Talk:Armenian genocide recognition/Archive 1

1965&list of countries
We certainly need these in the article:

Armenian Genocide introduced to the attention of the United Nations as of 1965 by Cyprus.

List of Countries Support Armenian Genocide:

Uruguay (1965)

Cyprus (1982)

Russia (1995)

Canada (2004)

Greece (1996)

Lebanon (1997)

Belgium (1998)

France (2001)

Sweden (2000)

Vatican (2000)

Italy (2000)

Switzerland (2003)

Slovakia (2004)

Netherlands (2004)

Poland (2005)

Litvania (2005)

and of course Armenia. The rest does not support.85.97.151.164 16:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just curious - but would you say that any nation which has specifically not passed a resolution recognizing the Holocaust is in fact denying it? And what if there were no nations that issued proclamations affirming the Holocaust and/or the Armenian Genocide - would these mean that these events did not occur?--THOTH 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 17 of 192 countries=8.8% =minority Chonanh 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we see you can do basic math, and for that I congratulate you. But A. not bothering to recognize an event is hardly denying it. We can't really count the other countries unless they have specifically denied the event, which only two countries have. B. Most historical events have no official recognition, yet that hardly means they did not happen. As far as I know, only 6 countries (if there are more, add them) have given official recognition to the Holocaust. Does that mean only 3.1% of people accept the Holocaust? Hardly. The Myotis 03:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * *I think these things are political matters. When countries want to work against other, they use delicate matters.

The Armenian matter is in fact a struggle between christian-moslim involved states. Armenians are in origin christians. From 192 states, 17 support the Armenian genocide. From this 17, 16 states are supporters with Christian origin. You then get the impression of Christians supporting Christians against moslims (in this case: Turkey/Ottoman Turks). About the holocaust: I guess the recognizers are states with christian origins? I've the idea christians states are more worrying about genocides more than other because their past is one big track of genocide. Genocide of American natives, exterminating Tasmanians or acts of Nazi Germany agaisnt Jews is a product of christianity. Committing Genocide is a seldom event in Islam community. Especially the Ottoman Turks (look at their history). Chonanh 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you are saying you believe it happened and was genocide, but that countries should not bother recognizing it? And do you realize that virtually all genocides, including Judeocide in Europe, the extermination of the Armenians, and even the Tasmanians, all have primarily secular origins?

Also, how does Lebanon fit into your theory that only Christian states support the Armenians on this issue? In fact, do most primarily Muslim states give recognition to any genocide? The Myotis 01:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I can answer: I don't understand the "secular origin". What do you mean with that? Chonanh 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Secular as in nonreligious. Most modern genocides and extermination have had a nonreligious foundation, typically nationalism or outright racism. Religion can be acclimated to accept the extermination of an ethnic group, and religious conflict can certainly play a role in such events. However, The Three Pashas were more Turkish nationalist that Islamic fundamentalists and Hitler was certainly not a Christian. In some quite a few the victims and aggressors (as in the Al-Anfal Campaign) may be of the same faith. The Myotis 23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon is in fact hardly a 'Muslim country' - nearly half of its population is Christian. However, I do not think religion had much to do with the high-level reasons for the genocide, but a Turkic nationalism. Turkey wanted to associate with its anthropological kindred in Wazistanl, Kharkharstan and Qaraqalpaqshmitistan etc., and Armenia was in the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.83.99 (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Would the (apparently Muslim) writer a few paragraphs up please refrain from abuse? Reading the intro of the discussion article (Wikipedia protocol, etc.) may be a good idea. One could have a very heated argument about violence in Islamic history, Christian history, etc., and this may be great fun for some but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.83.99 (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Map of countries recognising the Armenian Genocide
Is this map right? It does not seem to concur with the list of countries and states that recognise the Armenian Genocide. for exmple, the script states that only the Australian state of South Waleshas recognised it though the map shows that the whole country recognises it. The same happens with USA. On the other hand, the map shows other countries like Germany that are not mentioned in the script. On the other hand, the Brazilian states of Sao Paolo and Ceara, or the Basque Country autonomous community of Spain that recognise the Genocide are not marked on the map. These regions are not mentioned either in the 'Nations and states' part but only in the recent developments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.158.4 (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough !
In order to respect the memory of the deaths, the international community must recognize the death of over 1,5 milion Armenians and the forced removal from Armenian families of abb. 500.000 children and young women. In fact, the Armenian Genocide of 1915, plus the massacres in the late years of 19th century killed half of the entire Armenian nation. The international community must handle these horrendous events in the manner used for the Jewish Holocaust. Everibody must acknoledge and recognize it and all the people deniyng it must be punished by national and international law. The Turkish Government and individuals must stop deniyng the Genocide and they should start to assume the guilt, if they want to be seen as a civilized nation and if they want to be a member of the EU ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but punishment for denying a historical event... Oh dear... Sounds a little Stalinist to me. Should we imprison every schoolboy who writes something in his history exam that contradicts a horrendous event like, to take a random example, the Taiping Nanking massacre? And if so, on the grounds that he's an idiot or what? It needn't be malice. Hate to break it to you, but most people are pig-ignorant and some of them haven't even heard of Armenia - and as horrendous and important as the genocide certainly was, the same measure must be applied to all misery in the world - and not every government can keep updating its 'official history' (a Stalinist concept again) every time the Warizuzustanis blow up thousands of Hikitikistanis in order to get independence from Jujustan. The Armenian genocide was important, but this kind of anti-free-speech attitude leads down a slippery slope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.83.99 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Another nice example how Wikipedia is polluted by Armenian ultra nationalists which has NO intention to create a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.74.198.217 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro says 22 countries recognize, article shows 21 in the list
Which country is missing? Torc2 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey recalls its ambassador to the United States, after the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passes a resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire
Turkey recalls its ambassador to the United States, after the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passes a resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gastronomos (talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The ref. #25
This source is biased and cant represent the views of Intl citics of the French bill on Genocide: (Turkish) Orhan Pamuk Fransa'yi kinadi, Internet Haber, October 13, 2006.Andranikpasha 20:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

US Bill New Thing?
This article has a senator in 2004 saying "We have been told, recently and in the past, that the State Department and the Administration have fought so strenuously against this legislation, because its adoption would somehow harm progress in the region toward the normalization of ties between these two states." This would imply that the US government has been pursuing the bill for some time - keep in mind that many people are saying this is a recent thing enacted by the democrats and it's stupid to "just start on this now." I think it's important to find out whether, in the past, congress has made similar efforts.--Mr Bucket 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first time the US has sent resolutions to congress on the topic of recognition of the Armenian Genocide. http://www.genocide-museum.am/U.S._House_of_Representatives_Joint_Resolution_247.html, http://www.genocide-museum.am/U.S._House_of_Representatives_Joint_Resolution_148.html KaraiBorinquen (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How does this subject differ substantialy from 'denial of the Armenian Genocide' ?
I believe the subject of both pages is substatially the same, and therefore, the pages should be merged. Isn't recognition of the Armenian Genocide not the same as not-denial of the Armenian Genocide, and denial of the Armenian Genocide the not-recognition of the Armenian Genocide? If that is indeed the case, the pages should be merged, as they would basicly be two POV forks of the same issue. The name of the article it should end up under iws a different consideration, and I understand that that might give a problem but that is a second concern. So what exactly is the difference, apart from the point of view? Martijn Hoekstra 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Recognition is a diplomatic issue more than a historical issue. Denial is a historical issue.  They should remain separate. Torc2 22:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose I would have known if I actualy had read the article... Martijn Hoekstra 23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Welsh recognition?
Claims are made here, and on the Armenian Genocide page, that Wales recognizes an Armenian Genocide. The footnote on the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide page is dead (so cannot be investigated, but from its title does not look like a likely source on which to base this claim). The footnote (number 129) on the Armenian Genocide page, is a link to a National Assembly for Wales web page on which there is a Written Statement of Opinion concerning "Genocide of the Armenians". This would appear to be the basis of the claim of Welsh recognition. If so, it is erroneous.

According to Andrew Chambers of the Assembly Parliamentary Services, National Assembly For Wales, "Statements of Opinion are a mechanism for Members to draw attention to issues of concern or highlight achievements by putting their views on a subject on record and canvassing support from other Members. The statements only represent the opinion of Members who subscribe to them. They cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales."

If a Written Statement of Opinion cannot become the opinion of the National Assembly for Wales, a Written Statement of Opinion can not be used as the evidence to support the claim that Wales, or the Welsh Assembly, recognizes an Armenian Genocide. This claim needs either to be supported with documented evidence (i.e. a resolution passed by the National Assembly for Wales) or removed. --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, this would not be a surprise. As a native german speaker i can guarantee that the resolution which armenians see as "Genocide-Recognition" is definitly NOT a recognition of a genocide, it is just a denunciation of the murders and a denunciation of any murders that were linked with Germany (as they fought together with the turks in WWI). But again i want to say that it is useless to argue against the armenian internet lobby, if i should dare to remove false satements, one dozen of them stand ready to revert my edit within a minute. Have fun facing their resistance. XmuratX (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

UK, Denmark, Israel, Bulgaria
Dear vandals, i wonder how you can read the thoughts of the politicians. but pass that. we can only list what countries and its parliament officially accepted or not. in an encylclopedia, you cant write that the parliament actually recognizes the genocide, but did not vote for it, because of any reason, this does not fit into an reliable encyclopedia. thats like saying that california has only recognized the genocide because of its armenian population. both claims are not based on facts. But it is a fact that the bulgarian parliament rejected a genocide bill, its a fact that israels president said that no genocide occured in 1915 (you know the famous quote of shimon perez), its a fact that danish foreign minister said that a recognition by its government is needed, and british prime minister anounced at his website that "these events should not be categorised as genocide". The turkish government also condemns the killings, but cant see a genocide. its not important what reasons for refusing to recognize they have, but its a fact that those countries rejected the genocide, although they were confronted with a recognition, there may be political reasons, there may be diplomatical reasons, but its also possible that these politicans are convinced that there is no genocide - we cant know this, and its not our job to rate this. our job is to list which countries officially recognized, and which offically refused to do so - and thats why the 4 countries should be listed in this article. XmuratX (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please watch your tone. Editors making good faith edits with which you disagree are not "vandals" and should not be called such. Torc2 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's have a look an the article "Denmark does not recognise Armenian genocide" (http://www.haaba.com/tags/turkey?q=node/73680). It says "Denmark does not officially recognise that Ottoman massacres of Armenians during World War I constitute genocide, Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said Thursday." BUT READING FURTHER:

"In the government's opinion, this is a historical question that should be left up to the historians,' Moeller wrote in a written parliamentary answer, indicating that Denmark would not follow the lead of some 20 other countries, including France, that have labelled the killings genocide."

If you would say that it means that Denmark "failed to recognize the Armenian genocide altought confronted to it" what about colouring all the countries of the world blue???!! (except those 20). I would like to remind you, that this is an article on Armenian Genocide RECOGNITION. And what about Bulgaria? Doesn't the fact that Bulgarian parliament rejected the bill mean only that it decided it's a job for historians, not for parliament?!

I can agree with putting UK and (maybe)Israel here, altough many famous Jews (like Elie Wiesel http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=23909 or Jewish religious leaders fully recognized it).

And what about the map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ArmenianGenocideRecognition.png If it's a map of Armenian Genocide Recognition, what's the point of putting other colours (like XMurat did)? Shan't we colour all the grey countries blue? Isn't it just Turkish propaganda, XMurat??

To summarise, I'm going to remove all the blue colours from the map. 213.158.196.73 (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Division into 3 groups
There are 3 distinct groups of countries: Steelmate (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * legislation recognizing genocide passed (21 countries)
 * legislation recognizing genocide failed to pass (4 countries)
 * legislation denying genocide passed (Turkey, Azerbaijan)
 * If we want to make categegories, than we must devide them into 4:


 * countries which officially recognized the events as genocide (e.g. France)
 * countries which condemn the killings and massacres, but do not recognize them as genocide technically (e.g. Germany - even the turkish bundestag members (and their are many of them!) voted in favor it so they could pretend that another, official genocide recognition could be passedin the future)
 * countries whose governments oficially refuse to call the killings a genocide and refused to formulate a resolution, and say that historians should decide about (Israel, Britain, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Denmark)
 * countries whose parliament-members formulated a genocide resoluion, which was rejected by the parliament (e.g. Bulgaria)

Please read the sources i added if you want to get sure. As you see, its needles to devide the countries into so many groups. Countries should be devided in 2 Groups: Countries which officially recognized it, and those who refused to recognize. Its not needed to add their reasons for not recognizing it. I will edit the page now. XmuratX (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like idea of dividing into more groups (4,5 is fine) for more precise meaning, please go ahead and do it. As otherwise we are distorting the reality. The condemning of massacres is different from achnowledging genocide, so it looks like Germany acknowledged and condemned massacres, I think we need to make it clear in the article as well. Steelmate (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing to pass proposed legislation is not "refusing" to recognize anything, nor is the comment of one official the official stance of the country or government. The formatting is fine and accurate as it is.  Details about each country's position can be specified in the article text. Torc2 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Failing to pass proposed legislation is failing to recognize, right? So if "refusing" is not the right word, it is ok we will use "Failed to recognize". Also, I agree with you, we need to count official position of the country on that only. Steelmate (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I kind of disagree with that. "Fail" is a somewhat loaded term, and implies some sort of conscious rejection of the subject of the legislation itself (rather than some political or procedural decision).  I really think "did not pass" is the most neutral phrase we could use for that. Torc2 (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "did not pass" - is fine by me as well. By the way did Germany "pass" the legislation regarding recognizing AG as genocide or "did not pass" ? Steelmate (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's define groups in a talk page first and then we put them on the main page. So how about that: Any others? Steelmate (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * passed legislation recognizing genocide(20 countries)
 * passed legislation recognizing massacres, but didn't label it as genocide (1 countries: Germany)
 * failed to pass legislation recognizing genocide (4 countries)
 * passed legislation denying genocide(Turkey, Azerbaijan)


 * Than we have to change the structure.
 * We got to do whatever we got to do to make the article clear about official positions of countries on that question. Steelmate (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was best done by the previous format. XmuratX keeps changing it without consensus or...really...agreement from anybody.  Let's go through this one by one:


 * UK: Brown's response was not a denial. It was a statement that there had been no legislation passed based on two reasons: 1) It was unclear whether the actions fit the definition laid down by the UN convention, and 2) The convention's rules were not retroactive.
 * Bulgaria: That legislation was brought but not passed is not best described as a "rejection" of the idea that there was genocide. The government did not pass legislation saying the massacre was not genocide, and should not be categorized in the same section as Turkey and Azerbaijan.
 * Denmark: Off-the-cuff comments of the minister do not constitute official policy of the country. Denmark should not even be included in the list of countries that have proposed but did not pass legislation.  It appears nothing official has ever been said regarding the genocide.
 * Israel: Same as Denmark. Comments by a minister are not official policy.  What legislation has been proposed?  Is there an official government-backed denial?  Also, Armeniapedia is not a reliable source.  This does not belong in anything more than a passing mention.Torc2 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Section reformat
I removed groupings of the countries other then those who acknowledge the genocide, as all others have different stances on this issue. Also XmuratX - don't change the style of the section. Steelmate (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Map
I also think the map needs to be changed to allow only one color - countries that acknowledge the genocide. All other coloring is really not helping for clarity of the section. Also Australia as a whole country diodn't achnowledge the genocide, only one provimnce of it did, needs to be reflected in the map. Steelmate (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this map? Is it being suggested that there is a geographical relationship between the countries that have officially recognised the genocide and the physical locations of those countries? If that is the case, then it should be mentioned in the text. If not, then I don't really see a purpose in having the map in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is one geographical relationship that I see : it is tied to distribution of Armenian diaspora in the world and it's efforts to recognize the genocide. Steelmate (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Places like Poland, Italy, and Chile are literally overflowing with Armenians!Meowy 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet, the most notable is Africa as the major center of Armenian populations! Steelmate (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessery groups
Folks, please don't craete unnesesery groups in section for Governments. The only group of countries recognized genocide is enough, and all other positions of other countries are described in a text, f.e. position of Bulgaria is difefernt from Denmark or UK or Israel - we cannot really group them together. If you feel position of any country can be expanded please do so in the text without grouping. Steelmate (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The point, or otherwise, of it all
Something should be said about why those seeking official recognition of the AG think it is important to have it, and also why some Armenians (and others) see it at best as a pointless exercise, a distraction, and at worst as a counterproductive one. Meowy 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria
There has been much talk recently over several CITIES in Bulgaria taking the dicision to recognize the genocide on an individual basis, despite the government having refused to do so.
 * Plovdiv - http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/pr_07/071024_plov.html
 * Bourgas - http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25145
 * Stara Zagora - http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=25203
 * Sofia - http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=91062

perhaps this could be added 62.176.111.71 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Chile
Why is chile in the list but not marked in the map? Just wondering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.20.119 (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sweden?
I read an article on PanArmenian.net today (here it is), and it says that the Swedish Parliament has just rejected a resolution recognising the events as genocide. Personally I think the source that claims that Sweden recognises the events as genocide is unreliable, and probably just randomly throwing up names of countries. There is no other "evidence" available which claims that Sweden does recognise the events as genocide. As such, I will be removing Sweden from the list. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Germany Should be removed, too. There was no recognition by the german parliament, there was a resolution acknowledging the deaths, but it does not say that genocide is the right word for this. It only says that many historians describe this event as genocide, not a majority, and not most. Germany does not recognize the armenian genocide and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.233.95 (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you can read the Bundestagresolution http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/15/056/1505689.pdf The resolution it self does not use the word "Genozid" or "Völkermord". This is official part, so no genocide recognition by Germany. However, this Document includes a explanatory statement, which says that many historians categorised this event as genocide - but no recognition by itself. So please remove germany too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.233.95 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

US?
Why was US removed. Evidence is not too unreliable. It is official document from the International Court of Justice.

Look at pg. 25 of http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/12/11767.pdf.

"4. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [...] The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide. This was the background when the General Assembly of the United Nations considered the problem of genocide. Not once, but twice, that body declared unanimously that the practice of genocide is criminal under international law and that States ought to take steps to prevent and punish genocide."

The United States recognized the genocide in 1951, well before the government of Turkey started to make international threats against it, and well before Armenians started to demand recognition.

WHY DID YOU REMOVE US FROM THIS LIST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.210.95 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Until you convince all of us that official documents from the International Court of Justice are unreliable, you cannot remove US from the list. I reinstated US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.210.95 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no official recognition. As long one countries parliament (in this case the congress) does not pass a resolution recognizing it, there is no official recognition. This Document is not undersigned by the President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.246.86 (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged
Reverted WP:WEASEL wording, there is a clear consensus in wikipedia about the Armenian Genocide. If you feel otherwise, try WP:Request for comment --VartanM (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's Wikipedia. There's no clear consensus in real life, though. Any old person could just edit Wikipedia, and the Armenian Genocide article itself is clearly in violation of NPOV as it only gives one thorough view of the events, the "other side"'s argument is just dismissed as "denial" or "revisionism". It's not my fault the Armenian Genocide article has been overrun by Armenian lobbyists, and that's why it will never become a featured article until something's done about it (see: Featured_article_candidates/Armenian_Genocide/archive1). Anyway, the point is, innocent until proven guilty, my love. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably search for the open letter of genocide scholars to Turkish prime-minister. If you can point me an Armenian lobbyist thats editing the Armenian Genocide article, I'll give you a barnstar. The only reason the Armenian Genocide article is not featured is because Turkish denialists wont leave it alone for it to become stable. Cheers. VartanM (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all great talking about how a bunch of genocide scholars think it's genocide. TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. Is this view representative of consensus, though? Because I also know a whole bunch of scholars that don't think that it's genocide. The ones I can name off the top of my head alone are Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Guenther Lewy, Gilles Veinstein among many others who I would be more than willing to name to you if you'd like a much longer list. I can't necessarily prove that anyone's an Armenian lobbyist unless I looked at every single detail I could possibly find, but that would sort of be like stalking, and quite frankly I have much better things to do than stalk people. Anyway, the real reason why the Armenian genocide article isn't featured is because it suffers from serious NPOV issues rather than edits from so-called "denialists". Speaking of the word "denialist", that's one of the words which are heavily in use by Armenian lobbyists which are always used just to push the anti-genocide arguments aside and make them seem redundant. I would know about this kind of stuff, because I study history and I know the difference between neutrality and bias. Just look at any news article anywhere which uses one these words and just notice what effects they have. So yes, don't just go calling everything denialist. People who don't believe in the genocide thesis hold this said opinion, and until you can prove it wrong it is your obligation to respect it. More importantly, though, you still haven't proven to me that the genocide thesis is consensus, therefore it is still an alleged genocide. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverted removal of Union for Reform Judaism. They claim to be serving North America(US, Canada, Bahamas, Puerto Rico). US and Canada should be enough to qualify for international status. VartanM (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide
This article is redundant and poorly sourced. (How's this for a hard hitter: "The Kurdish bookshop SaraDistribution is selling the book Bati Ermenistan (Kürt Ilishkileri) ve Jenosîd" ) It should be folded in here, better sourced, and edited for trivialities. --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is name Kurdish recognition, that means that it could be from anywhere! --213.100.46.61 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the sources for your lies?
I don't get it or some of you guys haven't understand what Wikipedia is about. Your saying this and those countries are recognising your lost independece war as a genocide but the sources you bring are some Panarmenian or not working.

For example the source

http://www.arka.am/en/archive/n03/n2903/290305.html where you link countries like


 * 1)  Cyprus[15]
 * 2)  Germany[15]
 * 3)  Greece[15]
 * 4)  Italy[15
 * 5)  Lithuania[15]
 * 6)  Russia[15]
 * 7)  Switzerland[15]
 * 8)  Uruguay[15]

or look at some like this http://www.yerkir.am/eng/index.php?sub=news_arm&id=30536 are not working!

In fact you only have to run a bot to see which of them are working and which not. Some other countries recognition is based on some not serious articles. Get some official (not from an Armenian or some other Propaganda making website) source for every country you listed in here. Of course in its language!

If you don't do it I will delete the ones which have no source. Thanks!

And please keep your irrelevant and unsubstantial stuff for yourself because I'm sure the guys crying for their Propaganda will again reply. P223 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

academic recognition of the Armenian Genocide and 53 Nobel Laureates
i think it is very important to have names of those 53 Nobel Laureates who re-affirming the Genocide in the list, who were they ?

and in the article talks about "academic recognition", is it any university that was involved ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.93.120 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by Adoniscik
Before deletions of significant (and sourced) parts of article proper explanations and response of other users are needed. Deletion of materials with a simple note like "compare what was before and after" are causing editwarrings while we need strong consensus as the topic is very sensitive. Gazifikator (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The additions are malformed; there is no need for a consensus for keep a wrecked article. All he has to do is preview his/her submission. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know if Taron's edits are malformed (it seems to be only your opinion!), but they are very informative. If you're a better designer, help us, noone opposes, but do not delete any information you believe is malformed. Gazifikator (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS- Also please do not delete citation needed tag at Media section without explanation. It is not Taron's edit. Gazifikator (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IF you don't see the mess it made of the article, it's probably because you are using a browser like IE. Try FF to see the bug. I'll fix it myself if no-one does it in a reasonable amount of time. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have brought the primary (official!) facts (Resolutions and Laws), what about than can go the dispute? --Taron Saharyan (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not the content. Just find a computer with Firefox to see what happened. --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Im using a Firebox and do not see any mess... Also how it can be related to deletions? If even your personal browser has problems:)Gazifikator (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Logo ihd.png
The image File:Logo ihd.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Ymca-logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

United Nations War Crimes Commission Report
United Nations War Crimes Commission Report documents that the Allied powers considered the Turkish government to have committed crime against humanity -- the position the British Government still holds -- but it does not claim in that report Turkey had committed a genocide. --PBS (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Thirty-eighth session Item 4 of the provisional agenda.

This source is highly selective, in the paragraphs it presents from the provisional agenda as it presents just two paragraphs from at least 73 that were in the "Revised and updated report on the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide Prepared by Mr. B. Whitaker". It does not show that the report was endorsed by the United Nations Sub-Commission (or even that Item 4 was in the final agenda of the Thirty-eighth session).

It is a very flimsy source to hang: "Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918." Among the organizations asserting this conclusion are ... United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" because the source does not show that the UN Sub-Commission have asserted that the crimes against humanity committed by the Turkish Government was a genocide. Instead the source shows that the UN Sub-Commission received a report from Mr. B. Whitaker that asserts "Among other examples [of genocide] which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904,12 the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, ..." but, without additional information there is no way to tell from the context of the source if the report was commissioned by Sub-Commission, or whether it was solicited or unsolicited (and as mentioned above if it made it into the agenda of the Thirty-eighth session).

With further research into the issue it may well prove to be that the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities did indeed come to the conclusion stated in this Wikipedia article, but until such research has been done, I think that mention of the Sub-Commision should be removed. --PBS (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * International Center for Transitional Justice, Armeniapedia is not a reliable source. If the "United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" has a position on the Armenian_Genocide then it should be easy to find far better quality references than this one. This is an encyclopedia not a blog page. We should only publish information like this based on good quality reliable sources. This is not a good quality secondary source.


 * Further as I pointed out above it is not at all clear from that source that the text in a report to the "United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" represents the position of the sub-commission.


 * see the next section for comments on the other source: Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide CTV News Net --[[User:Philip

Baird Shearer|PBS]] (talk)

<-- Gazifikator you wrote in the next section "Just do not remove sourced info. You're deleting some important sourced part without any serious explanations (what you wrote at previous sections is quite irrelevant to my recent sourced edits). Have you any sources that oppose the represented ones. If no then chao. Gazifikator (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)"

Gazifikator which specific source are you claiming justifies inclusion of "United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" in the international section? --PBS (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gazifikator you have not yet replied to my last question although you have reverted edit which effect this. --PBS (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gazifikator why did you put back the dubious templates and then remove them again? --PBS (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is a reliable source for this organisation, So I have added it as a source. The trouble is that the BBC source (Staff, Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute, BBC, 10 July 2008) says "The European Parliament and the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities have also done so."

But the BBC article does not make clear that the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was renamed in 1999, and disbanded in 2006 (Staff, UN ‘think tank’ winds up by proposing expert body to advise Human Rights Council, UN news centre, 25 August 2006)

I have hesitated to undo the last edit by user:Gazifikator until I had looked into the issue more. See Whitaker Report (United Nations) the Sub-Commission did not "approve" the Whitaker Report as it had the Ruhashyankiko Report but instead note of the study and thanked Whitaker for his efforts. --PBS (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

International Center for Transitional Justice
The source given for the International Center for Transitional Justice was not a reliable source. But following the links there it is possible to find the original document:
 * The Applicability of the United Nations Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to the events which occurred during the early twentieth century. The memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel and not by the ICTJ. The memorandum is a legal, not a factual or historical, analysis. "This memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel based on a request made to the International Center for Transitional Justice ("ICTJ"), on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") entered into by The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission ("TARC") on July 12, 2002 and presentations by members of TARC on September 10, 2002" (Page 2).

The quote in the unreliable source is correct see Page 18: D. Conclusion ... Because the other three elements identified above have been definitively established, the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them."

The problem is that the source does not backup the Wikipedia sentences "Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918." Among the organizations asserting this conclusion [(that it was a genocide)]are the International Center for Transitional Justice ..." because what this source makes clear is "This memorandum was drafted by independent legal counsel" in other words it is a legal opinion commissioned by the ICTJ (and it may be one of several opinions commissioned we can not tell from the source), it does not say that the ICTJ as an organisation assert that it was a genocide.

Instead the wording needs to be changed to say something like this:

--PBS (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the justifications why the removed citations must be reverted:
 * for the International Center for Transitional Justice see the source "Both the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized the massacre as genocide, as has the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." ICTJ in the News, May 8, 2006, Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide,
 * for the United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities also see for example the 73 paragraph that uses Armenian geocide term for the events. Gazifikator (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See the section above for a detailed answer to you question. Please read it and reply there. --PBS (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the sections above and answer in detail in those sections. --PBS (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What you're doing, is POV-pushing. We have sources and I answered that they are reliable, arent they? So what's the problem, if you believe they are dubious, its your opinion. What we have are direct quotations, so discuss them here but you need sources that oppose them not just your opinion if something is wrong. Everything is sourced, read the sources at first!Gazifikator (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, for example read at the official site of International Center for Transitional Justice: "Both the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized the massacre as genocide, as has the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." What's wrong here. We see not only ICTJ, but also United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities have recognized the Armenian Genocide. It seems you're informed better than ICTJ official site. Gazifikator (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<--outdent. In reply to user:Gazifikator edit to the BBC section below:

What you are using is the transcript of an article called "Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide" by "CTV News Net", you are basing it on a quote, but if this statement by an unnamed journalist is correct where is the statement by these organisations? BTW it seems that footnote 1 and 6 are footnotes for the same article. --PBS (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This source International Center for Transitional Justice is definitely not a reliable source.

In the context of adding an organisation to a list such as this one comment from a cable network in Canada is not enough of a reliable hook to hang such a statement upon. We can not know if the unnamed journalist of a cable company is a reliable source. user:Gazifikator this is not a blog page it an encyclopaedia and you should only place information on this page if it is published in a reliable source. Further you should engage in discussing your points on this page and not simply revert to your preferred version with no discussion, to do so is disruptive.--PBS (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PBS, justify your deletion of sources before editwarring! Gazifikator (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I did on the 18th. I look forward to reading your answer, and also your answer it the appropriate section.


 * ALSO Why are you reverting ALL THE CHANGES, several editors (including myself) have made which do not include the text we are discussing?--PBS (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just do not remove sourced info. You're deleting some important sourced part without any serious explanations (what you wrote at previous sections is quite irrelevant to my recent sourced edits). Have you any sources that oppose the represented ones. If no then chao. Gazifikator (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)Which specific source are you talking about for including "International Center for Transitional Justice"? --PBS (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and (2)why have you reverted all the edits and not just the edit to the section "international organizations"? --PBS (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * here is an official source ICTJ in the News, May 8, 2006, Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide. to not ask these questions please read my previous notes here. Gazifikator (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) why are you reverting all changes in more than one section, not just the ones you have mentioned on this page which are in section "International organizations"?
 * (2) See my comment in the paragraph above that starts "What you are using ..". and the next paragraph that starts "In the context of adding an organisation ..." you still have not justified or even discussed this source. -- PBS (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All the sources are justified. Not justified ones were deleted. So discuss them and do not revert sourced information. Gazifikator (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And do not delete any important info like 42 states who recognized Armenian Genocide. How you can justify it? And Germany didn't clearly recognize the Armenian Genocide, read the source you're adding! Other added text needs to be supported by reliable sources. Gazifikator (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not add the Germany part that was added by someone else. If you wish to delete it then either create a section on this page to explain you deletion or post to a relevant one.
 * Do you have any reliable sources to back up the "CTV News Net"? For such an important fact you should be able to come up with more than one unreliable source (for example a statement from the orgaisation itself. --PBS (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is obvious like the case of Germany it is not necessary to explain here. I'll add an explanation if anyone opposes deletion. And start to explain you removal here. Anything can be dubious if the source is not enough to prove the fact. If there is a text from the official site, then what's dubious? Gazifikator (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The source "CTV News Net" is not enough to verify the fact. Which part of the detailed explanation I have given in this section do you not understand and I'll try to clarify. I have given a detailed analysis and suggestion about the source on the ICTJ site, it is a legal opinion given by an outside brief (law firm), not a statement of the ICTJ's position on this issue (see above for more details. --PBS (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion the reliability of the sources given to justify the inclusion of the "International Center for Transitional Justice". Currently the three sources are: --PBS (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * International Center for Transitional Justice Armeniapedia -- In My opinion not reliable.
 * http://www.ictj.org/images/content/7/5/759.pdf -- is a reliable souce but it is a legal opinion that the ICTJ sought not a statement of the organisation's position. (I have detailed this above with a suggestion of how this source could contribute to the article see the quotation box that starts "An independent legal opinion commissioned by the ICTJ in 2002 ..."
 * "Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide" by "CTV News Net" -- Not a particularly reliable source and not one that without reliable sources can be used to justify the inclusion of such a categoric statement that the ICTJ asserts "have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1918."". If this is true then there should be better sources than the opinion of an unnamed journalist on a cable channel in Canada.
 * Ahh.... isn't Mother Nature a fine thing! It's that time of the year again, April, when the genocide deniers awake from their prolonged winter hibernations and go on a frenzy of denying, before tiring themselves out by the end of May and returning to their slumbers again, regaining their full strength only when next April arrives. Meowy 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From 3O
If the dispute is over the reliability of the sources summarized in the section immediately above, (1) any citations to another Wiki such as Armeniapedia are not reliable and should not be included as citations, (2) the reliability of the ICTJ is not suspect in my eyes, but given the contentiousness of this topic, I would seek out other reliable sources for corroboration (academic articles, UN reports, etc.), (3) I believe there are several hundred other sources that can be used so simply switch it to something like NYTimes, Reuters, AP, AFP, BBC, etc. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The ICTJ source itself is a legal opinion solicited by the ICTJ not a statement by the ICTJ on its position. The "CTV News Net" article which is repeated verbatim on the ICTJ site (I have no reason to think it is not accurate facsimile), is being used for this specific paragraph "'Both the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized the massacre as genocide, as has the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities'." It is that paragraph that needs a reliable source to back it up. If you agree can you make that clear. --PBS (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's the case that ICTJ's official position is not reflected in the cite then you'll need something to reliably substantiate their position if that's the intent of the cite. If the ICTJ, AGS, and UN commission have all recognized it as a genocide, then I encourage editors to find more sources to cite since a Canadian 24-hour news channel doesn't pass the smell test in my mind for the most authoritative news coverage in the absence of what should be a superabundance of other corroborating citations. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BBC, US News Madcoverboy (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC reference includes "UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" which will do for that organisation but I don't see any mention of the ICTJ in either of them. If I've missed it please quote the sentence(s). --PBS (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You could also add citations for each independent recognition rather than a single citation encompassing all three: "...recognized by ICTJ, AGS, and the UN commission. " Madcoverboy (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes I was assuming that (I have just modified article so the BBC is used as the UN sub-committee cited source). The problem is that I have not seen a reliable source for the ICTJ and in my opinion if there is no reliable source we should not include it.--PBS (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gazifikator you wrote in this edit "as it was discussed" where is there agreement that you should make such an edit? Why have you remove a UN and a BBC citation and replaced it with a citation from a Cable Television company? Why did you delete the additional information from the UN source that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities is a defunct think tank? --PBS (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gazifikator why did you put the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities back under the list of "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:" because as that sub commission no longer exists it can not be a organization that recognizes the Armenian Genocide. -- PBS (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Again the same question! -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe there is no reply because your points don't seem worthy of a reply. Not every fact needs a citation, only controversial ones, such as ones which may incite an "oh really?" response in a reader. There is nothing controversial about the ICTJ recognition claim, and your argument that it should be excluded because the organisation no longer exists is beyond pedantic. Meowy 15:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The onus is on the person who wishes to restore information as the the source given for defunct think tank is a UN publication why did you make this edit?


 * The text currently says "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:" as the "Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities" no longer exists it can not be still "officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide". It is a matter of tenses. It needs to be listed under past organizations not current organizations. --PBS (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a Sub-commission representing the UN. UN still exists and doesn't deny the resolution by the Sub-Commision. Gazifikator (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent. Gazifikator, Why did you delete the information that the Sub-commission no longer exists, after you previously left it in. . Why have you deleted the dubious label off the second mention of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities?

Do you not agree that the current wording "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include: Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities..." is misleading as the sub-commission no longer exists? As it is was already stated in the previous paragraph (accurately until user:Meowy altered it) that "among the organizations .... and a now-defunct United Nations think tank, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." there is no need to repeat the information again inaccurately. -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sub Commission noted note of the study and thanked the Special Rapporteur for his efforts, but unlike the 1979 Ruhashyankiko Report they did not "approve" the 1985 Whitaker Report. So to include the UNSCPPHR as an organisation that "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide" is misleading at two levels. First the sub-commission did not approve the Whitaker Report, and second the Sub-Commission no longer exists. --PBS (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the article:
 * 05:33, 18 May 2009 Gazifikator (to Taron's version. as it was discussed)
 * 06:35, 18 May 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (rv: Gazifikator, if you wan to revet some of the edits you object to then that would be reasonable, but to revert indescriminatly all edits good bad or indifferent over the last two weeks is not.)

Gazifikator what discussion? You have not participated in any discussion before that edit since 11:23, 4 May 2009, before making a revert on the 18 May. --PBS (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Gazifikator as you still have not participated in this discussion I am putting back the dubious flag. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
I have changed Council of Europe to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as that is the organisation mentioned in the two sources: Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution, April 24, 1998, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution, April 24, 2001.

currently the Wikipedia text reads: "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include: ... ..."
 * Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

However the website of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe says:

and the two given unreliable sources indicate that the reliable sources are:
 * Doc. 9056 2nd edition 14 May 2001 Recognition of the Armenian genocide. Written Declaration No. 320 "This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it" Total signatories = 85
 * Doc. 8091 2nd edition 10 July 1998 Commemoration of the Armenian genocide of 1915 Written Declaration No. 275 "This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it" Total signatories = 50

To put these written declarations into perspective, the 2001 written declaration No. 320 was one of 403 such documents listed for that year. One of the others was Doc.9066 "No. 324 - Recognition of the genocide perpetrated against the Azeri population by the Armenians" (no signatures).

Written declarations as the text in the declarations make clear only commit the members who have signed it to the content of the declaration. The declarations do not mean that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as a body officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. The Wikipedia text needs to be altered to clarify that these were written declarations allow members of the Assembly to give formal expression to their views on matters of European interest, and not the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe officially recognising the events as a genocide. --PBS (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BBC
The BBC should be removed from the "Media" section of this article. I've been reading the BBC for a long time and never have I come across a single news story which actually labels the events as genocide. The references that are provided to, ahem, "back it up", are either unreliable or wrong. The first ref that is given goes to a site called "h2g2", which, although is part of the BBC, the description that I read of it states that it's basically an encyclopedia which is edited by contributors from around the world, kind of like Wikipedia I guess, but much less successful - there is no mention of anything on the h2g2 site reflecting the views of the BBC itself (see also h2g2).

As for the second ref, I don't see any evidence of the BBC actually calling the events genocide, the article just talks about genocide recognition and all that jazz. Read it yourselves.

The third one is very questionable - it is a blog entry, and it doesn't even give a hyperlink to the actual article, it just gives some quote, which itself doesn't even show that the BBC recognises the events as genocide.

All in all, there's no valid evidence to suggest that the BBC recognises the events as genocide. Anyone got anything to say about this? 82.35.130.44 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone?! Seriously, if no one replies by tomorrow I SHALL remove it. 82.35.130.44 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK since nobody has replied I assume no one has a problem with it. I will remove it now. 82.35.130.44 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the BBC, like London, has a denialist stance on the Armenian Genocide. I remember reading about it in a FAQ on their website. Perhaps that can be included in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. TA-ME (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wales National Assembly
Currently the article says "In addition, the Wales National Assembly (subordinate to the United Kingdoms) passed a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide (Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454).

But the link is not to a reliable source and the text in the source refers to an Early Day Motion signed by 60 members. The UK parliamentary site says "Early day motions (EDMs) are formal motions submitted for debate in the House of Commons. However, very few EDMs are actually debated. Instead, they are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view." and it is unlikely that the Welsh Assemby's EDMs are any different. So unless there is evidence to the contrary the source supplied does not support the sentence in Wikipedia. --PBS (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gazifikator why are yo removing the dubious tag that I have placed on this fact. Why are you reverting the other source I have added to this section which are more reliable than the ones they replace? --PBS (talk)


 * It is not the Wales National Assembly, it is the UK Parliament! http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29864
 * As for its status, we have sixty named British members of Parliament collectively recognising the Armenian Genocide, it seems worthy of insertion into the article somewhere. BTW, browsing through the list of EDMs here http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMList.aspx we can see that very few EDMs get as many as 60 signatures, most get less than 30, many get under 10. Meowy 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done for finding the correct body. I had searched the Welsh National Assembly database and could not find it (the origial source got it wrong hence the confusion). Sixty of a body of over 600 shows that, there is not much pressure from MPs through Parliament to change the mind of the British Government. --PBS (talk)
 * What % of edm's get 60 votes or more? 10%? 5%? Either you are being critical of the whole concept of edms or you need to admit that 60 signatures is a significantly high number to get within the context of edm's. BTW, I think (though can't remember the details) that the Welsh National Assembly did pass some sort of motion acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. That's probably why that Armenian website confused the two bodies. Meowy 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not critical of Early Day Motions, they are what they are, but what they are not is recognition by Parliament let alone the British Government of anything. This does not seem to be an article where the details of what or what is the significance of Early Day Motions. --PBS (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The mere threat of one got Michael Martin to resign. Meowy 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

42 U.S. states
There is no reason to place "42 U.S. States" in the lead of the article, this is a detail that can be discussed in the body of the article. --PBS (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is very important as US is very influental in this case. Also you're deleting it not moving. Please do not add terms like "Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan" to the text, per WP:NPOV. Gazifikator (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Federal Government is influential the individual states have no influence on foreign policy. There is no reason to highlight the internal opinions of one member of the UN in the lead. I am confused by your comment "Also you're deleting it not moving." is it not covered by the sentence "However, 42 of the 50 U.S. states have made individual proclamations recognizing the events of 1915 to 1923 as genocide."?


 * It was not I who added the sentence "Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan". It was added by another editor but while you just indiscriminately revert to an earlier version without comment it is not possible to know what you object too. --PBS (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have all the rights to delete what goes against the Wikipedia rules. That's what I'm doing. "Armenian occupation of Azerbaijan" term is not commonly-used, not neutral and contains some racist sentiments. And what you're deleting is "42 states that recognize the Genocide", because you think a non-UN member state can not be included in the lead text. Wikipedia never warns us to do it! US states are much more influental for the world politics, than even some UN-member countries. Gazifikator (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this is your point of view. Massachusetss (or whatever) is much less influential then even Uganda. Maybe Florida will count for me :) US states are dependant entities, their decisions doesn't mean anything in international recognition, it only matters for the internal affairs of United States, not UN or another international organization. I'm removing those states, if you wait for 24 more hours maybe this year US may recognize as a whole. Khutuck (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gazifikator you are in a minority of one over this why have you reverted the deletion by Khutuck? --PBS (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look again at my edits the deletion by Khutuck isn't reverted.Gazifikator (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not recently, but you did about three hours before I posted the question (edit at 04:09, 27 April) --PBS (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc.
A dispute on the validity of the Armenian National Institute as a reference. 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The web site of Armenian National Institute, Inc. is currently used for 34 out of 100 citations in this article. The copyright page says "The Armenian National Institute, Inc., (ANI), is a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide". Now there is nothing wrong with using a website that has a non-neutral addenda, but this website is not always accurate, (see the section above where they have made a mistake).

Further some of their pages like this one are misleading as they are talking about the Whitaker Report for which the Sub-Commission passed a resolution that that took note of the study and thanked Whitaker for his efforts, but unlike the earlier Ruhashyankiko Report they did not forwarded the Whitaker Report to the UNCHR with a recommendation for wide distribution.

So although I think this is a valuable research site, but it should not be cited without a most reliable source (as defined in the policy WP:V) to back up its findings and statements. What do others think? --PBS (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a well-known reliable US-based organization. Your "findings" are mostly forged materials that have nothing with historicla accuracy. For example, your editwarring over UN sub-committee's decision looks a clear OR, not a finding of inaccuracy. By the way, what the RS's calls ANI non-neutral? Gazifikator (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not OR, you will find the reliable secondary sources in the article that is linked via Whitaker Report (besides that is not relevant to this section as the RFC is about the use of ANI as a unsupported source, not about the now defunct UN sub-commission). --PBS (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI themselves describe themselves as an interested not a disinterested party when they write "The Armenian National Institute, Inc., (ANI), is a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide". If they were a disinterested party they would say The Armenian National Institute, Inc., (ANI), is a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, [and] research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide". --PBS (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is a clear POV. Why you to not delete a link to NYT or French parliament, as they not only are dedicated, but already affirmed the Armenian Genocide. Such a pov is not right, sorry! Gazifikator (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I don't understand what you are saying. What is a clear point of view?


 * A web site is not a reliable source, the NYT is as is the French Parliament, and neither the NYT or French Parliament exist to affirm to deny the Armenian Genocide. Turn it on its head -- would you be happy to use a website that stated it was "a non-profit organization dedicated to the study, research, and denial of the Armenian Genocide", without asking for reliable sources to back up what they say? I would not, I would want any statement that came from such a web site verified with a reliable source. I do not see this as any different.


 * I have not suggested deleting the ANI sources I have suggested that to verify what they say a reliable source should be added, because as can be seem on this talk page they do not always get their facts right. --PBS (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's up to you. You can verify and if something is wrong, we will act according to the majority of RS's. So nothing here to disagree. Gazifikator (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that this site is not always accurate, so the emphasis on Wikipeida is the other way around see WP:PROVIT, reliable sources should be used to verify claims made by this site (as a fail safe mechanism). -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We know what? It's your personal idea, that you're pushing. ANI is always accurate, and it is not just a site, but an American research institute. Gazifikator (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is always accurate how do you explain the conversation in section. Their link: Wales National Assembly Resolution, EDM 1454, "It is not the Wales National Assembly, it is the UK Parliament! http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29864 ... User:Meowy 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)" Also it was not a "resolution" but an Early Day Motion (two things wrong in one title). --PBS (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

%70 percent of references are from a side of the claims (ANI). Which can not be considered reliable source in any form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of Armenian National Institute References can be considered reliable.
 * It is about 30 out of 100 citations not the other way around. --PBS (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS is, in a carefully-worded and subtle way, seems to be distorting valid points for POV ends. I was the editor who pointed out to him the AIM website's error concerning the Wales National Assembly. I knew it was an error because I know the subject, and I pointed out the error because I am not here to produce propaganda. A well-informed and good-faith editor should know about the subject he is editing, and so should know what is factually correct. The AIM website is not being cited because of its agenda, it is being cited for its usefulness and convenience as a depository for otherwise difficult to locate documents produced by third-party sources (newspaper clippings, press releases, and such like). That is an entirely valid use. If there is an alleged problem with an individual document, that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, like I dealt with the Wales National Assembly one. Meowy 20:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point of view is that I want this article to be accurate, as I hope you do too. The only way to check if an entry based on ANI is or is not correct is by validating it against a reliable source. Therefor it follows that the best way to do that is to put in a second link that confirms the initial research. Otherwise a reader, unless they are willing to do the checking themselves, will not know if what is written is accurate or not. --PBS (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not accept that your edits and suggestions are, overall, aimed at making this article accurate. Meowy  23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only unreliable, most of the documents(none I've seen) has a link to offical web site, besides, translations are not official either(not even claimed to be official). I suggest all ANI references to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.74.198.217 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I would say is is very good for research but not citeable itself. Fails most reliable source (as defined in the policy WP:V) (Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

US parliament did not officially recognize anything.
This is ridiculous, at least do not make up this dump stories, nothing has been recognized by US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.74.198.217 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the propoganda bots of deiapora has gone mad since Obama has not taken the actions he promised. List is ridiculous, I did not checked other claimed recognizers bu I am sure they are just like US, made up.

Iran?
From that wonderful source of accurate information, Facebook, I have this: ''LIST OF COUNTRIES which officially recognized the Armenian Genocide through a passing of a parliamentary vote/declaration/proclamation: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Iran, Italy, Lebanon, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City, Venezuela, Wales, Scotland.''

A few on here that obviously don't belong. But what about Iran? Iran and Armenia are very warm and friendly with each other, and it would make sense that Iran would officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Could someone knowledgeable please add something about this to the article? Thanks!--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is because of pres. Khatami visited Genocide memorial few years ago during his official visit. Gazifikator (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this a discussion page of the article or some kind of strategy board for the Armenian nationalists ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.74.198.217 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What does offically recognizing newspapers mean for god's sake ?
Can someone explain what the hell is this ? Does newspapers have "official" decisions, or history dictated to journalists ? What is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.74.198.217 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and other media organisations often issue "style guides" for their staff in which the internal policies about how to refer to certain specfic events is explained to their journalists (along with more mundane advice on correct grammar, spelling, and so on). Meowy 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany?
I believe Germany recognizes the Armenian Genocide? Why isn't it listed? Montyofarabia (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Montyofarabia
 * There was an official doc approved by Bundestag, but without the term of Armenian Genocide. Gazifikator (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I am in favour of merging the Denial of the Armenian Genocide and this article into one See Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide --PBS (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That matter has been settled. All your previous arguments (along with your unilateral page renaming) were effectively countered and you are presenting no new arguments. There is no need to go over this again. Meowy 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

The paragraph:


 * References

We have reliable official source on official recognition by UN Sub-Commission: "Both the International Center for Transitional Justice and the Association of Genocide Scholars have recognized the massacre as genocide, as has the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." You can not delete this! And it is about 1985, when the Sub-Commision functioned. it is completely irrelevant, if it is defunct now, after 24 years.

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


 * We have been through that See link you have provided Turkey Recalls Envoys Over Armenian Genocide by CTV News Net is not a reliable source.


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


 * If you look at the sources you will see that the two sources are:
 * Inazumi, Mitsue (2005). Universal jurisdiction in modern international law, Intersentia nv, ISBN 9050953662, 9789050953665. pp. 72–75
 * See these biographical details: p.8
 * Schabas, William (2000). Genocide in international law: the crimes of crimes, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521787904, 9780521787901 465–468
 * If you look at the letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, June 13, 2005 which is used as a source for the mention of the International Association of Genocide Scholars in the same section you will see within it the following:


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


 * Gazifikator, I am not sure why you moved a 1985 section paragraph after a 2007 paragraph. It makes more sense to put them in chronological order. I put back the wording in the paragraph that was changed because the first "think tank" is used in a more recent UN citation than the one you included which was written in the present tense and was out of date. I put back the second sentence that you removed because both cited sources say that a number of items in the article were controversial including paragraph 24. Do you dispute that there were a number of controversial points in the report or that paragraph 24 was controversial? --PBS (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic of Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a controversy itself. Many people recognize it, and few ones, included countries like Turkey and Azerbaijan deny it. According to such a logic, we will add the word of "controversy" everywhere. We keep paragraphs according to their notability, not according to POV, you're pushing here, and Meowy already criticized your actions. As you say, the sub-commission is defunct now, so we must use the present official description. Gazifikator (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * The UN source I included calls the Sub-Committee a think tank, which is a useful description for those who do not know what its function was. Here is another one:
 * THE 57TH SESSION OF THE SUB-COMMISSION ON THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Geneva (25 July to 12 August 2005) "The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) created the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1947 as a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights. It was designed as a "think tank" body for human rights issues, where 26 independent experts could study cases of human rights violations, examine obstacles to human rights protection and develop new international standards."


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


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


 * (1)It was a think tank, (2) you have not edited the paragraph you have reverted the edit, which moves the paragraph down to the bottom of the section and out of chronological order. Why do you want the paragraph at the end of the section? -- PBS (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is much more important, that the detailed chronology. It is according to Wikipedia rules. Your entry is too dubious and pov, to have it at start. Gazifikator (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is dubious about it? What does it say that is not in the citations? --PBS (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The official source for Sub-commisssion never describes it as a think tank. Gazifikator (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However if you remove the term think-tank, (although there are at least 2 UN sources that use that term), then what is the justification for moving it down the page and out of chronological order? -- PBS (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PBS, I explained the reason several times. While the info you're pushing is a POV, it is also can only came after the lead of section and the list. It is according to Wiki rules. If the Uruguay was the first country recognizing the Genocide, we do not start article with the description of this recognition. We have start section, then some lists, then more important events, and only after it some pov info on how a UN Sub-commission was "designed" and when it stopped to funct. It is not the main and central issue for the Armenian Genocide recognition! Gazifikator (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If your are to be consistent in your position why do you leave it as the first entry in "International organizations officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:"? BTW why should it come after the list when the paragraph for "Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity" comes before the list and has done for a long time? --PBS (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Noone doubts that Wiesel foundation recognized the Armenian Genocide, so why it is there. But if no objection, I agree to have it after the Sub-commission. Gazifikator (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

With reference to this second source this reliable source (Global human rights institutions: between remedy and ritual by Gerd Oberleitner, Polity, 2007 ISBN 0745634389, 9780745634388 pp. 76,77) quotes that the Sub-Commission itself suggests that it needs to be replaced with an organisation like itself which it describes as a "human rights research" or a "think-tank" --PBS (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So obviously both are misinterpretations by you. First source describes it as a subsidiary body of the Commission on Human Rights, not a 'think tank', and for the second it is even not clear, what body is the "United Nations “think tank” on human rights", and this source is from 2006 event, when Sub-Commission became a support body for newly established Human Rights Council. Gazifikator (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

--PBS (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems like an acceptable wording, although I don't see why the word "defunct" is absolutely necessary here. I believe the current ordering of the paragraphs is only appropriate if the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities is removed from the bullet point list of international organizations that recognize the Armenian Genocide. The Whitaker Report was published by the Sub-Comission, but it was neither widely accepted nor disseminated by the parent UN body. As such, presenting the UN in this list seems all but misleading. That being said, I believe presenting the UN report after the Elie Wiesel Foundation letter would prevent any obstruction in the flow of the article. At one point, you're talking about the organizations that recognize the genocide, and then switch off to the unresolved issue of the Whitaker Report and then back to an organization that recognizes the genocide. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're pov-pushing, Nishkid:


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


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


 * So to say the Sub-Commission "accepted" the report, is an oversimplification (particularly when compared with what they did with the earlier Ruhashyankiko Report). Further the source you are providing the quote from that it was "accepted" is not a reliable source as defined by WP:V. Also like the Sub-Commision, I intend to write a detailed paragraph on what the International Center for Transitional Justice has done if we are not going to remove it (see the appropriate section above). --PBS (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone like Nishkid is going to mediate for us, it is better to agree with me his candidacy, otherwise why to not welcome all the WikiProjectTurkey member's to support you as well? It seems your citation have nothing common with mine, its rather about a separate discussion at Sub-Com. (maybe of 1970's). Gazifikator (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote cited above by PBS refers to the Sub-Committee's activities in the 1980s, so I don't know where you're getting the 1970s from. As for mediation, I came in here as a neutral party. I have no biases toward Armenians or Turks (despite the fact that I've oddly enough been accused of being pro-Armenian), and I'm only here to propose a neutral presentation for the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For whom you're telling this? Few days ago you were so much 'neutral' to my person, that even a deep idiot will understand what's going on. Gazifikator (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, by enforcing policy, I am not neutral? You were given sufficient warning by Sandstein, yet you chose to ignore it. You're the only one to blame for that. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no rules and no policy there, just some dirty game. You blame me, I and some other people blame you and Sandstein. That's the reality! Gazifikator (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


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

Yes, I'm sure that Nishkid's effort to mediate is counter productive, so any other solution without Nishkid's, Sandstein's participation will be only welcomed by my side! Thank you! Gazifikator (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You were given multiple chances to reform your ways. You were notified of the AA2 case by Sandstein in May 2009. Then you were given a warning not to engage in edit warring and a notice about possible sanctioning on June 24. Immediately after returning to WP, you continued an edit war on this article. Hence, the sanctions. If Gazifikator does not want me to mediate, I'll gladly remove myself. I just don't like seeing someone mistake policy enforcement for non-neutrality. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

International Center for Transitional Justice

 * See Archive 1#International Center for Transitional Justice

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

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