This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Armenia Mid‑importance Armenia–Pakistan relations is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this article WP:AFD since no formal relations exist between the two countries, and is defacto an article for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Khojaly Massacre, which is a subjective in itself, biased for Azerbaijan. --BrotmeisterB (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current lack of formal relations does not mean the subject is not notable, and arguably the uniqueness of the lack of formal relations is in itself notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.81.20 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If Pakistan doesn't recognize Armenia, what does it recognize it as? Part of Azerbaijan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IowaBird (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm also wondering that. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Part of Azerbaijan. 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:7474:E5C3:B6B8:808B (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or probably the last remainment of the Soviet Union :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.177.81 (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrGreen105, I start off by saying that I appreciate the effort you have put into Pakistan related articles. You recently removed a chunk of text I added explaining the non recognition of Armenia.

Even if Pakistan did not recognize Armenia’s sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh, it was misguided for Pakistan to withhold recognition of Armenia itself, a state with deep historical roots predating the Bronze Age. Ideally, Pakistan should have recognized Armenia at the time of its independence in 1991. Just as Pakistan does not recognize India’s sovereignty over Kashmir, but has always recognized India.

While states are free to withhold recognition for political reasons, Pakistan’s former stance invites the question: if not Armenian sovereignty, then whose sovereignty was acknowledged with respect to Armenia proper (i.e. excluding the formerly disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region)?

Non-recognition of a state is usually associated with cases where the entirety of sovereignty is contested/disputed. For example, the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, neither of which recognizes the other because both claim legitimacy over the whole Korean peninsula. Outside Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia was never subject to such a dispute.

In this light, Pakistan’s long-standing non-recognition of Armenia appears less a matter of principle and more the consequence of a political mistake that went uncorrected for decades. In August 2025, Pakistan took a constructive step by choosing the language of "establishing diplomatic relations" rather than "recognizing" Armenia, thereby normalizing ties without reopening debates about past policy.

When talking about the history of Armenia-Pakistan relations, it’s important to identify the mistake and the reason why it went unaddressed for so long (i.e. likely because Armenia was rarely discussed in Pakistan’s domestic discourse).

Thanks again, and I appreciate the effort you have put into Pakistan related articles. Ndtensor (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndtensor Thank you for this message and the clarification of the information you added. You are free to reinclude this information in the article; however, I suggest including this information in a paragraphic form rather than a list as it was previously listed. Cheers, MrGreen105 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea! Thank you for the quick response :) Ndtensor (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndtensor Regarding the material I removed,

More precisely, at some point in history, Pakistani representatives may have mistaken recognition/non-recognition for existence/non-existence of diplomatic relations, leading to the view that Pakistan does not recognize Armenia. Non-recognition is distinct from the absence of diplomatic relations. The former typically arises from disputes concerning the legitimacy of a state’s sovereignty over all or part of its territory. In Armenia’s case, outside the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, there has never been any dispute regarding the legitimacy of the Armenian state itself.

This ("may have") is speculation as to the reason for non-recognition. Moreover, because no source is given, we can't assume that this is text is reporting on speculation by some reliable source. Therefore, it looks like speculation by Wikipedia itself. However, Wikipedia doesn't speculate or draw its own conclusions. Whether it gives justification for an exercise in speculation, whether it explains why it's possible for something to be, that such things do happen, is irrelevant. See WP:OR. Plus, as I said, it's unsourced, so it's removable solely for that reason. Largoplazo (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Largoplazo, thanks for the explanation and your contributions to Wikipedia in general.

I do have reservations regarding your edit summary though: The final sentence says that "Pakistan had no problem with Armenia *except for THE problem it had with Armenia*, weasel words.

The right thing to say is: Pakistan had no problem with Armenia, except for the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, where it sided with Azerbaijan. Besides that, Pakistan indeed had no problem with Armenia. I have also described why this was a mistake, and why this went on unaddressed (i.e., because the question of Armenia was barely discussed in Pakistan).

Regarding the citation, it's true that this is (currently) lacking a citation, which is why Wikipedia does allow us this: {{citation needed}}. Ndtensor (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several options available when unsourced material is provided. In the case of assertions of fact, if the facts asserted seem unquestionable, they can be left alone, at least until someone else questions them. (This describes an enormous chunk of Wikipedia.) Or one can add a tag. Or, if it seems terribly unlikely, or if it reads as an editor reporting their own personal experience, then one can remove it. There are various remedies for various circumstances. In the case of speculation, it is either a report of speculation by a source, which requires stating what the source is, or it's WP:OR, in which case it goes. Largoplazo (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Largoplazo, thanks again for the response.

Based on what you said, it reasons to leave out the first sentence of the removed paragraph, at least until we have a citation for that. However, I have re-added the latter part. Not only does it give more context to the preceding paragraph, it also states what are unquestionable facts. Ndtensor (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences are now a digression, leaving the topic at hand to teach the reader generalities. And it was already a given from the previous text that recognition and diplomatic relations aren't the same thing, it doesn't need to be reiterated.. The third sentence remains some combination of redundant, to the extent it repeats what was already said, and non-sequitur, and it's still unsourced. So I've again removed them. Please stop adding text without gaining a consensus for it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reiterations and redundancy: For readers not familiar with international relations, you cannot assume they know the difference between non-recognition and absence of diplomatic relations. A lot of readers are not aware.

For an article which literally concerns a matter where the two are relevant, it does not hurt (and to some degree may be necessary) to clarify this. Ndtensor (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the beauty of wikilinks. If we interrupted every point being about an article's subject to deliver an exposition on more general context the reader might conceivably not have, articles would become unreadable. Linking the existing terms to the articles on Diplomatic recognition and Bilateralism would suffice. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I suppose in that case we would have consensus on referencing these two pages as follows?

... (see Diplomatic recognition vs Bilateralism) Ndtensor (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It suffices to link the existing terms, "diplomatic relations" and "recognize". Largoplazo (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo, I'm happy to reduce my text to just WikiLinks but just linking existing terms does not make the distinction evident. The version I suggested will do precisely that. Ndtensor (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the urgent need to make certain that readers notice that these are different concepts and have it explained to them.

• Readers who know the distinction will understand it as it is.
• Other readers who notice the different terms and think "Huh, I never thought about it before, I wonder what the difference is" will see two separately linked terms (which may be why they noticed) and can follow them both and find out.
• Other readers who notice the different terms and don't care can continue unimpeded.
• Other readers will simply go right by it, getting out of the article what is useful to them, and that's fine.

Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]