Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Intro says 22 countries recognize, article shows 21 in the list
Which country is missing? Torc2 20:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Division into 3 groups
There are 3 distinct groups of countries:
- legislation recognizing genocide passed (21 countries)
- legislation recognizing genocide failed to pass (4 countries)
- legislation denying genocide passed (Turkey, Azerbaijan)
Steelmate (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Let's define groups in a talk page first and then we put them on the main page. So how about that:
- 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)
Any others? Steelmate (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
