Talk:List of ethnic cleansing campaigns/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Genocide against the Tutsis

Why is the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 not included on the list? In just a few months, about 70% of the ethnic Tutsis were systematically killed by the Hutus. It's hard to find a more obvious case of ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.224.230 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This list if for those events described as ethnic cleansing in reliable sources and the reliable sources describe the events in Rwandan as a genocide for which there is an alternative list Genocide in history. -- PBS (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Russian casualties of War

Can Russian casualties of war actually be considered an ethnic cleansing? Casualties of war in itself does not fall in ethnic cleansing as it is not systematic to a whole population but to the military forces engaged in battle. The mass-killing of soviet prisoners could be considered as ethnic cleansing and it is covered in generalplan ost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 11:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing By Muhammad bin Tughluq

I think this one should be on the list. According to historian Robert Sewell (1845-1925), Muhammad bin Tughluq, the Sultan of Delhi, ordered the massacres of all the inhabitants of the Hindu city of Kanauj.

Robert Sewell wrote in 1900 in A Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar): a contribution to the history of India that: "This failing to fill the treasury he next destroyed agriculture by intolerable exactions ; the husbandmen abandoned their fields and took to robbery as a trade, and whole tracts became depopulated, the survivors living in the utmost starvation and misery and being despoiled of all that they possessed. Muhammad exterminated whole tribes as if they had been vermin. Incensed at the refusal of the inhabitants of a certain harassed tract to pay the inordinate demands of his subordinates, he ordered out his army as if for a hunt, surrounded an extensive tract of country, closed the circle towards the centre, and slaughtered every living soul found therein. This amusement was repeated more than once, and on a subsequent occasion he ordered a general massacre of all the inhabitants of the old Hindu city of Kanauj. 1 These horrors led of course to famine, and the miseries of the Hindus exceeded all power of description. On his return from Devagiri on one occasion he caused a tooth which he had lost to be interred in a magnificent stone mausoleum, which is still in existence at Bhlr. But perhaps the best known of his inhuman eccentricities was his treatment of the inhabitants of the great city of Delhi. Muhammad determined to transfer his capital thence to Devagiri, whose name he changed to Doulatabid. The two places are six hundred miles apart. The king gave a general order to every inhabitant of Delhi to proceed forthwith to Devagiri, and prior to the issue of this order he had he entire road lined with full-grown trees, transplanted for the purpose. The unfortunate people were compelled to obey, and thousands — including women, children, and aged persons— died by the way. Ibn Batuta, who was an eye-witness of the scenes of horror to which this gave rise, has left us the following description : —

'The Sultan ordered all the inhabitants to quit the place (Delhi), and upon some delay being evinced he made a proclamation stating that what person soever, being an inhabitant of that city, should be found in any of its houses or streets should receive condign punishment. Upon this they all went out ; but his servants finding a blind man in one of the houses and a bedridden one in the other, the Emperor commanded the bedridden man to be projected from a balista, and the blind one to be dragged by his feet to Daulatabad, which is at the distance of ten days, and he was so dragged ; but his limbs dropping off by the way, only one of his legs was brought to the place intended, and was then thrown into it ; for the order had been that they should go to this place. When I entered Delhi it was almost a desert.'"

Vincent Arthur Smith was an Irish Indologist (1843-1920) and Stephen Meredyth Edwardes (1873-1927) was a British Indian who was in the Indian Civil Service and was the Commissioner of Police of Bombay Presidency. They wrote the book The Oxford History of India: From the Earliest Times to the End of 1911 which was published in 1920. This book on pages 241-242 says, regarding Muhammad bin Tughlaq, that:

"The internal administration of the country went to ruin. The taxes were enhanced to a degree unbearable, and collected so rigorously that the peasantry were reduced to beggary, and people who possessed anything felt that they had no resource but rebellion. The Sultan came to hate his subjects and to take pleasure in their wholesale destruction. At one time he ' led forth his army to ravage Hindostan. He laid the country waste from Kanauj to Dalmau [on the Ganges, in the Rai Bareh District, Ondh], and every person that fell into his hands he slew. Many of the inhabitants fled and took refuge in the jungles, but the Sultan had the jungles surrounded, and every individual that was captured was killed.' The victims, of course, were all or nearly all Hindus, a fact which added to the pleasure of the chase."

I think that the analyses by the aforementioned historians indicate that there was considerable ethnic cleansing done by Muhammad bin Tughluq. Should we add a post about Muhammad bin Tughlaq? What do you all think?Shakespeare143 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shakespeare143, I think that makes sense. You should add it. Dunutubble (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Kaliningrad Oblast

I think that the events immediately following the second World War constitute ethnic cleansing, and should be included on this page.

The following paragraph is from the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)#Poland,_including_former_German_territories

"Different situations emerged in northern East Prussia regarding Königsberg (renamed Kaliningrad) and the adjacent Memel territory around Memel (Klaipėda). The Königsberg area of East Prussia was annexed by the Soviet Union, becoming an exclave of the Russian Soviet Republic. Memel was integrated into the Lithuanian Soviet Republic. Many Germans were evacuated from East Prussia and the Memel territory by Nazi authorities during Operation Hannibal or fled in panic as the Red Army approached. The remaining Germans were conscripted for forced labour. Ethnic Russians and the families of military staff were settled in the area. In June 1946, 114,070 Germans and 41,029 Soviet citizens were registered as living in the Kaliningrad Oblast, with an unknown number of unregistered Germans ignored. Between June 1945 and 1947, roughly half a million Germans were expelled.[192] Between 24 August and 26 October 1948, 21 transports with a total of 42,094 Germans left the Kaliningrad Oblast for the Soviet Occupation Zone. The last remaining Germans were expelled between November 1949[102] (1,401 people) and January 1950 (7).[193] Thousands of German children, called the "wolf children", had been left orphaned and unattended or died with their parents during the harsh winter without food. Between 1945–47, around 600,000 Soviet citizens settled in the oblast.[192]"

The former German/Prussian population was replaced with immigration by ethnic Russian people:

"In October 1945, only about 5,000 Soviet civilians lived in the territory.[7] Between October 1947 and October 1948, about 100,000 Germans were forcibly moved to Germany.[8] About 400,000 Soviet civilians arrived by 1948.[7] Some moved voluntarily, but as the number of willing settlers proved insufficient, collective farms were given quotas of how many people they had to send to Kaliningrad.[7] Often they sent the least socially desirable individuals, such as alcoholics or the uneducated.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad_question — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterGHughes (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Palestine

Isn't it ethnic cleansing in this area such as Palestinian arabs being forced from their homes in the West Bank?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.62.238 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The United Nations has called it ethnic cleansing so there's no reason for it not to be included here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking through the history of this page, it looks like there's an active disinformation campaign to scrub any mention of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. FinnV3 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I just made my first edit today to include mention of Palestine in 1947-1949. My edit was quickly deleted. The editor, User:Don Rechtman, writes that my edit was "POV-pushing, no academic consensus as ethnic cleansing, many fled the fighting on their own accord after the Arabs rejected partition and started a war of annihilation," but there is no academic consensus about lots of examples on the list. And the beginning of the article says "This article lists incidents that have been termed ethnic cleansing by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case, particularly since there are a variety of definitions of the term ethnic cleansing." I wrote back: "Happy to discuss, but try modifying instead of deleting my edit." Is this the right place to discuss? I would appreciate help. Booksofsatmar (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Im restoring this, it is insane to include Jordan's "cleansing" of Jews from East Jerusalem but not include the widely discussed "cleansing" (even by Israeli historians) of Palestinians. And there has been no justification for its removal here. nableezy - 23:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Per the inclusion criteria, Palestine clearly meets the requirements here. It is widely called "ethnic cleansing", there are entire books dedicated to the topic (eg The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine). nableezy - 23:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vagunist väljunud küüditatud vahepeatuse ajal Uuralite taga 1949. aasta aprillis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

Why no Albigensian Crusade? Dunutubble (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Palestinian displacement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank

what is happening in east Jerusalem is a slow ethnic cleansing campaign and should have its own section https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/israels-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestinians-in-the-west-bank/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Holodomor

There isn't much academic basis to the Holodomor being ethnic cleansing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor_genocide_question 97.113.65.50 (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed.

There is much more basis however to the Donbas shelling and ethnic discrimination campaign by Kiev 2014-21 starting with the Odessa massacre. 156.34.248.116 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP, sources ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources other than randomly making edit war allegations? 31.205.18.96 (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine ethnic cleansing of Hungarians, Roma, Russians

If the claim about Russia "cleansing" Ukrainians (they would say they are integrating them and there is no sign of suppression of the language of culture or statues in Russia) remains, then, for neutrality:

It should be reported that the 2014 Odessa clashes, Donbas war 2014-21 are alleged as NATO and US supported cleansing of ethnic Russians. Many Ukraine officials express an intent to cleanse the five oblasts presently incorporated into Russia and part of Russia prior to the USSR, of the Russian language and ethnicity b

And that credible claims are often made that Ukraine employs extreme nationalist "Banderites" troops as "backing units" to force unwilling conscripts, especially Hungarians and Roma and (of course) ethnic Russians, into combat to die.

There have been extremely heated and specific accusations about this, and about Hungary's intent to annex Zakarpattia, back and forth between Hungarian and Ukranian officials. None of it from Russia. Eventually Russia began repatriating ethnic Hungarians to Hungary not to Ukraine.

This is all far better documented, as is abuse of Roma and selective press-ganging of men speaking Russian, than the supposed Russian "cleansing". The vast majority of the refugees in Russia chose to go east. 156.34.248.116 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Ukraine committed ethnic cleansing in the Donbass is fringe Russian disinformation theory promoted by Russian State Media. You don't even have a Wikipedia account. There are verifiable reports of torture of Ukrainians in custody by HRW and Amnesty International. Territories that Ukraine has liberated they have found Russian torture chambers in Ukraine and civilians executed in mass graves like the Izium mass graves and the Bucha massacre. This claim will not be supported and you will not get consensus on Wikipedia. Russia is engaging in forced deportations of Ukrainians. This isn't even the first time Russia has done something like this before. 2006 deportation of Georgians from Russia And not to even mention the Population transfer in the Soviet Union Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear IP, your understanding of neutrality is different from Wikipedia's, see WP:NPOV. Your claims are also unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing

TimothyBlue, you have been here a while so I'm surprised you were not aware:

• that the verifiability policy requires that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• WP:SAL guideline additionally states: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear".

It is not sufficient to handwave that there may be sourcing available in another article. To be considered verifiable, you have to check the source yourself before adding it to this article.

You should not have restored any content without adding sufficient sourcing to verify its inclusion in the list. In addition, some of the content has been under cleanup tag for an extended period of time—longer than a decade in some cases. You restored that too without any consideration whether it was appropriate to do so. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So far you've added one source. But it doesn't say that there was an ethnic cleansing campaign in Carthage. The word "ethnic cleansing" is not used in the article. I removed many entries like this, because it is original research for Wikipedia volunteers to decide what counts as ethnic cleansing, and it does not meet the inclusion criteria stated at the beginning of the list. This edit to me indicates that you don't currently have sufficient understanding of verifiability to be editing the article. (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You bulk removed a great deal of sourced information, along with some that should be removed. Editors can discuss whether the sources provided meet the definition of ethnic cleansing. I agree some of the removals are merited due to lack of sources, but others others certainly do not. Mass removals like the ones you performed make it impossible to discuss individual entries.  // Timothy :: talk  02:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed each individual entry either because it was unsourced or because I checked the sources and they were either not RS for the claim or did not verify the content.

If an editor wants to add anything back, you should find the sources yourself and cite them appropriately.

Per WP:ONUS, the burden for seeking consensus is on the editor seeking to add or restore content, not on the editor who has found it to be inadequately sourced.

As an act of good faith, I suggest you revert the Carthage entry or provide a reliable source that actually argues it was a case of ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 02:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

These are long standing entries, your removal was objected to and discussion was requested. I added a source for the Carthage entry, if there is a consensus that this does not describe ethnic cleansing, I will remove it. If a second editor (for example @Lostsandwich:) believes the entry is not supported by the source, they can of course remove the entry, and I will not revert.  // Timothy :: talk  02:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies no matter how long standing the content is.

You don't seem to understand the concept of failed verification, which is very concerning. You don't need consensus to show that it's failed verification. If you disagree, the burden is on you to get consensus for inclusion. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As buidhe said, it's the responsibility of those wishing to retain content to provide adequate sourcing. I would argue that under WP:CONTENTIOUS, inclusion on this list sets a significantly higher bar for sourcing, with "ethnic cleansing campaign" being a description that is best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Carthage entry

I also wanted to add that I don't believe the sack of Carthage constituted ethnic cleansing. While the city was largely destroyed, that was a strategic move to defeat Punic power and delay or deny the growth of other powerful groups in the area. It doesn't appear to be an act against the Punic peoples' existence or identity. If I recall correctly, survivors or other Punic populations were allowed to settle in the area which would sort of defeat the whole "ethnic cleansing" thing. Though, I would concede that the concept of a "Carthaginian" may be at least someone distinct from the concept of a purely Punic ethnicity, but I am no expert in that particular area. However, the main point is that the lives lost were not due to a process of ethnic cleansing. Lostsandwich (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria on this page are clear: The word "cleansing" (with one of several modifiers) has to be used by mulitiple (sic) RS. Carthage doesn't meet that. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The Roman destruction of Carthage was extremely wholesale, with 150,000 of its 200,000 inhabitants massacred. It is not very tricky to find sources tying this event to 'ethnic cleansing'. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It is tricky. If you look into M.Mann's 2005 book (the first one on the list), you will see on page 34 that there is disagreement among academics about whether Carthage can be called "murderous cleansing". Rsk6400 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the wider issue here is whether this page is considering "ethnic cleansings" in the modern sense, or whether it is allowing back attributions to events that pre-date the term. If we are allowing what are essentially proto-"ethnic cleansings", e.g. "murderous cleansings", then sure, Carthage probably counts; if we are applying contemporary war crimes law, it should be limited to contemporary events. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources such as this make the contemporary nature of the term "ethnic cleansing" quite plain, contrasting this with historic events that might have been "genocides", but were not "ethnic cleansings" in the contemporary sense. It is a recurring theme in sources, see here also, that ancient massacres with the intent of eliminating an enemy population are more often called "genocides" than "ethnic cleansings" – likely partly function of the latter only being formally defined by United Nations Security Council Resolution 780 in 1991, though antecedent terminology emerged in the 1900s. The best path forward for this page might therefore be to either refocus on "ethnic cleansing" events as more formally defined in the late modern to contemporary period, OR, perhaps it should be retitled as List of genocide campaigns - adopting the terminology more freely applied to the past in sources, and present in phrases such as “ancient and medieval genocides”.[1] Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We already have List of genocides. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That list appears to only cover modern genocides as defined in modern legal terms and generally agreed upon by the international community. It does not cover more subjective ancient and medieval genocides - many of which do appear to be covered here, rightly or wrongly. But both genocide and ethnic cleansing are modern terms, so why is one list being backfilled and the other not? And also, as noted above, when these events are backfilled under one of these terms, many sources seem to prefer the term 'genocide' rather than ethnic cleansing for ancient events, but between these two lists the situation is a reversal of that trend. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extermination of the Wu Hu

I agree the source provided fails and I could not find sources, however I only searched in English. No objection to removal.  // Timothy :: talk  02:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

1282 Sicilian Vespers

I have removed this entry, unsourced.  // Timothy :: talk  02:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Holodomor

In my opinion, the Holodomor was a genocide, but our inclusion criteria demand the word "cleansing" in several RS. I just checked Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy, The Russo-Ukrainian War: It mentions the Holodomor without calling it "cleansing". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)