Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merged from Ethnic cleansing

Per Talk:Ethnic_cleansing#Merge_proposal, this list has been merged with the list at Ethnic cleansing. I have done my best to merge the lists carefully and thoroughly, but I would be grateful if anyone has time to double check. Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The first entry for the "early modern period" is messed up. -- PBS (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I pasted the text in below and must have accidentally pasted it again in the middle of some other text. Now fixed. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would question the neutrality of the section regarding the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. First, there is no objective reason to note specifically that the history ethnic cleansing is "disputed by some scholars" when the point has already been made repeatedly as a general observation that these claims are often (if not always) disputed. As the article notes "Not all experts agree on every case, particularly since there are a variety of definitions for the term ethnic cleansing." I see no reason to single out the Palestinians' ethnic cleansing as particularly disputed. This seems to stem from a POV in which this ethnic cleansing (extensively documented by dozens of scholars) is considered less legitimate than other cases.

Similarly I would call attention to the wording "fled or were expelled." This qualifier is an allusion to a partisan Israeli narrative, long since discredited by serious scholars, to the effect that the 700,000 - 900,000 refugees fled voluntarily, leading to a "miracle" (as it is described) in which the Jewish minority rid itself of most of the Palestinian majority within the territories they had captured.

I would challenge anyone defending this wording to point out an example of ethnic cleansing listed on this page that did not involve some of the civilians fleeing the forces that were carrying out the ethnic cleansing. To the contrary, flight is always a part of ethnic cleansing. Targeted populations fled from Europe in WWII, from the former Yugoslavia during that conflict, and in literally every other instance of large-scale ethnic cleansing. So why are the Palestinians, alone, presented with the qualification "fled or were expelled"? Clearly all target populations should be described this way, or none of them should.174.50.158.152 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you want a serious answer to that question? The invading armies were the Arab countries not  Israel's Arab civilians  fled while the Jews stayed to fight because the Jews had nowhere to go. In other words the traget population im your terminology was the Jews and many of the Palistinian fled to get out of the way while the Arab armies ethnivally cleansed the Jews.Here are the facts 0 Jews were left in the areas held by the Aerab armies  after the war and many arabs were left in the areas controlled by Israel.  Not every refugee is a victim of ethnic cleansing. Many of the Palestinians believed that the Arab countries would successfully defeat the Jews (which certainly would have involved massive massacres). Does that mean that Israel is completely innocent in this? No. There were certainly instances where the Jewish fighters forced out Palestinians but that doesn't make the opposite narrative that this was completely a Jewish initiated campaign of ethnic cleansing anymore true.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.23.155 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC) 

Inclusion criteria in this list for event considered to be ethnic cleansing

I have briefly looked through this list and it is full of OR. The problem is that well meaning editors see an event and assume because they think the event involves ethnic cleansing it should be included in this list. They then add an event with reliable sources showing what happened, but they do not include any or few sources that state that the event was a form of ethnic cleansing. This is exactly the same problem the used to occur when Wikipedia had a "List of massacres" article. For this reason I suggest that a box is added to the top of this talk page defining what entries should look like and what is needed before an event is added to the list. Here is a draft based on the current box at the top of Talk:List of events named massacres under "Inclusion criteria".

Inclusion Criteria (draft)

The criteria for the inclusion of events in this list have been developed after discussions on the list's talk page. They should not be altered unless further discussion establishes a consensus for any change. Inclusion criteria All entries must meet the requirements of Wikipedia polices in particular the three core content polices of no original research, verifiability, and a neutral point of view. Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that an event or series of events have been described as "ethnic cleansing", "religious cleansing", "population cleansing", or "murderous cleansing", or similar, in multiple reliable sources. In line with WP:PRESERVE, try to find sources to complete an entry that is incomplete before removing it and consider tagging any example you think is not complete to allow other editors time to complete it. However if an entry is removed the burden is on the editor wishing to restore the entry to show that multiple sources support the events and the claims that the events are an example of ethnic cleansing. Format All entries should contain in-text attribution of who considers the event to be "ethnic cleansing" if there are lots then choose one or more of the most authoritative. All entries should include a brief description of the events including a link to any more specific Wikipedia articles about the events. All entries should include alternative views providing those views are not given undue weight. All entries must contain inline citations to reliable source to support the first two points and point three if it is mentioned. Notes Examples These fictitious examples illustrate how the test of if an entry should be included in this list. Text in the source Source Include? Explanation The ancient empire forced the the natives to leave the conquered territories to make room for settlers. Multiple reliable sources mention the events. No No reliable sources call the actions of the empire ethnic cleansing. This example fails No original research. The forced removal of the green people by the majority backed government is according to historian Marin Jones an example of early modern ethic cleansing. Multiple reliable sources back up the events, but only Martin Jones's book describe the events as ethnic cleansing. No The events are covered by multiple sources, but only one source describes the events ethnic cleansing, so it fail under the neutral point of view policy by giving undue weight to a minority point of view. The forced removal of the green people by the majority backed government is according to genocide scholars Marin Smith and John Jones a "classic example" of early modern ethic cleansing. Reliable sources that back up the events and multiple academic sources describe as ethnic cleansing. Yes The text and the accusation is covered by the sources, so using a quote by Smith and Jones is representative of an academic view. The forced removal of the green people by the occupying blue force is according to a representative of the green people a clear case of ethnic cleansing. Reliable sources are given for both the removal and the representative making the claim. No In some cases where accusations of ethnic cleansing have circulated, partisans have fiercely disputed such an interpretation and the details of the event. This often leads to the promotion of vastly different versions of the event in question. This example fails to provide a neutral point of view because the view is partisan (it may also fail under undue weight). The removal of the green people by the occupying blue force is according to a representative of the green people a clear case of ethnic cleansing a view endorced by a spokes person from Camfam (a respected Indian humanitarian aid charity), however a spokesman for the blue force deny this stating their actions within those permitted under international law. Independent third party reliable sources for the events, sources supporting the accusation and rebuttal. Yes Note the deletion of the word "forcible" from "forcible removal", as well as a balanced in comments. The forcible removal of the green people by the occupying blue force was condemned by the United Nations Security Council as a clear case of ethnic cleansing. A spokesman for the blue force deny this stating their actions are within those permitted under international law. Independent third party reliable sources for the event, sources supporting the accusation and rebuttal. Yes Note the reinsertion of the word "forcible" in "forcible removal". Presumably the representative of the green people would still be stating it was ethnic cleansing, but it is preferable to attribute the statement to the more authoritative source. The clear implication here is that the "blue force" is now in the minority so the phrase "forcible removal" is justified as to leave it out would give undue weight to the blue force's point of view. Colonel white was found guilty by the international tribunal of multiple crimes against humanity for his part in the forcible removal of the green people by the occupying blue force. Independent third party reliable sources for the trial result. No No explicit accusation in the sources that the forcible removal was ethnic cleansing. Colonel White was found guilty by the international tribunal of being a member of a joint criminal enterprise for his part in the forcible removal of the green people by the occupying blue force, but found him not guilty of the specific war crimes. The president of the court stated in a press conference afterwards that the evinced clearly showed that Colonel White issued orders to have the area ethnically cleansed, of all members the green ethnic group, and did not stop his men committing war crimes when he became aware of them. Independent third party reliable sources for the trial result. Yes If it is a judgement by an international court then it is notable even if it is the only source for that view. Colonel White was found guilty by the international tribunal of being a member of a joint criminal enterprise for his part in the forcible removal of the green people by the occupying blue force, but found him not guilty of the specific war crimes. In a minority judgement Judge Purple described Colonel White as the primary instigator of a brutal ethnic cleaning campaign and that he was guilty of several of those war crimes. Independent third party reliable sources for the trial result. Maybe If it is a judgement by an international court then it is notable even if it is the only source for that view. However it not the view of the majority of judges that ethnic cleansing took place and if the minority view is not widely discussed in third party sources, then discussion on the talk page may be necessary to reach a consensus over notability.

-- PBS (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks PBS, great work. I made a few small cleanups in the box above. My only remaining concern is the use of "religious cleansing", "population cleansing", or "murderous cleansing" as acceptable synonyms. I am not sure about the first two, and the last one does not sound to me to be an academic term. Oncenawhile (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

See the Martin Shaw citation embedded in the text above, he lists both "population cleansing", or "murderous cleansing" as academic alternatives. "Religious cleansing" it is not mentioned by Shaw, but is mentioned in other sources that I presented at a recent discussion Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ethnic cleansing eg:

• Michael Mann's (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing (illustrated, reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 52. ISBN 9780521538541.

but it is not very common term with many more authors using the term "ethnic cleansing" while mentioned that the targets were Irish Catholics.

I am not particularly fussed about mentioning the alternative terms, but I can just see the arguments that will occur when good will brakes down if someone cites the Mann sources above and another editor argues that as he says "regions cleansing" (and not "ethnic cleansing") it is not an acceptable source for the events to be included in this list. -- PBS (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not given examples of municipal (domestic) courts and tribunals because that opens up a further consideration of the impartiality of the court/tribunal. In most cases this will not be a problem, but it may be, and I think that it is an example too far for the criteria. In the history of genocide article, people kept adding the Argentinian dirty war it as an example of genocide (which was removed as OR) eventually I found an example from a court case (see Genocides in history#Argentina 2), clearly it is a minority view but it was the view of a judge giving a judgement on one of the key trials of the perpetrators of the dirty war, and so is more notable than most. But I think such cases if disputed will have to be discussed on the talk page, as not all domestic courts/tribunals are always impartial. -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion criteria

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the RFC. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the RFC was that after a month of discussion six editors in favour none against -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this article should contain its own inclusion criteria, like Talk:List of events named massacres and its "Inclusion criteria", to inform and guide new editors who may not be familiar with the three content policies and how the content policies affect selection of events for inclusion in this article. -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

See previous section on this page and the proposed /Inclusion criteria.

While changes to the inclusion criteria can be discussed in the changes section below, to simplify this RfC I would like editors to voice their opinions in the survey section below, whether in principle this talk page should include an Inclusion criteria similar to that on Talk:List of events named massacres. -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support inclusion criteria as proposed, per my comments in the threads above. Clear and consensually agreed guidelines are needed on all such "politically sensitive" lists, to ensure that each potential event is being considered on a fair and equal basis against all others. The inclusion criteria for this and other similar pages could fit well under WP:MILCG. Oncenawhile (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Reasons already above Arcillaroja (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per the fact that such a controversial topic needs a spelled-out guide. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Oncenawhile Kingsindian (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, given that it should reduce editwarring and confusion. Lists with unclear scopes are curse on Wikipedia. I like the idea of WP:MILCG having some standardized advice this regard, though it is not a guideline per se.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Proposed changes to the text in the Inclusion criteria

See current proposed /Inclusion criteria

• The grammar needs major fixes, and the examples should be a little more clear. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Please fix the grammar (Anything that I do not agree with, I will revert and we can discuss it further) and please explain here which examples you think can be made a clearer. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of ethnic cleansings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/academic/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081129021325/http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=461e5a644 to http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/iraq?page=news&id=461e5a644
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618131423/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/nm/20100615/ts_nm/us_kyrgyzstan_violence to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100615/ts_nm/us_kyrgyzstan_violence

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916030858/http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449 to http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005449
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060707065143/http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html to http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003174936/http://lead.actualno.com/news_284364.html to http://lead.actualno.com/news_284364.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714205907/http://www.cal.org/co/pdffiles/mturks.pdf to http://www.cal.org/co/pdffiles/mturks.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130704164503/http://karabakhrecords.info/gallery/%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%B6-%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B5-%D0%B2-%D1%81/ to http://karabakhrecords.info/gallery/%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%B6-%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B5-%D0%B2-%D1%81/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022031614/http://voanews.com/uspolicy/2006-10-19-voa1.cfm to http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2006-10-19-voa1.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515012207/http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sjr1.dir/sjr0023.intro.pdf to http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sjr1.dir/sjr0023.intro.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218112615/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2768232.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2768232.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012224431/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/784/sc4.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/784/sc4.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311043821/http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1142/?PHPSESSID=3fc64258eda9d44c2 to http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1142/?PHPSESSID=3fc64258eda9d44c2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100615/ts_nm/us_kyrgyzstan_violence
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216135450/http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/ to http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141728/http://feature.ipfw.edu/faculty/profiles/lutz.html to http://feature.ipfw.edu/faculty/profiles/lutz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170224234905/http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf to http://rss.archives.ceu.hu/archive/00001016/01/17.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030301100434/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/28ap42.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/28ap42.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/08/01/PM200608016.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080318192427/http://channel4.empireschildren.co.uk/category/chapters/index.php?chapter=472&cat=3 to http://channel4.empireschildren.co.uk/category/chapters/index.php?chapter=472&cat=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604005824/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/25-000-North-Indian-workers-leave-Pune/276576/3/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/25-000-North-Indian-workers-leave-Pune/276576/3/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

1970's - ethnic cleansing of Greeks ????

This article includes the following entry:

• The ethnic cleansing in 1974–76 of the Greek population of the areas under Turkish military occupation in Cyprus during and after the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus.

The citation provided refers to a "dirty legacy of ethnic cleansing" without providing any details, and then goes on to describe "a brutal population exchange"... does a population exchange constitute an "ethnic cleansing campaign"? Is this really about the "ethnic cleansing" of Greeks, or an emotional response to their temporary displacement?

The source also seems to be lacking impartiality, as it resembles yet another opinion pushing piece.

I've added a tag to see if we can get a reliable source here that actually refers to the ethnic cleansing of Greeks on Cyprus, rather than drawing political euphemisms.

If a reliable source that refers to the "ethnic cleansing of Greeks on Cyprus" cannot be found I suggest that this be removed from the List of ethnic cleansing campaigns page. Nargothronde (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Nargothronde: It seems that you have not quite grasped the Wikipedia principle of reliable sources, see WP:RS. We do not evaluate sources from if we think they may be an "emotional response" or "lacking impartiality". We evaluate them for what they are, not from what they say.

Firstly, the {{Citation needed}} tag is not correct to use, since there is a citation. If anything, the correct tag here would be {{Better source}} or {{Unreliable source?}} if you think the current source is not good enough or not reliable.

The current citation is from The New York Times, which I am sure you will agree is a "well-established news outlet", see WP:NEWSORG. That means that news reporting from NYT normally will be "considered to be reliable for statements of fact". But in this case we have an unsigned editorial comment, which "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Therefore we can not use the source for stating the fact that there was an ethnic cleansing of Greeks in Cyprus.

However, we need to see what is needed in this article. The lede of this article says Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted. What is needed here, is therefore exactly the kind of source we have, provided we present it as the claim of NYT and not as a sourced fact. I have therefore rephrased the text to say that this is the view of NYT.

Taking a look at the article in general, it becomes clear that there are many claims that have considerably less merit than the Greeks on Cyprus claim. A similar clean-up would certainly be welcome all through the article. --T*U (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks T*U. This is really helpful. Nargothronde (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added a tag to the entry. There is no citation of any academic or legal experts that explicitly refer to the occurrences the same way the contribution suggests, and where journalistic sources have been used, these have not been noted. Nargothronde (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing Campaign Against Turkish Cypriots

I added the 1963-1974 ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus to the 1960's section of this article.

This is the full text of my contribution:

* The Turkish Cypriot Genocide was the attempted genocide and systematic ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots from 1963 to 1974. To many Turkish Cypriots, it was part of a "conscious policy of genocide" designed to displace or otherwise exterminate the entire Turkish Cypriot population on Cyprus, the intent of which is disclosed in the Akritas Plan and Iphestos Files. To extreme right-wing Greek nationalists in Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots they killed were seen as "an outsider and a source of pollution", and as such were referred to as shillii (dogs) – meaning that, "like dogs, they could be killed with impunity".

It was undone citing "Undoing POV insertions" and "Undoing large-scale POV insertion and propaganda".

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns&diff=884219946&oldid=884219867 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns&diff=884219946&oldid=884211735

I don't see where the "large-scale POV insertion and propaganda" is?

I also still think what I wrote is otherwise perfectly fine and should be a welcome contribution to the article, as it is by very definition an "ethnic cleansing campaign"?

As Dr.K. responds to any posts on his Talk page with their immediate removal followed by accusations and threats to stay off his Talk page (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&oldid=prev&diff=867497359 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr.K.&oldid=prev&diff=873008395), I'd like to instead invite Dr.K. to this discussion to explain exactly what he means when he refers to my contributions as "large-scale POV insertions and propaganda"?

I'd also like to ask other users 1) whether my contribution is really not suitable to include in this article, and if not, why? 2) what exactly allows Dr.K. to come to such conclusions and make these decisions about other users' (specifically "my") contributions? 3) suggestions as to what approach I should take to include the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus while avoiding letting Dr.K. turn my perfectly fine (unless otherwise demonstrated?) contribution to an edit war etc?

Thanks in advance. Nargothronde (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

The short version is that your suggested addition is a highly biased POV without reliable sources.

The slightly longer version is this: The article starts with the following sentence: This article lists incidents that have been termed ethnic cleansing by some academic or legal experts. Among your sources there is only Paul Sant Cassia (Notes 6, 10 and 11) that by any stretch of imagination can be called "academic or legal experts", and he does not use the label ethnic cleansing as a description. The lede also says: Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted. Your other sources are official Turkish / Turkish Cypriot sources (Notes 3 and 7), personal views of a handful of British politicians (Notes 2, 4, 5 and 9), and the Turkish propagandist Harry Scott Gibbons (see my edit here for more details about Gibbons). Your suggested addition states The Turkish Cypriot Genocide was the attempted genocide and systematic ethnic cleansing... without any reservations about who is calling it "ethnic cleansing".

The long version would also contain a discussion on how your proposed addition is misusing Paul Sant Cassia, the only reliable source. --T*U (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much T*U. Both for your eminently great analysis and sense of humour. Second for helping out in this avalanche of POV which has hijacked the talkpage. I don't know what I would do without your help. Take care. Dr. K. 18:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

T*U Hold on. I'm not quite sure how I should respond? Let me take this one step at a time, and try to be as concise as possible.

1. The criteria for including events in this list states:

All entries must meet the requirements of Wikipedia polices in particular the three core content polices of no original research, verifiability, and a neutral point of view.

Inclusion in this list is based solely on evidence in multiple reliable sources that an event or series of events have been described as "ethnic cleansing", "religious cleansing", "population cleansing", or "murderous cleansing", or similar, in multiple reliable sources.[a]

In line with WP:PRESERVE, try to find sources to complete an entry that is incomplete before removing it and consider tagging any example you think is not complete to allow other editors time to complete it. However if an entry is removed the burden is on the editor wishing to restore the entry to show that multiple sources support the events and the claims that the events are an example of ethnic cleansing.

You have not showed me anything (except through demonstrably opinionated suggestions) to make any substantial claim that my contribution includes any original research, that it does not present a neutral point of view, or that it is not verifiable. All you have done is attack the sources I've provided (based on your opinions of the authors etc) as a means of attacking the contribution in general. You're picking out ways to try and justify discrediting the sources or their inclusion in this article without any reliable justification that they are, as per the Wikipedia guidelines, not reliable sources, or as per the criteria for including events in this list, including OR/POV.

2. I was told in the above talk that, and I quote you directly, "We do not evaluate sources from if we think they may be an "emotional response" or "lacking impartiality". We evaluate them for what they are, not from what they say"? [1] But what exactly are you trying to get at when you're defending sources that are known to be supportive of, acquiescent to, or simply based on propaganda [2] and attacking sources that, to your credit, are known to be discounted by those who push for that propaganda, yes, but that are authoritative and reliable on the subject of ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus.

3. We are supposed to judge the reliability of sources and their content, and based on the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, not the personal opinion(s) or political leaning or employment status etc of the author(s) who wrote them!

You are referring to Harry Scott Gibbons as a Turkish propagandist. He is a journalist that is authoritative on the subject of the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus. His personal opinions or final conclusions are irrelevant. The credibility of his work however, is. I have quoted two sources from Harry Scott Gibbons, both written by him, one published as a book, the other published online, neither of which are grounds to demonstrate lack of reliability by any standard.

Michael Stephen is a former British Parliamentarian, who gathered information on the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, quoting news sources to support the drawing of his conclusions on Cyprus. Like with Gibbons, his opinion or political leaning etc is irrelevant. It is what he is saying, that it is known what happened on Cyprus, from journalists, even the UN, that one must concede to what was done to the Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus. That cannot be discounted. This source also cannot simply be dismissed and attacked, or called propaganda, as you’re suggesting.

I am almost literally quoting what Paul Sant Cassia said, without any alternative interpretation. Show me where I am misusing his work?

About Denktaş, who published both legal and academic papers on the Cyprus issue, to your credit, we could say that his position etc could become a factor in determining his contributions as impartial, though that would be by a long stretch, but when he directly quotes a well-known international authority on the subject of genocide studies, J. D. Bowers, who recognises and confirms the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus etc, does that still justify discarding his work as impartial opinions? Are those grounds to refer to his work (not his personal opinions or political leanings etc) as impartial? unreliable? unauthoritative on the subject? or simply "propaganda"?

4. Finally, Wikipedia has a definition of ethnic cleansing. It is as follows: “Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous... Ethnic cleansing is usually accompanied with efforts to remove physical and cultural evidence of the targeted group in the territory through the destruction of homes, social centers, farms, and infrastructure, and by the desecration of monuments, cemeteries, and places of worship.”

Do my sources include reliable information about: “the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups (Turkish Cypriots)... with the intent of making it (Cyprus) ethnically homogeneous (Greek)”? Yes.

Do my sources include references to “efforts to remove physical and cultural evidence of the targeted group (Turkish Cypriots) in the territory (Cyprus) through the destruction of homes, social centers, farms, and infrastructure, and by the desecration of monuments, cemeteries, and places of worship.”? Yes.

Are the sources I provided reliable on the subject of the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots? Yes.

Do the sources provided explicitly mention the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus? Yes.

I don't see what criteria you're trying to pick out and apply to my contribution here.

I also find it strange that Dr.K. seems so interested in rushing to respond to what I previously pointed out about the verifiability of the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots, and subsequently taking an immediate interest in removing any mention of the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, which we know from the sources I provided and then some, did happen. Nargothronde (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: Summary: I have provided independent third party reliable sources for the events (Gibbons, Michael Stephen, Lord Ken Maginnis, the UK Parliament, Paul Sant Cassia) - from former to latter - a journalistic source, 3 British parliamentary sources, and an academic source. I have also provided one Turkish source (from the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and one Turkish Cypriot source (Denktaş - former Turkish Cypriot leader, lawyer and academic), ALL of which utilise independent third party reliable sources themselves, and which describe the events as ethnic cleansing, and support (in varying degrees) both the accusation and rebuttal. Nargothronde (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have shown that multiple sources support the events and the claims that the events are an example of ethnic cleansing. I have also shown that the systematic removal of this entry was without merit. I'm thus restoring my contribution, until a clearly demonstrable actual problem is discovered. Nargothronde (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nargothronde: Note: I have indented your postings for better readability of the discussion, see WP:INDENT

I notice that you are ignoring WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS in order to present your preferred version. I do not participate in edit wars, but will ask you to self revert until you have a consensus for your addition. So far no-one has supported your addition.

I have already pointed to the lede of the article about academic or legal experts vs. non-experts. Your text claims that "The Turkish Cypriot Genocide was..." without any note about where the claim comes from. That should only be done if it is termed like that by academic or legal experts. Among your sources there is only one author that can be regarded as an expert, Paul Sant Cassia, and he does not describe it as a genocide or ethnic cleansing, he just refers to what (some) Turkish Cypriots claim. All the other sources are journalists or politicians, exactly the groups the lede mentions as non-experts, making it necessary to "note" where the "claims of ethnic cleansing originate from". (By the way, if your mention of "legal and academic papers" by Denktaş is meant to indicate that he was an academic or legal expert, I will ask you to present evidence that he is regarded as such. I have checked all the biographies I have found about him without finding any mention of any academic career or academic merit.)

Re your use of Cassia as a source: Note 6 is used as a source for the sentence "The Turkish Cypriot Genocide was the attempted genocide and systematic ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots from 1963 to 1974." That is plain dishonest, as Cassia just states what "they (Turkish Cypriots) emphasise".

The next Cassia source (Note 10) is (correctly) used for the text "To many Turkish Cypriots, it was part of a "conscious policy of genocide", but especially the end of the sentence "the intent of which is disclosed in the Akritas Plan and Iphestos Files" is not covered by that source. The elusive "Iphestos Files" (that never seem to have been made public) are not even mentioned in the source.

In the text connected to the last Cassia source (Note 11) you combine quotes from the text in a way that is your own synthesis that goes far beyond the text in the source. The text you produce is in any case irrelevant: If this was a "conscious policy of genocide" by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots, what relevance does the view of "extreme right-wing Greek nationalists" have? Unless, of course, you can give sources that "the Greeks and Greek Cypriots" in general were extreme right-wing Greek nationalists.

Re Harry Scott Gibbons: You claim that he is "authoritative on the subject of the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus". I have earlier commented on Gibbons, and I have linked to that comment above, but since you do not seem to have read it, I have to repeat it here. I am hatting it for those who are bored by having to read it again.

Comments on Harry Scott Gibbons copied from Talk:Fazıl Küçük

Regarding the author, you state that he is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. I must ask you to show evidence of that. He is described in his obituary as a journalist and author. It seems that he at one point was a reporter/journalist in the Middle East, possibly for Daily Mail and/or Daily Express. I have, however, not been able to find one single reference to his work as a journalist, and I have not found any example of his being cited as a journalist. If he is regarded as "authoritative", I am sure there must exist something, somewhere. As for his work as an author, you mention his other works, which are also reliably published and starkly authoritative on the subject. He seems to have published two books, Tall woman and The Genocide Files. We can safely disregard the first one (a novel set in early North America). The Genocide Files was published in 1997, but the information about the publisher is a bit contradictory. Some places the publisher is given as "Charles Bravos", other places as "Savannah Koch". The ISBN, however, is the same in both cases, so we are obviously talking about the same edition. Trying to find out more about the publisher(s), I find that they have published two crime novels by M.C. Beaton Death of a Gossip in 1989 and Death of a CAD in 1990, and that seems to be it. (Both these books also have the same ISBN with both publisher names.) M.C. Beaton is the pen name of Marion Chesney, who was married to Harry Scott Gibbons. The "starkly authoritative" Gibbons (with one book written on the theme) is "reliably published" in a way that looks very much like self-publishing. A sign of an "authoritative" author would be that he is cited by other authors. It is not easy to find many such cites, but I have found some, and I will quote a few: For two detailed accounts, albeit with a Turkish-Cypriot bias, see Henry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide files in this book Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand in Thirty Hot Days gives a very readable account from the Turkish perspective, whilst British journalist Harry Scott Gibbons does the opposite in his very one-sided book The Genocide files and Much of Gibbons' writings is no more than Turkish propaganda and more from this book Although the following sources are at the service of a purely propagandistic effort and not to be taken seriously, the reader can still find a perfect representation of the official Turkish viewpoint in them about the 1963-64 conflict: Harry Scott Gibbons, The Genocide Files in this doctoral thesis

We obviously do not agree about reliable sources. My advice is now as then: After you have stopped the edit war and self reverted your addition and before you present your suggested changes to the article in the talk page together with reliable sources, discuss your sources at WP:RSN. People with knowledge about sources are there to help. --T*U (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you again T*U for taking the time once more to read and respond to this avalanche of strong POV. I fully agree with you and your expert analysis. I have reverted this POV addition back to the status quo before the POV additions which were done without WP:CONSENSUS. If these additions are edit-warred again into the article I will ask for admin intervention. Dr. K. 20:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you T*U. I never saw that clearly. I'll have a thorough look now & hit up the RS guys for help. I'll also have a solid re-think about if to include the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, depending on what I'm advised regarding the current sources incl. other sources we can draw in to support it etc. In the meantime, I'd like to suggest, as per the above discussion, that the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots on Cyprus might not be correct to include in this article. The Irish Times and New York Times do not fulfil the criteria you mentioned of being legal decisions or academic sources, and Christian Walter & Co. do not explicitly refer to "an ethnic cleansing of the Greek population of the areas under Turkish military occupation in Cyprus in 1974–76 in the way this contribution suggests. Summary: There is no citation of any academic or legal experts that explicitly refer to the occurrences the same way the contribution suggests. Also, where journalistic sources have been used, these have not been noted. So again, there are strong grounds to refer to it as a political euphemism, as much of the rhetoric surrounding those events is known to be. Maybe we could find better sources to support it or simply remove it until better sources are found? Nargothronde (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Nargothronde: The source says The Turkish army engaged in an exercise of ‘ethnic cleansing› and expulsed more or less all Greek Cypriots from the North with brute force. Rather explicit imho. Will you please remove your disruptive tag. --T*U (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

T*U If you believe an edit to be disruptive, please remove it and add a note stating why. Nargothronde (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Can we confirm that that is indeed a reliable source? Nargothronde (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's see:

Author: Prof. Dr. Stefan Oeter: Y

Publisher: Oxford University Press: Y

Book: Self-Determination and Secession in International Law Y

Editor 1: Christian Walter: Y

Editor 2: Antje von Ungern-Sternberg Y

Editor 3: Kavus Abushov: Y

My guess is: fairly reliable. --T*U (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to add the following entry to this article:

* There was an ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the Turkish Peace Operation. In the first of these attacks alone, dubbed Bloody Christmas (1963) by international media, 18,667 Turkish Cypriots from both Turkish and mixed villages abandoned the island, 270 Turkish Cypriot mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated, and 25,000 Turkish Cypriots from 104 villages, amounting to a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population, were displaced, exiled and forced to live as refugees in caves and enclaves on 3% of the island for 11 years, surviving mostly on foreign aid from Turkey. The events as they unfolded saw heavy media attention and strong criticism from the UK High Commission and others, which contributed to international condemnation of the Greek Cypriots and their leadership. Rauf Denktaş, the former Turkish Cypriot leader & the founder and first president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, argues that it was the "deliberate targeting, killing and displacement of all Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus", and which was "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the entire national, ethnical, racial or religious identity of Turks on Cyprus", and that drew no line on few day old babies and elderly men, that lends these acts the textbook definition of genocide. This opinion is also reflected by Ertan Ersan, the director of the Remembrance Museum for Turkish Cypriot Casualties. To many Turkish Cypriots, it was part of a "conscious policy of genocide" designed to displace or otherwise exterminate the entire Turkish Cypriot population on Cyprus, the intent of which is purportedly disclosed in the Akritas Plan and Iphestos Files. 20th July is annually commemorated in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as the anniversary of Turkey's intervention, which according to Günay Evinch (Övünç), a practitioner of public international law at the Washington D.C. firm of Saltzman & Evinc, toppled the fascist dictatorships (of Greece and Cyprus), and stopped the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus. Conceding that these events are well known and documented, there have been calls within the UK government for the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots to be officially recognised by Britain.

References

Have I shown that it is termed ethnic cleansing by academic and legal experts? Y

Where it has been termed ethnic cleansing or otherwise described as such etc by newspapers or other types of sources, has this been clearly noted? Y

Have I used reliable sources? Y

Does it meet the requirements of Wikipedia polices such as no original research, verifiability, and a neutral point of view? Y

Nargothronde (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Nargothronde: I took the liberty of placing a {{reflist-talk}} template between your suggested addition and your comments for easier navigation between your suggested text and the references. If you dislike having the references inside your posting, please move the template to the line just after your signature.

Re your (rethorical?) question Have I shown that it is termed ethnic cleansing by academic and legal experts?: No, you have not! Of the seven sources for the claim "There was an ethnic cleansing..." in the very first sentence, neither Gibbons, Stephen, nor the Turkish MFA could conceivably qualify as "academic and legal experts", and you have not shown that Oberling, Campbell-Thomson or Patrick use the term "ethnic cleansing".

I have not bothered to check all your other sources and study how they are used, but I notice that you are still misrepresenting Cassia, who does not mention the elusive Iphestos files at all.

Above I adviced you to discuss your sources at WP:RSN before presenting your suggested entry here, to which you answered: I'll have a thorough look now & hit up the RS guys for help. I'll also have a solid re-think about if to include the ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, depending on what I'm advised regarding the current sources... I strongly advice you to do exactly what you said you'd do before you waste the time of other editors with this. It is painfully obvious that you need advice about reliable sources and the use of them. --T*U (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear T*U. Lets clarify something here. I'm going to spell it out in green, to make sure it's clear: "... to stop renewed attempts under the Iphestos Plan at genocide to which the Turkish Cypriots had already been subjected by Greek Cypriots under the Akritas Plan in 1963, 1964 and 1967 and in violation of Articles 2(a), (b) and (c) and 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the 1948 Genocide Convention..." "...the attempted genocide committed against the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriot militia in 1963-64, 1967 and 1974, well documented in 'The Genocide Files' by Harry Scott-Gibbons and in official British documents and newspaper reports at the time; considers that since those massacres of Turkish Cypriots were committed by Greek Cypriot forces pursuant to a written plan, 'the Akritas Plan', Articles 2(a) (b) and (c) of the UN Genocide Convention are clearly satisfied..." There are only two military interventions in recent history that have resulted in enhanced democracy and human rights: the English intervention against Argentina in the Falklands, and the Turkish intervention against Greece in Cyprus -- both toppled fascist dictatorships and stopped ethnic killings. In 1963-64, and again in 1967, the Greek Cypriots, with Greek military assistance, raided isolated Turkish villages and attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarters of the towns, pushing the Turkish Cypriots into even more densely populated enclaves... the division of Cyprus into two ethnically homogeneous, self-governing states was not achieved by the Turkish armed intervention of 1974 but by the Greek Cypriots in their campaign of aggression against the Turkish Cypriot community during the previous decade... armed attacks on Turkish Cypriot civilians in December 1963 by re-armed Greek Cypriot police and irregulars from the banned EOKA movement... military assaults on Turkish Cypriots in 1967 were all too vivid illustrations of what mob rule could bring about... The elaborate plan codenamed Iphestos 1974 [volcano], which was captured with other documents of the Greek Cypriot National Guard in the weeks following the coup, contained the specifics of the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots, up to the exact location as to where to bury their corpses.23 The raging attacks on Turkish Cypriots in summer 1974 were all the necessary proof of the vulnerability of the Turkish Cypriot population in the face of extremists’ control over the island... The provisions of the First Geneva Conference were immediately violated by Greek and Greek Cypriot forces, who continued to attack and put under siege Turkish Cypriots residing outside the protective umbrella of the Turkish armed forces... As the (Second Geneva Conference) talks were going on, the occupation and siege of Turkish enclaves in the Greek sector of the island continued; the situation in the regions of Serdarlı and Nicosia were particularly disturbing... ... the Greek fixation with Enosis-union with Greece-led to a one-sided war against the Turks and the brutal massacres of their men, women and children... Greek actions seemed so haphazard that although it quickly became obvious the attack on the Turks was premeditated, the extent of the planning was not fully discovered until April 1966, when a Greek Cypriot newspaper, Patris, gave details of what has become known as the Akritas Plan. This was the first exercise in ethnic cleansing - racial extermination or genocide, as I prefer to call it - the Makarios government undertook... I think it suffices to say these are very explicit about the ethnic cleansing, the massacres, the existence of a conscious policy of genocide, the Akritas Plan, the Iphestos Files... I'm not going to turn this discussion into green mountain, though, so I'll stop there... Günay Evinch is a lawyer. Olga Campbell-Thomson is an academic. Gibbons is a journalist and without a doubt one of the most authoritative on the subject. You've yet to show me anything to prove otherwise. (Please note: I've raised my questions regarding the reliability of Gibbons at WP:RSN but they have gone unanswered, and you've done nothing to demonstrate he is, as you claim, unreliable, spare a few suggestions based on a few selective opinions.) Pierre Oberling and his research is also incredibly well respected. The motions proposed by the UK Houses of Parliament cannot be discounted. I'm not going to bother raising another debate on the reliability of Denktaş, the US Undersecretary of State, the British High Commission, the countless newspapers or any of the other sources I've also used here. I'm also not going to bother arguing that I'm "misrepresenting Cassia" when he says, and I quote: ... they (Turkish Cypriots) emphasise that their missing are dead because of a conscious policy of genocide... there were disclosures of reputed plans, such as the AKRITAS plan which purported to project a plan at ethnic cleansing... Turkish Cypriots subsequently claimed that the violence was the expression of a secret Greek Cypriot plan (the AKRITAS plan) to exterminate them... and I say, and I quote: To many Turkish Cypriots, it was part of a "conscious policy of genocide" designed to displace or otherwise exterminate the entire Turkish Cypriot population on Cyprus, the intent of which is purportedly disclosed in the Akritas Plan and Iphestos Files.. And you're also demonstrating intent to discount the entire proposed contribution without careful review... Please back-up your claims before making these accusations. I'm giving another chance for review of my proposed contribution. If nothing can be brought to the table to demonstrate any actual problem with it, I'm just going to go ahead and make this contribution, and if another edit warring session is incited by you or Dr.K. with or without anything to back it up, I will file a dispute and seek the support of the dispute resolution center.Nargothronde (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Nargothronde: I have placed a {{reflist-talk}} template in order to keep the references close to the text they belong to. I have also reduced your indentation to the recommended WP:Indentation style.

1) Re "green mountain": I am quite capable of reading black text, so there is absolutely no need to repeat with green emphasis long quotes that you have already presented just above. It took me quite some time to ascertain that the (green) quotes were indeed exactly identical to what you had presented above. I found nothing new, so it was a complete waste of my time and on the border to WP:TLDR.

2) Re Cassia: As I have explained, using Cassia as a reference for mentioning the Iphestos files is a clear misrepresentation.

3) Re "intent to discount the entire proposed contribution without careful review": I assume that you refer to my comment "I have not bothered to check all your other sources". Perhaps my point was not clear enough, so I will explain: Unless it is established that there exists reliable sources and consensus for including this entry to the article, there is no point in discussing the other details. If sources are found reliable and there is consensus for inclusion, I can assure you that I will look closely into all your other sources and their use.

4) Re WP:RSN: I guess you will have to wait a bit before you conclude that your question goes unanswered. Your posting was long (remember tldr), and editors who could want to contribute, will have to dig deeply into a topic they may not be familiar with. If you do not get an answer in due time, you might consider rephrasing the question in a more concise form: "Are the sources X, Y and Z reliable sources for the sentence S."

5) Re procedure: It is your call to establish a consensus before you add this to the article, if necessary through a WP:RfC or other formal measures.

Finally a request: I ask you as a courtesy to please strike out (see WP:REDACT) this comment in your posting at RSN: By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers? For one thing, RSN is not the right forum; it should probably be raised at WP:ANI. Secondly, it could easily be seen as a thinly veiled insinuation against easily identified editors. --T*U (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi T*U. I'm sorry I've taken longer than usual to respond. Firstly, I should clarify that while this sentence doesn't refer specifically to or single out any one editor, so please don't be confused about that, it is no coincidence that I chose to reference your analysis of Gibbons; it is logical to the effect that I'm questioning when the authoritativeness of Gibbons may be brought under any doubt. It is not a "thinly veiled insinuation against easily identified editors" and I'm sure that would be "clear" to anyone who reads it. Please note: it is not unknown that there are editors on Wikipedia which will expediate Wikipedia's rules and policies to prevent or deter contributions which go against their agenda. As you are aware, I've been very vocal against this issue, especially in regards to the implementation of the wider ethnic cleansing campaign which aims to Greekify and anti-Turkify certain pages. However, please do not assume that I am suggesting that is your intention, rather, your analysis of Gibbons could be considered an extension of that effort to discourage editors from contributing what his books and other related sources contain, so I believe I am right to challenge it. So it's nothing personal. Also, I notice how you've been kind to try and rephrase the problem I raised in the section "Harry Scott Gibbons" in your new section "List of ethnic cleansing campaigns". I will respond to that soon and ping you so as to keep you informed. Nargothronde (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nargothronde: I notice that you continue to expand on the theme of editor conduct and possible motives. Please remember the main theses of WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

If referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source is not meant to "single out any one editor", I must ask you to give at least one example of another editor discussing the reliability of Gibbons.

I take your answer to mean that you are not willing to redact your comments, even as a courtesy. I find that regrettable. Your original comments were phrased in a way that could be interpreted as an assumption of bad-faith. If "no bad-faith is intended", I must ask you to clarify that in the thread at WP:RSN. --T*U (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)