Talk:Ethnic cleansing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pre-columbian south america and spain

I wanted to ask if someone knows about the happenings of natives during Spanish colonization in southern south America (modern Colombia and Venezuela) as well as central America and Mexico.

I have another question. I'm not sure if it can be said that Venezuela gained independence from Spain since by that time, Venezuela together with Ecuador, panama and Colombia formed one country all together (formerly known as Gran Colombia) from which Venezuela and Ecuador declared independence years later Spanish independence (panama declared independence during the construction of the panama canal, but that's another topic), therefore; what happened in Venezuela during Spanish occupation, also happened in Ecuador and Colombia.

thanks Minako-Chan* (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

latin term for ethnic cleansing

The Romans were big proponents of this procedure, one example was after they defeated the Dacians in what is modern Romania (derived from the latin Roma for Romans)all the Dacians were removed and Romans resettled. What did the Romans call this? I've heard Romanizing but that was my highschool teacher's term. It is very close to the concept of Total War essentially a consequence of a Total War strategy. I'm looking for the old terms that the Romans, Alexander, Hiitites, etc. used. Would be a nice expansion to the history of the term. Alatari (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing in history

Would it be better if the instances of ethnic cleansing be moved to a separate article called "Ethnic cleansing in history" in the same way that genocide has a separate article called "Genocides in history"?Editingman (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I proceed with making the new article?Editingman (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My grandfather was cherokee/chocktaw My grandmother was commanche and keronkas, the texas seashore disposed indian tribe. I moved my industrial art company to montreal in 1976---In 1979 tha parti quebecois approached me and said I should leave quebec, after I had setup a foundry, custom tube bending shop ets, and had three design studios-one in Ottawa, one in Orlando, One in Montreal--all place employeed quebec graduates in design and the assembly shop was in quebec---over the next 15 years I fought them in court and wherever and saw the destruction of my business, family, and a like siruation for many of my friends and suppliers---The ethnic cleansing is ignored by wikipedia---I have removed wikipedia from the header on my mac and have done a little research and have joined the educational group which does not include wikipedia as a reliable source of data. I have reviewed the editors and must agree with the academic group. You publish anything as long as the contributor will give you money. You make me sick---you took something that could have been proactive and ruined it------you should shut down your wedsite

Comment: This section is rather ridiculous. The entire history of humankind can be said to be the displacement of one group by another, who are in turn displaced, who are in turn...etc. That is just macro; micro can literally show millions upon millions of such incidents. And so this list could potentially be nearly limitless. This is Wikipedia at its worst, basically functioning as a group-blog for people to make sociopolitical commentary and cheerlead for their little cause(s) by alleging "ethnic cleansing". Kold9 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The usual wikipedia solution to this is to create a list article, which may be over-long and a bit pointless but at least separates the material from the main article without aggravating anyone by deleting it. So perhaps List of ethnic cleansing incidents or some such. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is appalling, it is full of Original Research and non neutral points of view, it reminds me of the list of massacres before it was renamed to list of events named massacres or the genocides in history back in genocides in history (2005) (well perhaps not quite that bad!).

The list needs to be structured along the lines that all controversial points are in Wikipedia WP:ASF, and WP:LTRD state who says an event was ethnic cleansing and what the events were. If there is more than one opinion on what happened or whether it was ethnic cleansing then those should be included. --PBS (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Has no one any comments on this. I'll give if a few more days but then I am going to remove any entry that does not carry a reliable source claiming it was ethnic cleansing. I am going to add one example of how an entry can be structured to meet the Wikipedia content policies requirements as a template for others. The example I am going to use is Cromwellian conquest of Ireland because it carries a list of citations about ethnic cleansing. See Cromwellian conquest of Ireland#cite_note-genocide-24 --PBS (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fourth Geneva Convention

There should be a mention of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits ethnic cleansing even if it does not involve crimes against humanity, see for example Annexation#Annexation and international law after 1948. A book search on ["Ethnic cleansing" "Fourth Geneva Convention"] returns lots of sources on this eg Mass expulsion in modern international law and practice, by Jean-Marie Henckaert, p. 163 --PBS (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

18th and 19th centuries

I have removed all the entries from the list which did not have a source claiming that the events were ethnic cleansing (genocide is not ethnic cleansing although the two can be intertwined). I have left in place a few entries where I can not check the sources as they are no on line, but have asked for quotes to be provided on the talk page to confirm that the citations support the claim of ethnic cleansing.

See the entry for Ireland in the section "In early modern history" for an example of how an entry for this section can be written. It lists a number of reliable sources that claim ethnic cleansing took place and names in the text a couple of the best sources, (authors/historians) who have made the claim. -- PBS (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already pruned Ethnic cleansing#18th and 19th centuries of those entries which did not have a source, or had online sources which did not describe the events they were cited for as "Ethnic cleansing", unless someone comes up with the requested quotes in the next few days, it is my intention to delete all the entries based on a request for a citation. --PBS (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

20th and 21st centuries

See above #18th and 19th centuries

Ethnic cleansing#20th century and Ethnic cleansing#21st century contain lots and lots of nasty events, but unless they are described as ethnic cleansing in secondary sources, they should not be in the list. Take for example these two entries (one from each century):

• "Thousands of armed whites burned ..."
• "In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo ..."

As far as I can tell neither of them are described in the cited sources as ethnic cleansing.

It is no use arguing that because an editor thinks it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks, that it is a duck (or in this case is ethnic cleansing), because we have specific policy against original research, and specifically WP:SYN. If an event is to be included in a list called "Instances of ethnic cleansing" the list must be based on reliable secondary sources which states that an event was ethnic cleansing. As can be seen in the section "In early modern history" this does not mean events that predate the entry of the phrase "ethnic cleansing" into English, can not be included, because reliable sources that postdate the introduction of the phrase into English do describe earlier events as ethnic cleansing. --PBS (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a term can't have been used before the term was actually coined. So why does the entire "Instances of ethnic cleansing" section exist, given that the phrase itself is an euphemism? I think that whole section should be removed and the article restricted to describing the origins of the phrase along some examples (and criticisms) of its (often dubious) usage. Meowy 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calque

There's no "Serbo-Croatian".
Question is, who first used this term. In which language and where (newspaper, magazine, radio, TV, scientific magazine...) has this term appeared first? In Croatian or in Serbian?
That's why I've removed the phrase "Serbo-Croatian". Kubura (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes there is Serbo-Croatian. What there isn't, is such thing as "Croatian language" or "Serbian language".

I mean Kubura, FFS, what kind of "language" is that in which the nationality of the speaker denotes what "language" he is writing in? What if the phrase was coined by some proud Yugoslav? The Serbo-Croatian name of the language must stay, everything else would be misleading BS. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Istria

I reinserted the sourced content about the Istrian exodus removed by DIREKTOR. It's my fault that the user found this page, as I mentioned it in a discussion about the Foibe killings. Unfortunately, DIREKTOR seems to be driven more by a nationalist agenda than by respect for sources, discussions and consensus. With regards to the cleansing of Italians from Istria after WWII, it is a rather clear-cut case of one ethnicity being driven away.JdeJ (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a few Croatian users have taken to repeatedly removing the ethnic cleansing of Italians from Istria, the Istrian exodus, I inserted four new sources that explicitly use the term "ethnic cleansing" in describing these events. The sources include two books on the topic as well as articles by two leading European newspapers, Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent. Further removal of this well-sourced paragraph due to these users' WP:IDONTLIKEIT should probably be treated as vandalism rather than content dispute. There is a large number of independent and reliable sources describing it explicitly as ethnic cleansing.JdeJ (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the length of the post, but these sort of nonsense accusations demand a proper response, please bear with me. Ok, first of all it must be point out for the benefit of other users that this Italian right-wing claim of "ethnic cleansing" in Istria, is just another POV-pushing attempt by a lobby of Wikipedia Users, frequently called by their opposition as "irredentists" for pursuing historical revisionism in WWII and post-WWII events relating to the fascist Italian rule in Istria, and its subsequent defeat by Allied forces of Yugoslavia. Let's review the claims above. Of the four sources listed by User:JdeJ, we two are unverifiable newspaper articles (no primary sources), and two are published books.

• 1) Of these two, one is a book by an Italian politically biased journalist, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper.
• 2) And at last have a proper source: Ballinger, Pamela (2002). History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Unfortunately, this source in no way supports what its been listed next to. This source does not even come close to calling the events "ethnic cleansing", but is used on the part of User:JdeJ to make both others and myself seem like ignorant and biased "vandals".

Now a few facts on the Istrian exodus:

• It is a term used to indicate the departure of Italians from Istria. It took place mostly between 1947 and 1954, over a period of more than seven years. This period of extreme poverty in post-war Yugoslavia is known as the "Informbiro period" ("Informbiro" being the Cominform, the name is used because Yugoslavia left the Cominform and faced economic blockade from Stalin's Soviet bloc.)
• Istria, being mostly populated by South Slavs, was granted to Yugoslavia in the 1947 peace treaty with Italy, soon after which Yugoslavia plunged into a deep depression caused by its unique political situation.
• And the crucial point: not a single person, during the course of these seven years, was actually forced to leave (forced = by force), and this is well known by User:JdeJ. At no point did Yugoslavs, military, civilian, militia or otherwise, actually throw people out of their homes or officially or publicly threaten them if they didn't leave. The departure was ultimately decided upon freely by the emigrants. It was facilitated, but it was in no way "forced" by Yugoslav authorities.
• The economic situation in Yugoslavia was appalling. It was becoming a socialist state, resisting both the West and Stalin (see Tito-Stalin split) and was slowly being forced into poverty by economic blockade. Italy was a capitalist state of the Western bloc. Has anyone ever heard of people emigrating from the Eastern to the Western bloc? I know it sounds familiar...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes as no surprise that DIREKTOR opposes the use of the term "ethnic cleansing", as the user's activites on Wikipedia mostly consist of a complete white wash of the Partisans. For the record, I agree with him to some extent. If we put Tito's Partians in comparison with their opponents, the Wehrmacht, the Chetniks, the Ustashe and the Italian Fascists, then the Partisans definitely come out as the least evil. However, I did not agree that that is reason enough to deny the misdeeds done by them either. When DIREKTOR tries to dismiss the sources, I doubt many will agree with him when he outright denies the use Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent as sources. Both of these highly respected European newspapers, neither of which is Italian or Croatian/Yugoslavian, explicitly describes the event as "ethnic cleansing". Looking through the list of cases listed in this article, few are at the moment as well sourced as this case. DIREKTOR don't like that "his" side is accuses of ethnic cleansing, but that is true of most people. If we would remove every case of ethnic cleansing because some users object to it, despite the ethnic cleansing being support by several sources, we would be left with an empty article. The long post DIREKTOR has written consist of two parts, the first one is WP:IDONTLIKEIT while the second is his own view on the Istrian exodus. He is perfectly entitled to that view, but I would like to remind him that we rely on sources here, not the personal speculations of individual editors.JdeJ (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the issue is one of sources. DIREKTOR is repeatedly editing material on the basis that sources do not exist, when, in reality, they are present. Of course, he may argue that these are not valid or credible sources, but this is a different argument, and certainly cannot be decided unilaterally by him. If he does not like a source, then it should be challenged and debated, if it is subsequently rejected by consensus, then a claim may indeed become unsourced and open to removal. However, it is not up to DIREKTOR, or any other single user, to decide what sources are valid or not, which is what he has been doing through his unilateral deletions. Corinth (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:JdeJ. You should first and foremost try to distinguish between the 1945 Foibe killings, which were by most accounts politically motivated (just like the nereby Bleiburg massacre of fascist Yugoslavs), and the 1947 - 1954 Istrian exodus. "1945" may seem similar to "1947", but I assure you: there's a difference. In light of this, I find your mention of the Yugoslav Partisans (1941-1945) in this context quite revealing of a profound lack of knowledge of this, admittedly obscure, subject. The bulk of the Istrian exodus (1947, Treaty of Paris - 1954) has absolutely nothing to do with either the Partisans or their successor, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). Concerning sources:
I admit I set the standards high for evidence of this claim. However, JdeJ should probably admit his continued attempts at deception, transparent though they may be. First it was the bogus book source, now we have a claim that the articles are "not Italian or Croatian/Yugoslav" - admittedly the newspapers are not based in Italy, but the guy who wrote an article is Italian. Not necessarily proof of POV, but certainly proof of JdeJ's lack of honesty in this discourse.

• Newspaper refs. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. Why am I so critical of the refs? Because the silliness of this claim is beyond comprehension to me - the crucial question: who performed the ethnic cleansing? is one that has no answer at all. All we get is "Yugoslavs", but what does that mean? Civilians? Certainly not, no kind of imaginary anti-Italian riots took place - it was a police state. The Yugoslav Army? Again, no question: absolutely not. There isn't a single instance between 1947 and 1953 of Yugoslav authorities forcibly throwing out and deporting Italian families just because they were Italian. Indeed, such a move would be suicidal for Yugoslavia - a neutral state in the Cold War, a state flirting with the West in hopes of support against Stalin. The whole thing is unimaginable.
• Re:"It comes as no surprise that DIREKTOR opposes the use of the term ethnic cleansing". Of course not, it is a full-time job reverting (mostly banned) Users such as User:Brunodam, User:PIO, User:Giovanni Giove, User:Ragusino, etc... I am opposed to this kind of blatant POV-pushing and I shall remain so. Do not be "surprised".

User:Corinth. Of course it is not "up to me", this is why I am here on the talkpage, attempting to expose the obvious weakness and fraudulent nature of these "sources". The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. For the term "ethnic cleansing", you usually need sources like the UN or obvious evidence of support among scholars. What have we here? Two Googled unverifiable journalist personal opinions in newspaper articles, and a writer very well known for his bias to anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with this sort of POV-pushing. I leave you with a repeat of the question: exactly who ("which people") performed the alleged "ethnic cleansing" of the Italian minority in SFR Yugoslavia? Was it the JNA? Soldiers with trucks killing people and throwing them into livestock wagons bound for Italy? Did Yugoslav civilians go out into the streets and throw Italian families out of their homes? Did they burn their property? Whodunnit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, it is the source (the one of the yours even you seemed to like) that link together the Istrian exodus with the partisans and the Foibe killings. As for your remarks about my "deceptions" and "dishonesty", I object strongly to the terms and will report you for personal attacks should they be repeated. If you want to claim that an article in Le Monde Diplomatique is unreliable because the journalist is an Italian and that an article in The Independent is unreliable because the (English) journalist writing it was stationed in Rome, then that says a lot about your personal POV but nothing else. And as is your habit in every discussion in which your involved, you go into long arguments about what you perceive to be facts in history as if it mattered. Wikipedia rely on sources, not on your or mine personal opinions. While I have presented several sources claiming that the Istrian exodus was ethnic cleansing, all you've presented is your personal opinions about the same events as well as a general WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the sources.JdeJ (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my post, or do you just want to make me sound like some kind of "nationalist" on purpose? I did not base my skepticism on the nationality (or location) of any author. I hope you'll forgive me if I simply copy/paste my response...

• Newspaper refs. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. For the term "ethnic cleansing", you usually need sources like the United Nations or evidence of obvious support among scholars and the scientific community. What have we here? Two (probably Googled) unverifiable journalist personal opinions in newspaper articles, and a writer very well known for his bias to anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with this sort of POV-pushing.

Well, "you usually need sources like the United Nations or evidence of obvious support among scholars and the scientific community". We usually need sources like the UN?

1. Where is this rule stated?

2. The UN had hardly come into existence at the time, so we're not likely to find any statement from them.

3. We have loads of cases with no "obvious" support among scholars, in those cases we indicate that the subject is controversial.

Needless to say, we could do the same thing here. Please present some sources (sources, not your personal opinions) that the Istrian exodus was a voluntary act and we can start discussing from there on how to phrase the paragraph. That would be a much more constructive way forward.JdeJ (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your standard ploy has not, and will not work - I will not be fooled into trying to prove a negative. If you want authors on the Istrain exodus which have not called it "ethnic cleansing", there are more than enough - you yourself have provided one infinitely superior to any of the other rubbish you're trying to pass off as "sources" strong enough to effectively rewrite history. I won't try to disprove something which has yet to be proven.
The paragraph has no basis on which to be included here at all. I will not agree on any form of inclusion here until you can provide proper evidence of scholarly support for this "theory" of yours. In other words, sources which are NOT 1) unverifiable and without primary sources, and 2) plainly biased works, long known to be such, almost indistinguishable from propaganda and paranoid conspiracy theories. Your "evidence" here is practically non-existent. I find your premise that "you have done your part" here absurd. I am still waiting for proper VERIFIABLE sources, the only kind that can be used to justify such outrageous claims.

• Random Googled newspaper articles are not acceptable in support of such allegations. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. Scholarly sources, verifiability, and primary sources, JdeJ, NOT the personal opinions of journalists.
• The book. It suffices to say that it was written by an Italian journalist well known for his political bias, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper. Neutral professional historians, JdeJ, not well known paranoid fanatics with political agendas. Evidence of scholarly support for the term "ethnic cleansing", please.

In the meantime, here's a question for you. It is relevant because it excellently depicts why these claims are outrageous and require high standards if they are to be proven. All this is plain historical revisionism, the only difference is the fact that the subject is obscure. Here it is: Since the bulk of the Istrain exodus took place in 1947 - 1954, who exactly was the culprit, who (i.e. which people) performed the majority of the "ethnic cleansing"??? (Note: this question will not be directly answered, it will either be dismissed or evaded.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would have bothered to read my post, you would not have had to write such a long and irrelevant post. I did not ask you to prove a negative (that it was NOT ethnic cleansing), I explicitly asked you for sources for a positive (that it WAS a voluntary exodus). Surely there are historians and others who have written about it, so I ask you once more to provide sources supporting your view, that it was voluntary. Just as I have provided sources (not long and pointless personal opinions) saying that it was ethnic cleansing. Rather than ranting on about my sources and about your own speculations about the events, provide us with some sources supporting your view of a voluntary exodus. Then we can move the matter forward by discussing the views presented in the sources of both opinions. That is the usual way to deal with differences of opinions, not long and emotional personal outbursts with little factual content.JdeJ (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your post and understood it completely, though I cannot say you did the same. I understand that you just want me to prove something you order me to prove. You believe that I am going to dig through sources looking for some argument you yourself defined, that I shall be unsuccessful and that that will prove your point. Not finding sources stating it was "voluntary departure" wouldn't do anything to prove your point that it was ethnic cleansing. Naturally, sources which use alternate terms than "ethnic cleansing" abound everywhere, yet you believe you can cloud this fact by insisting on express confirmation of "voluntary departure". Crucially, you want sources that expressly state that the movement was "voluntary", which is logically assumed unless one explicitly calls it "involuntary". I've seen more of these sort of logical games than you imagine. Nice try, though. Pamela Ballinger, which you yourself quoted, calls the Istrian exodus simply "migration", in no way hinting, by using that term, that it was somehow "involuntary". Indeed even "involuntary migration" (not used anywhere) is not an interchangeable term with "ethnic cleansing". That source, by using another term for the events, is effectively a source against the term "ethnic cleansing". It means this scholar opted to use a different term than "ethnic cleansing".

JdeJ, you're not discussing the crucial point here, the validity of the "sources", thus I am forced to repeat (please read and respond fully):

• Random Googled newspaper articles are not acceptable in support of such allegations. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. Scholarly sources, verifiability, and primary sources, JdeJ, NOT the personal opinions of journalists.
• The book. It suffices to say that it was written by an Italian journalist well known for his political bias, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper. Neutral professional historians, JdeJ, not well known paranoid fanatics with political agendas. Evidence of scholarly support for the term "ethnic cleansing", please.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying, in effect, is that you don't have sources and cannot bother to search for sources, you just want to rant on about the sources that have been presented and to give your own personal opinions. It seems like you think yourself a great expert and a masterful rhetoric, but neither is of much use here. Your "experice" is still just your personal beliefs and your rhetoric, the quality of which I let others evaluate, does not hide the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims with. Answering a request for sources with saying that you refuse to dig for something I ask you to do, that is perhaps the lamest attempt at avoiding a real discussion I have ever seen. It is time for you to start focusing on facts and not long, wordy, bombastic and irrelevant speeches. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum.JdeJ (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(bla bla bla, lets focus on the actual sources presented instead of "me and my genius"...)
LoL... :) who do you think you're fooling with that noob rhetoric? So unless I find a source that expressly fits your own definition of a "counter-argument", I "don't have any sources"? :D Like I said, you want sources that expressly state that the movement was "voluntary", which is of course logically assumed unless one explicitly calls it "involuntary". Let's review:

• You're claiming that the term ethnic cleansing is used for these events
• If a professional published historian uses some other term in his work, that is a source against the use of the term "ethnic cleansing". No amount of ignoring will change this simple fact.

Furthermore:

• You haven't a single proper verifiable source confirming that (please do read WP:V and WP:Primary source). And for this type of serious allegations and labeling, you need iron-clad sources.
  • Two are personal opinions of unprofessional journalists.
  • One is a source known to be completely biased in these issues.

What else is there to discuss? Am I going to go around looking for sources that say what you define? No. That's got to be the oldest "trick" in the book. You're trying to prove a positive: that this is "ethnic cleansing". Proper professional sources which use other terms are naturally arguments against the use of this term (and are, of course, arguments for the use of other terms).
But no, you just keep writing that "there are no sources against you". That actually might work - other users just might believe it if you keep repeating it. Oh, and make sure you call me a "POV-pusher with nothing but his opinion" a few more times... that ought to do it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that one of the sources is "known to be completely biased". Known to be so by whom? It's your personal evaluation. Likewise, the journalists of Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent are "unprofessional". A rather bold claim, given that both these newspapers are among the most highly regarded in Europe. As for your complaint of me calling you a "POV-pusher", I fullt stand behind that accusation and will be glad to defend it should you like to make a report about it. All your edits related to Partisans are heavily biased in their favour and seldom contain anything more than removing claims you don't like even though they are sourced. That it typical POV-behaviour, so I really don't get what you're complaining about. If you want to avoid it, perhaps you should consider interacting with other editors in a more constructive way. It can only do your own cause good. I have given you every chance, even encouraged you, to present sources yourself, but you refuse to do so. That is your choice and I won't argue with it, though it seriously undermines what credibility you might have. All you've done here is to complain that journalists and writers who don't support your personal interpretation of history are "unprofessional" and "biased". In short, all your arguments come to absolutely nothing but empty rhetorics and personal unsupported opinion. I won't engage much more in this discussion since you have made it clear that you're not interested in bringing it forward. Rest assured, however, that I will go ahead and report you should you once again remove sourced content despite having no sources and nothing more than a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT for the presented sources. JdeJ (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please start seriously discussing the crucial point: the concerns about the validity of your sources.

• Misunderstanding: When I said "unprofessional", I of course meant that they weren't professional historians. I didn't assume the writers of established newspapers were not professional journalists. Interesting how you only picked up on that and did not respond to any of my other concerns, completely ignoring quoted policy. Now, I am not prepared to discuss the validity of random unverifiable newspaper articles as "sources" for this matter. They listed no primary sources and are do NOT present the opinions of professionals, but the perosnal opinions of historical laymen. As far as verifiability is concerned: they simply do not exist.
• If we were to take the solitary source you have for this nonsense seriously, we would have to rewrite all articles on this stuff and introduce conspiracy theories against Istrian Italians and all sorts of uncorroborated nonsense. My specific concerns here are as follows: (would you care to actually answer this time?)
  • Judging from the very tone and content of his book, this person's POV jumps up into your face as soon as you read the first paragraph. He is clearly heavily biased towards the Istrian Italian minority, and writes as though he is on a crusade to expose "The Truth". This person is a faar cry from the professional neutrality of Ballinger. The source is not neutral (WP:NPOV).
  • This (secondary) source lists no primary sources confirming the claim of "ethnic cleansing" (if one actually bothers to look), pointing towards the use of that term for "shock and awe" alone, trying to inspire outrage with no real backing.
  • The use of the term "ethnic cleansing" by this author, is an exception. With the exception of this guy, professional scientists do not use that term. His use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is contradicted by nearly all other sources using other terms to describe the events ("migration", "exodus", "movement").

What sources do you want??! Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously, with the exception of that biased conspiracy theorist, calls the events "migration", "movement" or simply "exodus". What do you want it to say? That it was "voluntary migration"? I already told you that it wasn't strictly "voluntary migration", it was arguably "forced on" by both economic and sociological circumstances, but not by the deliberate intent of any government or authority or military group or mob or militia or whatever. This is why I keep asking you: who performed the ethnic cleansing? Who did it? Which people? Its a simple question...

If one actually takes the time to take a closer look: all your talk about sources is actually based on one author of questionable neutrality, and his clearly uncorroborated assessment. An "assessment" that is in actuality his alone and is not really used by the scientific community when referring to these events. Feel free to ignore all the concerns once again and just talk about me. Was the post too long? Am I basing all this on my opinion? How's my rhetoric? Do tell... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What sources do I want? I let you decide that. You say that "Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously" share your opinion. I do not know who these "everyone" are, nor do anyone else. That is precisely the reason I ask you. My asking you for sources is not some form of teasing, as you seem to think, it is the standard procedure in any conflict of opinions. The questions you keep asking me are rather easy to answer according to my own view, and I don't mind doing it, but you still miss the main point. This is not about you and I presenting our views, as they count for nothing. It is about using sources. You have an argument that you think it is wrong to use articles in newspapers as sources for this and that you think the author of a book is heavily biased. Fair enough, that is your view and I have noted it. If you want to change the paragraph, however, you have to do more than just present your personal opinions. The choice here is yours. If your aim is to continue this very long debate, then we go on as before. If your aim is to change the article, then it is time for you to bring forward something else than just your opinions.JdeJ (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is getting repetitive"? well naturally, what options am I left with but to repeat myself over and over again - you keep ignoring my point(s).
Look, JdeJ, could you please be so kind as to stop avoiding the issue of your sources? Read your own post: what are you talking about?

• "You say that 'Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously' share your opinion."

No, that's an obvious play on words on your part. I'm saying that "everyone whoever wrote about this seriously" has their own variable opinion, but obviously does not share your opinion - since noone uses "ethnic cleansing" to refer to these events. You're trying to prove something, not I. Should I list the works not using "ethnic cleansing"?? Is the fact that you're not listing anyone proof enough? (If not, fine...)

• "This is not about you and I presenting our views, as they count for nothing"

JdeJ, I think I finally understand - you think that the only way to discuss is by listing sources, because every single thing we write is "our own opinion". JdeJ - I am discussing sources. You are simply repeating that everything I say "counts for nothing", which is absolutely wrong. I am pointing out the weakness of your sources, and all you do is ignore my point because "my own words are useless". And then you say "this is getting repetitive"... Utter absurdity...

• "If your aim is to change the article, then it is time for you to bring forward something else than just your opinions."

Virtually every single professional work you come across on the Istrain exodus does not use the term "ethnic cleansing". These historians have decided to use another term than "ethnic cleansing". Their professional view is obviously that these events are... whatever they called them - not "ethnic cleansing". These are the sources ("something else than just your opinions") - everybody other than that one guy you listed. Our "job" is to establish the predominant view of the scientific community as best we can.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't ignore your points any more than you mine, but I may not agree with all of them. That is not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, discussing sources is necessary, so I don't mind that at all. That is one of the reasons I've asked you to provide some sources that the Istrian exodus was voluntary, as you say. As for the sources I've presented, you've made the point that you don't think articles in newspapers count for much as sources. That's your view, it's a perfectly logic stance (though I would not be so cathegorical myself, we often use newspaper articles as sources here). Regarding the author, while I have heard your point that you think the author is very biased, you have not yet explained why.JdeJ (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR. Debating the validity of sources after you have removed them is not how such disagreements are resolved. If you had done this once, I would believe that it was an error or even overzealous editing upon your part, but repeatedly you have now removed all references to alleged ethnic cleansing of Istrian-Italians, without discussion. Additionally, repeatedly citing Italian atrocities against the Yugoslav here population does not invalidate the reverse - not only is that a straw man argument, but if anything, history has repeatedly demonstrated that these scenarios are often reciprocal in nature. Corinth (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I edit-warring? Naturally, I have acted too hastily and for that I apologize, but I see no point in discussing all that now. Also, I am completely baffled as to why you're saying I'm "repeatedly citing Italian atrocities against the Yugoslav population"?? The Bleiburg massacre? Read the article pls :). Its a crime by communist Yugoslavs against fascist (collaborationist) Yugoslavs (Croats and Serbs specifically). It was meant to point out that fascists were killed in those terrible days indiscriminately, without regard as to their nationality/ethnicity. Indeed, Yugoslav doctrine (with which the whole Partisan movment was totally imbued) by definition places nationality at the lowest possible "tier", equating nationalism with "primitivism". But I only mentioned Bleiburg once... I don't quite understand your post... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ, you don't agree with my point(s), and therefore you ignore them. It is not the same thing to source... I don't know, the launch-date of a video-game, and the claim that a seven-year long demographic phenomenon constituted "ethnic cleansing". The necessity of sources and the demand for their quality always gets more pronounced as the claims get more radical and serious. What you're suggesting is the complete confirmation of all the exiles' claims and complete POV in their favor. Personal opinions of journalists and newspaper articles by non-professionals (in the field!) simply "don't cut it", as it were. I've already listed supporting policy. Nevertheless, if you insist on a list of sources on the Istrian exodus, I will provide a few...

• Dr. Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffy, etc. Cultures of insecurity [1]
  • This author uses the term "emigration" to describe the events, generally referring to them as "the exodus". She is also actively opposed to the label "ethnic cleansing" and provides interesting insight as to its origin in this context.

"Despite the existence of some exiles who recognize the complicated intersections of ideological and ethnonational claims in motivating the exodus, since Yugoslavia's breakup [interesting note] the exile associations and their leaders had considerable success in Italy promoting the exodus as a unitary event following out of a premeditate plan to Slavicize Istria. Such narratives may be linked to morality plays, as Malkki (1995) suggests for accounts told by Hutu refugees in Tanzania. In contrsucting the Istrian exodus as an act of ethnic cleansing and casting it in fundamentally moral terms, exile narratives in Trieste silence competing voices. Conflating Istrian Italian culture/history with all Istrian culture/history, these accounts posit the exiles as the only authentic Istrians."

• Pamela Ballinger (2002). History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans [2]
  • This author uses the term "migration" to describe the events, generally referring to them as "the exodus". At no point does she state the events constituted "ethnic cleansing".

• Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan. Culture and power at the edges of the state
  • This author uses the term "exile", without any further clarification. The work is generally "lenient" towards the exiles' side of the debate, and does not at all describe the opposing view (such as Ballinger and Weldes). Yet, the author only mentions "ethnic cleansing" in parentheses and distances himself from it by calling it the "exiles' argument" (not his own). It must also be noted that the term in his context refers to the Foibe massacres and not the exodus. Additionally, the author states that the Italian population "chose to leave behind their homes, fields, etc".

Possibly the strongest and most universally accepted source is the work by Pamela Ballinger. Her book is without a doubt the most neutral and most professional depiction of events, recognizing the duality of the dispute, and interestingly, completely ignoring the accusations of "ethnic cleansing" pushed on by the exiles and presented in their books. Any objective person can see that Ballinger certainly "trumps" A "Tragedy" Revealed. The matter is extremely complex. It is not a single event. It was not executed by open and obvious force. "Ethnic cleansing" is the extreme POV of the Exiles' side of the debate. WP:NPOV applies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a nice list and I have no immediate objections to it. We should certainly take these sources you list into consideration when editing the article.JdeJ (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask, what exactly is your position on article content? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to a lack of response from JdeJ, and in light of his above post, I assumed that an agreement has been reached on this issue (after four days). I removed the entry (along with its inadequate and falsely quoted sources). Please do not revert or enter into vague discussion without further scholarly sources on "ethnic cleansing". Above all, the predominant view of professionals on this issue should be established, and mostly has been. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality and veracity of this article

I am a retired West Point professor and former head of the Cultural Geography instruction at the US Military Academy. We used case studies concerning the 1990s ethno-religious conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the "Devolution" of Yugoslavia, in our course curriculum. For the past 8 years I have lived and worked in the Balkans for the US government as a consultant planning and assisting in the implementation of a single multi-ethnic armed force under proper democratic civil-military control at the national (State) level. (Be careful with the term "National" as locally - it means one of the major ethnic groups - Muslim (Bosniak), Croat, Serb, Slovenian, Macedonian, Albanian, Kosovar, or even Crna Gornik (Serbs in Montenegro). In order to be an effective mentor and to ensure my impartiality and keep a professional and objective outlook on what is still a very destablizing religious and political influence in the region, I have emmersed myself in study of the history of the region. So I believe I have basis of credibility in my criticisms of this poorly written article.

The entire paragraph written by an obvious Croat: "During the 1990s it was used extensively by the media in the former Yugoslavia in relation to the Croatian War of Independence, since Serb paramilitary forces and JNA engaged in forcible removal of Croats and other non-Serbs from areas of Croatia occupied by rebel Serbs. Rebel Serbs and JNA have committed widespread and systematic acts of persecution (murder, violence, detention, intimidation) against non-Serb population creating a such coercive atmosphere, atmosphere of fear, that targeted population had no option but to flee or to be deported by force. These acts were carried out from at least August 1991. The displacement of non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective."

needs to be removed or substantially rewritten. It is entirely too biased and one sided to be in a reference work like Wikipedia. I tried to completely rewrite it and disovered when saving my changes and additions that it is a protected article, whatever that means. If one studies the United Nations reports, reads Sell's Slobodan Milosevic' and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace, Noel Malcolm's Bosnia-A Short History, and his Kosovo-A Short History, it is obvious that the forceable movement of ethnic populations and attrocities were perpetrated on all sides of the conflict and not only by the Serb para-military forces and Jugoslavian Federal Army (JNA).

Secondly, despite the disclaimer that ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide (which according to the United Nations and the Hague ICTY judgments is a correct statement), this article contradicts that warning note and says in the text that "they are synonymous." Admittedly, the international media who reported on the events during the devolution of Yugoslavia, frequently incorrectly used the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide - causing confusion about their legal meanings (as defined by several international agreements commonly accepted as International Law) by the general population of the world.

Michael M. Toler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Toler (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transjordan before 1948

when King Abdullah was given eastern Palestine, aka east of the Jordan, Jews were made to leave. This happened in 1922. This was ethnic cleansing.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Palestinian exodus as an example of ethnic cleansing

I know that removing this section is going to be a controversial thing, so I am putting my rationale here first.

<The 1948 Palestinian exodus, in which the substantial majority of Arab Palestinians (approximately 700,000) in the areas of British Mandate of Palestine that became part of Israel fled or were forced to leave during and after the 1948 Palestine War.[43][44][45] The 1967 Palestinian exodus, during which 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians, approximately 145,000 of which were refugees from the 1948 war, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces once again.[46][47]>

Based on the definition given in the lede, the Palestinian exodus was not an instance of "ethnic cleansing". However the section contains a disclaimer that states "This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case; nor do all the claims necessarily follow definitions given in this article. Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted."

The Palestinian exodus would be an instance of so-called ethnic cleansing that is not based on the definition given in the lede, since the Israelis did not persecute an ethnic minority (were the Arabs a minority?) but rather prosecuted a war that was forced upon them. Other aspects of the definition are also arguable. But is it true that the Palestinian exodus has been termed "ethnic cleansing" by "academic or legal experts"? And if not (such) experts, is it so noted, as the disclaimer says?

Three references are given (43,44,45) as initial support, and all lack page numbers or specificity. The first reference is to Morris (43), who does not use the epithet "ethnic cleansing" anywhere in the book. While he uses the term "cleansing" frequently, he uses it to refer to "cleansing" of an entirely different type. Examples below. Numbers refer to page numbers of the reference given. It is clear that Morris is talking about a strategic "cleansing" of enemy forces during war. My italics throughout.

464: - "quick and immediate cleansing [tihur] of the conquered areas of all the hostile elements..."

260: - "to 'clean' all the Arab villages that were occupied by the Egyptian military force".

235: - "the continuation of intimidation and cleansing activities as a first stage in operations[geared to] the destruction and conquest of the enemy forces and bases."

65: - "cleansing, conquest and destruction of enemy villages in your area."

518: -"cleansing and destruction of the enemy force..."

The Gelber reference (44) doesn't mention "ethnic cleansing" either except in the appendix to make a case against Pappe's (45) use of the term. "In Pappe's words, reminiscent of Khalidi and Massalha' ... these allegations [of ethnic cleansing] rely on a single paragraph of Plan D's 75 pages and refer to one of the Plan's many aspects while taking this paragraph out of its context and ignoring or blurring the Plan's real task: defending the forthcoming Jewish state from outside invasion being assisted by domestic Arab subversion." pg 303 of the Gelber reference [3]

So two out of the three references given do not support the contention of "ethic cleansing." We are left then with Pappe, though still no page number. Now the disclaimer says that "Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted." Pappe is arguably not an academic or legal expert. Yet it is nowhere stated that Pappe - the third source given accurately as a supporter of the notion of "ethnic cleansing" in relation to the Palestinians - has acknowledged bias and is admittedly not a respecter of facts, rather motivated by ideology and subjectivity.

"Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons..." [4]

"My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. .....In short, mine is a subjective approach, often but not always standing for the defeated over the victorious..... pgs. 11-12 [5]

Pappe may be an academic, but a subjective one and an admitted disrespecter of "facts" and "truth" and one who "stands for" the defeated. Academic experts do not "stand for" one side or another. That is the function of the propagandist or political activist. There is nothing wrong with being such, but we must not publish their opinion as fact.

The second sentence of this section refers to the 1967 war: "...during which 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians, approximately 145,000 of which were refugees from the 1948 war, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces once again." While the numbers may be accurate, this is not an issue of "ethnic cleansing" based on our definition, but rather one about people made refugees by war. Here at least we have the page numbers so that we can check out our references. McDowall [6] says specifically, "In 1967 many more lost their homes in Palestine. By December, 245,000 had fled from the West Bank and Gaza Strip across the Jordan, 116,000 had fled from the Golan further into Syria, and 11,000 had left Gaza for Egypt. Of these 145,000 were UNRWA refugees uprooted for the second time. Many more left in the following months, either forcibly expelled by the occupying authorities or choosing not to live under Israeli military government." People who flee or choose to leave can hardly be said to have been "ethnically cleansed." The last sentence lacks all specificity and does not really support the sentence that these numbers were expelled by the Israeli forces. ("Many more left .... in the following months")

The last reference is that of Robert P. G. Bowker in Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace pg 81, which is a footnote page and doesn't refer to "ethnic cleansing". The only reference to "ethnic cleansing" is on page 90, [7] refers to the West and the Serbians, is an analogy, if a backhanded accusation.

In summary, the Palestinian exodus does not fit the WP definition of an "ethnic cleansing," the sources do not support the accusation of ethnic cleansing, and the terms of the disclaimer are not met. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you said it best. hell, I think the whole section of 'examples" of ethnic cleansing is a problem, as the term is very new, and previous instances of it have been debated by scholars. You also make great points with reference to I/P, as there is substantial twisting of words and stories that go on.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tallicfan20. I don't doubt you are right about the "examples" of ethnic cleansing being a problem. My knowledge of most of the others is extremely limited. In fact there are some peoples listed whom I did not even know existed, let alone that they were ethnically cleansed. The lists are nuts, imho. Every group in the world wants to be listed as "ethnically cleansed" and no group wants to be listed as the "cleaner". It would be funny except it really is inflammatory and shouldn't be used without the strongest non-controversial evidence!, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't argue for this : "Based on the definition given in the lede, the Palestinian exodus was not an instance of "ethnic cleansing". Why doesn't the 1948 exodus fit the definition of an ethnic cleansing (in wikipedia) ? 81.244.176.173 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede says "Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a local majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory." The Jews did not imprison or kill members of an ethnic minority ... the Jews were the ethnic minority... the purpose was not to achieve "ethnic homogeneity" but to defend themselves from being wiped out as an ethnic minority themselves. The war was not initiated by the Jews, but by the Arabs. When the Jews expelled a population it was to prevent the villages from being used as a base for attacks against them, not to establish ethnic homogeneity. After the tide turned and the Jews began to win the war, they advanced through Arab villages, clearing the territory ahead of them. To this day over 20% of Israel is Arab, Arabic is an official Israeli language...Arabs are citizens...Arabs receive aid from the state. Islam is an official religion. The accusation that the intention was to achieve homogeneity at the expense of the Arabs is simply [biased] opinion. The Jews just wanted to survive in the area that was designated as the Jewish homeland and state. Really, they were so depleted a population (immediately after WWII) in 1948 that it is a wonder that they did not lose entirely. It is important to read Resolution 194 Section 11 to see that the Jews were ready to allow many of the Arabs to return in peace in a timely manner, but the offer was rejected. Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the events before 15 May 1948 were not an ethnic cleansing but just for your information :

• Jews were the 'ethnic minority' in Palestine but the first exodus occured in the territories dedicated by the Partition Plan to the Jewish State and there, they were the majority. More, when Zionist Jews and Palestinian Arabs are compared, Palestinian Arabs were far more weaker
• For the killings, see : Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War... Few before May 1948.
• At Lydda and Ramle (Dani), in North Galilee (Hiram) and North Negev (Yoav), the aim of the expulsion was clearly to get rid of a "dangerous" Arab minority.

You should read a little bit more about the topic and only come back after. 81.244.41.108 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've said it best, tho it is important to remind people again what Benny Morris has said about the overall picture, that "Most of the people who were displaced fled their homes. A small number were expelled. Most fled their homes as a result of the war, the fear of battle, the fear of being attacked, the fear of dying. A small number also left because of the economic conditions. And a small number were advised or instructed by their leadership, as in Haifa in April 1948, to leave the country." I put that so now we even have a quote that most Arabs fled, and very few were expelled. And again, Morris says also that the refugee situation is 100% the Arab's fault for going to war and rejecting partition. Not to mention, UN 194 doesn't even say "must," but "should," about refugees, which means its not an order.Tallicfan20 (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Still not undefinitely blocked ? Strange... 81.244.41.108 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a simple google books search [8] provides tens of examples characterizing what happened to the Palestinian as ethnic cleansing. There are fewer sources for many of the other listing on the page. The "controversy" over "Palestine" tends to result in the setting of special rules. But I don't think the case has been made for this entry's removal and the multiple scholarly sources using the term to describe what happened to the Palestinians is evidence enough to support its inclusion. Tiamut^talk 16:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sources given do not support the epithet. Nor are they properly sourced with page numbers for quote. Why don't I delete it and someone can return it properly sourced? Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added it back in. One of my sources does not appear to have been mentioned previously: The dark side of democracy: explaining ethnic cleansing, which mentions Palestine as a case. The idea that the cleansed group needs to be an ethnic minority is ridiculous: that is the part that has no reference and needs to be removed. As the article states correctly, the phrase became well-known during the Yugoslav wars, but it was definitely not reserved for cases where an ethnic minority was the victim. In Croatia, the Croats were the majority and the Serbs were the minority, yet cases in which the Serbs expelled Croats were called "ethnic cleansing". In Kosovo, actions by both sides were called "ethnic cleaning": it's difficult to define the minority there, when the Albanians were the minority in Yugoslavia (then the country) but the majority in Kosovo itself. I think that Palestine should definitely be included and I suggest that the definition at the top is altered with new references. Epa101 (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your source supports your assertion -- perhaps I missed something. Can you say exactly how it does? Also, other elements of this issue have been addressed below. Perhaps you could address those points as well. IronDuke 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Try reading what Epa101 linked to IronDuke. Its a scholarly work by Michael Mann about ethnic cleansing as practiced in different places around the world. One relevant passage from the book reads:

Israel is main the contemporary example of settler-conquerors. For half a century, Israelis have been cleansing the occupied territories of native Arabs, most murderously in the late 1940s; renewed again in the Jewish land-grabbing of the past few years. Israelis have mainly cleansed within their own occupied territories, devising the typical settler state:democracy for the settlers, lesser rights for the natives - what Yiftachel (1999) accurately terms an ethnocracy, a demos only for the ethnos.

There are other references there are well (read them). This, combined with the many other notable, scholarly works characterizing the events of 1948 war and subsequent Israeli policies as ethnic cleansing provide more than enough evidence as to the appropriateness of including Palestinians on this page. There is no simply way to get around it. Tiamut^talk 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I did better than that, I read what Epa cited: Page 143... I didn't see a reference there to ethnic cleansing... did you? As for "many other notable, scholarly works" we have Nur-eldeen Masalha who, according to Morris (who is cited), edits with bias and Morris himself, who seems to correctly locate the issue as complaex and nuanced, not as an attempt at sloganeering or demonisation. Is that enough to establish "ethnic cleansing" here as a matter of fact, rather than opinion? IronDuke 00:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that bias is not equivalent to a lack of reliability. In my opinion, again, the proper way of dealing with this is presenting both "sides" of the argument, not just pretending one does not exist. nableezy - 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it's all that well establilshed, but in any case, yer begging my question there, Hoss. IronDuke 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am overstating how well established it is, but every discussion I have seen at RS/N has been unequivocal in rejecting the idea that bias means a lack of reliability. I dont exactly see how I am begging the question, but Ill take your word for it. nableezy - 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying biased = worthless, I'm saying biased =/ fact. That's the quesiton I'm raising. Is it a fact that Israel is/has ethnically cleansed Palestinians? No, I think. It's a loose term that has definitely been applied here, and we can certainly note that, but by putting it on this page, we're acting as though it were fact. IronDuke 01:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If we just say in a list that this is one of them then yes we say it is a fact. But if we add some nuance, such as "The Palestinian exodus has been cited as an example of ethnic cleansing by ... . They say that because of ... . This is disputed by ... . They dispute it because ... ." In that scenario we are not saying it is a fact, only that some people say it is and some say it isnt. I cannot see why such a formulation would be objectionable to anybody. nableezy - 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe if it was in its own section, titled in some way to indicate it was disputed, then yeah. But as it is, a reader would have a hard time figuring out that WP wasn't effectively putting its imprimatur on the notion that Ps's were EC'd by I's. IronDuke 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my typing "page 143" was a mistake: I was using the search engine on Google Books, and looked at the wrong place. I've altered the reference to 519. See also pages 129-131 in this book, pages 194-195 of this book, pages 10-14 in this book and even page 190 in a Greenwood Encyclopedia of Children's Issues (not as in an encyclopedia for children but for people interested in children's welfare). There seems to be a chapter on the subject starting at page 251 in this encyclopedia, but you can't view the content for free. I think this is a well-accepted case. Those who argue against it say that there might not have been a government plan for the expulsion, but then it's also disputed that there were government plans for the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and Rwanda; I can quite believe these were all spontaneous acts of brutality, as sadly humans do too often. Epa101 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This article looks as if it may support inclusion of the case, but I'm not able to read it all. Glancing down the list, there are certainly many other examples on there which are more disputed than the 1948 Palestinian case. The one about Mexican gangs expelling Blacks in the US cities is hardly a case of academic consensus. The one about Jews' removal from Gaza and the West Bank has no academic references and, out of its five journalistic references, two are from the BBC which makes no reference to "ethnic cleansing" or any moral analysis of the expulsions. I don't think any case is agreed on by everybody: even if we take the recent case of Yugoslavia, the Croatian government claims that Operation Storm was not ethnic cleansing or any violation of international law, and that was the biggest mass movement of the era. I think people are applying high standards to Palestine 1948 here, but doing this consistently would remove probably all examples from the article. Epa101 (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Our own source here, as quoted in the lead of the master article, disputes this. "Benny Morris writes that most of the refugees fled their homes because of the flail of war and the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders, but that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops." Were some Palestinians "expelled?" It would seem so. Do these incidents add up to "ethnic cleansing?" Depends on who you ask. IronDuke 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article on the 1948 Palestinian exodus slightly misrepresents Benny Morris's view. As explained by Beverly Milton-Edwards, Morris' position doesn't deny that there was ethnic cleansing, just that there was a master plan for population transfer. He sees ethnic cleansing as having taken place as a result of the war, and views it as necessary, for without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians, the establishment of a Jewish state would not be possible. pp. 70-72 There is little dispute among serious scholars as to whether or not what happened to the Palestinian can be described as ethnic cleansing. The debate centers more around the circumstances under it which it occurred and degrees of intent. Tiamut^talk 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure, it can be. You can also describe the Palestinian attitude in 48 as "We'll leave now and come back and complete the genocide against the Jews later." But should we? No. And as I noted below (and elsewhere), I'm not seeing a scholarly consensus that the 1948 Exodus, en toto, constitutes EC. IronDuke 20:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, you've been presented with tens of examples of high quality scholarly sources saying what happened (and even what is happening) in Palestine is ethnic cleansing. Do you have one that says that its not? Or are you planning on winning us over with tangential rhetorical appeals to Palestinian bloodthirtiness? Tiamut^talk 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Expulsions of an ethnic group does constitute ethnic cleansing. I don't see how the 1948 Palestinian case is different from any other well-established case. IronDuke, you ask for consensus: you must know that no case has 100% consensus, but there is a huge number of scholars who believe that areas of Palestine were ethnically cleansed in 1948. Do you not think that some of the cases I mentioned earlier, such as the Mexican gangs example and the Gaza/West Bank settlements example, are much more questionable than Palestine 1948? Consistency of standards would dictate that Palestine 1948 should be mentioned. Epa101 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples and accusations of EC

Taking a cue from Tallicfan above, I see that many of these accusations of ethnic cleansing are made with zero supporting evidence. I think this is atrocious. Anyone can claim anything, but without supporting evidence such accusations are cruel and unfair. I think all accusations that have only a ** as sole supporting should be "cleansed" right off the page, immediately. I would be happy to do it myself, if others agree. Stellarkid (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Stellarkid. that idea would be stellar, especially on such a topic. I would be inherently POV for POV to be pushed on such sensitive subjects.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1948 events seen as an ethnic cleansing

• Yes - Nur-eldeen Masalha, Catastrophe remembered: Palestine, ISrael and the internal refugees, § introduction writes : "[other facts and] the facts of the Nakba, Israel's responsibility for ethnic cleansing, the ocean of suffering of the Palestinian (internal and external) refugees, (...) are some issues addressed in this collection.
• Yes - Nur-eldeen Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion uses more than 20 times the words "ethnic cleansing" to refer to the 1948 transfer/events.
• Nuanced - Meron Benvenisti, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, pp.124-142 analyses the question of whether or not the events were an ethnic cleansing ? According to him (p.127), "(...) the contention that the Jews exploited the Palestinians' weakness in order to carry out unprovoked, premeditated ethnic cleansing does not stand up the close scrutinity. But these unambiguous conclusions regarding "ethnic cleansing" apply only to the first part of the war. (p.142), he adds : "The picture that emerges from a descriptoin of the first part of the 1948 war is not, in any case, unambiguous. It does not fully support the claim of "ethnic cleansing," planned and premeditated by the Zionist leadership. Neither does it support the opposition contention (...). BUT the following events, p.145, he writes : "The expulsions carried out after the founding of the state, and without a doubt those effected after the middle of June (...) came danderoulsly close to fitting the definition of "ethnic cleansing". P.149, he considers that "After the "miraculous exodus" (...), "ethnic cleansing" bacame an acceptable, or even a desirable, means of achieving [the establishment of Israel]." P.155 : "The ethnic cleansing" of the northern part of the country, which was rationalized on security grounds, continued well into 1949. (...)...
• Yes - Tanya Reinhart, How to end the war of 1948, p10 : "By now, there can be little doubt that what they mean by that analogy is that the work of ethnic cleansing was only half completed in 1948, (...).
• Yes - Lila Abu Lughod, Nakba: Palestine 1948 and the claims of memory p.291 writes : "[The partition vote] enabled the Zionist to implement their own even more one-sided partition plan [and] to incorporate into its implementation the transfer (a euphemisms for what we now call ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians (...).
• Nuanced - Benny Morris, 1948: A history of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, pp.407-8 writes : "During the 1948 War, which was universally viewed, from the Jewish side, as a war of survival, although threre were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy. Thud, by war's end, even though much of the country had been "cleansed" of Arabs, other parts of the country -notably central Galilee- were left with substantial Muslim Arab populations, and towns in the heart of the Jewish coastal strip, Haifa and Jaffa, were left with an Arab minority."

... 81.244.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not only an IP editor, but you think because as all of your biased anti-Israel sources say something it means its indisputably true (which would be inherent POV), even tho "ethnic cleansing" is a very loosely defined term with no precise meaning. Also, you cite Benny Morris, as so many do. Lemme quote Stellarkid's post in the Palestinian refugee page ""an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing...." is arguably not the same thing as Benny Morris saying "ethnic cleansing happened." No one argues that there are those who refer to the Palestinian expulsions that way, but because some or even many people refer to something a certain way is no reason to include it. I have shown that Morris in his earlier books used the words "cleansing" to refer specifically to "cleansing" enemy forces during a war, and nothing at all to do with "ethnicity" - eg Birth of the Refugee Problem Revisited 2004

   464: - "quick and immediate cleansing [tihur] of the conquered areas of all the hostile elements..."
   260: - "to 'clean' all the Arab villages that were occupied by the Egyptian military force".
   235: - "the continuation of intimidation and cleansing activities as a first stage in operations[geared to] the destruction and conquest of the   enemy forces and bases."
   65: - "cleansing, conquest and destruction of enemy villages in your area."
   518: -"cleansing and destruction of the enemy force..."  

Also, I will QUOTE Benny Morris here "There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". And notice he puts it in quotes, implying that its a charge, not even something we can think MUST be true.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris saying "an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing" is a source for it being called ethnic cleansing. Nobody said Benny Morris himself sees these events as ethnic cleansing, but it is clear that he does recognize that it has been called such. nableezy - 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tallicfan20, which ones of these sources are biaised are why ? Did you try to find other ones instead of just shouting the ones currently in the articles were not good and these ones were biaised ? 81.244.32.223 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tallicfan20 has a point, it seems to me. The article says This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case; nor do all the claims necessarily follow definitions given in this article. Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted. So we are expecting academic or legal experts, and it should be noted if the accusers are journalists or politicians. The question would be, beside bias, are these "academics" experts in the field (of history of the area) or are they not? Are they biased? It is inherently unfair to demand that someone find reliable sources for something that he holds not hold to be true. It is reasonable to challenge the insertion of material if it is biased. You have asked, so let's begin.

Nur-eldeen Masalha is the first one quoted. His wiki article bills him as a Palestinian professor of religion and politics. His page shows he is extremely prolific and is certainly notable. In the U.S. a "Research Associate" is not a particularly high level rank in Academia. But perhaps things are different in the UK. His WP page is interesting in that by far majority of it is geared to demonstrating his notability, and sounds like an advertisement, curriculum vitae, personal page. The 3 sections that are not part of the advert are three. 1) He co-founded the Holy Land Studies magazine 2) He criticised Benny Morris 1988 book claiming Morris has "pro-Israeli bias" [and what does this reflect upon Masalha?] 3)and others' commentary on his book entitled "Explusion of the Palestinians: The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. According to Edward Said, another notable Palestinian academic and thoroughly pov, "Masalha's book demonstrates that every Zionist leader of the Left, Right or Centre, with no significant exceptions, was in favour of ridding Palestine of Palestinians, by all means necessary, force and bribery included." To an unbiased ear, such praise sounds more like accusation of overriding prejudice. But there is nothing further written of Masalha's thinking at all. Thoroughly biased, his life work seems to be related entirely to excoriating Jews and "Zionists." Masalha may be an academic, but his field is religion and politics, not history. Stellarkid (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Meron Benvenisti is a politician, ex-mayor of Jerusalem, (the Israeli Rudy Giuliani?) often referred to as a "political scientist", "political pundit" - an outspoken critic of Israel and champion of the Palestinians. He is not an objective academic or legal "expert." And as you point out, the accusation is "nuanced." If this is indeed a fair accusation, we should be able to find objective academics (not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine) that make the claim outright. Stellarkid (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tanya Reinhart is a linguist and student of [anti-Israel] Noam Chomsky. There is nothing wrong with that, but how is it related to being an expert on a particular time in middle eastern history? What would make her an expert on ethnic cleansing? All of these people should be noted as political, subjective, and not speaking from their field of expertise! Stellarkid (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lila Abu-Lughod I am sure is a very bright lady, with a notable father and husband. She is identified in WP as a Palestinian-American and a professor of anthropology and Women and Gender Studies. We are told she supports an academic boycott er.. Academic boycotts of Israel. With the exception of her latest book Nakba: Palestine 1948 and the claims of memory, most of her writings have been gender-related, or political. This book is arguably political. I have no doubt that Ms Abu-Lughod honestly believes it when she says that transfer is a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing," but even so, she is speaking out of her field of [academic] expertise.

I am certainly sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, and to the Israeli one as well. But whether or not it is accurately termed "ethnic cleansing" should not be determined by the people involved or by our sympathies - it needs to be referenced to a wider academic and objective community. Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I see now where someone has added more and altogether different references from those of the anonymous IP above, so the above references are moot. That was surely a giant waste of time. will check out the new refs tomorrow. Let's hope they are more accurate than the initial ones. [User:Stellarkid|Stellarkid]] (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have missed something. No particular references was added ?

• Benny Morris, in the introduction of The Birth (...) revisited, p.5 writes : "An additional reason for this deeper treatment was criticism of my initial treatment of the subject by both Arab and Israeli scholars : Arab historians like Nur Masalha argued that (...)"... It seems that Benny Morris considers Nur Masalha as a scholar, an historian and reknown enough to cite his name and introduce him as a reference. It also seems that Masalha's criticism was one of the reason why Morris "revisited" his former work on the topic.
• If Palestinian historians are not reliable, that decrease the number of possibilities to see the 1948 events described as an ethnic cleansing. Another one is : Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, 2007, p.!&__ : "[they were] to engage in what today is called ethnic cleansing. The neutral, bland term "transfer" was the Orwellian (...)".
• Note that wikipedia is not a wp:rs sources. 81.242.121.24 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to WP used as a rs, I am aware of the policy and was only using WP to enlighten on the WP:talk page. If there are errors on those pages, feel free to correct them, as I do. I said nothing about particular references being added. What I did say is that the authors cited were writing from bias.
• You quote Morris referring to Masalha as an historian but you removed the context that demonstrated my point. Morris goes on in say in the next sentence, "Masalha was eager to prove that Zionism was a robber ideology and Israel, an innately expansionist robber state." While you and other Palestinians may agree with that theory, it is a political ideology and bias that WP has no business presenting as established fact.
• With respect to Khalidi, he does indeed regularly refer to the events in '48 and after as "ethnic cleansing," but he also refers to the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians (what others would call terrorism) as legitimate resistance.
• Bias such as this tends to spin or distort the facts in a particular direction, leading Morris to say, as he does, that an historian is "eager to prove" a point of view. Stellarkid (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

First, I am near certain that the IP is a French user, not a Palestinian. But to the rest, nothing you wrote about bias of the historians matter, it is a fact that a number of them call these events ethnic cleansing and it is also a fact that bias does not equal unreliability. You have been given scholarly works that say these events were ethnic cleansing, if you have a problem with that I suggest you contact either the authors or the publishers, or even write a review on amazon.com, but here we go with the sources, and these are among the highest quality sources we have. You cannot argue that the sources are wrong, well you can but it doesnt matter. nableezy - 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am indeed French and not Palestinian. More I don't have any Palestinian friends, only Israelis. I want to point out that my mind is that the events were not an ethnic cleansing and I could argue why. Nevertheless, we don't care our minds : some wp:rs sources are very clear and see the events of '48 as an ethnic cleansing. That's it.

If I am not happy with that, nothing prevents me to try to publish a paper on the topic in an international review and to explain how these Palestinian scholars are a little bit exagerating as well as Pappé but we are on wikipedia and on wikipedia we make fair summary of what is published in the wp:rs sources, such as Masalha and R. Khalidi. 81.244.173.123 (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not interested in the anonymous IP's self-identification. It means nothing in a collaborative article. French, Palestinian, Chinese - all have potential to be honest brokers and I work from that assumption. I see that now at least the sources given have some page numbers, and hopefully the sources that did not even support the contentions are gone. Reliability and bias are interesting concepts and the relation between them even more so. My guess is that an author with bias would be reliable for verifiable facts, but not for opinion. One needs to decide if the charge of ethnic cleansing is a fact, or a mere opinion based on bias. Considering that the concept's definition hardly stands still long enough to pin it down, we should at least try to find some notable sources whose opinions are not colored by bias. Stellarkid (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are not interested I suggest you not write things like "While you and other Palestinians". It makes you seem dismissive of people because they are Palestinians. nableezy - 03:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the authors being quoted were (in the main) Palestinians. It is clear that this is the "Palestinian" position. I am sorry you misunderstood me. Stellarkid (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"My guess is that an author with bias would be reliable for verifiable facts, but not for opinion.". That is an option we could have used on wikipedia. The only problems we can see are : 1. these are not opinions but analysis ; 2. absolutely all of these scholars could be accused of bias... : In the following, I can argue for each of them why they could be suspected of "parti pris" : Morris, Gelber, Karsh, Shlaim, Teveth, al-Jawad, Sela, Masalha, Khalidi W., Khalidi R., Pappé, Shapira. 3. A "fact" must be named : whether flee, expulsion, transfer or ethnic cleansing. -> When you claim Plan D was a master plan to get rid of the Palestinians (facts) and when you see that Lydda and Ramle was depopulated manu militari (fact), the "analysis" (not opinion, analysis) that the events were an ethnic cleansing become a fact. So, that is not that easy as stating : there are facts and opinions : there are analysis based on controversed facts. 4. More, in wikipedia, facts are primary sources. Only scholars have enough know-how to analyse facts (primary sources) and draw conclusions from these. We can only rely on reliable secondary sources, ie the analysis of these scholars. 81.242.164.141 (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is controversy over some of the facts, such as "was Plan Dalet ever implemented, and if so what part?" Were Lydda and Ramle and other mainly Palestinian villages "depopulated" because there residents were aiding the Arab forces, because they were afraid to be caught up in the fighting, because they were expelled as part of a military operation in self-defense, or because the majority (were they?) population of Israelis were trying to rid the area of Arabs because they wanted to be homogeneous, as (one of) the definition(s) claims? The definition(s) of ethnic cleansing as given should be reworked or discarded. As it stands, it is defined according to intent, and we have to determine intent, which is a matter of opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy is not to know if the Plan D was ever implemented. It was. The controversy is to know if the plan was really dedicated to expell Palestinians or if it was dedicated to prepare the announced attack of the neighbour Arab states.
The 50,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled by force. This is a war crime. The question is to know if the order to expell them was part of a plan of expulsion or if it was just a expulsion decided at the moment. It is often stated that at exactly the same time the christian unhabitants of Nazareth were not expelled.
Whatever, Masalha, Khalidi and numerous others scholars and historians, even if Palestinians, write that these events were an ethnic cleansing. That's it. They are no more or no less biased that the Israelis scholars, from wikipedia point of view. 81.244.176.116 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The controversy includes questions over the implementation as well as the reasons, as I stated. The reasons are relevant due to the fact that the article postulates a reason or purpose in the definition (see lede)-- (ie "to achieve ethnic homogeneity"). Non-Palestinian scholars are conflicted as to motive. Bias may assume a motive that is not really there. (ie "a Zionist master plan). Apparently it was Khalidi who first came up with the interpretation, according to Efraim Karsh in Israel: the first hundred years pg 12 ff

This plan was interpreted by the Palestinian scholar Walid Khalidi, and adopted by other academics, as a Jewish master-plan for the occupation of the territories which would eventually come to comprise the Israel of 1949, at the expense of the Palestinians, and for the deportation of the Palestinians from these territories.[48] However intriguing, this thesis is fundamentally misconceived, not least since it is predicated on a combination of a tendentious interpreation of a military document....Moreover, the plan was devised as a strategy against an invasion, rather than against the Palestinians, but the developments on the Jewish-Palestinian front made it relevant there as well.[9]

Another (apparently) Israeli writer, Yehoshafat Harkabi in his book Arab attitudes to Israel" on pg 366 says:

Khalidi adds that the Jewish occupation of Tiberias and Haifa before the Arab invasion shows that this plan was carried out. This conclusion is reached by means of a selective memory or selective oblivion in regard to the acts by the Palestinian Arabs which preceded Plan Dalet: the attacks on Kfar Szold, Kfar Etzion, Yehiam, Tirat Zvi and other villages, as well as the attempt to disrupt Jewish transport and communications, which made the plan a necessity." Since the Arabs did not succeed in preventing partition by force, this aim of theirs is forgotten, and the blame for the war is transferred, by a process of oversimplification, to the Jews.

Benny Morris conludes there was no master plan or blueprint according to Helena Lindholm Schulz and Juliane Hammer

Morris's conclusion is that there was never a master plan to evict the Palestinian population. Rather than a political blueprint, Plan D was a military plan for how to deal with the local population in order to prevent attacks and resistance.....The strategic aim of securing the Jewish state meant that villages where resistance forces had their bases were dragged into the conflict.... (ibid 62f-- that is Morris 1987) --

In Israel's wars: a history since 1947 Ahron Bregman (Israeli?)(Jewish?) writes on page 17.

Another aim of the Jewish forces was to prepare the ground for what seemed to be an inevitable invasion of neighbouring Arab regular armies the moment the British left Palestine. The General Staff of the Jewish forces devised what became known as 'Plan Dalet' (Tochnit Dalet), the principal objective of which was to consolidate control over areas allotted to the Jewish State and also to seize strategic positions to make it possible to block regular Arab armies in case they marched into Palestine. What is significant about 'Plan Dalet' - it was distributed to field commanders on 29 February and became a directive to all units on 10 March 1948 - is that, apart from envisaging the occupation of strategic positions, it also allowed for the occupation of Arab village, towns and cities, and where necessary , the expulsion of their inhabitants.

So what we have here is Khalidi and his interpretation of Plan D as a master plan, who is followed by academics (and non-) who agree with his interpretation, and Israeli (pro-Israeli?) academics who do not and who consider that interpretation seriously flawed, simplistic, or downright wrong. None of the Israelis (?) say (or even hint for that matter) that the expulsions were ethnically motivated. In fact, Kimmerling , who is sympathetic to the Palestinian position, says "Was there, indeed, a Zionist master plan to expel the Palestinians? ....The evidence is far more equivocal than Khalidi suggests. Plan Dalet itself was full of inner contradictions..."

If, as you say of Khalidi and the Palestinian writers: "They are no more or no less biased that the Israelis scholars, from wikipedia point of view," what is the justification for choosing one interpretation over another? Obviously none. That is why my first inclination was to remove the contested and pov assertion altogether, else we must add the Israeli interpretation as well. Right? Stellarkid (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What Israeli interpretation ? There is no Israeli interpretation.

Eventullay you may refer to precise Israeli scholars and it could be added that the fact these events are seen as an ethnic cleansing is not shared by many scholars and quote them. That is npov.

Note that the different analysis on the '48 events are given in the articles 1948 Palestinian exodus and Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus. 81.244.41.148 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

By "interpretation" I was referring to Khalidi's interpretation of Plan D as "proof" of a "Zionist master plan" for ethnic cleansing. This view is generally accepted by Palestinian academics and generally rejected by Israelis. Yes, and I will be adding that material shortly. Stellarkid (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

The dichotomy is not just "Palestinian/Israeli" historians. Eg, in France, French historian fr:Dominique Vidal is convinced by Khalidi's and consorts analysis while fr:Henry Laurens is not. In UK and the USA, there are also historians who are convinced by the analysis of Khalidi, such as Michael Palumbo or Steven Glezer.

As far as I know, both Benny Morris and Yoav Gelber strongly oppose to Khalidi's and consorts analysis. The first one stating eg that he found no references to Plan D in the operational orders sent to brigade commanders, which means that whatever it states, it had no impact on the field and in the expulsions that occured (source: somewhere in '1948') ; the second one points out that Khalidi analysis uses a single paragraph of the Plan D out of its context (source: full analysis is in an Annex of 'Palestine 1948' but can be downloaded from the internet)

About ethnic cleansing, Dominique Vidal supports the idea, Henry Laurens does not comment. Benny Morris wrote several times the events were an ethnic cleansing. Among the ones I have just mentioned, only Yoav Gelber opposes to these words.

To be fair, it should be added that according to Yoav Gelber, the expulsions were orchastrated by Yigal Alon. He bases his analysis on the fact that during Operation Yiftah (cleansing of East Galilee), Operation Dani (cleansing of Lydda and Ramle) and Operation Yoav (cleansing of North Negev), where principal expulsions occured, Yigal Alon was at the command. So, the expulsions are not denied -> if you add some more material, take care not to make believe the discussion is whether there were (expulsions/ethnic cleansing or not) but rather if the expulsions where premediated by a plan drawn by advance of if they occured during the war or where taken at the initiative of more or less local commanders but not the Yishuv authorities who just let it go. 81.241.65.143 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. I would never argue that expulsions did not take place, as we know, they did. I might argue, assuming that I found academic support, that the definition of "ethnic cleansing" was not necessary met. Just as we make a distinction that all episodes of ethnic cleansing are not genocides, by the same token all expulsions are not necessarily ethnic cleansing. Stellarkid (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

We are far away from wikipedia where we only report the minds of scholars and not ours. Until July, fore sure, what happened during the '48 Palestine War was not an ethnic cleansing because there was no plan to expel these Palestinians, because many fled and because there were many other good reasons to expel them than their 'ethnicity'. After, that is another issue but scholars simply lack material. But, we are so close to the border between "ethnic cleansing" (a plan and premeditation is needed) and "war crimes with systematic forced expulsions and massacres" (they occured) that the definition itself may be modified in the future according to the morale aspect "people" want to give to the events and the concept of ethnic cleansing.

81.244.174.220 (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this can stay here. I understand that some people refer to it as ethnic cleansing, but it's a controversial view. The facts are, have been (and likely always will be) hotly debated. Presenting it in this article makes it seem like established fact. IronDuke 00:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That isnt the answer. We say who says it is and why and say who says it is not and why. Not just take the view that it isnt, which likewise makes it seem like an established fact that it isnt. nableezy - 01:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't, in fact, say who says it or why. In order to do the snippet justice, it would begin something like, "There is disagreement over the events of 1948, both in fact and in nomenclature," etc. But even then, what's the standard for inclusion on this page? It's such a sensitive topic, I would !vote, across the board, to eliminate anything that wasn't widely accepted -- and just because it isn't widely accepted doesn't make it not true (apologies for not having failed to not think of a positive way to phrase the latter). IronDuke 04:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know we dont, or didnt, say who and why, I am saying we should, and who says it isnt and why. It is a significant view that have been published by reliable sources and ignoring it is not what we should be doing. nableezy - 04:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I've restored this, which was deleted by IronDuke. I find this deletion to be odd, especially given the discussion here. Its attributed to its speaker, the speaker is a notable personality with a relevant background and the quote is directly relevant to the contents of this page. I don't understand why we should be censoring out information. Note further that the Palestinian entry on this page, is practically the only one to have so many high quality sources attesting to its characterization as ethnic cleansing, as well as being the only one to include a counter-perspective in the footnotesn to the entry. I don't understand why it is consistently singled out, and not on the basis of sources challenging this characterization, but on editor's random opinions and likes and dislikes. Not right. 06:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me take a step back. Is the notion that Palestinians were "ethnically cleansed" non-controversial? IronDuke 15:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All alleged cases of ethnic cleansing are controversial IronDuke. Why should the Palestinian case be treated differently that any other?

Further, the controversy over the Palestinian case (and the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands) has now been documented (by me, thank you, I know I shouldn't have), making them the only two entries on this page to cover both sides of the ethnic cleansing coin. I would do it for others too, but this happens to be my area of expertise, and I wouldn't want to muck up other entries with my ignorance. Tiamut^talk 15:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding some counter-balancing sources, and for taking the time to poison the well while citing them so others didn’t have to. I’m also heartened to see that you ratcheted up the hysterical tone of the segment, as that makes it easier to remove the thing in its entirety, which I’ve just done after taking a close look at some of the “sources” you found.

First you have Beverly Milton Edwards, who appears to be supporting the exact position I am, which is that what happened, and what to call it, remains a subject of controversy. Then you have Ted Honderich, who, if our own entry on him is to be believed, is an outspoken advocate for Palestinian terrorism—literally. Then there’s McDowall and Borker – do either of them definitively state that what happened was “ethnic cleansing?” Then, perhaps my favorite, “Forced expulsion, or what is increasingly referred to as ethnic cleansing,” is copyvioed from a reference to a quote from a Maoist Communist newspaper. Really? You’re standing behind that? The Corrigan quote is reffed to a non reliable source (AFAICT), and Corrigan herself is, to the best of my knowledge, no expert at all on the history of Israel/Palestine. Other than that, looks pretty good. IronDuke 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond right now because what you just did, the way you did it and said it, really has my blood boiling and I'm quite sure I will say or do something stupid. So I'm going to go edit other articles, in the hope that you will regain some sense of collegiality and common sense about how to deal with other editors, perspectives and information. Perhaps then, I will return. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry if I offended you. When you return, if you wish to tell me what in particular you objected to in terms of collegiality, I will endeavor to refactor. IronDuke 17:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish exodus from Arab lands

We have this paragraph in the article:

Between the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six Day War in 1967, there was a Jewish exodus from Arab lands, in which 99 percent of Sephardic Jews (approximately 800,000 people) fled or were forced to leave Arab countries of North Africa and the Mediterranean. Many migrated to Israel; others to the United States and Europe. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a coordinated effort among Arab governments to create physical and political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property.

I'd like to know which source cited characterizes these events as ethnic cleansing, because I cannot seem to find it. Tiamut^talk 07:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: this edit. Is this the only source mentioning ethnic cleansing? An op-ed in The Jerusalem Post? Tiamut^talk 13:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term.

I removed the sentence that said "The term "ethnic cleansing" entered the English lexicon as a loan translation of the Serbo-Croatian phrase etnic(ko c(išc'enje (pronounced [e(tnit?ko? t?î?t?e??e]) and has become synonymous with the term genocide.[7]" The source "The Encyclopedia of Rape" does indeed say that the two are synonymous but the WP article makes a clear distinction. It makes the distinction at the very top of the page where it asserts & links : "Not to be confused with Genocide" and when it quotes the long quote from the European Court of Human Rights, part of which states:

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.

So while ethnic cleansing may constitute genocide, it depends on intent - ie destruction of a particular ethnic group. Removal from the region, ie expulsion, is one of the elements used to define ethnic cleansing, is not synonymous with genocide. Thus I removed the (Encyclopedia of Rape) reference as confusing, and contradicted by the rest of the article. Stellarkid (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I share your mind.

a genocide is a form ethnic cleansing but an ethnic cleansing can occur without genocide. 81.241.65.143 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edict of Expulsion

Can someone able to edit this article please add the 1290 Edict of Expulsion of the Jews from England by Edward I as an example of ethnic cleansing? 86.143.239.186 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that. We have an article on this here at WP 1290 Edict of Expulsion of the Jews. According to from the European Jewish Press, and this one from YNET as of 2006, the Edict was apparently still legally valid in Britain, requiring only the Queen's signature to be canceled! Stellarkid (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this would be an example of ethnic cleansing, my understanding is that the insertion of such an accusation requires some authority to actually label it "ethnic cleansing" or at least "cleansing," and that to simply add it would be an example of WP:OR. If you had such a reference, I would be happy to add it. Stellarkid (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned in a book by an academic

In The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Ilan Pappe, Oneworld, Oxford, 2006), this list is mentioned on pages 3 and 4. I was wondering whether there is a procedure for Wikipedia articles mentioned in this way. I know that there is for media referencing of articles, as occurred with the recluse article, which used to have a long list of celebrities.

The book says that all cases are written as "alleged". That doesn't seem to be the case with this article anymore. Pappe says, "one cannot tell whether the editors regard the Nakba as a case of ethnic cleansing that leaves no room for ambivalence, as in the examples of Nazi Germany or the former Yugoslavia, or whether they consider this a more doubtful case, perhaps similar to that of the Jewish settlers whom Israel removed from the Gaza Strip." (page 4) Epa101 (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing as a crime under international law

This section is a mess. It has a lot of WP:SYN in it, because it mixes up

• international law that governs the movement of populations during and international conflict. These are chiefly covered by the IV Geneva conventions as described in Annexation#Annexation and international law after 1948 and as such movements such as the expulsion of Germans before GCIV is not relevant.
• Internal conflicts. The reason why ethnic cleansing and war crimes could be considered in the Bosnian War is because the ICTY argued that in some aspects it was an international war as far as war crimes was concerned because of the chain of command up to Serbia (while at the same time the ICJ choose not to see a such a chain of command when looking a the Bosnian Genocide Case.[10][11]
• This is not to say that crimes against humanity could not have taken place even if it were purely an internal conflict, but that is a whole legal argument in itself and also involves arguments about the jurisdiction of the ICC, and who is anyone should try people who commit crimes against humanity in an internal conflict (see the legal arguments around Sudan the International response to the War in Darfur and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674). --PBS (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Locked

This page should be locked for unloged users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmilt (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing as a military, political and economic tactic

I have tagged the section Ethnic cleansing#Ethnic cleansing as a military, political and economic tactic because most of the paragraphs make claims without any sources what so ever. I have embedded hidden comments into the citation needed tags the paragraphs and sentences that I think need to be covered with citations.

Compared to the sections immediately before and after it it is very weak. I suggest that it is moved out of the article and placed here until such time as its contents can be verified with reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

1740 Batavia Massacre[[12]] this pogrom or ethnic cleansing or both of them?Daimond (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Instances of ethnic cleansing

At the top of the section Ethnic cleansing#Instances of ethnic cleansing it says "This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts." I clean up (excuse the pun) the sub section "In early modern history" almost a year ago and tagged the entries for the "20th century" section. I had hoped that the entries in "In early modern history" would act as a template for the "20th century" section section but this has not been done and very few of the entries have the names of the "academic or legal experts" who consider specific events to be cases of ethnic cleansing. It is my intention to move all those entries that do not contain such citations to this page so that they can be copied back in a non OR format with appropriate citations. Some of the entries have sources that are no on line. I have in some cases asked for quotes from those sources to show that the authors state the events were in their opinion examples of ethnic cleansing, but after almost a year no such quotes have been provided. -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While Israel's removal of its citizens from settlements in Gaza is described as an incident of ethnic cleansing, there's no references to any academic describing it as an incident of ethnic cleansing and the only people who I've seen refer to it as ethnic cleansing is the settler movement itself. Should that entry be removed or amended to let people know that there's no academic support for the removal of an occupying power's own citizens from occupied territory being viewed as ethnic cleansing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snazzy Cassy (talk • contribs) 01:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

Some of the expulsions were a result of early conquering events. for instance in the Balkan area countries which gained independence expelled turks whose ancestors moved to the area because of Ottoman conquest, the turks engaged in mass killing of local people and removed many to replace the land by their own kind. if the law says this is "crime", then who will answer the crimes done by the Ottoman turks? someone in the world were born to be guilty, in my understanding, the descendant of early conquerers should leave by themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.191.239 (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point with regards to this article being what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yalta and Potsdam Conferences Provided de facto Authorization for the Ethnic Cleansing of Germans

The 1945 World Powers of USA, UK, and USSR authorized the de facto ethnic cleansing of millions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and within the 1937 borders of Poland up to, going east, the Curzon Line. Any ethnic German in those 3 countries, regardless of whether they had been in the targeted area for a few months, a few years, or, those whose ancestors had lived in the area for multiple generations (generations in some cases going back 700 years), were subject to expulsion from those countries based upon the authorization from the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. The wording from those conferences left no doubt but that the expelling officials in each of those three countries could, if they so chose, expell virtually 100% of all those whom they designated as ethnic Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.247.204 (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This article is rife with original research. Too may editors are assuming that because people were deported, expelled killed or whatever that the events must be ethnic cleansing. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to draw those conclusions. For there to be an entry here the terms needs to be attributed in the text to an authority. Take for example the two entries in Ethnic cleansing#Early modern history and compare them with the first entry for the 20th century:

Armenian genocide-ethnic cleansings of armenian population of Ottoman Turkey is said to be the first genocide of 20th century, starting from Hamidian massacres in the end of 19-th century till 1923 in Cilicia and has reached its peak in 1915.

Now clearly that was an example of ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. But while I can and other editors can express an opinion on the talk page. It is not up to us to do so. What we should do is find reliable sources as has been done for the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and in the article attribute to historians and other experts their expert opinion on events that they consider to be ethnic cleansing as is done for the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland. The more obvious the ethic cleansing the easier it should be to find sources. If there is significant opinion that an episode was not ethnic cleansing, then that too should be included and give due weight against those who think it was. I had hoped that others would clean up the 20th century but as they have not done so I am going to give it a shot. -- PBS (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

So the first need is to find a reliable source to construct a better entry for the Armenian genocide. Google Google ah yes here is one:

• Birch, Nichola (15 December 2008). "Turkish academics in apology to Armenians". The Independent.

I can now write an basic entry for this event:

In December 2008 200 Turkish intellectuals and academics issued an apology for the ethnic cleansing of Armenians during World War I, an event that most Western historians view as amounting to a genocide. (citing Nichola Birch).

Others may wish to expand on that, and add in the Turkish official position and other details and points of view by other people. But it now expresses the views of "200 Turkish intellectuals and academics" rather than that of Wikipedia editors in the passive narrative of the article. -- PBS (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)