Talk:Armenian genocide recognition/Archive 3

Map of recognition no longer the same as on the rest of Wikipedia
A recent edit changed the file used for the map showing which countries recognise the genocide. This means it is now out of sync with other maps. Additionally, the borders of Latvia on the current revision are incorrect.

Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1021729944?diffmode=source Incorrect map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nations_recognising_the_Armenian_Genocide_06.05.2021.svg Correct map used on other articles about this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nations_recognising_the_Armenian_Genocide.svg Jeroenbollen (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I have restored the cross-wiki map. If there are any problems with it in the future, everyone is called to simply update/fix the existing map instead of creating new ones. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 20:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see comment on the revert of your last edit. The previous map is now outdated as Latvia recognized the events as genocide today. Archives908 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, Latvia is updated already on the original map. Perhaps the updates aren't shown for you? Try refresh your web browser's cache (usually SHIFT+click on Refresh button does that). Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 21:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just tried that trick, and now Latvia shows up. Many thanks! Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad the trick helped. I had exactly the same problem a few years ago. It was so confusing! Then after an extensive search, found out that the page wasn't always loading fully, was merely a saved copy of older version (aka browser cache). Take care. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the suggestion is to replace the current image with File:Nations recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg just because it's used on other wikis, I can't agree.
 * The map fails WP:V due to lacking verifiable sources for the information.
 * It would be very difficult or impossible to get an exhaustive list of the countries in which certain municipalities or subunits have recognized the genocide. That would include Turkey where some HDP mayors have made such statements. This is also not really a meaningful measure because we could be changing the color of a country based on the position of one small town in it, which doesn't seem informative.
 * The map does not distinguish between the executive and legislative branches of the government, the former being called "government" in parliamentary systems and has led to controversies where for example the Swedish parliament recognizes the genocide, but the Swedish government does not (see above). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Duplication
Is it a good idea to duplicate info on recognitions in a poorly organized WP:PROSELINE section titled "post-2000 developments"? Does this article really benefit from two images of Armenians in Kolkata? Should we quote entire paragraphs of IAGS resolutions or is it enough to quote one resolution? is convinced that all these things are necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am convinced that these all serve a useful purpose. For the second time, there is a plethora of sourced information in the "post-2000 developments" section. Just because you think its "poorly organized", that doesn't give you the authority to outright remove everything. In my opinion, that was quite frankly a reckless edit. This section can be worked on, expanded, and organized further. Just because something isn't organized to your specific standard, that does not validate casting sourced information "to the curb". Reading through the section, I see quite a bit of information that is not present anywhere else in the article. So, contrary to your statement above, plenty of the information is not duplicated. For the information that is, I find that in most cases, it offers the reader greater/expanded context and additional sources for further reading/research. Definitely not a bad thing to have. As for the picture, is it really that critical for you remove it a second time? I restored it after your first attempt to remove it because there really isn't an abundant of images in this article, and for an article of this magnitude, it does not drastically impact the article in negative way. This article is about recognition and remembrance, and visual identification is an important aspect of any good article...I don't see what geography has to do with excluding it. Is there any policy that states you can't have two images because their from the same city? I don't believe there is. In terms of the IAGS resolution, again, it does offer the reader background information and some further context. It is far from excessive, and you haven't provide any valid rationale why this information plays an outright disservice to the article. We are here to build this encyclopedia after all, aren't we? Archives908 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So move it to the correct section, don't just blanket restore the entire thing, most of which is duplication and/or WP:UNDUE.
 * Images also must comply with WP:DUE and not unduly highlight one aspect of the subject far beyond its coverage in reliable sources. Commemorations of the Armenian genocide are generally discussed in reliable sources as a separate issue than political recognition anyway and should go in a separate article.
 * Writing concisely and in a well organized way is essential to delivering information to the reader. It is both a balance and also a copyright issue to quote long passages from a source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my questions, however, I'd be more then happy to work on it in the coming days. It's better to actually put the effort into and improve the section, then blanket remove sourced information, as was done. For the third time, most of the information is not duplicated anywhere else in the article. WP:UNDUE does not apply to a lot of it. As for the image, your original statement was to remove the picture because "there was already one from Kolkata". However, I can't seem to find anything in WP:DUE that specifically backs up your geography based argument. If you can provide that specific policy, that'd be helpful. If not, I don't believe that two images is excessive. I agree that writing concisely and in a well organized way is essential, and that's something that can be worked on. Removing sourced information was the wrong way to go about it. It would have been better to open up a discussion here, get feedback, collaborate with others, and work to build a great article. I hear your concerns and I'm open to improving the article. Any other editors have suggestions or input? Archives908 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing concisely and in a well organized way is essential to delivering information to the reader. It is both a balance and also a copyright issue to quote long passages from a source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my questions, however, I'd be more then happy to work on it in the coming days. It's better to actually put the effort into and improve the section, then blanket remove sourced information, as was done. For the third time, most of the information is not duplicated anywhere else in the article. WP:UNDUE does not apply to a lot of it. As for the image, your original statement was to remove the picture because "there was already one from Kolkata". However, I can't seem to find anything in WP:DUE that specifically backs up your geography based argument. If you can provide that specific policy, that'd be helpful. If not, I don't believe that two images is excessive. I agree that writing concisely and in a well organized way is essential, and that's something that can be worked on. Removing sourced information was the wrong way to go about it. It would have been better to open up a discussion here, get feedback, collaborate with others, and work to build a great article. I hear your concerns and I'm open to improving the article. Any other editors have suggestions or input? Archives908 (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Diff preserved here. If anyone considers there to be useful content in that section, it should be added back selectively, not wholesale, to avoid duplication, excessive quotations, and other issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop your reckless editing, it is not helpful nor productive. As per our above conversation, it is far better to improve this section then to mass delete sourced information. I believe this is the fourth time now that I have had to explain to you that there is plenty of information which is not duplicate. I also already told you that I am willing to work on the section and remove duplicated information. I have been waiting to see if there would be any further ideas brought forward here before starting (see comment above). Please allow for that to happen and cease your disruptive edits. Many thanks, Archives908 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It will take time to go through each and every statement to review was is duplicated and what is not, please have patience. Archives908 (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do it without keeping all the useless, duplicated content live in the meantime. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For the third time Buidhe, I kindly ask you cease your disruptive editing and discuss here as per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. Archives908 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Back to the discussion… I disagree- its actually far more efficient and logical to remove duplicate information in one edit. As supposed to making potentially dozens of edits restoring non-duplicated content already present in the article. Its highly redundant to restore valid information when it is already present in the article. If it can be done in fewer edits, all the better to avoid clogging up the edit page. Archives908 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * After 1 week I have yet to see you actually do any work at figuring out what you think should be kept out of this great mess, instead you just restore everything even while admitting most of it is duplicative and doesn't belong. As noted previously WP:ONUS requires that you get consensus to include any content. Removing does not require consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you not read my comments? I told you previously that I was waiting to see if other editors had feedback/advice. There's nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, I wasn't aware I was under a strict timeline for this project. I am a WP:VOLUNTEER and you most certainly do not control what I edit or the pace I edit at. You certainly did not do all your work on Armenian genocide denial in 1 week. So I'm not sure where all this combativeness is coming from. I understand that removing material does not require consensus, however, your mass removal of content is creating unnecessary work as editors will have to restore information which is already here, already properly sourced, and not duplicated. I'm WP:HERE to build this encyclopedia, not engage in fruitless edit wars or repetitive debates. Once again, I will open this thread up to any other editors for suggestion/feedback before I begin to remove redundant information. Buidhe, kindly allow myself and potentially other editors to conduct WP:GF work without pressuring them. Archives908 (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion would be more productive if you only restored the parts that you think should be in the article, then we could discuss that. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have spent the past few weeks overviewing this section in great detail. About 80% of the information in this section is not repeated anywhere else in the article. Let me repeat myself, the majority of the content in the "Development since 2000" section does not qualify to be removed under WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure why you are so persistent to remove well sourced and non-duplicated information. Nonetheless, there is information which is repetitive and I am taking the steps to carefully sift through everything and remove redundant information, as we already discussed. Archives908 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Developments since 2000 clean up
As per previous discussions, I am starting to clean up any redundant information in the noted section. Any feedback is welcomed. Archives908 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note, I am removing duplicate information only. I am thoroughly reviewing the noted section, as well as, the article itself to ensure any other sourced information is not erroneously removed. Archives908 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Reverted page changes
Today, I cut a significant amount of content from the "post-2000s developments" section; this was reverted by, citing WP:WEIGHT, WP:ONUS, and WP:BURDEN. The latter is irrelevant, as the verifiability of the information I removed is generally not in question, while I note that ONUS states "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." I will ping and, who I note disagreed on this subject a couple of years ago.

The article as a whole is obviously horrifically bloated, but let's focus on the post-2000s developments section, much of which, as it stands, has no relation to the subject of the article. To quote the first sentence, "Armenian genocide recognition is the formal acceptance..." Formal acceptance is the designation, by governments, of the occurence of genocide. It is not, inter alia: etc.
 * A visit by George Clooney
 * A concert tour by System of a Down
 * A youth protest in Athens
 * A letter to Barack Obama
 * A visit by Kim Kardashian and Kanye West
 * A call for Maori people to boycott ANZAC Day

The section is essentially a glorified WP:POPCULTURE section: an indiscriminate collection of any information that has vaguely to do with the Armenian genocide in the 21st century. To repeat: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is horribly bloated and any efforts to remedy this are welcome. Let's work on cutting out the trivia and improving source quality by citing academic sources and focusing on lasting impact. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct that this issue was already discussed several years ago. At that time, this particular section was repetitive and duplicated a lot of information found elsewhere in the article. It was trimmed significantly and reorganized accordingly. What should or should not be listed in the "Recent developments" section is quite subjective. The section in question, however, could benefit from a little more refinement. For instance, perhaps we separate formal recognitions by governmental sub-divisons, gov't representatives, etc... from the non-formal recognitions. Perhaps creating an "Other" section and adding a description highlighting that this section includes non-formal recognition(s) would be beneficial. Of course, things like "Kanye West travelling to Armenia" is totally irrelevant and can be removed. At the same time, Kim Kardashian/ George Clooney, while being celebrities', have brought significant global attention/awareness of the Armenian genocide and have advocated for governments to formally recognize the calamity as such. In these cases, I don't believe such omission is the right course of action to take. Rather, refining content, developing an inclusion criteria, and creating appropriate descriptions, is probably the more logical and rational approach as opposed to a mere blanket deletion. Sure it will take more work and time, but it'll be worth it! Archives908 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

States and regions subsection

 * Ok, let's start on this. I don't believe that the "States, regions, provinces, municipalities and parliamentary committees" section adds anything to the article beyond indiscriminate trivia. No secondary sources report on whether the city of Ontinyent or the parliament of Ceará recognises the genocide or not.
 * I thus propose that the section be removed in its entirety per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION (An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.) Thoughts ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. The US states are reasonable to mention on the article on United States recognition of the Armenian genocide, but especially now that the entire US recognized the genocide, I don't think it's DUE here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that when I was clearing out the post-2000s section, it includes random updates on each individual state that recognised the genocide, despite the article saying all fifty had recognised it. I don't know what duplication was removed, but it certainly wasn't very much, as there's still massive amounts. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The initial thread was solely focused on the "Recent developments" section. Now, it seems, we are removing large bodies of cited text without much debate and while this conversation is ongoing. I'd prefer we stay focused on the "Recent developments" section so as not to mix things up. A new talk page thread can be started for other issues editors may have regarding the article. In any case, because this conversation was just initiated a few hours ago, its probably wise to get more input from editors until such drastic changes are made (at the very least, give active contributors time to respond!). Archives908 (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As is normal with Wikipedia discussions, the topic of discussion has changed. If you wish to create individual talk page sections for individual article sections, you are perfectly free to do so. You are an active contributor ; do you believe that the "States, regions, provinces, municipalities and parliamentary committees" section should remain in the article, and if so, why (obviously citing Wikipedia guidelines and responding to WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION above). Remember that the burden of gaining consensus for disputed content lies on you, per WP:ONUS. Hope that resolves your confusion, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Any response ? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A friendly reminder that Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER project and that editors have WP:BUSY lives. Seeing as how there is no mandatory response deadline, I'd prefer to respond in due time without being pinged repetitively. I'm very aware that topics of discussion may change. My concern was that this particular thread was posted in regards to a specific section of the article. That is what I initially responded too, only to find that 1) my comment was essentially ignored 2) large amounts of sourced content was removed while an active discussion was under way and 3) no consensus was established for any such major change(s). My response was in regards to the "Recent developments" section, which was overlooked and not responded too. The subsequent discussion that ensued focused on an entirely different section. Per WP:TALKNEW, a new thread could have been created in order to distinguish the two. Nothing wrong with proposing that. Technicalities aside, the "States, regions, provinces, municipalities and parliamentary committees" is an integral part of this article. This section goes into further details about sub-national recognitions within various countries. While the "Parliaments and governments" section focuses on federal-level recognition (ie. a country wide recognition declared by a Central government or Head of state). The States/regions section is valuable in terms of providing more detailed information/context regarding recognition efforts made by both Secondary government's (States, Provinces, Territories, Departments) and from Tertiary government's (Municipalities, Townships, etc...). In most cases, several municipalities and provinces have declared recognition before federal-level recognition. Look at Canada- Quebec and Ontario recognized the genocide 16 years before the Federal government of Canada. Why omit this information? On the contrary, we also have some municipalities and territories which have passed formal recognition while their respective federal governments have not. Look at Spain and Australia as examples. Here we see territories and well over a dozen cities proclaiming formal recognition, despite a lack of federal recognition. Again, why omit this information? This article does not forbid limiting inclusion solely to federal-level recognition, does it? By eliminating secondary/tertiary forms of recognition, we are violating WP:BALASP by giving total prominence to federal-level recognition. Then we have special cases like Iran, whereby, it is mentioned that the city of Tehran recognized the genocide. This information is sourced and not duplicated anywhere else in the article. Yet again, why omit this information? This information is well within the article's scope (per WP:ROC). It is the focus of the topic (ie. recognition of the genocide), is backed by considerable WP:RS, and isn't duplicated elsewhere- far exceeding WP:DUE guidelines. If there are any duplications which happen to be overlooked, I fully support removal of such redundancies as very clearly stated in my original comment. Only, I repeat, only the section about US States was discussed above. I'm perplexed as to why a rather rapid, totally undiscussed, blanket deletion of an entire section occurred. Where was the discussion, yet alone consensus, for that? Archives908 (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see how your comment was ignored—your suggestion to "refine content, develop inclusion criteria, and create appropriate descriptions" is precisely what we are doing now. I have not removed any content from the article since my very first change was reverted. I have created a new subsection to distinguish between the first stage of the discussion and what it evolved into.
 * How is giving total prominence to federal-level level violating WP:BALASP, may I ask? The guideline reads: "An article should ... strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events ... or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." (emphasis mine) Absolutely no academic or secondary sources, as far as I can see, describe secondary or tertiary-level recognition—indeed, the section is entirely based upon primary sources or WP:ROUTINE news reports.
 * You ask repeatedly,, why unduplicated, reliably sourced material should be omitted from the article. As I stated in my first comment, and every one since (so please register it this time) "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." I remind you that this article is 262k bytes, and including the long lists and tables, over 15,000 words long—far exceeding the guidelines at WP:TOOBIG. Of course you are free to have a WP:BUSY life, so if you do not return to this discussion, I will make the changes after five to seven days; you see I also have a busy life, and articles to get back to working on. Happy editing, AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should re-read my initial comment and follow closely at the chain of comments/events following it. I fully supported a clean up of the "Recent developments" section which was completely overlooked. I proposed to establish an inclusion criteria, which again, was initially ignored. I stated that there are better options then blanket deletion(s), come to find another editor blanket deleted text without engaging in the conversation. But yes, you're 100% right that my comment was undeniably responded too -_- Do you really need me to explain again how giving total prominence to federal-level recognition is a direct violation of WP:BALASP. Perhaps you bypassed the rationale above, so I'll break it down on an elementary level. Secondary and tertiary recognitions are not "minority views" or "fringe theories". They are passed in houses or chambers of government, by democratically elected representatives. Precisely identical to the federal level. Often times, these bills and motions are passed unanimously or by a significant majority. What about this is fringe? What about these types of governmental recognitions are so otherworldly as compared to federal government recognitions? They are all government bodies, with elected officials, who represent constituents, who pass bills. Per WP:VALID, it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic. Again, these are not fringe theories, speculative history, or WP:OR conspiracies', but rather, factual events which are the primary focus of this article. This article is about recognition of the genocide and these motions of recognition are not only relevant, but central, to the topic. This is a very specific article topic, focusing strictly on recognition. Per WP:ROC, "articles on very specific subjects can treat their subject in depth." That's exactly what this section is doing. Going more in depth on the topic of recognition. Are you recommending to ignore these policies and make the topic more vague? Deleting all forms of other types of recognition, whether it be municipal or provincial, to exclusively focus on federal recognition is a direct violation of WP:UNDUE. According to which, we must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". Are you suggesting that the views and actions of federal politicians are more significant to the actions of secondary or tertiary parliamentarians/representatives? If so, why? A motion of recognition is a motion of recognition. It is an officiated piece of paper affirming the categorization of these atrocities as a genocide. What makes documents from a provincial legislature any less important, relevant, or significant then the documents from federal legislatures? Nothing about these recognition motions are "minority viewpoints", when they are overwhelming or unanimously passed by a council of elected officials. Most of the sources in this section are primary sources, yes, but it is very important to remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Can we expect peer reviewed academic journals from Harvard University every time a city or territory recognizes the genocide? Of course not. If that were the case, then we should probably just nominate this article for speedy deletion since even the "Parliaments and governments" section relies heavily on news reports. The sources support the information as it is presented in the article, there are no dubious or outlandish opinions/rumors'. Have a glance at the the Spanish cities, as an example. I have taken time to review those sources and they all support precisely what is written (ie. city "example" passed a bill recognizing the genocide). Nothing more, nothing less. I really (really x2) urge you to review WP:NEWSORG. Per policy, news outlets are generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. That's exactly what this section is, statements of fact. Further, the section does not use unreliable sources flagged on WP:RSPSS. Based on these policies, deletion is completely unjustifiable. Archives908 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)