12, 2019 the United States Senate voted unanimously to recognize the Genocide. Therefore, two high-level legislative bodies have passed similar resolutions deeming the atrocities as a Genocide. A simple search has yielded hundreds of results from credible sources confirming this, a few listed below:

New York Times The Guardian Reuters BBC World NPR Aljazeera NBC Other Archives908 (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking past one another. Does one of these sources state that the US government has recognized the Armenian Genocide? I have provided an WP:RS establishing that it has not. If you agree that Wikipedia should be based on reliable, published sources, then I don't understand why you're objecting to including the statement which is in a reliable source, and which is not contradicted by sources stating that other organizations, such as the US Senate or the US House of Representatives, have recognized the Armenian Genocide. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The US recognition of the Armenian Genocide comes at a federal level (i.e. House and Senate). We don't need to have all branches of the federal government to accept it, especially when this issue is essentially a non-binding moral proclamation. If we were to take your approach, most unanimous parliamentary AG affirmations would have to be removed, and those are what make up probably the majority of all recognitions throughout the world. Also, the section you keep removing it from mentions parliaments, which is technically what the congress of the USA is. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove other entries that aren't well-sourced as "recognition" by the state rather than by the parliament. Alternatively, we could have a more accurate term, for example instead of "32 states had officially recognized the historical events as genocide", we could say "in at least 32 nations, a federal government body has recognized the Armenian genocide" or "at least 32 states have referred to the event as a "genocide".Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

You still seem to be avoiding my earlier point. Each one of those articles discuss US recognition of the Genocide. Did you even read them? To reiterate (for the forth time), nowhere in WP:RS does it definitively and outright state that only binding government resolutions equate to recognition. You have failed to provide any policy that clearly stipulates that. Therefore, by logical deduction, if 1) the sources confirm recognition by a government body and 2) does not have to be binding, then why would we begin to alter the wordings of a very long-standing, well-written and well-sourced article? Archives908 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

What do other editors think, does [25] state that the US recognized the Armenian genocide, or does it only state that the Senate and the House have recognized the genocide? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As someone with a law background, I can tell you that the U.S. has not recognized the Armenian Genocide, at least not yet. Even without taking the law into context, if the U.S. did recognize it, then why did President Elect Biden promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide in 2020? On the law aspect, the so-called recognition is an advisory opinion and not binding. -- Therefore, it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that the Senate overrode President Trump.Torshavn1337 See Zivotofsky v. Clinton. 566 U.S. 189. (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

because there wasn't any decision taken.

Mass editing with zero explanations

Hi buidhe, can you please try and provide edit summaries when you edit? Per WP:ES, leaving edit summaries is generally a good practice to follow. I've noticed on Armenian Genocide denial, and now here, you don't seem to provide any explanation for your edits. It is particularly challenging to keep track, especially considering somedays you make dozens of edits. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I will try to be better about explaining edits in the future. I have gotten in the bad habit of hitting the "save" button without leaving a detailed edit summary. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I know it happens to all of us time to time! Archives908 (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

UK/Northern Ireland

I have amended the claim that The three devolved legislatures of the United Kingdom have recognised the Armenian Genocide. While the Scottish and Welsh references appear to be in order, the Northern Ireland reference is not. It is not talking about the Northern Ireland Assembly (which is the devolved legislature for Northern Ireland), as it says Majority of the UK Parliament members from Scotland and Northern Ireland recognized Armenian Genocide and Meanwhile, 11 out of 18 MPs from Northern Ireland voted for Genocide recognition. So it's not talking about the Northern Ireland Assembly at all, but the UK parliament (where there are indeed 18 MPs from Northern Ireland, although not all of them attend parliament for reasons too lengthy to go into here). The date (14.01.2010) would seem to fit with the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill 2009-10, which did not progress (somewhat surprisingly, I could not quickly find any secondary references reporting on this). Whether this needs to be included at Armenian Genocide recognition#Position of the United Kingdom I will leave up to other editors. FDW777 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I have investigated this further, and I do not believe there is any UK information to be added. The news.am reference mentioned above is very problematic. I decided to track down the Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine reports and I found the original article. This does not, as I assumed above, refer to the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day Bill 2009-10, but to an early day motion, #287 to be exact. This can be seen on the UK parliament's website here and it has 114 supporters (116 total signatures, 2 were withdrawn). Due to motions continually attracting signatures (there are several people who signed in February 2010, despite the motion being tabled on 30 November 2009) there was actually a follow-up article in Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine here, which also prompted a follow-up article on news.am here. As Nouvelles d'Arménie states, The number of MPs who have signed (254 exactly) did so by signing motions in 2007 and during this parliamentary year (2009- 2010), put by Dr. Bob Spink MP, an Independent MP, at our request.

There have been various early day motions on the subject. For example 35 signatures for a motion tabled on 28 March 2007, 27 signatures for one tabled on 22 October 2007, 39 for one tabled 07 November 2007, 54 for one tabled 28 January 2008, 20 for one tabled 21 April 2008, 18 for one tabled 17 June 2008, 16 for one tabled 08 December 2008. I don't have the time or energy to see how many individual MPs signed each motion (but there is little doubt that some MPs will have signed more than one, I saw Jeremy Corbyn's name repeatedly, and Bob Spink obviously), so I'll presume given the 15.02.2010 Nouvelles d'Arménie Magazine article has a paragraph beginning Of the 349 Labour MPs (the party of Government), 225 are eligible and 150 (two thirds) have signed that they have actually checked for individual MPs. Even so, that 254 MPs have, over the course of several years and several (at least five are needed just to get to 254 signatures, before you even look at the same people voting on different motions) motions isn't that significant in itself. It's not the same as a majority vote on one motion. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Struck through details about the number of motions required after finding the one with 182 signatures, it's still more than one but probably not as high as five. FDW777 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I have amended the sentence In 2000, an early day motion recognising the Armenian Genocide by the UK Parliament was signed by 185 MPs. This was supposedly reference by this, and this. Both articles are from 2007 and referring to this 2006 early day motion, which has 182 signatures (and 3 withdrawn, which accounts for the 185). FDW777 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with maybe a UK recognition.

The UK First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP has said that the Armenian genocide met the legal definition for genocide[26]. on 2021-01-12 the Government's response to forced labour in Xinjiang - Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab - 12th January on the official YouTube channel for the UK https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1692&v=2GqoxnybRzU. I don't know if what was said at 28:12 counts as recognition so would other editors please advised, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex975347543999644632689064 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweden does not recognise the Armenian Genocide

Sweden does not recognise the Armenian genocide (I'm embarrassed by it and I wish it weren't so, but that's the case nonetheless). No Swedish government has ever recognised it; as recently as today the Swedish foreign minister made a point of it. I'm removing the erroneous map until its corrected. Also removing Sweden from the table. Someone seems to have misunderstood a non-binding motion in Parliament 2010 that encouraged the Swedish government to recognize the genocide, but no Swedish has done so. Jeppiz (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)