Talk:Ethnic cleansing/Archive 4

18 October 2010

In the section "Early modern history" I removed the bullet point for the the Trail of Tears because there is no in text attribution of an expert for the entry. It was reinstated by user:Seb az86556 with with "right..."

The current entry reads:

• On May 26, 1830, president Andrew Jackson of the United States signed the Indian Removal Act which resulted in the Trail of Tears.

In Congress and the emergence of sectionalism: from the Missouri Compromise to ... by Paul Finkelman, Donald R. Kennon the cited page is 254 but page 141 is probably better, and to balance the POV pagee 15 probably needs to be mentioned.

The other two books are not accessible via Google books at my location. Please quote what they say, or we could replace them with page 15 in American encounters: natives and newcomers from European contact to Indian ... by Peter C. Mancall, James Hart Merrell because it has the huge advantage that it sums up the issue by attribution the points in the text to other sources (so they pick the experts for us) and is close to what is needed here. It also helps that the Finkelman source and the Mancall say much the same thing as this helps write summaries without plagiarism. -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully accepted, I don't care what specific ref is used; actually, if I remember correctly, I quick-and-dirty reffed it a while back after someone tried to take it out multiple times. I'm sure there are more sources available. Good job on backchecking here.

In general, the criticism-bit would apply to anything that took place before the "official definition". Maybe putting it into an intro to the whole examples-list is worth considering. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

19 October 2010

The Genocides in history article says "In nearly every case where accusations of genocide ethnic cleansing have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide ethnic cleansing is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial." As you can see I have modified it for this article.

On 19 October 2010, user:Дунгане, you added these entries:

• During the Boxer Rebellion ...
• The Kuomintang Chinese Muslim ...
• In 1925, a Tibetan rebellion broke ...
• However, that was not the last Labrang saw of General Ma ...
• The Republic of China government supported
• In 1936 when Sheng Shicai expelled

You very kindly left the searches you used which gooole books in the links to the google book pages for example http://books.google.com/books?id=DbkfQATHikQC&pg=PA72&dq=ma+bufang+ethnic+cleansing+tibetans&hl=en&ei=NBUhTKnpOcH7lwfr64l-&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=ma%20bufang%20ethnic%20cleansing%20tibetans&f=false which links to a page written by David S. G. Goodman "[In the 1930 and 1940s] Ma Buang established ... a separate Islamic state-within-a-state ... and undertook a campaign of ethnic cleansing amongst the Tibetans in north-eastern ..." please could you modify the entry so that it gives a brief description of the events and mentions in the text of the article that David Goodman has stated that this was a campaign of ethnic cleansing. If you have other sources that make the claim then so much the better (as we can say something along the lines of "[best source]] and others have stated".

We should not be making the claim in the passive narrative voice of the article and if you do not have a source that we can specifically attribute for the claim of ethnic cleansing for some of your other entries, then they should be removed because even if it is obvious to every editor that it was ethnic cleansing joining up the dots like that is WP:OR.

For example in the the first entry you added was "the During the Boxer Rebellion, the Russian Cossacks committed genocide and ethnic cleansing on Manchus." but the source for that entry while describing the events does not state it was ethnic cleansing, so it is not possible to attribute the text to that source. Do you have another that state that this was genocide and ethnic cleansing? If not then the entry should be deleted because it is OR. -- PBS (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

fixed. I removed several entries and changed others to note that the genocide and ethnic cleanse label was expressed by the author.Дунгане (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better.

Phrases like "The actions of these Generals have been called Genocidal by some authors." should not be used because they are weasel words and invite the obvious "which authors" how many etc etc. I am not sure what that bullet point is mean to be about and it carries no sources. The bullet point "However, that was not ..." which although sourced seems to be about genocide not ethnic cleansing. I know that the two are on a continuum, but rightly or wrongly this is a article about ethnic cleansing and not about genocide (see genocides in history). This is meant to be a list of brief entries as sentence or two on what when and who says with links to main articles. If there is enough information for several paragraphs then please look around for a more suitable article into which the information could be placed, or create one and then introduce the subject here in a sentence or two. As far as I can tell Goodman only accuses Ma Buang of ethic cleansing of Tibetans in certain regions in the province he controlled and does not directly link it to "seven extermination expeditions into Golog". -- PBS (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Uradyn Erden Bulag called it genocidal, i listed their names, and the actions, respectively genocide and ethnic cleansing in the order of the authors who made the claims.Дунгане (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

COI reversion

I have reverted the most recent edits because the editor who added them is also the author of the works cited. I have reminded him again of Wikipedia's COI rules on his talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is ethnic cleansing categorized within euphemisms?

Why is ethnic cleansing included in the list of euphemisms?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a euphemism for mass-murder. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone provide RS for this claim within reasonable period of time, i.e. one week?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence/definition has a ref. That's completely sufficient. There is nothing "clean" about the so-called "cleansing." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide inline citation for the claim about euphemism.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Not needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is replete with implicit anti-Serbian sentiment

In a tradition well established in the English speaking world since the days of Yugoslav wars, a crime committed by Serbs is by rule called a "Serbian crime", whereas a crime committed by Croats, Albanians or Bosniaks is called simply "crime". The abbreviation "NDH" is used to avoid the mention of the Croatian fascist state during WWII, while no such abbreviations ("JNA", "SRJ") are ever used to avoid identification of those who committed crimes with the entire Serbian people.

This perpetuates negative stereotypes and therefore I have changed it; the days of propaganda ended many years ago and, at least we in the Balkans, see no relation between crime and ethnicity. There is no "Serbian ethnic cleansing".

The deletion of my changes, on the other hand, shows just how deliberate and deeply rooted this anti-Serbism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.104.30 (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have altered the wording slightly. I would say that a bigger concern than this would be the account of Operation Storm, which I have just changed. Anyone who reads on this will find that the idea that all the Serbs left Croatia voluntarily is a war-time lie, which parallels the enduring myth that most of the Arabs left Palestine voluntarily after the 1948 war. I suggest that we keep an eye on the Balkans section and ensure that it is balanced and not hijacked by partisans of either side. Epa101 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Pre-20th Century Examples are Ridiculous

Many of the pre-20th century examples are about Jewish events. I have two problems with this. One is that the term Ethnic Cleansing is really a 20th century term/phenomenon (but still ongoing). Ethnicity, Race, and even how we understand Religion is quite different then it was in the pre-modern world and so the term can't be applied to pre-20th century events in general. It wasn't like Ethnic Cleansing was always an Idea which humanity finally discovered in the 20th century. This isn't physics or math. It is an Idea that came from the sociological development of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Second, especially with the Jew examples. You can't ethnically cleanse people who are not apart of the land or have no right to it. If anything the Torah clearly records very brutal ethnic cleansing in the thousands and tens of thousands(for that time period an entire ethnic group or civilization) by the Jews. It also includes acts of genocide by the Jews. So if you are going to relate the so called "ethnic cleansing" of a few HUNDRED Jews in 13th century England then please list all the acts of "ethnic cleansing" by the Jews themselves.GegenIsrael (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There are only two of these examples that relate to the Jews and both have references from sources that use the phrase "ethnic cleansing", so they should be maintained. You can dispute that any of the examples in the article were "ethnic cleansing", but the criterion for their inclusion is their reference in a respectable source. As regards the Torah, it does describe ethnic cleansing and genocide, but many people would regard this is as myth rather than history. Do you really think that Joshua killed all those people? I think that such Biblical events are only included if there is secular evidence to support the claims in the religious texts. Epa101 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Couple things here. First I disagree still with their inclusion. But I am willing to debate it some more and perhaps find counter sources or find errors in the sources. Frankly, I don't think you addressed the issue which is that the term is a modern one which is improperly applied to the past. But more seriously, these "myths" you describe are held to be "real" events by billions of people. I am not one of them, but I would not quite so easily dismiss this. That is, I don't believe in their literal truth in the modern sense. Third, the example you use is to be polite, a little silly. It is historic fact that Israel during its migratory phase out of Egypt into the "promised" land did eliminate other ethic tribes and communities. The literal description in the Torah is most likely off by modern standards in terms of numbers but it attests to the 'event' which is the issue here. So for instance, I would include the massacres by the early Israelites but of course I would leave out a precise number of people massacred or give a general range which history can attest. But to talk about a few hundred Jews in England being Ethnically Cleansed in the 13th century is a joke and frankly is propaganda. If the 13th century England example is a proper example there are literally thousands of pages of examples that can be made by every ethnic group based on that number. Its inclusion if if acceptable overly stresses this group at the expense of others.GegenIsrael (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the Genocide in history article. It says, The Old Testament describes the genocides of Amalekites and Midianites.[8] Jones quotes Jerusalem-based Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon."[12] If you can find any sources that consider these Old Testament acts to have been "ethnic cleansing", then please add them. A quick search on Google has produced the article Ethnic Cleansing and the Bible: A Moral Critique, M Prior - Holy Land Studies. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 2002. I imagine that such sources exist. To be honest, I think that the modern section is the most questionable as it includes several small-scale events. The one about Blacks' being ethnically cleansed from New York as a result of drug laws seems very spurious to me. If that's the threshold for a reliable source, I don't think that you're going to have much trouble finding one for what Joshua allegedly did. Epa101 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

1940s Expulsion of Millions of Germans from Eastern Europe

I think that there are several important omissions in this article. In the 1940s there were over 10million Germans expelled from Eastern Europe, such as Eastern Prussia and Bohemia. This comprises the largest act of ethnic cleansing in the 20th Century. This is mentioned merely in the 'See also' section. Because of its severity it ought to be included in the main part of this page. I can provide further details and add this to the 1940s section. Werner (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Werner (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing in Chechnya

Displacement of more than 500,000 Chechen and ethnic Russian civilians living in Chechnya during the First Chechen War in 1994–1996

I guess we cann`t classify that as an ethnic cleansing. Because all-nation residents ran from the war. An ethic cleansing took place in relation to non-Chechens since 1991 year to 2005 (when almost all non-Chechens leaved Chechnya).Alligas (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

African Americans

143.236.34.52, regarding the ethnic cleansing of African Americans, which you are reverting, our inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. If you have another reason to remove the African American entries beyond "it's not true", please discuss it to the agreement of the other editors before reverting again. Also, please don't call other editors "black supremacists", it is a personal attack. Quigley (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is also WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, less we forget that just because something has a citation, does mean that it automatically is included in an article.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit-warring IP has a point. This is a highly inflammatory term and it should under no circumstances be used without a consensus in the sources and the scientific community. Events from the past 10 years should not even be in here. The article should not list every and any event some nut out there called "ethnic cleansing", the New York "subtle ethnic cleansing" really takes the cake. These sort of things may even be considered offensive to real ethnic cleansing victims. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a sensible inclusion criteria. Should there even be a large bulleted "Instances of ethnic cleansing" section at all, considering that most of the entries are claims that originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists, politicians, human rights and advocacy groups)? Quigley (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically you can write whatever you want as long as someone said it somewhere. That's why this is foolishnes. Verifiability not truth? Isn't it verifiability OF truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.236.34.52 (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WWII origins of the term

Also, I've come-up with some interesting information: in WWII Yugoslavia, the Chetnik movement was already referring to terror operations intended to remove populations from regions they considered Serbian, as "cleansing actions", which possibly constitutes the origins of the term. (To be sure, ethnic cleansing was committed by most sides of the WWII civil war in Yugoslavia.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that I also "come-up with some interesting information". Serbs obviously called their intentions "to remove populations from regions they considered Serbian" as "cleansing" actions much earlier. Look at the following explanation of Gorski Vijenac: „da čistimo zemlju od nekrsti“. Maybe we should seek the origins of the term "ethnic cleansing" in Gorski Vijenac (The mountain wreath) instead in "terror operations" of the Chetnik movement. I really find it very interesting. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I would find it difficult to associate the Gorski Vijenac with ethnic cleansing, and indeed, to call for war against the Ottoman Empire by saying "lets cleanse the land of the infidel" is a far cry from doing any actual ethnic cleansing.

On the other hand operations referred to by the Chetnik movement as "cleansing actions" were done with the purpose of expelling Bosnian Muslims, and succeeded in cleansing around 10,000 people by their own estimate (Tomasevich, pp.256-261). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When you look for the origin of the term, you have to look on written documents, not movements or operations. It is not movement or operation which is origin of the term, but the written word. Though, The mountain wreath is not only a poem. It describes actual events in Montenegro, on the Christmas eve at the beginning of 18th century, when thousands Muslims were killed because Orthodox Serbs had intention to clean their land from infidels („da čistimo zemlju od nekrsti“). That means that it was not only the written word, but testimony of what really happened.

Btw, do you know about similar testimony about events which happened at the end of 17th century when all muslims living in Slavonija, Lika, Dalmacija... suddenly disappeared together with all of their mosques, medressas, teqes, caravanserais...?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you can find sources which describe these events as "ethnic cleansing", and if the Vijenac uses that same term ("cleansing"), you would still have a problem with your proposal as the Vijenac calls for religious, not ethnic, prosecution.
• The Chetniks themselves referred to ethnic cleansing operations in 1943 as "cleansing actions", that may be worth mentioning in the article as this long pre-dates its modern use. The exact document, I assume, can be found in the primary sources listed by Tomasevich in his treatise of Chetnik terror, pp.256-261.

Chetnik units which had been mobilized in December 1942 in Montenegro and readied for the planned, but delayed, "March on Bosnia" were ordered early in January and again early in February to undertake what were known as "cleansing actions" against the Moslems, first in the county of Bijelo Polje in Sandžak and in February in the county of Čajniče and part of the county of Foča in southeastern Bosnia, and in part of the county of Pljevlja in Sandžak. Chetnik losses were nominal; Moslem losses were estimated at about 10,000 persons.
Tomasevich, pp.256-261

• I am unsure about the 17th century events, but one certainly expects that Turkish mosques would be demolished by the Habsburg Monarchy in the territories liberated from Ottoman rule after the Great Turkish War. If you can show that the events are known as ethnic cleansing (as opposed to religious prosecution), feel free to include them.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Acadian deportation edit. (Edit protected)

Just a minor edit that I feel should be included. It isn't involved in the ongoing dispute, which I seem to see revolves around 1200's expulsion of jews from england. If I am wrong, and this edit is part of the section that is disputed, please disregard this post and leave me a message on my talk page. Acebulf (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This part : * The forced expulsion of the Acadians in 1755, from settlements in Nova Scotia, and the subsequent deaths of over 50% of the deported population, has been described by many scholars as being an act of ethnic cleansing following the French and Indian Wars. <ref>http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/liberalstudies/abstracts/documents/Abstract_Stevenson_Apr09.pdf-The 1755 Ethnic Cleansing of Acadia; Who Was Responsible?</ref>

Should be replaced by a linked version : * The [[Expulsion of the Acadians|forced expulsion of the Acadians]] in [[1755]], from settlements in [[Nova Scotia]], and the subsequent deaths of over 50% of the deported population, has been described by many scholars as being an act of ethnic cleansing following the [[French and Indian War]]s. <ref>http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/liberalstudies/abstracts/documents/Abstract_Stevenson_Apr09.pdf-The 1755 Ethnic Cleansing of Acadia; Who Was Responsible?</ref>

Just adding inter-wiki links. Acebulf (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done (though I didn't add the year, per WP:OVERLINK). Ucucha (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Armenians and Azerbaijanis

During the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of Armenians were pushed out of Azerbaijan - from Baku, Sumgait, Shahumyan and Nakhichevan. Likewise hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were pushed out of Karabakh and Armenia. We all know this and the article should reflect it. However, there are five mentions of the Azeri issue. Two in the 1990s alone. For the most part the texts refer to very broad numbers and periods of times that do not fit the periods spoken of, nor do the references necessary match the period or the broadness even. It's repetitive, and a poor attempt to make Armenians look like they alone have deported millions of Azeris alone. If you want to document the deportations, be my guest, but do it honestly, and let the information in each decade match the time period. I rewrote texts in the Karintak article and added references based on your comments - even though my information was quite solid and fitting in place. This text is sloppy and transparent propaganda and cannot stay as is. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody says "Armenias alone" deported anyone. If you think it is what it is, add the text and it will be reviewed but to completely remove sourced sections is not warranted. You do that one more time, you will be reported. Tuscumbia (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anyone said that. And I have made my arguments for the reason the texts specifically do not speak to the sections under which they are listed, and do not belong to them. You can ignore that and report me rather than address the problem. --RaffiKojian (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Its is not the first time you have been edit warring on controversial issues. Nor is it the first time that I have asked you to stop and you have neglected to do so. The fact of the matter is the deportations are from different times and are considered different events. Your removal of well sourced information is ill-advised. Neftchi (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You removed my text additions at will and without any discussion, even as I addressed issues you raised which I did not find very valid. Meanwhile you are defending repetitive and ill-placed texts and complaining that I am removing them. I'd rather work together on WP, but I can't work together by myself. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

20th century is a very broad term, it pretty much covers all the ethnic cleasings in this articles, therefore there would be no need for seperate timelines. However there are seperate timelines and since early 20th century, and WW2 and Karabakh deportations are all seperate cases they should all be seperately pointed out. In my latest edit I restored the 1947-1950 deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia SSR. And I also restored proper information with sources on the number of displaced people and refugees in Karabakh. Neftchi (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with information belonging to a specific decade being presented there. I do have a problem with the numbers for the entire century being placed under multiple decades, or even twice in a decade. The text is now much improved. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Earlier draft

I got curious about this topic after seeing a similar topic mentioned in one of the signposts.

If you say "earlier draft", then earlier than what? What is the commission that created the draft? All of this is in the lead. Nothing has been said that would tell us who or what is going on.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Highland Clearances

Were the Highland Clearances ethnic cleansing? AndrewJFulker (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Was just going to raise this. Yes they were. They should be referenced, and mentioned in this article.

Event as below http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_clearances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.235.65 (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The clearances had a purely economic purpose, and were the removal of Scots by other Scots. I don't see how this could be called ethnic cleansing.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands

This artice: "Between 800,000–1,000,000 Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab World"

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands: "800,000–1,000,000 Jews left, fled, or were expelled from their homes in Arab countries."

The bullet point overall doesn't mention "pull" factors of going to Israel, which I feel are needed at the least.

Possibly remove entirely because there isn't a single mention of "cleansing" in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands article.

Not going to touch anything about Israel Palestine without some agreement first. Glen newell (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "cleansing" is not essential. The article states that Iraqi and Egyptian Jews were expelled, and Algerian and Libyan Jews were deprived of citizenship. That can amount to ethnic cleansing. I don't think that the entry should be deleted. However, there is a problem with the numbers and I would favour pulling all numbers from this section. There is no way of knowing how many Jews migrated to Israel by their own free will and how many were forced to move there. No statistic is better than a bad statistic. Epa101 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the entry should be deleted. But I do note that the entry on the Palestinian exodus is preceded by "Although controversial and disputed among scholars...". I'm not sure what is controversial? That Palestinians were (in some cases) expelled, or that their expulsion constituted ethnic cleansing? And who disputes it? And who supports it?

Are claims of the Jewish exodus being ethnic cleansing also debated? VR _talk 18:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel the Jewish Exodus should be considered to be an example of Ethnic Cleansing. There is plenty of documented evidence that Jewish groups in Mandate Palestine actively promoted migration of Jews from other lands to Palestine, in order to strengthen the justification for a Jewish State. There may have been sparodic expulsion, but in general it stands to reason that many Jews may have seen Israel as a desireable place to move to. I dont think the migration of people in itself has any relevance to ethnic cleansing. There needs to be a ubiquitous push factor, together with evidence of the people responsible for the "pushing" systematically destroying the culture and history they left behind. (Patwinkle (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC))

question about 2005 Israel example

I'm a little confused as to how that fits here: perhaps it needs more explanation. The entry notes at start that ethnic cleansing is "designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas." If Israel is removing Israelis, that would seem to be an example of a group removing the same group, not a different one. (Perhaps this is an example of a different sort of government imposition on its subjects that might fit better under a different topic?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.147.0 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Eurocentric

The examples of ethnic cleansing are almost y Eurocentric. What about the rest of the world? I was just now reading the article on Sea Dayaks, which referenced their ethnic cleansing. The Huns were particularly good at wipin whole countries clean of people - as was Shaka. There must be a lot more examples which need to be added to create some balance.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

israeli ethnic cleansing

i believe this is a form of ethnic cleansing by the israeli government on the ethiopians by forcing them to take birth control pills..it should be added source [1] Baboon43 (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Levounion 1091 not copyright violation and (Manzikert- Anatolia was not ethnic cleansing)

Pechenegs had been driven out of their homeland by the Cumans and settled in Northern Bulgaria since some years, they raided and invaded Byzantine Thrace with their families and intended to settle at the Maritza river,[1]

But at the Battle of Levounion 1091 the Pechenegs were attacked by a combined army of Byzantines with Cuman mercenaries, the Pechenegs were almost totally killed, soldiers and civilians, this battled nearly annihilated the Pecheneg people. Later the survivors were massacred in the Battle of Beroia. (This is clearly ethnic cleansing, even if they were a newly migrated people to the Balkans.)

I added: At the Battle of Levounion (1091), the Pecheneg, a nomadic Turkic people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, were nearly wiped out by the sedentary Byzantine Greeks and nomadic Cumans.

Original sentence was: The Pechenegs, nomadic Turkic people from the steppe, were nearly annihilated at the Battle of Levounion by a combined Byzantine and Cuman army in 1091.

I changed this into : At the Battle of Levounion (1091), the Pecheneg, a nomadic Turkic people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, were nearly wiped out by the sedentary Byzantine Greeks and nomadic Cumans.

OK with the CV, but you need to find a source that terms it as ethnic cleansing. As far I see the specific source uses only in Mazikert this term. In general a military defeat is something different. Also is there a reason you remove the mention that the Cumans were Turkic? Guess no.Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. Are we going to claim that every time there was a battle and the winners killed all of the losers it was ethnic cleansing? The Romans are going to fill hundreds of Kb all by themselves. See e.g. Battle of Carthage (c. 149 BC). It wasn't ethnic cleansing, the Romans just really really hated the Carthaginians. It's quite possible for an entire people to be eliminated and it not be ethnic cleansing. The specific intent is necessary, and we are not in the business of inferring the intent of people acting a millenium ago. We leave inference of intent to professionals. There must be secondary sources that state that the Pecheneg were ethnically cleansed.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It is ethnic cleansing when large civilian populations are killed because of their ethnic group/religion. Ethnic cleansing is a modern term but it happened throughout the history, are we going to ignore all that? Some actions of Romans can be ethnic cleansing, for example Gallic Wars. The source clearly states that the Pecheneg people were nearly wiped out during a single ambush, this deliberately killing civilians which was later repeated again shows that the Byzantines were determined in wiping out the Pecheneg and it was not some incident, they could have well spared the people. So the systematic destruction of a ethnic group fits the criteria. This source states: "A whole people, not numbered in tens of thousands, but in countless multitudes, with their women and children was utterly wiped out on that day". [2]DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Manzikert Anatolia

This was added from the same book: After the Battle of Manzikert (1071), Greek populations of Anatolia were ethnically cleansed by nomadic Seljuk Turks

But the original sentence in the book was:[1] The ethnic cleansing of sedentary Greek population of Anatolia by nomadic Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071.

If Levounion is copyright violation than this is also.

The idea that Seljuk Turks ethnically cleansed Anatolia is not true, Anatolian Greek populations survived till 1922, the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey.

Claiming Seljuks ethnically cleansed Anatolia is historically incorrect,[1] it had a multicultural population, besides Seljuks had a sedentary state Seljuk Empire, besides this claim was based upon one source, which was added by cherry picking and snippet abuse. So this must be removed because of factual inaccuracy.DragonTiger23 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is quite clear that it was termed "ethnic cleaning". Unfortunately the argument you provide has nothing to to with that. In fact the Turkic tribes didn't wiped out all the Greek population of Anatolia. This was a slow proccedure completed in 20th century, but "Greek sedentary communities in the Anatolian heartland (not all of them but off course a major part) were ethnically cleansed by nomadic tribes" and that quite simple. To be more precise, during the Battle of Manzikert large scale massacres and deportations occurred in the region (Caesarea, Sivas etc.)Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is actually only one sentence and should not be misused by non neutral pov pushers.Do you have sources and examples for ethnic cleansing except for the vague sentence in the cherry-picked snippet abuse sentence? It does not seem that the Greek population was ethnically cleansed at all, they were in Anatolia 900 years later, till the Greek army invasion in 1919, after the ethnic cleansing of local Turks by the Greek army most fled to Greece, the remaining were exchanged for Muslims of Greece. In 1928 1,2 million Greek refugees lived in Greece, 0,1 in Turkey, 0,1 migrated to other areas. According to Ottoman sources Greek population before the war in Ottoman Empire was 1,7 million in 1914.DragonTiger23 (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Seljuks had a plan or actually did ethnically cleanse the Greeks. Civilian casualties of wars and sieges are not ethnically cleansing when they were not done to change the demography of a region. According to medieval sources Greeks still lived in Central Anatolia during Seljuk rule, Greeks were till 1922 present in large numbers both in Cappadocia and Sivas. But however during the later centuries many converted to Islam and assimilated as Turks, still this is not a case of ethnic cleansing but of religious/cultural assimilation.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Entire regions in the Anatolian heartland hadn't Greek populations at all after these events. For example, it's reported by another academic source, that from the beginning of the 13th century there were no Greeks in most of Galatia, Phrygia, i.e. the Anatolian heartland. Off course the Greek population of Cappadocia was less than 5% of the total population, i.e. ethnic cleansing doesn't mean wiping out an entire community, even leaving a tiny percentage, it's still termed 'ethnic cleansing'. About the 1,7 million of Anatolian Greeks, off course the vast majority came from the Anatolian coast, as all availble censuses and estimates show.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The source does not state that Seljuks had a policy of ethnic cleansing Greeks, according to all history books Seljuks and the other Turkic dynasties of Anatolia actually gave Greeks and other Non Muslims freedom of religion and they continued to live in Anatolia till the 20th century. Of course because of the wars/sieges there was depopulation in some regions, this could also be cultural assimilation, but these were exceptions not the rule. The areas the source mentions are a small part of Northern Anatolia which were probably already not densely populated, there is not much data. The source states that the Greeks continued to live and may have formed the majority of the urban center's of Seljuk Anatolia and densely lived in the southern Central Anatolia, Cappadocia region, these were the hearth regions of the Seljuk sultanate. Furthermore the source states Greeks played an important role in the Sultanate this and the continued Greek presence in Seljuk hearth lands proves that there was no policy of ethnic cleansing. The areas where Greeks mostly disappeared are actually some borderlands between the Byzantine and Seljuks, places where there was always low scale warfare and where the Sultanate did not exercise much control, the depopulation does not seem to occur because of planned ethnic cleansing but because of results of war.

• The source is talking about the first half of the 13th century, 130 years later than the battle of Manzikert, there is no clear relationship between the two.
• The source nowhere mentions that the Seljuk Turks had a plan to ethnic cleanse Anatolia or did such a thing.
• Entire regions is a clear exaggerations, the source mentions only some small areas, mostly border regions, where Greeks mostly disappeared, such as most of northern Galatia, Phrygia, southern Paphlagonia and some inland areas adjacent to the Pontus, it also gives the possibility that some of them may have settled in Central Anatolia (Seljuk region).
• Source states Greeks were numerous in (Seljuk) city centres and rural areas in Lycaonia, Cappadocia, Pamphylia (all are hearthlands of Seljuks).
• In the 19th century Cappadocia, the most inland region of Anatolia was still 20% Greek and contained numerous Greek villages dispersed in the landscape with Muslim villages, almost all inhabitants spoke Turkish including the Christians. The centuries long Turkic rule resulted in religious and language assimilation instead of forcefully ethnic cleansing in 1071.

So the conclusion is that the Seljuk Turkic conquest did not result in the ethnic cleansing of the Greek people in 1071 but instead the Greek gradually assimilated in the later centuries in language and religious.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are confusing ethnic cleansing with the term genocide. The latter involves the complete anihilation using completely violent initiatives. On the other hand "ethnic cleansing" includes a variety of measures (massacres, various ways of persecution, prohition of speech, religion, forcefull conversions, deportations, resettlements etc).

20% Greeks in Cappadocia? I admit that's an interesting peace of info and I'm waiting something to support it. The censuses show that the Greek population was no higher than 13% in any region of the Anatolian heartland (Cappadocia/Kaysery district too).Alexikoua (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring your own source [1] it supports the fact that Seljuks did not ethnically cleanse Anatolia there is no mention of any of these measures. Greeks were numerous in the Seljuk heartland and cities. The source mentions only a small part of Anatolia, the Greeks there seem to have disappeared due to insecurity of border warfare not ethnic cleansing. This was the exception not the rule.

I gave a round figure of 20% in Cappadocia, the percentage varied according to districts. Besides the low amount of Greeks in the total population in central Anatolia are not proof of ethnic cleansing. This is your WP:OR. Local population could have decreased in percentage due to the influx of another people, through death due to diseases, voluntarily migration or there could have been language/ cultural assimilation. The last one seems to be the most relevant in the case of the Greeks of Central Anatolia. Turkic tribes settled in the area and after 900 years, most of the Greeks assimilated. Christians spoke mostly Turkish in Central Anatolia this is documented since the 15th century till 20th century. It is interesting that you do not seem to be aware of the disappearance of non Greeks in Greece since 1821.DragonTiger23 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The source:[1] for (Ethnic cleansing in Anatolia) is not reliable see Talk:List of massacres in Turkey.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical examples

One must be careful with adding examples from good old times. It was not uncommon in the golden ages of human civilization for an invader or ruler to raze the whole cities. But this was usually done not for being of such and such ethnicity, but for refusal to subdue.

Therefore any old examples, no matter how they seem to be "e-cleansing" today ("Carthage must be destroyed"), must be supplied with references which clearly define them as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The examples sections in this article provide a POV forum for people who have an historical axe to grind - probably because whatever ethnicity/country they hail from was slighted in the past. I agree with you. In fact I would scrap examples from a time before the term was used altogether. There doesn't seem much point harping on about "ethnic cleansing" when the events in question would have been considered standard practice at the time they took place. 1812ahill (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My edits of intro

Noticing this article tagged I decided to do some cleanup of the intro, since it looks like it chaotically accumulated edits by multiple editors who just added some content without carefully integrating it into a smooth flow.

Recalling that an intro must be a summary of the whole article, I tried to declutter it as follows:

• (a) streamlined the clumsy first sentence
• (b) removed repetitions and moved some official definitions elsewhere (we really don't need three similar definitions in the intro, but they do make sense in the article body, to show the evolution of the concept and the official positions)
• (c) While some may think it to be hair splitting, IMO "cleansing vs genocide" deserves a separate section. Now that I separated it, you see it is also both repetitive and a bit underdeveloped, and I hope someone else improves it.

I am sure mine is not the best solution, but I hope it is a step in right direction. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

The use of the word" disputed" or "some historians argue" is not fair and balance because almost all examples given are disputed among historians if you consider all historian as credible. for the parts about the Arab Israeli conflict i cannot think of any respected historian even among Israeli and Jewish ones that disputes the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Palestine, You can reffer to the articles about the arab israeli conflict in wikipedia itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaid almasri (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in that if there is dispute among the historians then sources need to be added which support both sides of the dispute and this is not done in that section. However, moving the sentence Although controversial and disputed among scholars from the Palestinian sentence to the Jewish sentence without providing sources of dispute shows that you are not interested in a WP:NPOV but are on Wikipedia pushing a partisan POV. If you can provide FOUR (4) independent sources disputing either of the claims then you would have accomplished your claim of being fair and balanced. Alatari (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with you and i knew that someone like you were going to edit it within hours but i did it any way to prove a point and provoke a discussion and as a reminder of WP:NPOV.

• Regarding the independent sources disputing the ethnic cleansing of jews from arab countries:

1-Iraqi-born Ran Cohen, a former member of the Knesset, said: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee". Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations." And Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: "I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists." - Yehouda Shenhav The Arab Jews: A Postcolonial Reading of Nationalism, Religion, and Ethnicity

2-Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, speaking of the wave of Iraqi Jewish migration to Israel, concludes that, even though Iraqi Jews were "victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict", Iraqi Jews aren't refugees, saying that "nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted." -No peaceful solution Haaretz August 11, 2005. - He restated that case in a review of Martin Gilbert's book, In Ishmael’s House.[156]

3-Reactions to the government's attempt to classify Jews from Arab countries as refugees show an ignorance of the actual history. It's time that history is studied seriously and a voice given to those who experienced it. -Esther Meir-Glitzenstein

4-Whereas in Nasser’s Egypt, Jews and other minorities were expelled or encouraged to leave in 1956-57 and subsequently as part of the national homogeneity campaign, Moroccan politicians frequently spoke of national heterogeneity, even though Moroccan Jewry was often portrayed in the local press as being disloyal and was becoming isolated from Moroccan society on various levels. The Jews were prevented from choosing the emigration alternative until 1961, because Moroccan authorities expected them to participate in nation-building, to invest their capital in Morocco and not in Israel.” -Laskier, Michel M., “Jewish Emigration from Morocco to Israel: Government Policies and the Position of International Jewish Organization, 1949-56.” Middle Eastern Studies 25:3, July 1989, 323-362.

• Regarding the independent sources for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians:

1-“On October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population...There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion [the first Prime Minister of Israel]” — Israeli Historian Benny Morris, in Ha’aretz

2-In a 1977 interview with Michael Bar-Zohar, Rabin(Israeli commander during the 1948 war and later the prime minister of israel) said Allon asked what was to be done with the residents; in response, Ben-Gurion had waved his hand and said, "garesh otam"—"expel them." In his memoirs Rabin wrote: "'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion." An Israeli censorship board removed this section from his manuscript, but Peretz Kidron, the Israeli journalist who translated the memoirs into English, passed the censored text to David Shipler of The New York Times, who published it on 23 October 1979.

3-Nathan Krystall writes: "As a precursor to its attack on Qatamon, the Zionist forces subjected the neighborhood to weeks of heavy artillery shelling. On 22 April, the Arab National Committee of Jerusalem ordered its local branches to relocate all women, children, and elderly people from the neighborhood.

4-In Flapan's opinion, "in Lydda, the exodus took place on foot. In Ramlah, the IDF provided buses and trucks. Originally, all males had been rounded up and enclosed in a compound, but after some shooting was heard, and construed by Ben-Gurion to be the beginning of an Arab Legion counteroffensive, he stopped the arrests and ordered the speedy eviction of all the Arabs, including women, children, and the elderly" - Oren, Elhanan (1976): On the Way to the City. Hebrew, Tel Aviv.

You can check the writings of Morris Gabbay, Peretz, rabin, Shlomo Sand, flapan, Erskine Childers, Norman Finkelstein, Anita Shapira, Avi shlaim and other israeli and jewish historians and of course all Palestinian and most western historians.

You see the Palestinian exodus didn’t happen a thousand year ago it only happened less than 70 years ago and i met with Palestinian refugees who lived and witnessed the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian by the Jewish forces including my own family.

Does the united nation resolution referring to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the massacres like Deir Yassin count as an independent source....of course Zaid almasri (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitions

While I disagree with Martin Shaw's definition of genocide, and hence his conclusions about ethnic cleansing; on page 50 of his book there is a useful academic review of definitions that might help improve the definitions section.

• Shaw, Martin (2013). What is Genocide. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780745674667.

-- PBS (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Jews from Arab countries

Between the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six Day War in 1967, there was a Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands. Many Jews living in Arab and Muslim nations were forcibly expelled by authorities, while others fled due to persecutions or pogroms which broke out during the conflicts. Between 800,000–1,000,000 Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab world, and another 200,000 Jews from non-Arab Muslim nations fled due to increasing insecurity and growing hostility. Most migrated to Israel, where today, they and their descendants constitute about 40% of Israel's population.

I have moved the above text to talk, for wider discussion. The only references I can find suggesting this was "ethnic cleaning" are: (a) from a 2003 resolution submitted to the US congress by AIPAC member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. To my mind, AIPAC do not qualify as WP:RS, and therefore this does not qualify for this article, and (b) from Irwin Cotler (his is the reference in the JPost article above), who is (or was) a board member of advocacy organization JJAC, which to my mind makes him non-RS on this topic

In addition, the key sentence above is factually incorrect. Where it states: "Many Jews living in Arab and Muslim nations were forcibly expelled by authorities", actually the only known expellees were British and French Jews in Egypt post the Suez Crisis, together with 500 stateless Jews.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that's factually incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Egyptian_Jews_(1956)

Within a short time an official decree called many Egyptian Jews to leave, with their citizenship abolished. The decree was relevant to most of Egyptian Jews, especially those with free professions and relatives in Israel, suspected as Zionist agents. Thousands of Jews were then ordered to leave the country.[7] They were allowed to take only one suitcase and a small sum of cash, and forced to sign declarations “donating“ their property to the Egyptian government.[1]

Foreign observers reported that members of Jewish families were taken hostage, apparently to insure that those forced to leave did not speak out against the Egyptian government. Some 25,000 Jews, almost half of the Jewish community in Egypt left, mainly for Israel, Europe, the United States and South America, after being forced to sign declarations that they were leaving voluntarily and agreed with the confiscation of their assets. Similar measures were enacted against British and French nationals in retaliation for the invasion. By 1957 the Jewish population of Egypt had fallen to 15,000.[1]Knightmare72589 (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, what you posted is factually incorrect. See Talk:Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956). Oncenawhile (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to say. You have provided no sources to refute those currently listed. Your opinion of the authors is irrelevant.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I have challenged the sources in the text which support the description "ethnic cleansing" as they are not WP:RS. Are you disputing this? If so, let's take it to WP:RSN. Please be specific as to which sources you believe are WP:RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, to give some wider context here, I recommend reading footnote 6 above (see the "shamefully cynical" quote), as well as the article One Million Plan which is what Ran HaCohen is referring to. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And one other point - Nasser's post-Suez Criss expulsion of the Mutamassirun is already covered in this article, a few bullets below (see reference to Greeks in Egypt). The foreign-national Jewish community could be added here. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This article from The Middle East Quarterly argues that Iraq was preparing "a full-fledged expulsion plan", Yemen "provides the clearest example of Jews' being persecuted and expelled for reasons having to do with Islamic law", "internal policy appears to be the reason both for the Jews' expulsion and for later rhetoric inviting them back" to Libya, ect.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:TheTimesAreAChanging, that article is also definitely non-RS, and is probably the propagandistic root of the claim here. See a thorough explanation at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Iraq:_Nuri_and_Kirkbride.2C_and_Ya.27akov_Meron. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My answer is still RSN or find a different source, although I'm not interested in reverting you again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:TheTimesAreAChanging, I have no idea what more I can do on your "find a different source" suggestion, so let's go down the WP:RSN route.

There are only two sources above which claim this event was ethnic cleansing:

(1) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, an AIPAC member, and

(2) Irwin Cotler, who is (or was) a board member of advocacy organisation JJAC

Which if any of these do you think is an WP:RS for this event being ethnic cleansing, and therefore I should bring up at WP:RSN?

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is extremely unlikely that the two of you are going to agree on whether the the sources are reliable, you need to get more people in involved to build a consensus. If you have drilled down to this dispute being simply a case of disagreement whether sources are reliable then the obvious port of call is the reliable sources notice board (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) -- even if there are other issues RSN is a good place to sort out this initial issue. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree, and WP:RSN generally functions very well. Before I take it there we just need TheTimesAreAChanging to confirm agreement with my summary of the dispute. Ideally they would also clarify their counterarguments, since none have been presented as yet. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You have personally been criticizing sources based on your own original research and their political affiliations, without presenting sources that directly criticize those scholars or their views.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that they are politicians who are not qualified to pass judgement on this topic as if they were historical scholars. At Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Further_reading you will find around 50 scholarly sources on the broad topic. None of these claim or suggest ethnic cleansing as far as I have read (I have read many but not all of them). And if you read the history of the region carefully, there are no events or other facts which suggest that a Jewish exodus was a policy of the host governments in the region. It was a policy of one of the destination governments though (see One Million Plan), but that is not what the text above is suggesting.

It is not always possible to find sources which state "the sky is not red" - i.e. to disprove a claim which itself has no basis.

However, we are lucky enough to have [3] and [4], which explain clearly the political PR campaign on this topic launched by JJAC in 2002, and mention both Irwin Cotler's statements and Ros-Lehtinen's congress bills specifically in this context. Fischbach describes the campaign as "a tactic to help the Israeli government deflect Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal."

User:TheTimesAreAChanging, please confirm that in this context, whether you still believe any of the sources supporting the text above are WP:RS, and if so, specifically which ones and why.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My default position is usually to assume that any sources are better than no sources. While the label of ethnic cleansing is inherently politicized, the evidence is clear that the Middle Eastern Jews did not flee in a monolithic bloc, but at differing times due to specific anti-Jewish legislation and acts of violence in their respective countries. Israel certainly wanted Jews to immigrate, but its worth noting that their prime targets were those Jews believed to be in "immediate danger".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile, TheTimesAreAChanging 24 hours have passed so I have initiated a conversation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ethnic cleansing. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, I agree with your summary except for "due to specific anti-Jewish legislation and acts of violence in their respective countries". In making that statement you have simply bought into the propaganda surrounding this. There was anti-Jewish violence at the time, but many examples were thought to have been agitated by Zionist agents whose job it was to encourage emigration (e.g. here and here). I am not aware of any "specific anti-Jewish legislation", although there was anti-Zionist legislation. Key reasons for the exodus include (1) decolonisation of the Maghreb, where the colonisers had previously allied themselves to the Jewish community for more than two generations [more than two-thirds of the exodus was in the Maghreb]; (2) a bombing campaign in Iraq which many believe was carried out by agents aiming to fulfil the One Million Plan; (3) economic and messianic reasons in Yemen; and (4) the fallout from the Suez Crisis in Egypt.

Excluding these factors from your explanation paints an inaccurate and misleading impression, which is exactly what the PR campaign tried to do. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi TheTimesAreAChanging, per the above and the WP:RSN which appears to be petering out, I propose to revert your edit from 6 August. Please could you let us know if you object to that? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think you belong to the "there-are-Zionists-in-my-oatmeal" crowd, but I already said that I would not revert you again. TFD is doubtless correct in his criteria.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. FWIW I don't understand your oatmeal analogy, but if it relates to this, well then I still don't understand. Anyway, I have read dozens of WP:RS books on this topic; if any one of them had claimed that this was ethnic cleansing then we would have had a different discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it very wrong not to include them in the article? Much more Palestinians remained in Israel than Jews remained in the whole Arab and Muslim world combined, and yet the Palestinians are mentioned here. Libya had more than 50,000 Jews, today 0! And it's just one example, the numbers speak for themselves. To claim they all left because of economy or the search for better countries and not because of persecution is ridiculous. They should be added back to the article, but with "the reasons are disputed among scholars". Yuvn86 (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You can see the reasons at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. None of them include a proposed "systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history".

The reasons for the exodus are diverse and varied, but the "disputes among scholars" on the topic do not relate to whether there was any ethnic cleansing of Jews from these countries.

I suggest you read the One Million Plan, and if you do a little research on the relevant countries, you'll see that most governments tried to keep their Jewish populations in, in order to ensure Israel would not be strengthened by their manpower and capital - not the other way round. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

see List of ethnic cleansings

I put up a merge tag here two months ago, but no response. I have gone back to look at the history: the problem arose three years ago when User:Yerevantsi moved the list to a separate article [5], but then User:Alatari reverted here but without deleting the new fork in this edit [6]. So for three years we have had two parallel lists.

In those three years, this article has had 465 edits, whereas the list article has had 78 edits.

Does anyone object to merging the list article in here? It should be relatively simple. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

For a time I used to edit this article a lot, but gave up because it was a time sink. The problem is was that the list tends to attract a lot of editors inserting something because they think it meets the definition rather than realising that all these types of lists need to be in the form that

"so and so sates that these events were ethnic cleansing, [but so and so has disputed this interpretation]."

Other lists that have suffer from similar problems are genocides in history and List of events named massacres". It was a considerable number of years ago that the list in the Genocide article was moved out into genocides in history. Genocides in history has remained the quagmire it has always been, but since its removal the Genocide article has remained a much better quality article with far less POV pushing. Therefore I suggest that the current list here is moved out rather than a merger because of the positive affect a similar split has had on the Genocide article.

I would also suggest that an RfC is held on List of ethnic cleansings to propose that a box similar to that at the top of talk:List of events named massacres is added to the talk page explaining that additions to the list must contain several reliable sources stating that the events are examples of ethnic cleansing according to in-text attribution, to try to reduce the endless addition by well meaning editors (and some less so) who do not realise that because it quacks like a duck it is not a duck unless a reliable sources says it is.-- PBS (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi PBS, I agree with your proposal - i.e. we pull out the list here and merge it with the existing article List of ethnic cleansings.

And I agree re the inclusion criteria from talk:List of events named massacres - a similar version is in use at Pogrom#List_of_events.

Frankly we could try to achieve an agreed structure and consistent inclusion criteria across all "forms of collective violence against civilians" in wikipedia, if that's not too ambitious. For example, in addition to massacres, pogroms, genocides and ethnic cleanings, we could add terrorism and riots.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, considering the size and depth of both articles I think it is more constructive and useful to keep the primary and list article separate. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tanbircdq, are you saying the article and list should be split? PBS and both saying that as well. So I think you mean you agree? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am saying I disagree with merging the two articles into one, so yes I agree with them and disagree with the merge request. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks  Done. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have done my best to merge these lists into the separate list article carefully and thoroughly, so if anyone has time to check I would be grateful. Thanks. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of ethnic cleansings: Inclusion criteria

See Talk:List of ethnic cleansings#Inclusion criteria in this list for event considered to be ethnic cleansing -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

add economic unit and/or labour functionality

Those require adding in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Croatia used as the prime example of ethnic cleansing?

It seems who ever wrote this wiki entry has an ax to grind with Croats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:CC:8000:196:7549:9943:6944:ED5A (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing.

Removed particular adjective wording that have nothing to do with ethnic cleansing. The germans did not do so because the jew was not german, but because the german was german. In africa, case somalia, the somalian did not do so because the other african was a lighter tint of dark, but because they themselves where another shade of brown.

Ethnic cleansing has nothing to do with another´s colour, race, or theological aspects, but with the primaries colour race or theological aspects. IE: You are not of their group, therefore you can be mobbed, robbed, or harashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence and missing picture caption

(1) This incomplete sentence needs to be edited "During World War II, Mile Budak ."

(2) The photo caption "1941" is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.80.179 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Dead links

The external link to "Genocide of The Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia 1944–1948" is now dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowprophet (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Ethnic cleansing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141020172041/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140723182121/http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=54&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=1448788&skin=hudoc-en to http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=54&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=1448788&skin=hudoc-en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716184230/http://www.un.org/icty/brdjanin/trialc/judgement/index.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/brdjanin/trialc/judgement/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140816072223/http://www.un.org/icty/kordic/trialc/judgement/index.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/kordic/trialc/judgement/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121017124026/http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2004/p860-e.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2004/p860-e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141010175525/http://www.un.org/icty/kordic/trialc/judgement/kor-tj010226e-5.htm to http://www.un.org/icty/kordic/trialc/judgement/kor-tj010226e-5.htm#IVC3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705180121/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol15/No5/9.pdf to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol15/No5/9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121030214344/http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm to http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927233818/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art4-01.html to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art4-01.html

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography/References

The section Bibliography/References, has nothing to do with the article. It is pure propaganda...--Point by point (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ethnic cleansing. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040203190219/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing. 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/20121030214344/http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm to http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pundits

I just wanted to know why isn't the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits living in the kashmir valley not included in the 'Genocide sidebar'? Kartikaykaul13 (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ethnic cleansing. 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/20040203190219/http://www.foreignaffairs.org:80/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19930601faessay5199/andrew-bell-fialkoff/a-brief-history-of-ethnic-cleansing.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705180121/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol15/No5/9.pdf to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol15/No5/9.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030214344/http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm to http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927233818/http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art4-01.html to http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol5/No3/art4-01.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) 17:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

I have removed the following from the article

Extended content

The crimes committed during an ethnic cleansing are those of genocides and mass atrocity crimes. Genocide includes an intent at complete or partial destruction of the target group and ethnic cleansing is a term that describes the beginning process of genocide. It is also used to describe mass atrocity crimes that might involve mass murder, deportation, and the targeting and removal of groups from a territory without the major intent seen in genocide. Hence there may be varied degrees of mass murder in an ethnic cleansing, often subsiding when the target group appears to be leaving the desired territory, while during genocide the mass murder is ubiquitous and constant throughout the process, continuing even while the target group tries to flee. While mass atrocity crimes and genocide carry legal ramifications in the UN conventions, ethnic cleansing has become a term through both continued media use and new academic discourse to describe actions from both definitions. It carries no legal ramifications as a term, but the use of it has become associated with genocide so much that using ethnic cleansing in place of genocide is a way to avoid censorship or consequences. References

The paragraph above is an essay and not supported by the two citations in the paragraph. The paragraph that is still in the article that starts "Academic discourse considers both genocide and ethnic cleansing to exist in a spectrum..." is far better written and more succinct. -- PBS (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The text quoted from the 2007 judgement by the European Court of Human Rights quoting from the ICJ case is already included in the article and explains the difference far better than the paragraph above which I removed:

Extended content

The term 'ethnic cleansing' has frequently been employed to refer to the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are the subject of this case ... [UN] General Assembly resolution 47/121 referred in its Preamble to 'the abhorrent policy of 'ethnic cleansing', which is a form of genocide', as being carried on in Bosnia and Herzegovina. ... It [i.e. ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area "ethnically homogeneous", nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is "to destroy, in whole or in part" a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, August 2, 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. — ECHR quoting the ICJ. References

If anything else is be added to the article on the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocude then it ought to be additional complementary information to that in the ECHR judgement. -- PBS (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Precedent

I'm pretty sure this sentence is wrong:

Timothy V. Waters argues that if similar circumstances arise in the future, this precedent would allow the ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.[21]

In a legal context, a precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. No such precedent has been established wrt the Sudeten Germans. Waters himself doesn't make that claim in the article so it must have been inserted by a Wikipedian unaware of the exact meaning of the word "precedent."

Also from reading the article, it appears more incorrect to say that Waters' investigation of the Sudeten question reveals that it "COULD allow the ethnic cleansing ... " rather than "WOULD allow:" ImTheIP (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not about to read enough of it to know whether we're accurately summarizing his argument, but I would note that (1) we provide no context as to who the author is or why his argument is credible or noteworthy, and (2) the pdf file linked in the citation bears the phrase "AUTHOR INFORMATION DELETED". If I were you, I'd just remove the sentence. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Start with the simplest question. Who is Timothy V. Waters. I suspect that the V. is a typo (in the source) and that he is Timothy W. Waters. [7] see

Timothy William Waters, CV (resume) Professor of Law at Mayrer School of Law Maurer School of Law

• Timothy William Waters, Lectures and Presentations this includes

• Remembering Sudetenland: On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing, 47 VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 63-146 (2006).

and "Visiting Professor, University of Mississippi School of Law 2005-6"

The question over whether to use would (from "will") or could (from "can") is I suspect in part a dialect question. In this case the easiest way to decide is to look at the source:

One need not advocate a Sudeten Corollary oneself to observe that every relevant state and actor advocates it in practice, even though the text of this Corollary is nowhere to be read. And that may be all right: what we did to the Germans may have been justified – we certainly justify it today. The Corollary only suggests that, since it was justified, we can expect we will do it again as the occasion arises; the only puzzle is why we do not admit this. And so, observing that, here is the claim this Article makes: There is something troubling, not necessarily in the law we have, but in the way we make it. Denial and diminution of the expulsions’ seriousness – remembering Sudetenland the way we do – have been both social result and source of law.(page 87)

It appears that Walters is using "will" rather than "can"

It is not just a simple question of law because there is a significant difference between municipal law (domestic law) and international law, when it comes to behaviour. If a state passes a law it law remains on the statute book, and if a person breaches that law they will have committed a crime (even if the law is not usually enforced) eg see Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. With international law, particularly the laws of war, they are use it or lose it. What I mean by this is that international law remains binding only if states want it to, and what is considered acceptable is often based on the playground type of defences of "well they're all doing it [so its all right if I do it too]". See for example Martens Clause that is meant to fill in the gaps, and what experts point out are the problems with it. BTW Waters also makes a very similar point in his summary (around the part I quoted above), so it is worth reading it.

-- PBS (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Would that be Maurer School of Law? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 23:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks (it was a typo). I have fixed it. -- PBS (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. I couldn't help laughing—first I couldn't find evidence of the man, then I couldn't find evidence of his law school! Thanks for checking into this thoroughly enough to discover the apparent author. Good detective work there, but I still wonder why it says "author information deleted", a situation that makes positive verification impossible for our readers. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

PBS, in the quote you cite, Waters speculates about how an ethnic cleansing similar to the one performed on the Sudeten Germans might be looked upon in the future. We don't know what will happen in the future and it is possible that it would be justified by state actors, as Waters claims, similar to how it was "accepted" by the allied powers.

But the section of the article is called "As a crime under international law" meaning it deals with ethnic cleansing under IL. If you read the quote you cite carefully you'll see that Waters makes no claim about how IL would deal with ethnic cleansing in the future. In particular, he writes "The Corollary only suggests that, since it was justified, we can expect we will do it again as the occasion arises" but doesn't make any claim about the actual legality of the act.

Might makes right, but right does not write international law. :)

As of yet, no IL court has ruled on the legality of the expulsions of the Sudeten Germans, it must not be cited as a precedent.

You are correct that domestic law is different from IL. But the "use it or lose it" argument I have never heard, nor the "everybody is doing it" defense.

FYI, the exact same Waters quote exists in the following articles too Population transfer, Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50).

ImTheIP (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Copied from Aerial bombardment and international law

Jefferson Reynolds in an article The U.S. Air Force Law Review argues that "if international law is not enforced, persistent violations can conceivably be adopted as customary practice, permitting conduct that was once prohibited."

There is also the example of the trial of Admiral Karl Dönitz, who was (among other charges) tried for waging unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral shipping, but that charge was not assessed because of the evidence presented that the Allies issued similar orders. It is now legally accepted that the old cruiser rules no longer apply to submarines.

Another example was the trial of Otto Skorzeny who was prosecuted for ordering his men to wear U.S. uniforms, when F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas G.C. appeared in his defence stating that he had done similar things, as the Allies were not going to prosecute one of their heros for this it is now generally legally accepted that, like naval ships flying false colours, it is an acceptable ruse de guerre providing that the uniform is taken off before taking a direct part in hostilities (fighting).

References

--PBS (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. That is very interesting. But I believe it is a tangent (and it is of course my fault for initiating it). My main arguments are:

1. Waters does not claim that the Sudeten expulsions would legally permit ethnic cleansing in the future.
2. The Sudeten expulsions does not form a legal precedent.

I don't think these arguments have been refuted. Especially the claim that IL would permit ethnic cleansing is a very strong one and I don't think Waters essay makes that claim. In fact, what he seem to argue is that in the future similar ethnic cleansings might take place and go unpunished, despite what the law says. ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I always find it fascinating how editors use rhetoric on the talk page to emphasise their point of view. Have you seen the guideline WP:W2W which covers things like the use of the word "Contentious labels" like terrorist and "Synonyms for said". I am not suggesting that you have to follow the guidance on the talk page, but once one has edited here for a some time one becomes very aware of words (and phrases) that are designed to put over a point of view. What made you choose to write "Waters essay makes that claim", because you could have written "Walters' article states"?

I think it important to stress that I entered this conversation with no iron in the fire. I had not read the article, before answering the query above. As you have followed up, I have now looked at it in more detail (Ie read it not just skimmed it looking for a quote to reply to the query).

Now that I have read it I think that Walters does indeed think that "we can expect we will do it again as the occasion arises; the only puzzle is why we do not admit this."

I started to write quotes based on what I have read but it was far too much for this talk page, so I will simply list pages that I think are most relevant to supporting the view that Waters given the right circumstances the great powers will do it—or permit it to be done—again. If after reading them you disagree we can look at them in more detail. (Sigh! There is a further twist, the PDF counter and the numbers on the pages are one out, so I will quote the page numbers written on the bottom of the pages). Pages: 41–43 "Potsdam Powers"; 53 "B. The Four Rationales of the Consensus – Why Rejection is Preferred"; 65–67; 73–74; 76–77; 79–80.

-- PBS (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly didn't know there was a pov difference between article and essay. I'm not a native English writer. I also honestly didn't think my original two complaints would be met with much resistance. I thought they were fairly trivial.

I also am not even sure we disagree about anything? Yes, I think your quote "we can expect we will do it again as the occasion arises; the only puzzle is why we do not admit this." is a good summary of Waters position. Crucially though, that doesn't address inherent the legality of the act.

Tangentially, you might also be interested in Jakob Cornides' essay "The Sudeten German Question after EU Enlargement" (https://works.bepress.com/jakob_cornides/) which is a reply to the arguments Waters makes. ImTheIP (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But it does because under international law things change, and the Great powers always find ways to fit the law into their own interests (rewriting it if needs be). Winston Churchill summed up the reason why his government was more than quiescent over this issue at the end of World War II:

Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble. A clean sweep will be made. (see the article Former eastern territories of Germany for a source)

He also cited the example of the 1923 Population exchange between Greece and Turkey as a previous example/precedent (see the article Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) for references).

In the days prior to World War I and Empires there was no reason to do this, but the rise of the US influenced ideas in the UN charter of Self-determination and the Nation State, makes Winston Churchill's power politics difficult to argue against. Which has precedent under intonational law the nation state or the sub-national entity, if those two interests can not be reconciled? Almost certainly it comes down to might equals right. -- PBS (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what we are disagreeing about? I agree with you that ethnic cleansing might happen in the future. But will it be justified by international law in the future? I don't think so and that is not what Waters argues. Instead he argues just like you, that the Great powers might allow it to happen. In fact, one could just as well interpret the Sudeten corollary to mean that the Great powers are not able to manipulate international law. Because if they were, then why do most(?) of us consider the expulsion of Sudeten Germans to have been unjust? ImTheIP (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing. 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/20160306173512/https://massviolence.org/ethnic-cleansing to http://www.massviolence.org/Ethnic-Cleansing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 17:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Failed? The old page doesn't look like an error, and the archive looks like a totally different page. Huh? What's going on? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Using the term "forced"

Using the term "forced" in the intro implies an entire ethnic group can as a hivemind give consent as to whether or not they should relocate, and that if they(/some of them?) do give consent it is not ethnic cleansing. For instance during the cleansings of native americans, many native emigrants were insinuated, not forced, to move (for instance to follow their family, for deceptive promises of rewards, or to avoid being poor and discriminated against).

If I am to speculate I assume the term "forced" is added for political reasons. But I do not see it as a requirement in the given source (no page citation). To require the entire group has to be "forced" instead of given incentives not to stay (eg. discrimination) and incentives to leave (eg. land further away) you are basically saying that in most cases the deliberate ethnic cleansing of native americans was not ethnic cleansing.

I will replace the term forced with deliberate as "deliberate" is specified in most source citations in the article and the requirement of "forced" relocation is not. People can be complacent to being relocated. It is still ethnic cleansing if it is deliberately orchestrated by a party that wishes to ethnically cleanse an area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.2.57 (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Also removed the specific requirement that the perpetrator must be an "ethnic group" (as opposed to a political party, a nation state, several nation states as in the greek-turk agreement for ethnic cleansing and relocation or so on) as it is contradicted in article sources/article and intro source does not specify this (AFAIK due to no ref). Currently not specified which type entities perpetrate ethnic cleansings according to article sources so would be nice to add that back but with proper source backed definiton.

I think it uses the word "forced" to suggest that whether they want to move or not, you they have to. It's mandatory.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the perpetrator is not always an ethnic group. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with what forced implies but there isn't substantial backing in the article to require the removal be "forced" as opposed to just deliberate imo. If you want for instance a religious group removed you can just ban them from going to their holy place, agitate the populace against them to make life unpleasant, and then offer them unwanted land far away. You just made them choose, without being forced, to leave. Loads of examples like this in the list here on wikipedia that sources agree are ethnic cleansing. 85.194.2.57 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing#Definitions section all the definitions mention force. Wikipedia works on the use of what is written in the most reliable sources not on editors opinions. I am reverting the changes to the lead. It does not have to be an ethnic group, but this article is about ethnic cleansing, and as such it is about an ethnic group whether or not it can be applied to the forceful moment of other groups is a side issue. While both UN definitions define the perpetrators as another ethnic or religious group, the academic definitions do not, the Perpetrator could be anyone or any group (this is in line with the definitions of genocide). -- PBS (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing correlation with state collapse

State collapse is a new article, a comparative study of how, when, where and why states ( Nazi Germany, Austria Hungary, the Ottomans, Congo free state, Yugoslavia, Saddam's Iraq, USSR, imperial Russia, etc) collapse so frequently, pursuing violence and scapegoats as they do so. Does anyone here have pertinent comments to add? Most grateful Crawiki (talk) Crawiki (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic cleansing. 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/20081223022127/http://www.read-all-about-it.org/genocide/table_of_contents.html to http://www.read-all-about-it.org/genocide/table_of_contents.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) 02:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim regarding the expulsion of Germans in the lede

This seems contentious and disputed (according to some sources the partitioning of India was the biggest act of ethnic cleansing). At any rate such a contentious claim does not belong in the lede. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

A very noteworthy claim may, and should, be in the lead, if it is sourced and phrased properly (e.g. "it has been claimed that...").

Having said that, I agree that in this case it may be better to have this in some section of the article proper, but it should definitely not have been removed altogether. Debresser (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, moving to the section on Germany with the suggested edit. BTW WP:BRD is a completely legitimate way of proceeding with edits. FOARP (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Making reasonable edits is a much better way of proceeding with edits. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Section on Native Americans?

I think the US's ethnic cleansing of Native Americans should be described on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:4100:2FC0:C8BE:47DE:F6C6:C678 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If such a thing took place and you can provide reliable sources for it, using the term "ethnic cleansing", then please feel free to add such a section. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Instances

There is already a List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. Does that information need to be repeated in this article? I propose that the section be scrapped or significantly shortened. One or two paragraphs should suffice. "Examples of infamous ethnic cleansing campaigns during the 20th century include the 1914-1923 Armenian genocide, the expulsion of Greeks from Anatolia, the Holocaust, the expulsion of German-speakers from Eastern Europe in 1944–1949, the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948, ..." ImTheIP (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree the list in this article is a POV fork, and will remain as such unless the complete list were to be copied in to this article. As the previous list was deliberately removed from this articles because it was poorly researched (with poor sources) and is a magnet for OR -- Such and such appears to be ethnic cleansing I will add it to the list. Some biased blog site says such and such was ethnic cleansing so it must be in the list. Hence is is very large (this articles including the current short list is 60k), the list article is about 130k. I would go back to the original wording that was in this article after the list was moved out:

In many cases where accusations of ethnic cleansings 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. See the article "List of ethnic cleansings" for a list of events which have been described as ethnic cleansing by academic or legal experts.

-- PBS (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Russia: Northern Asia, Caucasus, Arctic, Russia Far East, Central Asia,...

I think Russia ethnic cleansing of non-slavic people should be analyzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.125.161.230 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)