On this promise, President Barack Obama is now batting zero for eight.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Obama said he would recognize the event, noting, "Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

The Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million people. The Armenian-American community calls it a "genocide," as do other world leaders, including Pope Francis. Turkey is the primary successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.

But that term has long been controversial in Turkey, where leaders have resisted the label "genocide." Indeed, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told CNN on the eve of last year's centennial of the event that "we cannot define what happened in 1915 as a genocide."

Although Turkey commemorates the Armenians that passed away, the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his statement this year said, "We will never give up working for amity and peace against those who try to politicize history through a bitter rhetoric of hate and enmity and strive to alienate the two neighboring nations, who are bound with their common history and their similar traditions."

There's a widespread belief that U.S. presidents from both parties have avoided the use of the word because they don't want to upset Turkey -- a geopolitically significant ally of the United States and a key member of the NATO military alliance.

The U.S.-Turkish relationship has been tense in recent years, partly because of the Erdogan government's increasingly authoritarian bent, as well as due to differences in how to approach the Syrian crisis.  Using a stronger term such as "genocide" might disrupt Turkey's efforts in the fight against ISIS around such issues as the use of the Incirlik Air Base, cooperation on border control and the refugee crisis, as well as arming and funding anti-ISIS rebels.

On April 22, 2016, Obama released a statement on Armenian Remembrance Day. And as he has in the past, he used phrases such as "mass atrocity" and "tragedy," but he did not use the word "genocide." Here are excerpts:

"Today we solemnly reflect on the first mass atrocity of the 20th century -- the Armenian Meds Yeghern -- when one and a half million Armenian people were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman empire. …

"As we look from the past to the future, we continue to underscore the importance of historical remembrance as a tool of prevention, as we call for a full, frank, and just acknowledgment of the facts, which would serve the interests of all concerned.  I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed. I have also seen that peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past.  We continue to welcome the expression of views by those who have sought to shed new light into the darkness of the past, from Turkish and Armenian historians to Pope Francis.‎

"Today we stand with the Armenian people throughout the world in recalling the horror of the Meds Yeghern and reaffirm our ongoing commitment to a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Armenia."  

Armenian-American advocates every year have been expressing disappointment over the missing word "genocide" and did so again this year, as it was his final annual statement on the massacre.  

"It's a Turkish government veto over U.S. policy on the Armenian genocide," said  Aram Hamparian, head of the Armenian National Committee of America,  in an interview with the Associated Press. He also said, "It's like Erdogan imposing a gag rule very publicly and an American president enforcing that gag rule."

We first rated this Promise Broken seven years ago, and now we rate it for the last time again as a Promise Broken.

On this promise, President Barack Obama is now batting zero for seven.

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Obama said, "Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

We first rated this a Promise Broken six years ago, but after a reader noted that we hadn't updated our ruling since 2010 -- and that this year is the centennial of the mass killings -- we decided it was worth doing an update.

As we've noted before, the Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million people. The Armenian-American community calls it a "genocide," as do other world leaders, including Pope Francis. Turkey is the primary successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.

But that term has long been controversial in Turkey, where leaders have resisted the label "genocide." Indeed, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told CNN on the eve of the centennial that "we cannot define what happened in 1915 as a genocide."

There's a widespread belief that presidents from both parties have avoided the use of the word because they don't want to upset Turkey -- a geopolitically significant ally of the United States and a key member of the NATO military alliance.

On April 23, 2015, Obama released a statement on Armenian Remembrance Day. And as he has in the past, he used phrases such as "mass atrocity" and "terrible carnage," but he did not use the word "genocide." Here are excerpts:

"Beginning in 1915, the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths. Their culture and heritage in their ancient homeland were erased. Amid horrific violence that saw suffering on all sides, one and a half million Armenians perished. ...

"This centennial is a solemn moment. It calls on us to reflect on the importance of historical remembrance, and the difficult but necessary work of reckoning with the past. I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed. A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interests. Peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past. …

"On this solemn centennial, we stand with the Armenian people in remembering that which was lost. We pledge that those who suffered will not be forgotten. And we commit ourselves to learn from this painful legacy, so that future generations may not repeat it."

Armenian-American advocates expressed disappointment. "President Obama's surrender to Turkey represents a national disgrace. It is, very simply, a betrayal of truth, a betrayal of trust," said Ken Hachikian, the chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, according to CNN.

CNN quoted an "administration official" saying, "We know and respect that there are some who are hoping to hear different language this year. We understand their perspective, even as we believe that the approach we have taken in previous years remains the right one -- both for acknowledging the past, and for our ability to work with regional partners to save lives in the present."

We rate this -- again -- a Promise Broken.

The last time we updated President Barack Obama's promise to recognize the Armenian genocide, we noted that he had not used the word "genocide" in a statement on April 24, 2009, a day of memorial for the event.

Again, it appears Obama is trying to skirt the issue.

On March 5, 2010, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 23-22 on a resolution that officially recognizes the 1.5 million deaths that occurred between 1915 and 1923 at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

Ordinarily, this sort of action would prompt us to move a promise to In the Works.

But according to news reports about the issue, the Obama administration is trying to ensure that the resolution does not go anywhere.

According to the Los Angeles Times: "Panel Chairman Howard L. Berman ... pressed for the vote, even after receiving a call from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressing concern it could 'impede progress on normalization of relations' between Turkey and Armenia, according to an administration spokesman."

And the Associated Press: "A senior Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said there was an understanding with the Democratic leadership in Congress that the resolution would not go to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives."

And from the same AP report: "'The Obama administration strongly opposes the resolution that was passed by only one vote by the House committee and will work very hard to make sure it does not go to the House floor,' Clinton told reporters in Guatemala City, Guatemala."

The resolution prompted Turkey to call its ambassador to the United States home for consultations. And the country has warned the Obama administration of diplomatic consequences if the resolution moves forward for a House vote.

The resolution could not have come at a worse time for Turkey-U.S. relations. The administration is expected to pressure Turkey to back sanctions against Iran. And Turkey's cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan is also important, according to news reports.

So, while the resolution has moved forward, it's clearly much to the Obama administration's chagrin. Unless officials change course on their efforts to curtail further votes on the resolution, we'll keep this pledge at Promise Broken.

The last time we checked in on President Barack Obama's promise about the Armenian genocide, he had traveled to Turkey but failed to use the word "genocide" when asked about the historical events. During the presidential campaign, he had said he would recognize the Armenian genocide, and as a U.S. senator, he criticized the State Department's aversion to the word.

We wondered if Obama would use the word "genocide" when he was back in the United States. Armenian groups in the United States expected him to make a statement on April 24, a day of memorial for the Armenian genocide.

The Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million, according to a proposed resolution considered by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007. (That resolution failed due to Bush administration concerns that it would alienate Turkey, which borders Iraq. The issue has long been controversial in Turkey, where leaders have resisted the label "genocide.")

Obama did issue the statement on the 24th, in which he described the "heavy weight" of history and the "terrible events of 1915," adding "I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed."

But he did not use the word "genocide."

Obama's promise, and his statements while a U.S. senator, indicate that he thought the word itself was important. In 2006, a U.S. ambassador was recalled after he used the word "genocide" in reference to Armenia, which spurred Obama to write a letter to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that he thought the U.S. position on the issue was "untenable." (Read the letter via the Armenians for Obama Web site.)

Obama's April 24 statement still doesn't meet the terms of his promise, and the Obameter stays at Promise Broken.

President Barack Obama said during the presidential campaign that he would recognize the Armenian genocide. But on a recent overseas trip, he seemed to take pains to avoid uttering the word itself.

The Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million, according to a proposed resolution considered by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2007. The resolution failed in the face of Bush administration concerns that it would alienate Turkey, which borders Iraq. The issue has long been controversial in Turkey, where leaders have resisted the label "genocide."

Obama addressed the issue in response to a reporter's question at a joint news conference in Ankara with President Abdullah Gul of Turkey.

Obama said his views hadn't changed, but then went on to answer the question without using the word "genocide."

It's a little long, but we think it's worth quoting the entire exchange here so you can read it for yourself. The transcript identifies the reporter as Christi Parsons of the Chicago Tribune :

Parsons: "As a U.S. senator you stood with the Armenian-American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide and you also supported the passage of the Armenian genocide resolution. You said, as president you would recognize the genocide. And my question for you is, have you changed your view, and did you ask President Gul to recognize the genocide by name?"

Obama: "Well, my views are on the record and I have not changed views. What I have been very encouraged by is news that under President Gul's leadership, you are seeing a series of negotiations, a process, in place between Armenia and Turkey to resolve a whole host of longstanding issues, including this one.

"I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations which are moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly very soon. And so as a consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views right now but focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world should encourage them.

"And so what I told the president was I want to be as constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my sense is, is that they are moving quickly. I don't want to, as the president of the United States, pre-empt any possible arrangements or announcements that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we are going to be a partner in working through these issues in such a way that the most important parties, the Turks and the Armenians, are finally coming to terms in a constructive way."

Parsons: "So if I understand you correctly, your view hasn't changed, but you'll put in abeyance the issue of whether to use that word in the future?"

Obama: "What I'd like to do is to encourage President Gul to move forward with what have been some very fruitful negotiations. And I'm not interested in the United States in any way tilting these negotiations one way or another while they are having useful discussions."

Later, in a speech to the Turkish Parliament, Obama brought up the historical events and referred to his previous views, but again he did not declare the events genocide:

"Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there's strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there's been a good deal of commentary about my views, it's really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive."

There are some who might argue that Obama is using wise diplomacy here, that as a guest in Turkey he was right not to antagonize his host, and that he could keep his promise when he's back in the United States. But we think Obama is trying to have it both ways. He says his views haven't changed, but he clearly avoids stating those views. And he does not use the term "genocide," which was the heart of what his campaign promise was all about. When he made the promise, Obama specifically referred to a diplomat who had been fired for using the word genocide; Obama during the campaign said the diplomat had used the word "properly." The argument that it is undiplomatic to antagonize Turkey is the same argument Bush administration officials used when they successfully opposed the 2007 resolution in the House of Representatives.

Obama will no doubt have other opportunities to address this issue, if he chooses to do so. April 24, for example, is a day of memorial for the Armenian genocide, and Obama could make a specific statement then.

But based on what we've seen so far, Obama won't say the word "genocide," even when discussing the events in question. During the campaign, he specifically said he would. So we're rating this Promise Broken.

When we started looking for President Obama's campaign promises, we knew we might not find all of them, and we hoped our readers would alert us to promises we had missed. Today we are adding our first promise based on reader feedback: Obama's pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide.

The issue has been a hot-button issue on the world stage because the government of Turkey has objected to the use of the term "genocide" as inaccurate and inflammatory.

A 2007 resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives said the Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million. The resolution failed in the face of Bush administration concerns that it would alienate Turkey, which borders Iraq.

So we add this promise to our database as promise No. 511.