Talk:Ethnic cleansing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For discussions initiated before 2006, see /Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Merge

I have merged Silent ethnic cleansing into this article, and also brought over the factuality tag. --Joshua Boniface 16:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglophones from Quebec

Quebec has lost 400,000 Anglophones since the 1960's. The MLNQ has praised the loss of this number of people, and supports encouraging English speakers to leave Quebec. Is this ethnic cleansing? Here is a quote from the MLNQ:

Exode des anglophones: Un bon débarras
Du début des années soixante jusqu'au recensement de 1996, 400,000 anglophones quittaient notre territoire. Dans les années fastes qui suivirent les actions du FLQ, la prise du pouvoir par le PQ et l'adoption de la loi 101, le Québec bénéficia d'un exode spectaculaire des Anglais vers "leur pays ", le Canada.
De 1971 à 1981, plus de 130,000 d'entre eux décidaient de prendre la route vers des contrées plus accueillantes pour tous ceux de leur espèce. Après quoi, ce taux de départs diminua peu à peu jusqu'à 1991.
Bien que certains considèrent ces départs comme une perte, en tant qu'indépendantistes, nous avons le devoir de nous en réjouir et de considérer ce fait comme un avantage certain dans l'optique d'un troisième référendum. En effet, une baisse de la population anglophone pourrait influencer très positivement, non seulement les résultats d'un vote référendaire, mais également la prédominance de la langue française dans tous les aspects de notre vie.
Toutefois, dans les années qui suivirent, cet exode a décru, et ce, jusqu'à 1991. De 1986 à 1991, il ne s'en trouvait que 20,000 pour quitter le Québec malgré tous nos "encouragements".
Heureusement, entre les recensements de 1991 et 1996, 37,400 anglos nous quittaient. Poussés par la grande frayeur post-référendaire de 1995 et le spectre de l'incertitude politique que le fédéral brandit pour "nous " faire peur, 17,500 nous quittaient en une seule année, soit presque la moitié des cinq années précédentes. Ce qui laisserait présager la réalisation d'une "condition gagnante" capitale pour un référendum(http://www.mlnq.net/mdupre/frmdup.htm).
Translate this? I am an Anglophone, not francophone.--Adam (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation:

Exodus of Anglophones, a good riddance!
From the bigginning of the 60's until now in 1996, 400,000 anglophones have left our territory. In the lean years after the the FLQ and the election of the Parti Québécois, the adoption of law 101, Quebec benifited from the spectacular exodus of 400,000 English towards "their country", Canada.
From 1971 to 81, 130,000 of them decided to take the road to more welcoming places for those of their species. After which, their depart dwindled until 1991.
Although some would consider this a loss, as separatists, we must rejoice and consider this an advantage for a 3rd referendum. Actually, the loss of Anglophones could have a positive affect not only on the outcome of a referendum vote, but also on the predominance of the French language in all aspects of our life.
However in the following years, the exodus has diminished, and this, until 1991. From 1986 until 91, we could only find 20,000 of them to leave despite our "encouragements". etc... (Source : http://www.mlnq.net/mdupre/frmdup.htm)

Of course this is not the view of all Quebecers, or even the majority, but it definitely is of the minority and probably is the silent opinion of the Parti Québécois. Qaaa 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, ethnic cleansing is defined by the article to be forcibly removing people of one ethnic group. Making things uncomfortable for an ethnic group so that they leave voluntarily is not ethnic cleansing. -- ran (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
What is violence other than a severe way of making things uncomfortable? -- (unsigned comment by Qaaa )

That's the fallacy of the undistributed middle:

Ethnic cleansing involves making things uncomfortable for an ethnic (or linguistic) group.
Quebec's policies are making things uncomfortable for a linguistic group: Anglophones.
Thus, Quebec is committing ethnic cleansing.

This is fallacious because the middle term, "policies that make things uncomfortable", isn't distributed. To correct this, you must switch the last two statements, and make "ethnic cleansing" the middle term:

Ethnic cleansing involves making things uncomfortable for an ethnic (or linguistic) group.
Quebec is committing ethnic cleansing against Anglophones.
Quebec's policies are therefore making things uncomfortable for a linguistic group: Anglophones.

But this means that you have to prove the minor premise: that Quebec is committing ethnic cleansing against Anglophones, To show this, you must go back to the original definition, i.e. that Quebec must be forcibly removing Anplophones.

Has this happened? Is the government of Quebec using force / violence to remove Anglophones? -- ran (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Anyway, our differences are more of a semantic nature, not of a logical nature. Qaaa 18:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you're the one with the logical fallacy. When you said, [W]hat is violence other than a severe way of making things uncomfortable?, you're making a comparison between Quebec's policies and ethnic cleansing, that both are making things uncomfortable. This, however, does not mean that Quebec's policies are therefore ethnic cleansing. -- ran (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, it is not worth arguing about. Qaaa 00:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza pullout "in acquiesence to Palestinian pressure"

I have removed this statement, as it is POV. Whether the Gaza withdrawal was initiated due to Palestinian pressure is highly POV, it is an opinion held by a minority in Israel (according to a poll I've seen recently, can't find it right now), and it is contrary to the official line of the Israeli government (see [1]). Officially, and according to most of its supporters, the withdrawal is an Israeli interest.--Doron 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If the Palestinians didn't want Jews removed there would have been no forced "resettlement" or even if they did but had never resorted to terrorism there would be no "resettlement" its as simple as that. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
No, that may be your opinion, but in Israel there is a concensus that the settlers were to be evacuated anyway, regardless of Palestinian interests. That's what "unilateral" means. Do not restore that claim unless you can provide an unbiased source that claims the evacuation was due to Palestinian demands.--Doron 20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Doron you know very well that what you are saying is complete nonsense. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Why of course, how silly of me, thank you for pointing that out so politely.--Doron 23:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record -- I did not remove the item below, I only removed the statement "in accordance with Palestinian demands".--Doron 10:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The following entry was removed from the "XX century" section. mikka (t) 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed again the resettlement of Jews by Jews own government. We don't apply "ethnic cleansing" to such cases. Formally, next thing, and you will dub "ECleansing" Israel's calls for repartiation. I understand that -formally- someone may call this "ethnic cleansing". If this is so, please provide a reference to a reputable source, and you are free to put the deleted peice back. mikka (t) 00:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Numerous commentaries on the event describe it as ethnic cleansing. For example Israel to America: I Warned You and here Beilin's Duplicity. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
C'mon, a reputable source. Not a blog or a far-right movement in Israel.--Scimitar parley 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
These are examples of the event being called ethnic cleansing. Whether you agree with the writers politic is irrelevant. And obviously the perpetrators and supporters of this particular example of ethnic cleansing do not call it ethnic cleansing as with any other example, the term is always used by the opponents of the action. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Here is another example of it being referred to as ethnic cleansing together with arguments substantiating the usage of the term written even before the despicable deed was carried out. The Planned Ethnic Cleansing and Some of Its Consequences Kuratowski's Ghost 15:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, personal blogs are not a reputable source and are generally not quoted in wikipedia, unless the person in question is a notable one, so that you could write, e.g., "those who disagree with the official politics, notably, Ariel Natan Pasko and Nadia Matar call the resettlement "ethnic cleansing"..." See the red links? Who the heck are there? Why would they opinion count? mikka (t) 15:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Whether we agree or disagree with writer's politics is irrelevant. THe matter is the main policy of wikipedia: notability and verifiability. Different people may have different and even very weird opinions on various subjects, and we cannot present them all here. Once again, please look for a solid reference. mikka (t) 15:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Some appropriate examples- the actions of Milosevic in Serbia were referred to on CBC as suspected ethnic cleansing long before the NATO intervention, as were the events in Rwanda. That's what I'm looking for- some kind of relatively respectable news organization or independent body (Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, etc.) to call it ethnic cleansing. Not hyperbole from polemics.--Scimitar parley 15:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Pasko is a well known political commentator whose articles are published on many news sites, I just happened to pick one, you can find the same article on other sites inclusing the Arutz 7 / Israel National News site. Matar is a prominant Israeli activist. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You may notice that I am pretty much indifferent to the issue, since I have no idea who they are, as millions of other readers. Please write articles about them, and if they will avoid or survive votes for deletion, you may lefitimately use them as references. mikka (t) 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You might consider Amnesty International and Doctors with Borders to be in some way reputable, I happen to consider them terrorist supporting scum. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I happen to agree with you here to a certain degree that some of their actions are serously disputable (which is natural, since these movements gather different kindd of people), but again, according to policy wikipedia:No original research our opinion weights zero. mikka (t) 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
That the expulsion of Jews from Gaza has been called ethnic cleansing is fact proven by the examples given including the very good article The Planned Ethnic Cleansing and Some of Its Consequences, the section heading clearly states Alleged, so it belongs there, it has indeed been alleged to be ethnic cleansing by those opposing it. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Arieh Stav. ???. mikka (t) 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
C'mon. Just provide a link to the Israeli National News using the term ethnic cleansing and this won't be a problem- it isn't about censorship, it's about verifiability. I could give a rat's ass if the term is used- but if it isn't used by someone noteworthy, than it doesn't belong here.--Scimitar parley 15:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The article in question, Israel unilateral disengagement plan, does provide a reference to a reputable source, The Guardian, that use this term; and in a pretty much neutral (i.e., non-extremist) way. Therefore the removed piece stays. I suggest the opposing parties to sometimes (re)read the already written, rather than write-write-write. mikka (t) 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Works for me. My concern was verifiability, and that's now been satisfied.--Scimitar parley 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
We weren't given a reference for this use by the Guardian, but I presume it's this one: [2]. And (even though it's entitled "Disengagement and ethnic cleansing") it does not attempt to claim that the removal of the settlers is "ethnic cleansing". Actually, it's not very clear what the title refers to, the sub-title reads "Israel's pullout from Gaza is openly justified by demography - in other words, the need to maintain a Jewish majority". This doesn't read to me as "ethnic cleansing of the settlers".
PalestineRemembered 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
How come you said Israeli gov't is cleansing its own ethnic? removed that --Nielswik(talk) 04:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You did more than that, you're commenting in the wrong section (see below), and your opinion doesn't matter; as long as reliable sources say it, it's on the page. Jayjg (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True origin of the term

"Ethnic cleansing" is not a loan translation:

  • It was not used by media in the former Yugoslavia prior to 1993.
  • It was not an established phrase in the former Yugoslavia prior to 1993.
  • It was popularized by Dee Dee Myers; the earliest example I've found is dated April 26, 1993, and you can see it here.
  • Dee Dee Myers was not the first to use it, though; it seems there's a mention of "ethnic cleansing" in International Herald Tribune in November 1992, as referenced here.
  • "Ethnic cleansing" apparently originated in the English language. Now, it would be easy to prove me wrong: one would only have to point to a pre-1993 article in any of the former Yugoslav languages that uses the phrase. Speaking from personal experience, I doubt that such an article exists.
  • A military jargon word "čišćenje" (cleaning/cleansing; in this context, however, better translation would probably be combing) may have been an inspiration. It has been used for a long time; however, my first association is Wehrmacht, rather than Yugoslav People's Army. Be as it may, I don't think it has ever been coupled with "ethnic" in the former Yugoslav media until some time in 1993 or 1994.

Any thoughts on this issue? GregorB 22:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it was used prior to 1993, but am not sure and don't have a reference. Our on-line media archives don't go that far unfortunately. Nikola 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm searching on Google Books about this.

Search for "ethnic cleansing" as a complete phrase between 1900 and 1980 gives a single book[3], but its publication date is incorrect and it is actually published in 1996. Search between 1980 and 1990 returns five books and five pages, the oldest one appears to be ISBN 0415050782: "A Short History of English Literature" by Harry Blamires, published in 1985[4]. Search between 1990 and 2000 soars to 10700 pages[5]!

Search for "the" finds 25,600,000 pages for 1900-1980 and 13,800,000 pages for 1980-1990. Nikola 06:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be relevant to the article that the first prominent usage in English seems to have been "The Report of the Secretary General Pursuant to Paragraph 15 of Security Council Resolution 757 and Paragraph 10 of Security Council Resolution 758", which was delivered 15 June 1992. The phrase appears in USENET (Google Groups) precisely once before that (by a matter of days), then appears in quoted op-eds beginning in June, and explodes after August 1992. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Perhaps this can help in regard to the earliest usage of the exact term "ethnic cleansing":
Origins of "ethnic cleansing"?
Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic cleansing
It appears to be 1982.


People, is no one willing to help? We have a quote with possibly the earliest use of the term, quoted from a well-referenced source, and an user removing it repeatedly stating that it is "irrelevant". When he asked for additional reference, he got it, then removed the quote again. So, what now? Nikola 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you are quoting obscure individuals, the quote never mentions ethnic cleansing. --Zmaj 08:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No, the individuals are not obscure, and the quote mentions "cleansing", s ois likely precursor term. Nikola 11:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, the article is not about cleansing but about ethnic cleansing. --Zmaj 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, cleansing of people of certain ethnicity is ethnic cleansing. Nikola 05:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

So, if in the section there is mention of similar use of term "cleansing" in Germany and the Soviet Union, I don't see why there wouldn't be in Croatia, especially given that it probably entered English language from Yugoslavia. Claims that Gutic is obscure person is ridiculous - he was prefect of Western Bosnia[6]! Nikola 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The cited German and Soviet examples are also irrelevant. Why? Because we're talking ethnic cleansing here, not cleansing. The section on origins should include only concrete examples of the phrase ethnic cleansing. If we considered just cleansing, then the earliest example is the Bible (Neh.13:30, Thus cleansed I them from all strangers...), followed by a billion examples from recorded human history. It makes no sense. If you think for a moment with your head, not with your hatred, you'll understand what I mean. --Zmaj 13:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Zmaj, if you would have anything but hatred in your head, before accusing me, you would pause to think and remember that:
1. You were not removing German and Soviet examples, but only Croatian
2. You stated that Croatian example is irrelevant not because it mentions just cleansing or because cleansing is mentioned in the Bible, but because it was a statement by "obscure individual"
and so this blunder would not happen to you.
Of course, the Bible could be mentioned too, but it's not likely the source of modern term, which, again, likely did enter English from Yugoslavia where it could be influenced by Ustasha crimes more than the Bible. Nikola 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't remove German and Soviet examples because I'm not interested in them. Secondly, the Croatian example is irrelevant both because of cleansing AND because of the obscure individual. People can have more than one reason for their positions. Of course, you wouldn't know that, since your only reason is hatred. --Zmaj 07:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If people are working on something trying to make it better, they are trying to make it better in all the ways they can, and not just in a single way. If German and Soviet examples are irrelevant, and you knew it, you would have removed them, if you wished to make this article better. As you haven't, it appears that you didn't wish to do so. Similarly, if people have more than one reasons for their positions, they specify all of them, especially if a single reason they specify is challenged, and especially if it remains challenged for months. And, Gutic is far from an obscure individual. Nikola 10:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Zmaj, I'm afraid I have to agree with Nikola. The usage is well-sourced and relevant. It may not have had the precise meaning the term acquired in the 1990s; the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy means we should include it and allow the reader to interpret the information. --Dhartung | Talk 00:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll include it. The first and the last sentence will have to be changed, though: the first for stating it was the earliest usage of the term, which is not true; the last for its absurd link between the WWII cleansing and the Croatian national revival in the 1980s. I also removed some unnecessary details which can be found in the quoted sources. --Zmaj 08:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone give a reason for removing example of use in the Independent State of Croatia while still having examples of use in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? Nikola 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judenrein

It's fine if you want to paraphrase it, but when you say "lit." you should do it literally. And Babelfish is not a reference. Not sure what agenda is being pushed here. Adam Mathias 23:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this not redundant?

The expulsion of 9000 Jews from 25 communities in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria in 2005 through the implementation of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan.

I believe this is mentioned is the 20th Century (incorrectly) as well as the 21s Century.

Bless sins 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I've removed it. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that "Northern Samaria" should be replaced by "Northern West Bank" as used in the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan article.Bless sins 14:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Samaria is more geographically explicit, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which is name is better, but Samaria can apply a political/relgious POV, as the region is known internatioanlly as West Bank. Let's wait and see what the other users think. Though I agree that Samaria is definetly more explicit . 87.109.20.129 23:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the wall.

The following quote should remian in the article: 15,000 Palestinians have been displaced by the wall that Israel is building on land it occupies since 1967[2].

Because:

  • The term ethnic. cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group, this is exaclty what happened
  • If we can mention the Jews that were forced out from Gaza, (supposedly for a good cause, according to Sharon), why can't we mention the Palestinians who have been forcd from their homes, for supposedly a good cause
  • Israel could have built the wall within its territory (inside the green line), but chose to do in the West Bank

Bless sins 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The people in question are still living in the the same territory they have always been living in so there is no ethnic cleansing. Yhe wall is aimed at preventing terrorists crossing a border, regardless what garbage the Saudi British Broadcasting Corporation says. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
THe BBC is a very credible source to get info. from. IT is based in Britain, not Saudi Arabia (I don't where you got that from). Not only that it quotes a UN report, once again a credible source and internationally recognized source. The source clearly states "15,000 people have already been displaced by Israel's West Bank barrier". Bless sins 09:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Moving down the road isn't ethnic cleansing; they're still living in the West Bank. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
What abou the JEws that were forced to leave their homes in Gaza?? They might have moved only several km. BTW, there is such thing as "Internally displaced Persons". And....15,000 people don't "move down the road". 172.175.0.149 00:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you consider Gaza to be part of Israel? If so, then I'll entertain your argument that the Jews were merely displaced. As for the "15,000 people", exactly where did they go from, and to? We know that for the Jews. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
How was (at the time of the "disengagement") Gaza (from where the settlers were evicted) not part of Israel??? Israeli currency was used, Israeli military occupied the settlement area, and provided full security to the Jewish settlers, who were (I think) considered Israeli citizens; plus that area was not claimed by any independent country other than Israel... how was the portion of Gaza occupied by Jewish Settlers not part of Israel?172.160.104.39 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying that the Gaza Strip was part of Israel at the time, even though it was under the Palestinian Authority? That's a very strange argument. Does that mean that the West Bank is now part of Israel? Also, please login when editing and commenting, User:Bless sins. Jayjg (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the setllers were not living in Gaza City or areas under the partial (not compelte) Palestinian control. They were living in areas where the PA had no cotnrol at all, and the only control was that of Israel. And yes, the parts of West BAnk where the PA is not operating, and which is occupied by Israeli settlers would be considered under Israeli occupation and Israel maintains complete jurisdiction (whether recognized or not). This part is also not claimed by any other sovereign nation. THe disengagement was basically a wthdrawal of Israelis from terrirtories already udner their control to their own territory.172.131.17.199 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The BBC article is very credible and refers to a UN study. It clearly states that 15,000 Palestinians have been displaced. Therefore, this is ethnic cleansing according to the definition. Do not remove items just because of your are Israeli and do not like to read criticism to your country's policies.
The BBC is one of the least credible hype agencies in the world, it habitually gets rated as the most dishonest on issues relating to Israel by media watchdog organizations. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments are futile without sources. Pls. provide sources that BBC is the "the most dishonest" media source on Issues relating to the middle east.Bless sins 21:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments that this is "ethnic cleansing" are futile without examples of the source saying it is "ethnic cleansing". Jayjg (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
And what sources clearly state that the disengagement was an example of ethnic cleansing??172.131.17.199 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The BBC article refers to a 25 page paper by one man which claims that they were "displaced", not "ethnically cleansed". They could be living next door for all we know. Please find a credible source stating they have been ethnically cleansed, and avoid violations to WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The BBC article refers to the paper by a senior UN human rights envoy of the UN commission in Geneva. If his report was dishonest or factually incorrect, the UN would have apologized for it. The news would be public by now.
Also, the U.N. is a credible ssource when it comes to analyizng the conditions of peoples around the world. After all, it represents the views of the majority of almost all nations on the face of Planet Earth.Bless sins 21:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Not really, but in any event irrelevant. Your "analysis" is fine, but the fact remains that this is a paper by one individual that nowhere claims that Palestinians have been "ethnically cleansed" by the barrier. In fact, you don't even know what it says. Please use credible sources for claims, and quote them accurately. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It's like saying that the comments made by Bush are only representative of Bush and not America. This man, is a senior UN envoy and representing the UN commission in Geneva. How is UN commission not a credible source???172.131.17.199 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've said on other pages, from now on, if you don't login and sign your posts, I won't be answering. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
So you know exactly who I am! You're ignoring me on purpose. Pls. just answer my argumentsBless sins 03:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are; you've apparently claimed to be responsible for edits from at least three wildly different IP ranges. It's not up to me to keep track. As for your arguments, I've already answered them, but you've ignored the answer. You haven't quoted the report by the U.N. employee, because you've never read it; instead, you've quoted an ambiguous BBC article. In addition, the article itself didn't mention "ethnic cleansing", it talked about "displacement", which could mean anything. Please find a reliable source which describes this alleged "displacement" as "ethnic cleansing", and please desist from inventing strawman arguments for me, and then insisting I defend them. Jayjg (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Same to you Jayjg. Find a reliable source that says that the Jews that were taken out from Gaza (then under complete Israeli control) was an example of ethnic cleansing. Bless sins 22:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've never defended that particular item in the article, but since you ask: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] etc. Jayjg (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, the JApanese that were relocated from the Pacific coast of North America are mentioned in this aritcle as "20th Century instances". The Japanese were not deported to any foreign country, but only moved inside the U.S. (and Canada). Also, like the wall, the movement was justified for "security" concerns. If the Japanese relocation can be mentioned then so can be the displacement of PAlestinians.Bless sins 00:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the mention of the Japanese should be removed. Lets be honest, America did not ethnically cleanse Japanese! Kuratowski's Ghost 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Exactly so; the Japanese internment was horrifying and racist, but it wasn't ethnic cleansing. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instrumentalisation of ethnic cleansings

From the point of view of many victims of German genocide the anti-cleansing ideology presented by the (German) Union of the Expelled is a tool to view the German refugees as equal victims of the WWII. Millions of Eastern European people wanted to be "expelled" to Western Europe, they had to "construct the Communism" instead, sometimes in concentration camps in Siberia. The cruelty of the war and period of Read Army crimes are called "ethnic cleansing". However the Germans in the later GDR were subject to the same cruelties at home. Xx236 13:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Well every human which is victim of ethnical cleansing is a victim besides its nationality. Categories of collective guilt a primitive and rasist.--Golumbuss 12:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


If I many throw my .02 in, the security fence cannot be considered ethnic cleansing for one simple reason, it allows Arabs to remain. Ethnic cleansing is the removing of a particular ethnic group from a geographic area. The security fence does not comprise "one area" and it does not force anyone leave (unless they are directly in the path of the fence) and those that are forced to leave are NOT forced to leave because of their ethnicity. If it were a highway and the principle of eminent domain were used, anyone living in the path of the highway would have to move regardless of ethnicity. And anyone on either side would be fine to stay, regardless of ethnicity. I believe the same logic applies here.

[edit] Gaza Strip redux

Javadane, why do you keep removing sources that actually discuss "ethnic cleansing", add sources which don't, refuse to recognize that the settlers were forcibly removed, and insert POV terms like "Palestinian collaborators"? Please recall this is an article about "ethnic cleansing", and please observe WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This section really should not be here. As your sources show, "ethnic cleansing" is only applied in opinion pieces in Jewish/Israeli/Zionist sources to describe the Gaza withdrawal. Where are the statements from Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Where are neutral party statements endorsing this PoV? My sources are news articles which mention that non-Jews were also withdrawn. Why do you object to the inclusion of the cleansing of 15,000 Palestinians by the Wall and its associated policies? If "moving down the road isn't ethnic cleansing" for Palestinians who are forced from their homes by the policies of Israel, how is the compensated removal of Israelis by their own government from land they did not own ethnic cleansing? Basically, this section just doesn't pass muster. Find some neutral sources. Rather than cleaning it again, I'm deleting it.Javadane 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Who made Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International the arbiters of ethnic cleansing, and who said they were neutral? NPOV doesn't demand neutral sources, it demands that different POVs be represented fairly, the opposite of what you are doing. Moreover, there are no sources I am aware of that claim that the removal of "guest workers" and "Palestinian collaborators" is "ethnic cleansing", yet you keep insisting it is. As for the "15,000 Palestinians", no-one was able to find any reliable sources that referred to them being "ethnically cleansed". The section on the Gaza Strip is, in fact, the best sourced section in this article. Please abide by Wikipedia policies, in this case WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there are these sources. [22], [23], [24],

[25], [26]. I don't whether you will like them or not. BUt some of them are definetly better then frontpagemag, and some of the explicitely pro-Jewish sources you cited.Bless sins 16:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with both of these is that they are Opinions and not Facts. Presenting opinion as fact is NPoV and Original Research, but let's look at it from WP:RS. It is a Fact that a limited number of pro-Yesha individuals have expressed the Opinion that the withdrawal of Jews from Gaza was ethnic cleansing. The inclusion of the Fact of the Opinion in a section describing the political usages of the term would be acceptable, but that is not the case. The inclusion is being made as if the Opinion were a Fact. None of the sources provide any evidence that ethnic cleansing has taken place. It does not belong here. See also: WP:NPoV "views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."Javadane 21:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The sources I have provided (including the Washington Post) are reasonably reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't try to establish "fact", it merely reports what various sources say. There is no simple equation for what constitutes "ethnic cleansing"; that's why no-one can seem to get the events in Sudan officially labelled "ethnic cleansing"; it's all a matter of opinion. As for it being an extreme minority opinion, how did you determine that? Please respect Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, and stop removing reliably sourced opinions. Jayjg (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Your Washington Post source, as the others, is an opinion piece. The WP does not use the term "ethnic cleansing" in its news articles about the Gaza Withdrawal, it does about Sudan. There is no legal term "ethnic cleansing" so the failure of some diplomats to use the provocative term is not unsurprising. News media and the govt. reps. of numerous nations do use the term for Sudan. There are numerous definitions for the current usage of "ethnic cleansing" and the Gaza Withdrawal does not meet their "equations." MSN Encarta--violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition—“ethnic cleansing, a euphemism for genocide” [27] Merriam Webster Online Dictionary--the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group [28] The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics; 2003--A contentious and ill-defined term used extensively from May 1992 onwards by the international media, Western politicians and diplomats to describe a systematic policy of mass killings, deportation, rape, internment, and intimidation engaged in by rival ethnic groups of the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina with the goal of rendering ethnically mixed areas homogeneous and thereby establishing a de facto claim on ethnic grounds to sovereignty over disputed territory. [29]WordReference.com --the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area.[30]Javadane 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
If you conclude from the above arguments that withdrawal from Gza was not an act of ethnic cleansing, that will be original research. It's not relevant for Wikipedia that you dispute the application of the term "ethnic cleansing" to the Gaza withdrawal. The section in the article is well sourced to several reliable sources, which is sufficient for keeping it. Pecher Talk 19:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West BAnk??(the sources are given above)Bless sins 10:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your sources are broader than those suggested by the Gaza listers. They include more than the term "ethnic cleansing" by actually providing some description of the acts and policies of "ethnic cleansing." You might want to broaden your sources by including Israeli opinion [31]. A reference or two from "third parties" describing human rights violations related to the "Wall and associated regime" that meet the definition without explicitedly using the term. For instance, the ICJ opinion [32] which describes the policies "tending to alter the demographic composition of the Occupied Palestinian Territory" or a Human Rights Organization's findings, B'Tselem for instance.[33]Javadane 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Bless sins sources is that, aside from being far more dubious than the ones you have objected to regarding the Gaza Strip, the ones referring to ethnic cleansing don't even list any specifics about the Palestinians who have allegedly been "ethnically cleansed" by the fence. How many have been "cleansed" in this way? Who moved them, and where did they go? Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humane ethnic cleansing ?

Quote:

For example, the post-WW2 German expulsions were sanctioned by the international agreement at Potsdam conference, requiring that the actions proceed humanely.

This sentence is, at least misleading, at most a blatant lie. It is a well known fact that there were numerous victims of population transfer at the end of WWII. Humane treatment of expelled Germans was more an exception than a rule. 2 million lives lost in the process! Humanely.

This agreement was designed to be an act of non-too-excessive mass punishment.

It is also well known that Winston Churchill was racially biased when it came to Indians. His was also the idea of settiling european Jews in Palestine, and how well this population transfer went, we can still see. --JPopovic 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"2 million lives lost in the process!" The article quotes 1,300,000 . Xx236 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't see the problem with "..... international agreement at Potsdam conference, requiring that the actions proceed humanely.". The agreement (presumably) said that the ethnic cleansing should be "humane". If it didn't happen that way, then document the cruelties that actually happened (or what ended up being recorded in a credible, permanent form). PalestineRemembered 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see that "ethnic cleansing" could be justified by any political, ethical or juridical argument. "Ethnic cleansing" means forcing human beings to leave their homes and lands regarding the discriminatory criterium "ethnicity". History shows that "ethnic cleansing" cannot be organised humanely, because the idea is already wrong in its basics: the concept of "ethnic cleansing" is founding on the wrong assumption that human beings could be ethnically dirty. (User from Germany, Nov. 22nd, 2006)

[edit] requiring that the actions proceed humanely

And I require high level of Wikipedia articles. Xx236 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judenrein needs its own article

"Judenrein" German for Jew-free, was a term used during WWII for the expulsion and murder of Jews in Nazi invaded territories. This term is specific to the Jewish people and does not refer to all cases of ethnic cleansing. This article is not specific to Judenrein, even though Judenrein redirects here. Judenrein is very notable and deserves an article all to itself. This article is misleading, and it obscures the relationship between the two. It portrays them as synonyms when they are not. I feel that this page, its redirection, and a gross obscuration of terms is a disgrace to the Jewish people and does not do justice to the holocaustic series of events that it is dedicated to portray. --Cocopuffberman 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cleansing in the Bible

I deleted this section because it seemed pointlessly provocative. There are thousands of pre-modern instances of ethnic cleansing. It's POV to mention only one example - and a classic hornet's nest example at that - and any attempt to all major pre-modern examples would be tedious and unuseful.

I suggest the article be limited to relevant examples, meaning examples that have contributed to the developmennt of the concept.--Chris 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's worth reminding people we've come across ethnic cleansing before? Deuteronomy - 020:017 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: PalestineRemembered 22:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To user Chris: I disagree with your deletion of this section. Granted, it is a provocative topic, but not pointlessly so. The Bible is purportedly one of the most read and most published writing in human history. It definitely has a hand in contributing to the development of the concept of Ethnic Cleansing, and deserve at least a passing mention here. User:BeyRel

I feel strongly that this article should restrict itself to propositions that can be backed with scholarly sources. Otherwise, it turns into an opinion free-for-all. There are thousands of events in history which can arguably be called ethnic cleansing. My position is that we can mention them if and only if a scholarly source has applied the phrase to them, and even then we should note when these opinions have been challenged by other scholars. That's the only way to keep this article under control, I think.
By scholarly sources, I mean people who have scholarly credentials in a relevant field, like Political Science or International Law, and publish in neutral, scholarly venues, like books from university presses or articles in academic or legal journals. A few editors here have insisted on including sources like opinion columns by unqualified journalists, but I oppose that.
That being said, some of the Biblical instances do sound like ethnic cleansing, so if you can find a scholarly source that says so, feel free to mention them.CJGB (Chris) 19:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite understand the need for the scholarly criteria you mentioned. Can't we take the Bible at its face value? If the Bible clearly describes incidences of ethnic cleansing (as quoted above by PalestineRemembered), we shouldn't need a scholar with an advance degree in Political Science to tell us that some parts in the Bible is indeed describing ethnic cleansing. BeyRel 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed" section

Who "disputes" these, or says they are "rhetorical"? Wikipedia editors? Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you doubt it? Admittedly the Gaza example is reasonably close to being a genuine case of E.C., but even some of the sources are doubtful about this.--Chris 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
We've been through the Gaza example numerous times, every newbie leftist editor visiting the page attempts to convince us that forcing 9000 people out of a region because they are Jewish not Arab is not ethnic cleansing if you call the victims "Israelis" instead of "Jews". Kuratowski's Ghost 00:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm hardly a leftist. I'm just not comfortable with using E.C. to cover cases where a government is removing its own nationals from a territory. In the classic cases, E.C. is perpetrated by a hostile aggressor.--Chris 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So Yugoslavians removing other Yugoslavians wasn't ethnic cleansing? South Africans removing other South Africans isn't ethnic cleansing? Kuratowski's Ghost 06:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I used the word "national" in its traditional sense, referring ethnic identity. Israel, as a Jewish-majority state, doesn't commit E.C. by removing Jewish settlers. The Soviet Union, as a Russian-majority state, did (arguably) by resettling the Crimean Tatars. Yugoslavia is the defining the case for E.C., of course. South Africa, probably, but we need a tight definition of E.C., and good documentation. Hopefully we will get those in the future.
You know quite well that the nationality behind the ethnic cleansing is the Arabs, the unilateral disengagement plan (resulting from decades of terrorism combined with more recent machinations with Washington) being merely the tool by which the ethnic cleansing was achieved. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
They looked like IDF uniforms to me.--Chris 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I notice, by the way, that you've repeatedly moved the Gaza paragraph out of the "Disputed" category, only to have others -- many others -- move it back. Clearly, we're not going to make any progress that way. So we need to try another, which is a clearer -- and sourced -- definition or set of definitions for ethnic cleansing itself.--Chris 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The OED defines Ethnic cleansing as “The purging, by mass expulsion or killing, of one ethnic or religious group by another, esp. from an area of former cohabitation”. Obviously Gaza can not be ethnic cleansing since it was Jews removing Jews. The settlements being illegal I don't think you could even say they were legitimately "habitating". My understanding of the illegality is not based on personal opinion. I could go fetch some references if needed. A nomaly 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a source which says these are "disputed" or "doubtful" - are there any, or is this simply Wikipedia editors taking editorial license? Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Call it my editorial licence if you like, but surely we have to distinguish between ethnic cleaning à la Hurricane Katrina and ethnic à la Bosnia. Categorizing Katrina et al as "rhetorical or disputed" seemed better (i.e., less contentious) than just deleting them--Chris 23:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC).

And how do you decide which items go in that section? Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I really, really don't want to stick my foot in that giant wasp's nest called the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Let me make that clear. I'm tempted to ask how you (or any other reader here) would make the distinction, or do you think no distinction needs to be made, and any claim of E.C. is ipso facto valid?
On second thought, though, I think the best way to proceed is to tighten up the definition in the introductory section. What we have now is a very loose, legalistic definition that allows people to argue for and against the inclusion of various instances from different points of view. As is frequent in these cases, I think a typological definition would be useful. E.C. entered English in the context of the civil wars in ex-Yugoslavia, so those wars are paradigmatic cases. So what were the relevant feature of the ex-Yugoslav ethnic cleansings?
  • They were expulsions, not evacuations or resettlements
  • They were accompanied by near-genocidal levels of brutality and violence,
  • Yet they were not aimed at extermination, just removal
  • They were directed against populations regarded as foreign, not the aggressor's own nationals (this is implicit in the word "cleansing" - the target population are regarded a "polluting" a particular territory.
That strikes me as a reasonable definition of ethnic cleansing in the Yugoslav situation. Most of the cases mentioned in the article seems to fit it. The Greek/Turkish "population exchanges" would, for example. The Holocaust would not, since it aimed a extermination, not removal. Some of the removals of Palestinians in the War of Independence would qualify. The various evictions of Palestinians for roads, or the Wall, wouldn't. Nor would the forced evacuation of Israeli settlers from Sinai in the 1980s or Gaza in the 2000s. (If the Gaza settlers stayed and were later expelled, violently, by the Palestinians, that would be ethnic cleansing.)
That's my view. I'm not saying it's the last word, but somehow we need a definition that doesn't require us to admit every claim.--Chris 00:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, Jayjg, we should probably have a "Alleged" section, for instances that have been called ethnic cleansing, but not by scholarly or authoritative sources. Newspaper opinion pieces or speeches by politicians would be typical sources. That way, we are documenting the charge has been made without having to evaluate its validity. But my point about tightening up the definition still stands.--Chris 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What would you consider a "scholarly" or "authoritative" source regarding ethnic cleansing? As far as I know, the U.N. still hasn't been able to bring itself to describe what is going on in Darfur as "ethnic cleansing". Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The kind of sources that would pass muster in an undergraduate term paper, you know, normal WP standards. I'll try to put up something representative tomorrow.--Chris 22:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted a number of dictionary definitions above in the Gaza Redux section. Common usage as presented by such standard reference works, however, don't seem to please those who are insistent on creating a new usage for the term "ethnic cleansing."Javadane 22:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll see what I can dig up. There's no one definition of E.C., but there are a number of definitions from respectable scholars and institutions (like the Commission of Experts on Security Council Resolution 720). I think it can be shown that the Gaza case meets no widely used criteria, or only the loosest possible criteria for E.C. That's what we can document.--Chris 23:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a recipe for original research. Please remember, it's not up to editors to decide what ethnic cleansing is or isn't; instead, we just quote what reliable sources describe as "ethnic cleansing". In other words, we can't go through this list and say "This item meets the E.C. criteria, this case doesn't"; that's pure original research. Jayjg (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
We don't get to say what ethnic cleansing is, I agree. But we can say (in effect, I wouldn't write it up this way) "Sources A, B, and C define E.C. to include forcible expulsion with gross human-rights violations. Sources D and E have defined the situation of some Katrina evacuees as E.C., but this is using a different definition, namely...." That's source-based research, not original research.--Chris 23:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, we can certainly give different definitions for ethnic cleansing. However, we cannot decide for ourselves which incidents fit which definitions; that's when "source-based research" becomes "original research". Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's where I disagree. Anyone who proposes to list a given instance under a given definition must document the relevant characteristics. Otherwise it's deletable.--Chris 00:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The sources cited claim that what is going is "ethnic cleansing". You cannot, by your own original research, seek to refute their claims. For example, if a reliable source claims that Darfur is "ethnic cleansing", you cannot say "however it does not meet the definition of ethnic cleansing as defined by XYZ". That is your own argument; instead you would need to find a source which explicitly stated "Darfur is not an example of ethnic cleansing because...". WP:NOR is quite clear that something is original research if it "introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position." WP:RS makes this even more clear: "bear in mind that we only report what reliable publications publish, although of course editors should seek to use the most authoritative sources. In accordance with Wikipedia's No original research policy, we do not add our own opinion or in any other way attempt to investigate or evaluate whether they are right or wrong." Jayjg (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll continue this thread in a new section, since we're getting over-indented here.--Chris 14:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The most blatantly obvious disputed example in the article is the Nakba nonsense. For a long time I and other editors were too lazy to get into a debate about it but seeing that once again legitimate examples of ethnic cleansing of Jews is being disputed by editors of the same ilk as whoever added the Nakba nonsense, its time to question it. The facts surrounding the matter are that Israel welcomed all living in the region to remain and participate in the state as equal citizens. Most Arab refugees chose to leave of their own accord, how is this ethnic cleansing? They were welcomed to stay instead they chose to be hostile and leave. In some cases Arabs who had actively turned against their Jewish neighbours were forcefully removed to protect the people they had turned against - again clearly not ethnic cleansing. Unless someone can provide a legitimate reason for the "Nakba" entry to remain I will remove it. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any claims about the Nakba should be properly documented. My impression is that the issue has been debated extensively among historians, with the consensus view that some but not all of the Palestinians who left might well be termed victims of ethnic cleansing. But for now, at least, I will stay out of it. Still, I assume you will concede it as an *alleged* case of E.C.--Chris 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that if the Nakba is an example of ethnic cleansing, it must be the least effective ethnic cleansing campaign in history. Palestinian Arabs remained in virtually every area of the country, where they remained politically active. By contrast, there are only negligible numbers of Jews left in Arab countries.--Leifern 18:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Scorched-earth" policy?

(In response to Jayjg's last, deeply indented comment in the prev. section) You make some good points about original research. Which leaves the question of how we should deal with claimed instances of ethnic cleansing in this article. Currently the vast majority of these are either unsourced, based on original research (i.e., the sources don't apply the term E.C.) or based on non-reliable sources (e.g., opinion pieces). Can we agree that the relevant fields of expertise for this question are political science, international law, conflict studies, and related fields?

Here's my proposal: Add a [citation needed] tag to all the unsupported claims and, if no-one produces adequate sources within, say, 2 weeks, delete them. As for inadequately supported claims (I mean claims made by non-experts such as a politicians or journalists), I suggest we document them under a separate heading, or set of headings. The TOC could look something like this:

  • Definitions
  • Instances
  • Other claims of ethnic cleansing
    • Claims in the media
    • Claims in the political arena
    • (etc.)

I'm sure someone can come up with better language.--Chris 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

For now I think a good start would be to ask for citations for all of the existing listings, then sort through the inevitable garbage that shows up, trying to weed it down to reliable sources. From there we can re-assess and decide if further organization is possible or desireable. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza, again

Jayjg, you should note that the references for the Gaza case are newspaper editorials and similar things, which don't qualify as Reliable Sources. I agree with you that we shouldn't concern ourselves with reorganizing the article until after we've made an effort to document the various claim, so I don't really care where it goes at the moment. But in the long run the only options are (1) under "Disputed", "Media claims" or some similar heading, (2) "21 Century" -- with adequate sources-- or (3) out.--Chris 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I removed the Tom Gross citation from Gaza, because the writer doesn't claim that Gaza amounted to EC; he merely quotes protestors as making that claim.--Chris 18:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Pipes

Well, you have a point, but until that time I don't really accept Javadane's view that Pipes is an expert on what is or isn't an example of ethnic cleansing. In fact, he would not quote Pipes as a source on anything else, so this is quite disingenuous. Also, the context of Pipes's statement is quite important; he's saying it's not ethnic cleansing because it is something unprecedented - please don't remove that. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind me moving your comment to a new heading)
I'm no fan of Pipes, but he has pretty good credentials, a PhD from Harvard for example. I'm not aware him publishing anything specifically on ethnic cleansing, nothing scholarly anyway, so I wouldn't rank him with some of the scholars cited elsewhere in the article. On the other hand, he seems far better qualified than the journalists who have invoked the term for Gaza. Of course the article is not saying that he's right and they're wrong (admittedly, that's what I personally believe); it's just saying there are two views.
I don't agree with your interpretation here: "he's saying it's not ethnic cleansing because it is something unprecedented". I read him as "trying on" various analogies suggested by readers - eminent domain, the Japanese internment in WWII, and ethnic cleansing - and concluding that none of them fit and that *therefore* this situation is unprecedented. The logic runs
not ethnic cleansing, therefore unprecedented
rather than
unprecedented, therefore not ethnic cleansing
I'll leave the extra comment in for now, but I'm not promising I won't remove it again in the future.

--Chris 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Gaza ethnic cleansing to 21st century where it belongs there are ample references calling it ethnic cleansing, putting Pipes' quote in doesn't make the other references disappear. For all examples you will be able to find someone who will deny its ethnic cleansing for one reason or another why should the Gaza example be given special treatment ... and no, being a smartassed leftist style anti-semite isn't a valid reason. Its high time leftist style anti-semitism received the same contempt that rightwing anti-semitism does. And with that in mind I have also removed the Nakba garbage because it is nothing but an attempt to be smartassed. The references given simply confirm that hostile Arabs were removed because they were hostile. No one was removed because they were simply Arab, in fact there were Arabs fighting on the side of Israel. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've pointed out before that the references for Gaza are opinion pieces in non-scholarly publications. They are very far from meeting the WP standards for Reliable Sources. I've said I wasn't going to delete any claims in this article until July 1, but the Gaza section will be the first to go, unless you come up with acceptable references. I don't want to be a hard-ass about this. I'm perfectly happy to report these journalists' opinions as opinions, with contrary opinions included. That's the language I thought we had agreed on earlier. If you can't stomach that, then there will shortly be no reference to Gaza at all, barring the unlikely contingency that somebody produces a scholarly, peer-reviewed reference for the claim. It's up to you.--Chris 04:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
About the Nakba, please remember that WP's criterion for documenting assertions of fact is verifiability, not truth. Those who claim that the Nakba included elements of ethnic cleansing may be liars, may be anti-Semites - or not - but the claims were apparently made by qualified scholars in academic publications. Because you virulently oppose their views does not mean you can sweep them away. There are several things you can do:
  • You can look up the references and show that Javadene or whoever has misinterpreted or misrepresented his sources.
  • You can show that University of California Press and Cambridge University Press are, contrary to what many believe, not respected academic publishers.
  • You can find equivalent (that is, scholarly) sources that argue against the thesis and add their position to the paragraph, alongside, not instead of, the information that's there now. This seems the most reasonable option.
Otherwise, you will be continually reverted.--Chris 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but when they publish revisionist history spouted by people from humanities departments as opposed to objective observation, they are indeed not respected sources.
This article should distinguish between real examples of people being forced out a region because of their ethnicity (regardless of whether some humanities a-hole has officially called it ethnic cleansing) and cases where the term is being used as rhetoric or for disinformational propaganda. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights Watch

Does anybody object to treating Human Rights Watch as a Reliable Source? That would certainly help us in clearing up some of the [citation needed] cases.--Chris 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I object, they don't strike me as impartial. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Looking at their site more closely, I tend to agree with you. They're very aggressive at diagnosing human-rights abuses. Arguably a good thing in real life, but a bad thing in Wikipedia--Chris 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Implicitly right-wing"

Dr njw wrote:

It [ethnic cleansing] is an implictly right-wing phrase, especially when used without cautionary speech marks, because it implies that one category of humanity might be "less clean" than others. When used in respect of conflict situations, such as in the Balkans, the term is generally used as a euphemism for a policy of "ethnic removal".

This is an interesting comment, but I can't agree with it as it stands. E.C. was apparently coined by extreme nationalists (who might be called right-wingers, except for their connections to the old Serbian Communist regime), or at least ascribed to them. And so in this original usage it heavily dehumanizes the victims. In normal usage, though, it is applied by opponents of various types of ethnic policies as an implicit accusation of inhumanity by the perpetrators.

Also, I wouldn't call it a euphemism for ethnic removal so much as a dysphemism (if that's a word - it isn't, I checked). That is, it's a harsher, more POV term than ethnic removal. This harsher connotation is a result of its ambiguity. Some use it as a synonym of ethnic removal; others use it to mean ethnic removal or ethic flight accompanied or instigated by gross human-rights violations. Most of its rhetorical punch results from its implicit evocation of the terrible atrocities in early 90s Yugoslavia.

This explains, too, why I object so strongly to its application to things like the situation in New Orleans or, to a lesser extent, the forced removal of settlers from Gaza. Such usages strike me as an irresponsible trivialization of one of the great post-war European tragedies. I admit, though, that there is no single, official definition for the term, and the article needs to reflect that. As I've said early, come July I'm going to be doing some heavy editing on this article.--Chris 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Day of Judgement Approacheth!

OK, y'all. Editors of this article have a few more days to provide proper citations for the examples of ethnic cleansing. That means locating Reliable Sources who have applied the term "ethnic cleansing" to a particular set of events. No Original Research, please. I'll also insist on a fairly high standard of scholarship -- no newspaper columnists and so on. For non-web sources, page numbers are welcome. Also, if possible, indicate why the author applies the term -- what criteria do they appear to be using?

I will delete all claims that remain without proper sources, no matter how valid I think they are.

I know this may seem heavy-handed and arrogant on my part, but the [citation needed] flags have been in place for more than 2 months, and someone's got to take this in hand.--Chris 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm deleting all unsupported claims in the Instances section. For now, I'm sparing anything that has a footnote, but I may delete more claims if the sources don't support the claim or aren't Reliable Sources.--CJGB (Chris) 20:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)CJGB (Chris) 20:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting edits by Shamir1

I meant to get this comment up yesterday. I'm sorry I had to revert these edits, which seem to have been made in good faith, but:

  • Wikipedia articles are not Reliable Sources for assertions in other articles.
  • We need Reliable Sources that explicit the term "ethnic cleansing" to a given event. Evidence that an event involved forced expulsion etc. isn't enough, since that means you and/or I would be taking it upon ourselves to judge the issue for ourselves - Original Research.
  • "Palestinian" was a well-established term before the Six Day War - the PLO, for example, was founded in 1964. Gaza and the West Bank were administered (badly) by Egypt and Jordan, but weren't considered integral parts of those countries.

--CJGB (Chris) 00:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed fragments, query

Somewhere over the past few months the following fragments have been deleted, mostly in August by User:CJGB. I'd like to restore them unless there are reasons not to:

  1. During First World War Imperial Germany planned to annex territories in the area of Congress Poland and perform ethnic cleansing of Polish and Jewish population followed by settlement of Ethnic Germans
  2. The expulsions of Jews from Austria after the Anschluss, and deportations of Poles and Jews from Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany.
  3. Generalplan Ost, in which the Nazis planned to kill or expel most or all ethnic Slavs from large regions of Eastern Europe and replace them with German settlers. A part of it was the expulsion of Poles from Zamość County by Germans in 1942-1944.
  4. The ethnic cleansing of Volhynia by Ukrainian guerrilla groups.
  5. The expulsion of 800,000 Poles from Warsaw, partially to concentration camps, after defeat of Warsaw Uprising 1944. The city of Warsaw, population of one million, was ordered to be completely demolished on the personal order of Hitler. Approximately 80% of the city was demolished (the number includes Warsaw Uprising destructions).

Comments?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The items were primarily removed for lack of sources. The first one was a plan that was never implemented. Sources should explicitly use the term "Ethnic cleansing" to describe the situation else we end with an original research conflict. Links to other wikipedia articles are considered insufficient documentation. Javadane 18:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that references are needed, I can't fail to note the article still has dozens of unreferenced massacres; thus the criteria used to remove those above was not truly objective. The first one indeed is a speculation and I will not argue about it. For the others, consider those refs: [34], [35]. "When the Germans annexed western Poland to the Reich, they deported Poles and Jews to the General Government in order to Germanize the new land. As has already been seen, the Germans forced Poles and Jews out of their homes and businesses and transported them in conditions so appalling that thousands of people, including children, perished even before they got to their destination." While we certainly could use more specific refs, they are aplenty (one just can check Google Print). Would there still be any objections to restoring the above sections (without the first one)?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic cleansing is shifting people purely for their ethnicity - isn't it?

I see this question has been discussed already, but I fail to understand what is going on. It cannot be right to exclude the expulsion of the Palestinians. A passage of this form most definitely belongs in this article:

  • Persecution and expulsion of most of the native population of what was to become Israel by immigrants calling themselves Zionists. Estimates of the number vary, but the UN figure at the time was 711,000 Palestinian refugees. A further 200,000 to 250,000 were cleansed in 1967 [1]
PalestineRemembered 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I've restored this. I missed when it got changed. Yes, this has been clearly discussed and it is sourced in the article with reliable sources that explicitly use the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe it. Javadane 17:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is on the page, no reliable sources call it "ethnic cleansing", and it's no less disupted than any of the other examples listed in the disputed section. Please respect the long-standing consensus on this page, and avoid politicizing this more than is absolutely necessary. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources are reliable per reliable sources. Primary source scholars. Javadane 21:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are some events described on this page as "instances of ethnic cleansing" but others as "disputed allegations of ethnic cleansing"? Surely all or almost all instances of ethnic cleansing are disputed.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
We discussed this above. To avoid original research, reliable sources were requested for each instance listed. The catchall category was previously "Allegations of ethnic cleansing" and included claims that could not be adequately sourced. It was not intended for items "disputed" by wikipedians as it has become. I'm changing the title back.
I don't see anyone presenting informatioin impeaching the credibility of the sources here, so it appears that you are right to restore it. On the other hand, who decides what is and what isn't a reliable source for this sort of thing?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In general, wikipeida's guideline reliable sources is the standard. Talk page for disputes in interpretation. Javadane 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's anything in WP:RS which is directly relevant to this subject. I'm not really clear on what a neutral, reliable authority on ethnic cleansing would look like, especially considering that there is no single accepted definition.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Disputed" section was a compromise; please see lengthy discussions above, in which Javadane took part, and of which he is fully aware. Either all of these items in the Disputed section belong there, or they all belong in the main body of the article. Please stop removing just one item from the list. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Items on the "disputed" list for which reliable sources are found should be listed in the main body. The disputed section is a compromise and could be entirely eliminated with its contents (or moved to this talk page) not moved into the main body. Javadane 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not at all clear what is supposed to constitute a "reliable source" for a politically sensitive topic like this. On the one hand, I don't know of a specific way to assure ourselves of the neutrality of someone describing something as "ethnic cleansing"; on the other, a neutral writer might wish to avoid using the term "ethnic cleansing" precisely because it might seem politically charged.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explicitly state which sources you find "unreliable", and why. For example, explain why Tanya Reinhart, a linguist and political activist, is a more reliable source regarding Israeli history than, say, Benny Morris, arguably Israel's most famous historian? Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the Benny Morris source and he doesn't use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in his work. I'll restore my original sources once again. You may verify all three at google books.Javadane 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what is questionable about the sources, other than perhaps the fact that you disagree with them. For the most part, outside the Islamic world the belief that the "Nakba" constituted ethnic cleansing is restricted to the distant fringes of political and academic debate. As Leifern stated above, if it was ethnic cleansing, it would have to have been the most ineffectual one in history since Palestinians are still still reside throughout the area they were supposedly "cleansed" from.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
And the 3 sources I provided are all Israeli Jews--two academics (historians) and a noted journalist. Javadane 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't explain any of your other edits, though. Could you try to explain them please? Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone's religion and nationality has no bearing on their views and whether or no they are acceptable as a source.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
But based on your comments above, you would clearly reject sources from the "Islamic world." Javadane 20:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Any more than an American Jew is automatically "pro-America." Also, my two pence on the questions at hand, Benny Morris as a source is worth about ten Tanya Reinharts, and that the "Nakba" is an example of EC is seriously disputed. And no, not all examples of EC are seriously disputed. But this one very much is. IronDuke 20:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Cleansing in New Orleans?

Isn't it somewhat dubious to claim that the policy of the U.S. government in its response to the destruction of New Orleans was ethnic cleansing? Although the allocation of aid to affected people may have been racially and/or economically biased, I don't think there was any kind of conscious effort to remove African-American citizens from the area. -- Augustgrahl 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd, isn't it? And yet people have apparently, and in all seriousness, made that claim. Jayjg (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this really counts as "Ethnic Cleansing" unless you want to argue that Mother Nature has something against black people. But first, I'm going to want to see some CREDIBLE sources proving the existence of mother nature AND that she has something against the African-American community. Bragr 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Cleansing in Bhutan?

if ethnic cleansing is the removal of people purely based on ethnicity, then how can anyone accuse bhutan of doing the same? the genuine citizens of bhutan who are of nepali ethnicity are still in bhutan while those who were recent illegal immigrants were asked to leave. does not that sound like a reasonable position on immigration the world over?Divinemadman 17:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. The sources don't use the expression "ethnic cleansing" and it would be original research to interpret it as such. A reminder: As discussed above, all claims must be sourced and sources must use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the situation. An opinion piece, a claim by a politician and other rhetorical uses can be placed in the "Allegations" section, but they do not rise to reliable sources in this controversial article. Javadane 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How come...

Genocide and ethnic cleansing by Hungarian, German and Croatian Axis troops against Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians in Vojvodina province of Serbia between 1941 and 1944 (See: Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944). died: abt. ~50k

but only "Killings" by Yugoslav communist partizans against ethnic Hungarians and Germans in Vojvodina province of Serbia in 1944-1945 (See: 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka). (not to mention that this was moved illegally to this name) died: abt. 35k (est. up to 50k).

First commited in 4 yrs, the second in 3 month... They are Both genocide and ethnic cleansing. Not just one, while the other is "killings". Pls correct it, thanks. --91.120.124.154 07:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal ethnic cleansing

I was thinking of adding a paragraph to the Ethnic cleansing as a crime under international law section.

I feel the subject needs a thorough hashing out here first though, to ensure that I‘ve gotten it right. So here goes.

Based on this link it appears that the expulsion of Germans from former German territory and other parts of Europe is not considered to have bee a crime, not at the time, and not now either, and the conclusion of the paper is that future acts of ethnic cleansing in similar situations by similar means are not a crime under international law. Future instances of legal ethnic cleansing perhaps being (my guess) if the Baltic states expel the Baltic Russians populations by force.

My suggestion for paragraph would be e.g.

There are situations where international law has permitted and still permits ethnic cleansing, such as the expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after World War II. If similar circumstances arise in the future in any part of the world, ethnic cleansing of a population is permissible under international law.--Stor stark7 Talk 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
What we need here is a reference to a scholarly text. CJGB (Chris) 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of definition

wikipedia's Definition: "Ethnic cleansing refers to various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory"

I have a suspicion that the term is applicable to the situation of deisplacement of an ethnic group which historically lived in the territory, not just removal of travelling aliens. For example, if California deports all Mexican ilegal immigrants, will it be an ethnic cleansing of Mexicans? Also, when all Japanese in the USA were plcaed in concentration camps, was it ethnic cleansing? Mukadderat 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar etc

Hi, I'm not clear about the meaning of this sentence in the lead section "The term became known to the world as Serbian war overheads most of the time either openly discussed or indicated their plans in cleansing (čišćenje) of territories."

  • What does "Serbian war overheads" mean?
  • Wasn't ethnic cleansing something carried out by all groups in Bosnia (although most successfully by the Bosnian Serbs)
  • Weren't two of the most well known cases of ethnic cleansing during the war the cleansing of Serbs from Krajina and of Albanians from Kosovo? Why only mention Bosniaks?

Roncevaux 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume that "Serbian war overheads" means "Serbian war leaders". Thanks for catching that. That whole section needs reworking, in my opinion. It's sometimes argued that the term "ethnic cleansing" was not widely used prior to its emergence in international use in 1992, and further, that it was popularized by Western politicians who wanted to avoid applying the label "genocide" to events in ex-Yugoslavia. (Designating those atrocities as genocide would supposedly have committed them to take action under the UN Convention of Genocide.) This position should appear in the article.
I believe that the term came into use specifically with regard to the ethnic cleansings of Bosniaks by Serbian militia in 1992-93. The Krajina expulsions were a bit later, I believe, and the Kosovo situation was several years later. My own sense of the history is that the Serbian leadership initiated ethnic cleansings as a means to create a strong Serbian majority in the Serbian state they hoped to carve out of Bosnia. Without population transfers this project would not have been politically viable. Terrorism and massacre were tools to effect the population transfers. The later expulsions by other groups were essentially retaliatory or defensive (e.g. to forestall any Serbian attempt to annex the Krajina), which doesn't make them legal or benign, of course. Those are my views, but I recognise that other people hold different positions.CJGB (Chris) 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for another purge

There's a tendency in this article for people to add their favourite examples of mistreated or expelled minorities without proper references. Let me stress that this article is about ethnic cleansing. Whether or not a given incident amounts to ethnic cleansing is a matter of judgement - and it's the judgement of legal and political experts that counts here, not the judgements of Wikipedia editors. In other words, if you want to add an example to the article, make sure you include a reference to a mainstream academic or legal source - one that explicitly applies the words "ethnic cleansing" to the incident in question.

In a few cases, it may be worth documenting claims that aren't backed up backed up by experts - for example, the fact that various politicians and journalists have applied the term to post-Katrina New Orleans is certainly interesting - but the article should make clear that these are not expert opinions.

Let me add that there is no need for every incident of ethnic cleansing to be mentioned, any more than an article of movie actors would have to mention every movie actor in history.

So, what's this about a purge? I've added a note to the article that tries to put the claims of ethnic cleansing into perspective. I'm going flag the incidents that don't meet the outlined criteria. In a week or so, unless I get a lot of opposition, I'll delete the inadequately documented claims. That means, by way, flagging all claims based on pre-1992 sources, which obviously cannot have used the term "ethnic cleansing." CJGB (Chris) 16:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done it.CJGB (Chris) 05:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do it in a non-selective way. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to be non-selective, but I'm only human, and a lazy human at that. So feel free to propose reversions or further deletions. -- CJGB (Chris) 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

I removed the stupid biased part about Hurricane Katrina and the government policies about African Americans was ethnic cleansing. Hurricane Katrina was part of nature and could not be stopped. The government could have been quicker woth reponse time, but IT IS NOT ETHNIC CLEANSING! Mrld 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The references disagree, however. Keep in mind that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Check the following out: "This is turning into the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans", "In New Orleans: Ethnic Cleansing, GOP-Style", and "Hurricane Victims Demand More Help". Khoikhoi 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asian expulsion from Uganda

I don't know enough about the Asian expulsion from Uganda in 1972 to add this to this article, but if someone with more knowledge could add this it would be greatly appreciated. In my opinion, this was a claer-cut case of ethnic cleansing. Lesouris 18:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks

Allow me to quote from the Bosniaks article:

In the English-speaking world, Bosniaks are sometimes also referred to as Bosnians or Bosnian Muslims. The term Bosnian is somewhat imprecise in this context, as it is used to denote all inhabitants of Bosnia regardless of ethnic origin (i.e. not only Bosniaks, but also Serbs, Croats or any other group in the country). The term Bosnian Muslim is considered antiquated and, in certain situations, even mildly offensive due to its implied religious identification and the Bosniaks' historical struggle for national recognition.

Also, a deliberate misuse of the term may be considered insulting by secular Bosniaks. Khoikhoi 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The term Bosnian Muslim is widely used in English without any pejorative connotations. While the Bosniak article makes unsourced claims about it being "mildly offensive", the only relavant source (http://www.seep.ceu.hu/issue22/dimitrovova.pdf) doesn't support that view. Until we get a good source that does, I'm against dropping the Muslim reference, which is after all clearer to most readers. In deference to your point about secular Bosniaks, I'm willing to change it to "Bosnians of muslim heritage".
In fact the Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim distinction seems to reflect differing views about Bosnian national identity. It's to be expected that proponents of the dominant "Bosniak" tendency will play the "offense" card, but what they're really asking is we neutrals adopt their politicised terminology. That's my view. CJGB (Chris) 06:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have access to the Oxford Journals, you can read this article. But honestly, if people want to know who the Bosniaks are, they can just click on the link, and they can see that they are Bosnians of Muslim descent. I don't want to argue with you about the use of the term, but it's obviously common and accepted enough that the Wikipedia article is titled Bosniaks (not Bosnian Muslims). Khoikhoi 06:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Who's objecting to "Bosniak"? I'm objecting to you deleting the explanatory phrase "(Bosnian Muslims)" based on an assertion that contradicts my own experience. I can't access your Oxford Journal, so I won't count unless you provide a quote. My impression is that "Bosniak" came into widespread use only after the start of the ethnic cleansing campaigns as a way of signalling a new group identity among Bosnians of Muslim background. So its arguable that "Bosniak" is slightly anachronistic in writing about 1992. In any case, news coverage at the time referred exclusively to "Bosnian Muslims". And I mean absolutely exclusively: the term "Bosniak" was never heard in the mainstream North American media. For that reason along, it's worth including at the first mention of "Bosniak". The quotation marks around "Bosnian Muslim" should deal with any supposed pejorative colouring. CJGB (Chris) 15:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that the recent ICJ decision uses the term "Bosnian Muslim" exclusively, I'm restoring the original phrasing: "Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims)". This give precedence to the common self-description while including the better known phrase. CJGB (Chris) 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, don't be frivolous. "Bosnian Muslim" is the most widespread term, and ought to be there as an alternative to "Bosniak", though I've nothing against making "Bosniak" the primary term in this article.
Another problem with using "Bosniak" alone is that the Bosniak article merely states that the B's are a Bosnian people of Muslim background; for all the naive reader knows, there might be other Bosnian minorities of Muslim background, and the Bosniaks were the first of many to be ethnically cleansed. Yes, reading the Bosniak article thoroughly would dispel that notion - but why force readers to do that because of a quibbling over terminology? By including "Bosnian Muslim" in brackets, we clearly link "Bosniak" to the victims of the atrocities. CJGB (Chris) 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the formula we have been using in this article -- "Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim)" on first mention and "Bosniak" thereafter -- has also been used by several Bosniak organizations, especially when addressing non-Bosniak audiences. See here, here, and here. Please give some thought to this before continuing your edit war -- which undermines your reputation for civility and even-handedness in WP. CJGB (Chris) 15:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Update- Here are some sources that use the term "Bosnian Muslim"


"Bosnian Muslim", it seems, is in no way offensive, and by far the most widespread term used in English. 124.177.92.88 06:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Unquestionably. As far as I recall (someone can research this if they want) The Guardian is the only important news provider that uses "Bosniak". The major media are not bigoted organizations; if they feel an ethnic term is offensive, they stop using it.
Moreover, the user who originally added the phraseology Khoikhoi is objecting to identifies himself as a Bosniak living in France. CJGB (Chris) 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab case

Hi all. I'm currently mediating a case into which this article is involved.

Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.

For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.

In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.

I'm at your disposal for every question.


Happy editing,

Snowolf(talk)CONCOI - 18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/t/h/Talk%7EEthnic_cleansing_26ce.html"