Talk:Population transfer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Zero: here's a good reference

I just stubmled accross this page, and I have no knowledge of Wiki etiquette, so please forgive me if I am breaking some rules here. I just wanted to note that Tom Segev's book named "1949 the first Israelis" is a good source for transfer related discussions in the first Israeli Knesset. Oh, and just now I noticed that the discussion below is from 2003. Well, perhaps my remark will spark a new thrust for it..

15 April, 2006

Title

"Population Gayness" Someone sabotaged it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.107.205.186 (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I've just reverted a long addition by Cezveci (talk · contribs). I did this, not because the material was all unacceptable (some of it might well find a place in the article), but because as it stood it was essentially a personal essay, in desperate need of copy-editing, and expressing a strong PoV. Could Cezveci post a version to this page, so that it could be discussed and edited before a decision as to its inclusion? That would avoid any possibility of revert-warring, and would allow us to reach consensus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the constructive approach of Μελ Ετητης. I agree that my addition reflects one POV, but the old (and after your revert, current) version displays the other side's POV. I don't think those claims are any more objective or relevant than mine. Actually, the use of the term "genocide" for every single event in the region is totally inappropriate, and the irrelevant mentioning of Armenian genocide shows that the intention is merely propaganda. So I suggest we start with deleting that paragraph, and then working on a new more relevant paragraph that will briefly mention about claims on ethnic cleansing attempts by both sides (I think details should be avoided), state interesting notes such as the Turkish-speaking Greek orthodox people of Karaman being sent to Greece, and the situation of the minorities that were allowed to stay. We could also note attempts on the descendants of these people to come together and acknowledge their roots (such as, [1]). Cezveci 15:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your view that the article is rather one-sided at the moment. My own feeling is that the solution is mainly to delete some of the irrelevant material (the Armenian geocide isn't completely irrelevant here, though, because much of it was carried out via population transfer). What do other editors think? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean Armenian genocide is not relevant to the article, it certainly is, but it is irrelevant in the context of Greek-Turkish population exchange treaty. Cezveci 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how copypasting Turkish ministry publication on the Armenian section could be one-sided to the "other side,"("pro"-Armenian genocide) when the term Tehcir, which BTW is Arabic and not Turkish could be entirly used in different way, depending on the different adjectives.(which in this cases is said that Armenians were made "Tehcir," that means being expulsed) To be more precise, the Ottoman used term for the Armenians was "forced evacuation" which was used by another adjective carateristic, which was as well was translated as "deportation" by the Turkish foreign ministry, because it could not have been translated otherwise. So claiming that the translation is a misuses is as well rejecting the Turkish official translation of the old Ottoman Turkish language, which is different then, modern Turkish, I don't even know if the word is still in use in modern Turkish. Any Arab speaking middle eastern counld confirm what I just wrote here. For this reason, until that section is not worked on to make it NPOV by presenting the other position, which no one could deny is the majority position, I will be placing a POV banner to that section. Fadix 03:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

May I learn the relevance of these with the population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Well, actually no, I don't want to learn anything, I honestly don't want to discuss anything wiith Fadix, he can go and add more hateful propaganda stuff in the article of his interest, I just want to reach a consensus on the population exchange section here. Μελ Ετητης shall I propose a draft for the section so that we can build on it? Thank you. Cezveci 17:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, can you please move your concerns about "tehcir" in a different section and allow us resolve our concerns about Lausanne treaty exchange here? Thank you. Cezveci 18:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

First of, there was no title in this section, second of, the Armenian "question" was brought by both of you, and not me, which means that the discussion did not entirly excluded what I brought, which as a matter of fact is relevant. On second order, I do really not appreciate you comming in my talk page and making charges which I have no idea what they really are about(regarding Taner Akcam), and since you do have a history of innapropriate edition which I would call POV-pushing, I would be easy of accusing others of "propagandizing." If you think my answer is harsh, you should examine your answer to me more carefully, perhaps then, you'll realise that my answer was appopriate due to the circomstances. Regards. Fadix 19:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

population transfer vs. ethnic cleansing

Is there a reason to have this article separate from the ethnic cleansing article?

I think those terms overlap somewhat, but transfer implies a more orderly movement/exchange following a political treaty. Cleansing sounds more like a systematic tactic of warfare with no prior agreement. //Big Adamsky 22:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Sometimes, fairly large population transfers are conducted for reasons that are not directly related to ethnicity. For example, the construction of a dam often forces the relocation of large numbers of people. Is this considered a "population transfer"? If not, why not? --Richard 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this usage of the term in the literature, but from the introduction of the article it would appear that it is indeed within the scope of the article.--Doron 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to immigration

The intro here should make it more clear that this refers to forced population transfers, rather than voluntary. A link should also be offered to migration for those expecting that topic.

71.212.27.154 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Central Europe

The expulsion of Germans was one of many in that area. Either a list of maybe ten or none. The inclusion of the German one only is POV.Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• You might add a full sentence, you might say, it's not the "main article" - but you deleted the whole link. Seems nobody should know about it, as you don't like it, that's ( quiet blatant) POV. 84.139.199.80 (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• The text of the Central Europe subparagraph contradicts the list of Main articles. It may be a result of poor knowledge or POV, but should be corrected.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your denial of facts by leaving out any Poland-related information. That's pushing POV and anything but neutral. 84.139.231.202 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.231.202 (talk)

Stop your agreesion, please.Xx236 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Deportation

The two articles should be integrated or the contets should be divided. WHat is the current logic?Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

forced?

This article seems to deal with forced population transfers. Maybe we should accordingly rename it forced population transfer to be more clear that this is usually not something the ethnic group does willingly.--Sonjaaa (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should rethink what goes in here, what goes in deportation and what goes in ethnic cleansing. There is a lot of overlap, so maybe we need to merge some of the articles using an umbrella term, or similar?--Sonjaaa (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree this should be renamed. Most of the transfers included here have either been part of ethnic cleansing, forced deportations, genocides or at least are controversial. This article provides a superficial approach. Also the term trasnfer in the title is usually used conjointly with exchange and these two have certainly not the same meaning. --Yparjis (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some of these examples have advocates who claim they were not forced. Will adding an extra criterion to argue about be an overall gain? Zero^talk 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No section on South Africa?

I'm surprised to find no reference to South Africa in the article. Forced relocations has affected millions in that country and is a large part of it's history. I'm adding this article to Wikiproject South Africa in hopes that we can rectify that in the future. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Rome

Those interested in the forcible removal or deportation of peoples in ancient times (2000-ish years ago) can find numerous instances of this practice in Tacitus' Annals and Histories of Imperial Rome (both books are easily found online). 173.81.161.92 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

'Balkan population exchanges, 1913'

"Balkan population exchanges, 1913 For more details on this topic, see Balkan Wars. After the exchanges in the Balkans, forced population transfer was used by the Great Powers and later the League of Nations as a mechanism for increasing homogeneity in post-Ottoman Balkan states. A Norwegian diplomat working with the League of Nations as a High Commissioner for Refugees beginning 1919, proposed the idea of a forced population transfer modeled on the earlier post Balkan-war Greek-Bulgarian mandatory population transfer of Greeks in Bulgaria to Greece, and Bulgarians in Greece to Bulgaria."

If someone knows more about this, it would be nice if this section could be elaborated and clarified. This section is ambiguous in many places:

>'After the exchanges in the Balkans' 1. The title of 'Balkan population exchanges, 1913' would suggest that a population exchange happened in 1913. But when I read the section, I didnt get the impression there was an exchange, but a proposed exchange... 2. Does 'After' refer to te 1912 Balkan Wars?? 3. 'Exchanges' as in population exchanges? or 'exchanges' in war or conflct?? I know its an article about population transfers..but we should always be as explicit and clear as poosible in Wikipedia to avoid confusion..im not sure. 4. Exactly what populations were exchanged?...Greeks and Bulgarians? Greeks and Turkish?

>'forced population transfer was used by the Great Powers and later the League of Nations as a mechanism for increasing homogeneity in post-Ottoman Balkan states." 1. This seems to sugggest that a population exchange did occur between some of the Balkan states...it would be nice to find out who were exchanged and when using cited sources of course (no cites on this section).

>'A Norwegian diplomat working with the League of Nations as a High Commissioner for Refugees beginning 1919, proposed the idea of a forced population transfer modeled on the earlier post Balkan-war Greek-Bulgarian mandatory population transfer of Greeks in Bulgaria to Greece, and Bulgarians in Greece to Bulgaria." 1. 'beginning 1919'? How is this relevant to the "Balkan population exchanges, 1913" section in the "Population transfer" article?? 2. I still dont know if population exchanges occured in the Balkans given the information (whether its refugees fleeing home from their foreign lands or organized population exchanges by formal agreement), or which nations were involved.

This section needs to be clarified and hopefully if we do some research, we can get a source in there too. 134.121.247.116 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a post Balkan War population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria. It later became the model for the big exchange between Greece and Turkey. Dating it is complex since most of Greek population of Bulgaria, and Bulgarian population of Greece were expelled during the Balkan wars, but the subsequent treaty legalized the expulsions through involuntary denationalization from "birth country" and new naturalization in "homeland country" of the persons involved. This eas later repeated on a larger scale in the Greek Turkish exchanges in 1923. 72.75.10.224 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Article Title ??

This title is an example of Political correctness and I don't think that's either necessary or appropriate for a topic as important as the forced and violent relocation of a population. At the least, the title should be Forced relocation. An item it the article titled Crimes against humanity lists this as "Deportation or forcible transfer of population", which is an often used phrase at the UN and ICC. (I linked that phrase to this article as the best internal reference I could find.) If their are no objections I would most content in this article to be moved to a new article title "Forced relocation and deportation" The few Population transfers that are not atrocious could then remain in this article. Abject Normality (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Deportation of Azerbaijanis 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I think Resettlement and Population transfer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. The merge shouldn't be too hard, since the Resettlement article is so short.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Uncontested merge. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Assyria and Israel

That entry by 78.48.217.48 has been removed by Zero0000. Assyrian forced resettlement of conquered peoples is a well attested historical fact. I'm not totally sure, but I believe the Israel case is also corroborated from Assyrian sources. I therefore suggest putting it back in. --Axel Berger (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not aware of any Assyrian sources that attest this, and I have read many contemporary Assyrian sources which may relate to the Bible. The most important ones are on wiki at List of artifacts in biblical archaeology.

So unless someone can show otherwise, this is Biblical only, and probably does not belong here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel

From 1948 until the early 1970s between 800,000 to 1,000,000 Mizrachi and Sephardic Jews either fled from their homes or were expelled from Arab and Islamic countries; 260,000 reached Israel between 1948–1951, and 600,000 by 1972. A small migration started in the late 19th century, but the vast majority occurred after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The Jews of Egypt and Libya were forcibly expelled while those of Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and North Africa left as a result of a hostile atmosphere (including pogroms and public executions) and growing political insecurity. Most were forced to abandon their property. By 2002, these Jews and their descendants constituted about 40% of Israel's population. Kurdish Jews forced to leave Iraq after a history there of nearly 2,000 years. Most eventually migrated to Israel in the early 1950s. The Jews of Kurdistan were forced to leave and migrate as a result of the Arab-Israeli war. At the end, the Jews of Kurdistan had to leave their Kurdish habitat en masse and migrate into Israel. The Palestinian exodus (also known as the Nakbah) of approximately 711,000 to 725,000 from the British mandate of Palestine occurred during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The bulk of the Arab refugees from the former British Mandate of Palestine ended up in the Gaza strip (under Egyptian rule between 1949 and 1967) and the West Bank (under Jordanian rule between 1949 and 1967), Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The cause of this population movement is hotly debated and disputed by each side. Although the population exchange of the Arabs of Palestine with Jews from across the Arab world took place around the period of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the idea of the transfer of Arabs from Palestine, usually to Iraq (where there was a sizable Iraqi Jewish population), had been considered about half a century beforehand. One of the recommendations in the Report of the British Peel Commission in 1937 was for a transfer of Arabs from the area of the proposed Jewish state, and this even included a compulsory transfer from the plains of Palestine. This recommendation was not initially objected to by the British Government.

I have moved the above propaganda here from the article. As explained at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, this is a highly politicized topic, and the suggestion that a "population exchange of the Arabs of Palestine with Jews from across the Arab world took place around the period of the establishment of the State of Israel" is highly POV.

If we are going to have this topic in here it needs to be MUCH more carefully worded than this drivel.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have just looked through the history of this article. Of all the sections in this article, this is the section which appears to have attracted the most editors. But oddly there has been almost no talk discussion of it since 2004. I suggest we quarantine it here pending a proper discussion. For reference the key articles are:

• 1948 Palestinian exodus, 1949–56 Palestinian exodus, and 1967 Palestinian exodus
• Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

The key problems I see in the previous text in the article (above) are:

(1) The Jewish exodus summary is an unbalanced "neo-lacrymose" version, primarily used in propaganda. Scholarly research sets the exodus in its proper (much broader) context.

(2) The Palestinian exodus should include all three of the main exoduses

(3) Choosing to put these side-by-side as a "population exchange" represents a well known propaganda theme (as explained in numerous sources at Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries, and as discussed here.) If we consciously choose to put them alongside each other in this article, the public argument around this needs to be made very clear.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is actually quite terrible, lopsided and naive. Zero^talk 14:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The source below is quite interesting - it describes the work and conclusions of the Jewish Agency's "Committee for Population Transfer" in 1937-8. Interestingly it seems they used the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey as the archetype for the proposals.

• Katz, Yossi (2014), "Attempts to Formulate a Plan for Transferring the Arab Population Within the Framework of Partition", Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency's Partition Plan in the Mandate Era, Routledge, p. 85-110, ISBN 9781317973461 {{citation}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This topic should include coverage of the original political plans such as (1) Plan Dalet, and (2) the One Million Plan, as the introduction to this article partly defines the concept as "imposed by state policy". Oncenawhile (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That section had been in the article for quite a long time and the fact of the planned transfer is well and reliably attested by the fully sourced book by Ilan Pappe. If there are issues with recent edits, then correct those. Removing the whole section is high handed and over the top, and unless you Oncenawhile or Zero0000 supply a revised version I shall restore the previous one in its entirety. --Axel Berger (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I have added Palestine back in, with additional sourcing. I have not yet added the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries and the One Million Plan, because I can't find evidence of any "imposed by state policy" other than the One Million Plan, and Israel were not able to "impose" on the relevant host state governments - only agitate and finance. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Transfer was never a part of Zionist ideology, and Zionist leaders never endorsed British proposals for transfer. Here is the complete text of the passage from Herzl's diary:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly...It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their owner, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example...Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas, we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.

Far from advocating the mass expulsion of an entire population, Herzl was discussing expropriation of private property only in "the estates assigned to us". There is no allusion to "transfer" in Herzl's writings, private correspondence, books, or speeches--there is only this misquoted passage, which has nothing to do with Arabs or Palestine. ("I am assuming we will go to Argentina," Herzl wrote on June 13, 1895.) "The idea of transfer was forced on the Zionist agenda by the British (in the recommendations of the 1937 Peel Royal Commission on Palestine) rather than being self-generated", and Ben-Gurion went out of his way to reject it. "The idea of transfer was never official Zionist policy. Ben-Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs, they would not make use of it." (Walter Laquer, A History of Zionism, page 232).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The Herzl quote is extremely well known and the suggestion that it doesn't imply transfer is fringe. See e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. There are many more sources commenting on this and connecting it to transfer of Palestinians. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Herzl was writing about the colonisation enterprise in general terms, so even though he didn't know where it would take place it is perfectly valid to connect it with Palestine as one of the possibilities. Incidentally, here is more of Herzl's diary entry from that day:

The voluntary expropriation will be accomplished through our secret agents. The Company will pay excessive prices. We shall then sell only to Jews, and all real estate will be traded only amongst Jews. ... For the voluntary expropriation we shall have to use local sub-agents who must not know that their employer is himself a secret agent who takes instructions from the centralized "Commission for Property Purchases". These secret purchases must be carried out simultaneously, as upon the pressing of an electric button. Our secret agents, who will appear over there as purchasers on their own account, will receive the signal: Marchez [go ahead]! Within a week all sales must have been completed. Otherwise the prices will increase exorbitantly. Zero^talk 13:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right. Herzl advocated paying "excessive prices" for the purpose of the strictly "voluntary" resettlement of squatters living on land purchased by Jews. That is hardly a program for ethnic cleansing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence does not seem to match the diary entry at all. Your second sentence doesn't match the discussion as nobody brought up "ethnic cleansing" here before. Herzl is discussing how to organise a population transfer by means of land purchases carried out by trickery. It is obviously relevant to the page. Zero^talk 12:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension is no concern of mine. I did not say the quote was irrelevant to this page. I was making a general comment about the use of selective scare quotes to smear Herzl as an advocate of ethnic cleansing. Good day.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

All of this thing is missing here. I don't have the time but someone should add this subject... --Setareh1990 (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

"Those who arrived to Israel ...". Usually one would say "went to Israel", unless the writer is located in Israel. Keith McClary (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/mems/people/staff/academic/karsh/articles/WerethePalestiniansExpelled.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Smyrna-massacre-refugees-1922.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

See also: talk:transfer

Apply for Resettlement Malaysia Refugees to UK Abdullahrosyidmd (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Abdullahrosyidmd Abdullahrosyidmd (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

removed US dam and nuclear site

The stuff about a US dam and nuclear site are too small and local for inclusion here. The number of people involved was tiny and similar to what happens all around the world when freeways or malls are built in cities. In the case of the dam, Quabbin Reservoir says that the town of Dana gave up its land voluntarily. That's not forced transfer. I don't know about the other towns, but in an article that lists the major forced population transfers in world history, neither of these even register on the scale. Zero^talk 05:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cyprus

Corrected disputed reference to "population exchange agreement". Replaced it with a more objective reference to the actual provision of the agreement. Also replaced the erroneous title of the UN document cited as an external link, to the actual title of the document.

Section names

I haven't yet checked the entire text, but I think more consistency is required the in section naming. The section "Muslim" talks about muslim-perpetrated xfers, while the section "Palestinian" is about xfer where the Palestinians were victims. List it either by victim, or by perpetrator, or by originally inhabited territory, just let's do it uniformally. --Humus sapiens Talk 03:12, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did big time cleanup on this page, and I hope to make everybody angry. In particular I removed all references to a possible future transfer by Israel. All the rest of the examples relate to actual transfers, and comparing them to a putative transfer makes no sense. Gadykozma 15:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rename article to "Forced migration"

"Population transfer" to me sounds peaceful and voluntary, which I do not believe is the point of this particular article. What are everyone's thoughts on changing the name of this article to "Forced migration" or "Forced population transfer" or something similar? ♥Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk)♥ 20:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)