Talk:Ethnic cleansing/Archive 1

General matters

I've removed the following text from the EC in history section, on the basis that a: It's fairly clearly not NPOV, and b: I don't know anything about the actual facts of the matter, so I can't even attempt a fix, and c: it shows every sign of being written by a crank, so the factual claims will need to be verified by someone who knows more than me [ie, pretty much anyone except me], and d: I'm dubious as to whether it actually should be mentioned *specifically*, given that a straightforward, "In the land now occupied by Israel and the territories occupied by israel, something something something arabs and jews something something horribleness something etc" would seem to cover this and all the other grotesqueries quite handilly. Especially given the fairly small scale of this particular event.

In 1929 several hundred Jewish residents of Hebron Israel were ethnically cleansed and 67 were murdered by their Arab neighbors due to incitement by the Nazi War Criminal Haj-Amin Al Husseini, some managed to escape by hiding with friendly Arab families.

If you're the person who put this item in, you are, at a minimum, going to have to replace "murdered" by "killed" (because "murder" is bad killing and that's taking a point of view, which you aren't supposed to do), delete "war criminal" (redundant), and either show that this person was a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party or delete "Nazi". "Nazi" has a specific meaning and it beggars belief that it is, in this case, factually true. If you want to say "hates jews", the word "anti-semitic" is availible for use, but, again, it seems sort of redundant, as if he liked jews he'd, presumably, incite people to take them on picnics and to the movies.

Are we clear here?

On reflection, leave it out.

Transmigration Program

Could one or more people please read the new "Transmigration Program" item, and Yale University paper on the West Papuan genocide (external link at bottom of Genocide page). Basicaly the Indonesian couldn't find or reach (mountains too high for helicopters) all the the West Papuans, so they've only killed from quarter to half the population, though that would include a number of unique cultures & languages that are now extinct; but they've started shipping their own Islamic population into Papua (now out number the native Papuans about two to one); also several groups of people have been forcable removed from their homelands sometimes because US minning companies like Freeport wanted to open-cut mine their home lands (that mountain is now half gone dumping 190K tonnes per day into the river system for forty years), other times because they are in a town or city that the Indonesians have decided to settle. Of course when they trucked several hundred mountain people to an Indonesian camp on the lowlands, they all shortly got infected by lowland problems & three months later they were dead. ..so forably moving Papuans from one area to another is often just a slower method of killing them.

Anyway, how does 'transmigration' & this kind of genocide via a combination of methods (biological via new worms in their food has also been used) moving parts of both populations, the fit or not with your definition of "Ethnic Cleansing"? I think it should get included, but may require further clarification.

Acadians and Kalmucks

Maybe we should mention the ethnic cleansing of the Acadians and of the Kalmucks.

I think the Deportation of the Acadians would most definitely be considered ethnic cleansing. Qaaa 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rome and Babylon

Ancient empires such as Rome and Babylon practiced "ethnic cleansing" extensively and to generally great effect. Is there any historian in the house who is sufficiently educated to mention that with an informed view? -- Anon 62.219.182.226, 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing vs. genocide

How does ethnic cleansing differ from genocide? --Menchi 12:51 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Today media equal the terms on purpose, but there is a huge difference: EC is removal of a population, genocide is destruction of a population. Nikola 05:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deporting the Jews of Europe to the East was deportation. Murdering them was genocide. Had the extermination camps been built in each country or region, deportation would not have been a necessary step. OneVoice 18:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In fact, that is not entirely true. I agree wholeheartedly that murdering the Jews was genocide, however, genocide is not defined as killing. Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNGAR 260A(III) of 9 December 1948, states, "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The point is that if "deporting the Jews of Europe to the East" causes "serious mental harm to members of the group," then it should be classified as genocide. It's my personal opinion that the term 'ethnic cleansing' was coined as a convenient label for population-level crimes that aren't of enough concern to warrant action, and hence, the label 'genocide.' --ClayHeaton 20:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just as a general point, deportation isn't necessarily classed as genocide if it causes serious mental harm. The Genocide Convention requires, as was mentioned in the quote, the intent to destroy the group. The introduction to this article equates ethnic cleansing with genocide in some cases, and, to be pedantic, this isn't strictly the case. It may just be a matter of semantics, but if there is the intention to destroy the group then a forced deportation ceases to be ethnic cleansing and is defined as genocide.Pacey 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Krajina and Kosovo

Is there a reason why Krajina is mentioned seperately and not just Croatia, and why Kosovo is used instead of Serbia? If not, I will delete Krajina and change Kosovo to Serbia. --denny vrandecic 02:27, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

I haven't wrote the article, but I guess there is: Krajina did not encompass entire Croatia's Serb population so there was EC in Croatia outside it, but Krajina is mentioned separately as EC there was most violent, while in Serbia there was no ethnic cleansing outside Kosovo. I'll link them if they aren't already. Nikola 05:27, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK. I gave it a small rewording to express what you just said, I hope this is acceptable. But wasn't there quite heavy ethincal cleansing in Eastern Slavonia too? --denny vrandecic 13:14, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

That is Krajina :) Nikola 18:39, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought Eastern Slavonia is the region east of Osijek, around Vukovar, whereas the Krajina is the region north of Split, east of Karlovac, around Knin. --denny vrandecic 18:55, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

Both areas, and more, are parts of the Krajina (military border of Austria-Hungary). There were two centers of organised Serbian activity against Croatia, around Knin was Kninska krajina and in Eastern Slavonia was Srpska Krajina. Texts need to be written about them, but for now I think that just mentioning ofKrajina is sufficient. Nikola 23:11, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks on the info! Always great to learn something here... :) --denny vrandecic 23:50, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)

---

Note:This is an article about the term Ethnic cleansing --its not an article about Kosovo and Serbia. I removed this section -- as its poorly written and belongs in another article (like the Kosovo War article. The section below, although it may be valid attempts to answer a question that wasnt even proposed here-- nor would it belong here if it was. Keep things general -- not just by putting the word "general" in the article. --戴&#30505sv 18:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just me being frustrated with the map, which didn't ask the question, rather assumed that there was no question. I'm happy to see that others at least noticed its dubiosity (to say the least). --Shallot 22:10, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

>>>

Serbia and Croatia

There are very few instances of actual ethnic cleansing done to Serbs in Croatia (for example the Medak pocket massacre), and even so, those are rather meager compared to the acts of ethnic cleansing over Croats in Croatia done by the Serbs (for example the destruction of Vukovar).

The majority of the Serb population in Krajina fled after the Croats won the war. This is the majority but not nearly the whole of the Serb population of Croatia. Only a part of those people were actually in danger at the time; most of them emigrated in an organized manner. All of them have been called upon to return, and were physically able to return after the end of hostilities, but two thirds did not. The reasons vary: for non-civilians, it's fear of prosecution for war crimes and fear of retaliation; for civilians, it's unfavourable property laws, ethnic discrimination by local authorities, and last but not the least, appalling economic conditions in the rural areas they inhabited. The property laws, in particular, favor Croats who immigrated into the previously predominantly Serb-inhabited areas after having been forced out of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Serbs.

The map is basically construed mainly to draw attention to, and maliciously misrepresent, the organized exodus of rebel Serbs from Croatia, at the same time entirely ignoring the true nature of the problem, not to mention neatly ignoring the actual ethnic cleansing committed by the Serbs over others. >>>>

Oh, I'd love to be able to add such a paragraph to Kosovo War...

The majority of the Albanian population in Kosovo fled after the Serbs won over KLA. This is the majority but not nearly the whole of the Albanian population of Serbia. Only a part of those people were actually in danger at the time; most of them emigrated in an organized manner. All of them have been called upon to return, and were physically able to return after the end of hostilities, but two thirds did not.

Nikola 08:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Detail and historical range

The article was somewhat lacking in detail and historical range, so I've rewritten and expanded it to address those problems. See what you think... -- ChrisO 22:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Definition of the term

Proposed replacement of definition. Ala the the Foreign Affairs Magazine article referenced at the end of the page:

Ethnic cleansing defies easy definition. At one end it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

Comments please. OneVoice 18:44, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The only actual 'media use' of the term Ethnic cleansing I am aware of is when it is applied to a genocide which is perpetrated with the political goal to "purify" an area: the Armenian and Pontian Greek genocides, the Yugoslav wars, Ruanda etc. all fit that definition.

Thus, Ethnic cleansing by definition is a genocide, but not all genocides are ethnic cleansing? — Jor 18:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could we be in (hidden) agreement? All genocides are ethnic cleansing, but not all instances of ethnic cleansing are genocide. Ethnic cleansing covers a spectrum of behaviors from deportation to genocide. This is what the author of the article in Foreign Affairs states as in the proposed definition above. Did you mean "not all genocides are ethnic cleansing" or "not all ethnic cleansings are genocide"? OneVoice 19:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We're in agreement :) (English isn't my first language, at times I express myself badly in it.) The FA definition works. — Jor 20:17, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yup, it's a good definition. Go for it. -- ChrisO 08:57, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wonderful, I am glad to hear it. I will put the Foreign Affairs article definition in place. OneVoice 23:51, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DarkElf: you wrote: "On the other hand, not all Jew deportions were ethnic cleansings". Why are they not ethnic cleansings? If the action was applied to the city only, or to all of the city but for a Jewish Ghetto, is it not an ethnic cleasing of the city or all the city but for ghetto?. How do these not fit the definition:

ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

OneVoice 16:21, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"The term may have originated some time before the 1990s in the military doctrine of the former Yugoslav People's Army, which spoke of "cleansing the territory" (čišćenje terena, IPA /tʃiʃtʃʲeɲe terena/) of enemies to take total control of a conquered area. The origins of this doctrine are unclear, but may have been a legacy of the Partizan era."

IMO, "čišćenje terena" is not Partizan era related but a reference to BHS (serbocroatian) translation of english term "Clear and Hold" (translated into "Očisti i Obezbedi" - to clear and to cleanse essentially beeing the same verb in that language) for an anti-guerrila strategy (mentioned in wikipedia article on "Search and Destroy", another such strategy).

Saša 10:21, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in agreement with this definition. As I stated above in the ethnic cleansing vs genocide section, I feel that the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide are mutually exclusive. The Genocide Convention requires the intent to destroy the group. This definition equates ethnic cleansing with genocide in some cases, and, to be pedantic, this isn't strictly the case. It may just be a matter of semantics, but if there is the intention to destroy the group then a forced deportation ceases to be ethnic cleansing and is defined as genocide. Where there is no intention to physically destroy a group then it would be described as ethnic cleansing. Pacey 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

Can someone put in a pronounciation guide for foreign words where they appear? Thank you! Mark Richards 17:40, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

East Timor and West Papua

Can anyone give some evidences about ethnic cleansing of East Timor and West Papua (to other areas of Indonesia)? This doesn't sounds as NPOV. Meursault2004 11:43, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems almost a silly question, since you can search yourself for evidence. Believe what you will. -SV(talk) 22:17, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC) Google search

• http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/timor/

I wrote here ethnic cleansing of East Timor and West Papua (to other areas of Indonesia. Sure there were immigrants from other parts of Indonesia, but these areas weren't completely resettled by other ethnical groups unlike for example East Prussia, Silesia or some parts of the Middle-East. Sure there were some atrocities and crimes against humanity, I don't deny that. But I don't think there were mass expulsions. There seems to be some confusion here. So I don't think my question is silly. Meursault2004 09:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Israel IDF paragraph

I reverted the reintroduction of the paragraph, which was a POV accusation including allegation of war crimes. How is everyone's assumption that Jewish communities cannot remain in a Palestinian state not ethnic cleansing? -- Cecropia | Talk 02:02, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I believe that there is no controversy over this fact. The Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the Gaza Strip just as the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from the current Israeli territories. All Israel wants to do is create a country based on ethnic grounds for a single ethnicity. Why shouldn't they be allowed to expand their single-ethnicity culture as far into the surrounding, already occupied, areas as they want? (and the world community cheers. It's disgusting.)

• And I have reverted. Even if what you say were to be accepted into the article, it would belong in "Alleged 20th Century Examples", not the "In History" section. --Scimitar ^parley 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Why Are ALL The "EXAMPLES FROM HISTORY" About Jews? This seems rather narrow, and POV.

NPoV dispute

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? If you know of a problem, would you please highlight it here for discussion and possible resolution? -- Ke4roh 14:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I rather dispute the "colonization-related" section. First, the phrase "genocidal invasion and annexation"; even to the extent that the phrase is accurate, this is not a genocide article. Culture transfer, although it violates the convention on the crime of genocide, is not ethnic cleansing. Does anyone know the last ethnic cleansing of Indians in the US, and in the Americas? -- MW

Have your concerns been resolved satisfactorally? -- ke4roh 02:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are there other problems? If not, might we remove the disputed neutrality comment until someone messes it up again? -- ke4roh 02:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the term are disputed. Nikola 15:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Now that I found a clear reference, the article is fine with me. Nikola 16:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because things seem to be resolved, I removed this from the start of the article:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Please feel free to put it back and remark here as needed. -- ke4roh 17:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

African slavery

I respectfully suggest that the slavery of Africans does not in any way represent ethnic cleansing. As abominable, unconscionable, and criminal on a breathtaking scale as it was, it's absurd to call it "cleansing". Mass kidnapping and forcible servitude, yes; removal of an undesired population, no. In fact, one could argue it's the reverse of ethnic cleansing — it actually mixed multiple ethnic populations together. (Movements to encourage former slaves to move to Nigeria, or even deport them, on the other hand, could be considered ethnic cleansing, even when supported by candidates for such "cleansing".) This doesn't make that slavery right, but it certainly doesn't make it ethnic cleansing, either. I propose removing the whole section on the slave trade from this article. (I should hope there's plenty of detail on it in appropriate articles.) -- Jeff Q 12:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Euphamism

"A euphemism is a word (or phrase) which people use in place of terms which are more disagreeable or offensive to themselves and/or to their audience."

Surely Ethnic Cleansing meets this criteria? I assert that there is no doubt that this is a euphamism, replacing genocide or mass murder with something todo with cleaning. Mark Richards 06:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are confusing the terms. Though each genocide or mass murder is an ethnic cleansing, each ethnic cleansing is not a genocide or a mass murder. See previous discussion about #Definition of the term above. Perhaps a section on use of the term should be written. Nikola 07:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am aware that it isn't always, but it is sometimes used as a euphamism for genocide, and always as a euphamism for something more offensive than cleaning. It is, as an aside, especially weaselly because of the inference that either one ethnic group, or the concept of mixed ethnicities, is somehow 'unclean'. Mark Richards 16:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The term could be used as euphemism for genocide, but from what I see that occurs fairly rarely. It is always used for something more offensive than cleaning, but as I said, not as euphemism. As I said, there are no more offensive terms of which this could be an euphemism. It doesn't infer that the cleansed group is unclean; rather the opposite (terirorry of the group which is cleansing is unclean and had to be cleansed of another). As I said on your Talk page, compare it to Great Purge or "Iron broom": both refer to cleaning; neither is euphemism. Nikola 21:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I see where you are going, but I see it as a euphamism. The idea of ethnic 'cleanliness' having to do with the removal of one or another group is an offensive one. I'm ok with leaving it in as opinion in the article though. Mark Richards 17:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Treating an ethnic group as something to be "cleaned up" sounds bad enough to me. Purity, which is achieved by the act of "cleaning," is also a standard companion concept of racism and racial supremacism. What nortable journalists or scholars avoid using this term because it's euphemism anyway?Hermeneus (talk) 06:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see that in the article it is again stated that Ethnic cleansing is an euphemism. The article euphemism states that "A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces"; which word or phrase does "ethnic cleansing" replace which is more offensive, disturbing or troubling?

about the origin section

To the best of my knowledge, the term - as referring to Kosovo - was actually first used by the Yugoslav Academy of Science and Arts to denote the discrimination of Serbs by native Albanians in that part of Serbia. (In view of the later appropriation of the term, that sounds ironic, but I nevertheless i Believe it to be true.) Can anyone conform this fact? Asav

Nikola Smolenski said:

Revert - As even you yourself have said, Moljevic's statement is completely irrelevant to origin of the term

No, it's not irrelevant at all. Just because he didn't use the word "ethničko čišćenje" that doesn't make it less relevant. The example of Ustase does not use the exact phrase, either, but you don't seem to think it's irrelevant. Both of those groups employed methods that helped form the 1990s definition of the term. --Shallot 20:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely irrelevant. The fact that he didn't use the term makes his writing completely irrelevant for origins of the term. Not that I say that it would be relevant even if he was using it, as his usage would not have been the earliest nor distinctive. The example of Ustase doesn't use the exact phrase, but uses a phrase from which this one originates, hence it is relevant for origins of the term. Nikola 21:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feh, this is ludicrous. You have absolutely no proof that the phrase originates from that text or that person, that's merely the earliest text we have a record of that uses the word "čišćenje" with reference to

Yeah, and that's what I've written: "The earliest known usage of it appears to have been...". Nikola 01:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But it's not actually usage of "ethnic cleansing", just of "cleansing". Just like the argument about it existing since forever can be applied, this can, too. The "terrain cleansing" in the Yugoslav military also isn't usage of "ethnic cleansing". --Shallot 10:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

something like this -- and indeed there it wasn't even limited to ethnicities, but to all unwanted elements which included ideologically opposed people as well.

Ethnicity was still the primary motive. Nikola

Regardless, ethnicity was also the primary motive of the homogenization program. --Shallot 10:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It should not be important to pontificate over whose fascist faction was worse first, the readers simply aren't interested. They could be interested in an explanation of the mindset and the circumstances that gave rise to such an odious concept, OTOH. --Shallot 22:12, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The odious concept appears to have existed since forever. It was not invented in the 40s. Nikola 01:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but it's a slippery slope. Forceful expulsion and mass murder have existed since forever, but can we equate it will all the modern nuances of ethnic cleansing? --Shallot 10:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

and you have also broken chronological order of the section

No, I actually fixed the chronological order, as the previous one first talks about 1990s, then 1940s, then 1980s, then 1940s again. --Shallot 20:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No it isn't, it talks about 90s then 80s then 40s, when part of the section about the origin of the term ends, then there is a sentence about reintroduction of actual policy and then comparison of the term to a term used in Germany in the 40s. Nikola 21:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which is... chronological? In an alternate universe? --Shallot

If I have to draw...

+---------------> temporal flow
|origins of the term
|In 90s
| In 80s
|  In 40s
|reintroduction
|  comparison
|
V
article flow

Nikola 01:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a nice ASCII graph :) but such a flow still doesn't make much sense. It's also hints at bias to talk about reintroduction on the Ustase example only because this implies that there was much connection between ethnic cleansing in WWII by the Croats and in the Yugoslav wars, when actually the circumstances are quite different, and it's even vice versa -- this time they were the first to be subject to it whereas before they were the first to commit it. --Shallot 10:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition clarification

Quote: At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

To my understanding this definition means that group that is being ethnically cleansed has committed religious or ethnic discrimination or other things listed above. Although it may be argued as semantics it implies a justification for comitting and act of ethnic cleansing. Following may clarify this ambiguity.

At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory by religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.

Comments? --Dado 01:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The definition (taken from Foreign Affairs Magazine, see above discussion: "definition of the term") means to list the possible reasons of the group doing the "cleansing" for doing it. "Due to" in this context means "because of", whereas "by" means "through". This means that the group expulsed has been expulsed due to (because of) the listed reasons: ethnic or religious discrimination (against it), strategic or ideol. consid., or a comb. of these.

-- moma 00:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

about tibet

For labour camps non ethnic reason surface, at tibet any political reasons? Please writing about labour camps in tibet? Johncapistrano 20:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Labour camps in Tibet are mentioned in the article Tibet. Between the 1960s and 1980s, many prisoners (over 1 million, according to Harry Wu) were sent to laogai camps in Amdo (Qinghai), where they were then employed locally after release. -- ran (talk) 20:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

While the issues that Johncapistrano has raised are very worthy of discussion, none of them, even true, fit the definition of ethnic cleansing: the removal or murder of one ethnic group from one region.

Let's go down the list:

• Slaughter and exile in the ground of Tibet invaded by the People's Republic of China in 1950 and after.
  • Slaughter: the 1.2 million figure often quoted is summed from the following:
    1. The uprising and suppression thereof: there is no difference between this and, say, the Tiananmen Protests. The PLA was attempting to uphold the continued rule of the Communist Party. There was and is no specific policy to target Tibetans.
    2. The Great Leap Forward: provides vast majority of the casualties. This was a tragic mistake in policy that killed Han Chinese and Tibetans alike.
    3. Political oppression. Again, this policy does not distinguish between Han Chinese and Tibetans who threaten the rule of the CPC.
  • Exile: There is no policy to exile Tibetans as an ethnic group. Those who do flee do so due to fear of political oppression, which is applied to anyone who is perceived as a threat. There are Han Chinese and Tibetan exiles alike in foreign countries.
• Compulsory internment to a labor remodeling place: See above: this policy does not distinguish between Han Chinese and Tibetans who threaten the rule of the CPC. Tibet was usually the destination, in any case, of Han Chinese political prisoners during the Maoist Era.
• sterilization forcing, a contraception operation: While not official policy, this is indeed performed by some unscrupulous local cadres. And this occurs all across China, not distinguishing between Han Chinese and Tibetans. Indeed, Tibetans are legally entitled to more children (2 in the cities, I believe) than Han Chinese.
• cultural assimilation policy to Han race by school education, compulsion of marriage with Han race: I've never heard of the latter. But even if we assume that both of these exist, then what we have is an assimilationist policy, which is outside the definition of ethnic cleansing.

In conclusion, except for the last point (assimilationist policy), there is no policy that targets Tibetans specifically. We might as well say that ethnic cleansing was conducted against Uyghurs, Manchus, Mongols, Zhuang, Hui Chinese, or even Han Chinese, since all are affected indiscriminately. The last point, which is arguably specifically against ethnic minorities, does not fit the definition of ethnic cleansing.

In other words, even if all of the allegations are true, there still is no ethnic cleansing to speak of. -- ran (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind telling us what does the section you keep deleting have to do with Tibet?--Doron 18:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I'm so sorry, I seem to be killing another section by mistake. Sorry about that. -- ran (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries :)--Doron 20:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

"Expulsion of over 1 million Azeris by Armenia after the invasion of Nagorno-Karabagh and surrounding areas in 1992, which make one fourth of Azerbaijan, and related mass-killings, such as Khojaly massacre. Armenia still occupies the Azeri territory and over 1 million Azeris live in refugee camps." The official figures are of 700,000 in Azeris side, a less than 350,000 on Armenian side, which per population ratio is equivalent on both side(Armenian population over 3 million, Azerbaijani population, over 7 million). There is no international bodies report as far as I am concerned that has accused one side alone of being responsable of anything. The conflict made 30,000 victims from both sides, and I'm not the one requesting the ethnic cleaning of Armenians of Baku, Samgait, Karabagh, and various villages to be included, I just request that when war crimes and ethnic cleanings are concerned, people should not not throw figures like this, when such figures are not used by impartial sides. Beside, even if such figures were to be true, the way they are presented is POV. I'll leave others to correct the situation, since right now, I have neither the interest or the energy to start a revert war. Fadix 03:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Does the data uses the term "expulsion"? Doesn't make much sense that all those that moved as a consequences of the war are included as expulsed. Armenias energy crises and after the few years of the Earthquake disaster over a million Armenians left the republic of Armenia, the current Armenian population count is equal with the 1979 census. Yet, the Azeris that moved from Armenia to Azerbaijan are dumped in the list of expulsed. Lebanons civil war has made millions of internal and external displaced people, this doesn't mean that they were all expulsed from there. Fadix 15:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll change it to "forcibly displaced", would that be ok?

Finnish evacuation from Finnish Karelia

I don't know much about this instance in history - as it is phrased right now it doesn't sound like ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing has to include an element of force, if it is voluntary then it's just migration. All instances in the alleged instances list have some historians claiming they were forced migration. Does anyone claim the Finnish of Finnish Karelia were expelled?--Doron 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

They were forced to migrate, because they did not want to live in Soviet Union. One reason was that they knew those earlier Stalin's expulsions of Karelians and Finns. No one really did not wanted to leave their homes, but there was not a change. Kahkonen 18:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the Winter War provides some context to this claim. I don't know about assertions made by historians, but I do know that many of the Finns who fled did so because of the likelihood of persecution under Stalin. --Scimitar 18:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Many Russians also migrated because they didn't want to live under Stalin, this doesn't mean they were ethnically cleansed. I reckon that in order for this to account as an alleged ethnic cleansing, there should have been a Soviet intention of removing the Finnish population from Finnish Karelia and that the Soviets pressured the Finnish population to migrate, either directly or indirectly. Please refer us to a notable author that claims this.--Doron 06:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Finns were deported several times en masse in the Soviet Union, see Population transfer in the Soviet Union. So Karelian Finns had all reasons to believe their fate will be the same. mikka (t) 07:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mikka. As I stated earlier, I don't know about connected statements by historians, as this is most certainly not my area of expertise.--Scimitar ^parley 17:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

to Cezveci

I hope now, that this time people will understand the why of my initial reaction against you(first days you appeared). Do you remember my opinion, when I said that the only thing that can be presented as fact are things in the realm of mathematic? Well, we have one here, take a map, and make a scan of the occupied territory, I'm sure that since you can post here, you can as well count. I see there is a clear difference between 13% and 25%. Don't you think so? I do understand that since you can't edit and delete every references to the Armenian genocide, now you just changed your tactic and are trying the "Karabakh approch." Will you have any problem, that with Khojaly, I include the dozens of villages, which the Armenian population has simply vanished? Oh, and another thing, after getting a map, check the demography of each of those occupied territory, and tell me how you could get over 600,000 people. Thanks. Fadix 22:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: I won't oppose you, do as you wish, as I said, I have no intention to continuisly edit articles, I am in vaccation, if I had time, I would work on creating other articles and not fight against another POV pusher, but this doesn't mean that I won't add a POV banner, until another editor edit your POV. Fadix 22:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While discussing 1915, official numbers given by Turkish government are not considered. While considering Armenian offensive against Azerbaijan, Armenian government's official numbers represent solid truth. This is your understanding of NPOV. Khojaly happened 13 years ago, brother, and the news got to western media, but it was only published after 3 days, in a little column in internal pages. Why? Because people like you, who care more about their nationalist greed rather than humanity, put enough pressure on western politics. If we listen to you we will have to believe that Azeris killed their own people, right? Tell me what is POV about "Armenia still occupies Azeri territory"? How "the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan". Conflict, MA. When misters attack, it's conflict, when others attack, it is genocide. Cezveci 22:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You won't go far with your antagonist tone. All I asked was to respect NPOV policy, which you have not done in your edits, and if you can't differentiate POV tone from a NPOV, maybe you should first learn to do just that before editing articles. Khojaly is part of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, if you want to include it, you should as well include Sumgait, Baku pogroms against the Armenian population. You want Khojalys? Read the reports by the CSI regarding the Maragha village, where the Armenian population was just destroyed during the conflict. Kirovabad is another example. But by then, it wasn't the Armenian side lunching a mass press coverage. Oh BTW, how can I care about my nationalist greed? Armenia is not my nation, I've never been there. I'm born in Lebanon and live in Canada. Fadix 23:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, break it up fellas, let's not get all worked up over this. This is a general article about ethnic cleansing, it's no place to list every single deportation and massacre that took place in the 20th century, so neither should be mentioned here. The readers are referred to the Nagorno-Karabakh article where they can get all the information they need. All relevant articles, such as the Khojaly massacre, should be listed there. And please try to keep the discussion calm.--Doron 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not, examples should be listed so that everyone can find one of their own, just to get a taste of it. Ethnic cleansing, although existant in previous centuries, got rampant in "Modern Age" which seems a bit related to "rise of masses" (other ethnic group as a threat in political sense, executing their right to self-determination) or to support for own ethnic guerrilla fighters. Both of these two makes sense only from recently (first needs no explanation, second has got much more attention and significance ever since there is global coverage by news media). Previously to Industrial Age, people (inhabitants of a territory) posessed intrinsic value to their lords, they were always more of an asset then a problem. Back then, it took real zeal (most often religious) of a ruler, or a severe rebellion to launch an E.C. campaign. However, if an empire had overpopulation in some of its parts... some ethnic groups deemed unsuficiently loyal were "replaced" with more compliant ones.

The "Arab Armies" Fanatic

There seems to be one fanatic in here who insists, at any cost, to use this article as their own personal soapbox, and insert an irrelevant paragraph here, blatantly ignoring the 3RR and the overwhelming general consensus against their "contribution." Over the past few days, this zealot has tried over a dozen times to insert the following text here:

In pre-state Israel/Palestine, Arab armies and civilian riots expelled Jews from numerous communities where Jews had lived continuously for centuries, often since at least the 14th and 15th centuries. For example, Jews were expelled from Tel Hai (in modern West Bank territory) in March of 1920, and Arab rioters attempted unsuccessfully to expel the Jewish population of Petah Tikvah (West Bank territory) in 1921. Arab riots in August of 1929 drove the Jews out of Hebron, Nablus (both in West Bank), and Gaza City. Anti-Jewish riots and ethnic cleansing lasted for 3 weeks in Gaza City. During the 1948 War of Independence, the Jordanian army destroyed the West Bank Jewish community of Bet Ha'arava on the Dead Sea. Jews were also driven from Neveh Yaakov, Atarot (both in the West Bank just north of Jerusalem), the Old City of Jerusalem, and Kfar Darom in the modern-day Gaza Strip territory. Haj Amin al-Husseini who was the Grand mufti of the Palestinians during World War Two and who became an advisor to Adolf Hitler said to him, "accord to Palestine the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries."

The carefully-worded text, and the fact that this is their only contribution to Wikipedia leads me to believe that this paragraph was copied word-for-word from a textbook or such.

So far, they've used the following IPs:

• 68.21.2.17 (talk · contribs)
• 68.21.8.214 (talk · contribs)
• 68.21.15.235 (talk · contribs)
• 68.21.166.127 (talk · contribs)
• 68.21.171.94 (talk · contribs)
• 68.21.189.112 (talk · contribs)
• 68.22.192.216 (talk · contribs)
• 68.22.193.203 (talk · contribs)
• 68.72.26.156 (talk · contribs)
• 69.217.194.95 (talk · contribs)
• 128.135.96.9 (talk · contribs)
• 128.135.96.119 (talk · contribs)
• 128.135.96.131 (talk · contribs)
• 128.135.36.166 (talk · contribs)

But I'm sure new ones will keep popping up daily.

Several of us, including Doron, Jayjg, Scimitar and myself have done our best to keep this vandal from forcing their extremist POV on this article, but he/she hasn't got the message yet. Please help keep this article NPOV! OwenX 00:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is Helen? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I call her Helen because of this "contribution" she (or someone on her behalf) made a couple of months ago. OwenX 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are all dynamically allocated IP's, there's no point blocking them. They may as well be used by other users, and the previous user "Helen" may very well be unrelated.--Doron 12:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

True enough; that's why I didn't use the name in the original post here. However, referring to this person as "The Arab Armies Fanatic" is too cumbersome, so we might as well call them "Helen", or--better yet--"Trumpeldor"... OwenX 13:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Helen" is a very good name for her/him, IMHO.--Doron 17:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no point is censoring dynamic IP's. I know that highly controverisal editors regularly attempt abuse and censorship via this method. The name "Arab Armies Fanatic" is a personal attack, as would be calling others, "Jew propaganda fanatics", but it appears they can both be used. 69.209.210.145 20:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attack"? Why, is "fanatic" a derogatory term? I, for example, am a fanatic for truth, accuracy, and justice. If someone accused me of being an Accuracy Fanatic, I would thank them for the compliment. Someone who insists on pushing their lopsided views on the rest of the world, and keeps doing so several times a day despite heavy public rejection--is also a fanatic, although not one people would cheer for.

If you think you can keep hiding behind a dynamic IP forever, you are mistaken. There are many options available to us, including blocking complete IP ranges, locking this page against further edits, etc.; what you euphemistically call "censorship" is an attempt by decent, rule-abiding people to keep Wikipedia accurate, NPOV, and relevant.

However, in the spirit peacemaking and compromise, I propose the following: add the disputed text to a more relevant article, e.g. Pogrom, or to your own website, and add a link to it from this article. OwenX 21:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

We had one week of rest, but--as expected--Helen is back. Apparently she is not interested in my compromise; on the contrary: this time she inserted the offending text twice. Looks like this pest is here to stay. Owen× _TALK 01:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost two weeks since her last attack, but Helen is still around, regrettably. Too bad none of the regulars caught it in time, and a well-meaning editor--Mikkalai--ended up spending time wikifying Helen's usual "contribution". Owen× ☎ 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please explain clearly why the text fails to be classified as "ethnic cleansing". mikka (t) 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, I think you answered your question perfectly in your Suspicious examples section below. Wars between ethnically different groups are as old as the human race itself, and possibly older. What turns such a campaign into Ethnic Cleansing is when it is done by a sovereign government, using organized army and armed police forces, to forcibly remove an ethnic group, usually an unarmed or poorly-armed minority. This was not the case in early 20th century Palestine. The government at the time was British, who may have turned a blind eye to the atrocities going on at the time, but never had a policy to remove all Jews from Palestine. It may be argued that the British policy of limiting Jewish immigration during the Holocaust is equivalent to killing those Jews; while this may be a crime against humanity, it certainly doesn't fall under the "Ethnic Cleansing" category.

As I have suggested before, a more appropriate name for those events is "Pogrom"--a term that I'm sure you, Mikkalai, are very familiar with. I have suggested to Helen that she add her sermons to that article, but like many fanatics, she is not interested in compromises. Owen× ☎ 22:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious examples

By the way, there are a number of other examples (in addition to the case from "AA Fananic" section) I would consider strange. For example, the Warsaw case. Cleansing a single city amid the whole Poland IMO does not look like "ethnic cleansing". We have plenty of examples in the history of total demolition of setlements.

IMO the only criterion (a usual one) would be someone in a notable source called the case "ethnic cleansing" or something similar in terms of the purpose (with a reasonable discussion, not just a catch phrase), with source provided. The rest would be original research, even if it looks like and smells like, etc.

Also, when discussing ancient times or "less civilized" cases, IMO this term would be an anachronism in many cases. All the time ancient tribes have been cutting throats each other, but IMO it would be strange (although reasonable) to call "ethnic cleansing" the case when the totem of "Bald Hawk" rounds up all of "Quick Brown Fox". mikka (t) 21:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me quote the article to address your concerns: The term "ethnic cleansing" has come to mean the displacement or expulsion from a territory of one ethnic group by another. Is this correct or not in your opinion ? Ktoto 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

General Plan 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. " Proof???????. Not only planned, but started to implement. The organized murder and expulsions actually happened during WW2.

Gaza Strip 2005

"The forced expulsion of some 9,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip and the Northern West Bank by the Israeli government under Ariel Sharon in 2005" - does not seem to match the definition of "ethnic cleansing". Ktoto 14:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the definitive example in modern times to me :P Kuratowski's Ghost 15:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, here it is, according to the article:

The term "ethnic cleansing" has come to mean the displacement or expulsion from a territory of one ethnic group by another.

Which is the "another" ethnic group then here ? Ktoto 15:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Palestinians, Sharon is merely capitulating to their demands and is essentially just a tool for them to accomplish the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 15:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ktoto, the Ethnic Cleansing article seems to have become a soapbox for all kinds of protests, whether related to this article or not. Some examples are "Helen" and Gaza Strip 2005. Adding such cases to this article dilutes the effect that real, undisputed ethnic cleansing cases have. I propose the following decision tree to figure out which category an event falls under:

1. Is the action carried out by the local sovereign government? Yes: continue to 2; No: skip to 6.

2. Is the action carried out against a distinct minority ethnic group due to their ethnicity? Yes: continue to 3; No: skip to 5.

3. Is this an attempt to kill all members of this ethnic minority group? Yes: this is Genocide. No: continue to 4.

4. Is this an attempt to displace all members of this ethnic minority group? Yes: this is Ethnic cleansing. No: this is probably Racial profiling.

5. Is this action part of an attempt to transfer control over that area to another government who claims rights to it? Yes: this probably belongs under Peace treaty. No: this may be part of a broader economic recovery plan.

6. Is the action carried out by an occupying force as part of an armed conflict? Yes: this may be a War crime. No: continue to 7.

7. This is probably one of the following: Hate crime, Pogrom, Lynching, or other such non-government action.

Owen× ☎ 17:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing also includes the word Judenrein. Is Gaza not Judenrein today?

Guy Montag 17:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Jews in Germany were German citizens. The Jews in Gaza are not Palestinians; neither Israel nor the Palestinian authority recognize them as such. If you and your family decide to settle in your neighbour's back yard and he calls the police to kick you out, is that also Ethnic Cleansing? Whenever someone anywhere in the world is wronged by a government, we immediately hear an analogy to the Nazis. Come up with something better, for a change. Owen× ☎ 18:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? A specific ethnic group which has been living in a geographic area since 1948, is being targetted and forcibly removed from it for no other reason than because they are such an ethnic group. There were Jews in Gaza, now there are no Jews in Gaza. They certainly didn't leave on their own accord. The area is by Nazi definition, Judenrein, free of Jews.

Guy Montag 03:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And the Nazis didn't recognize the Jews as citizens and used similarly doublespeak and disinformation to justify their ethnic cleansing of Jews. According to traditional Jewish law the land belongs to the Jews and it is the Arabs who decided to come squat in the back yard and should be kicked out by the police, in which case by analogous "logic" it would not be ethnic cleansing. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

And according to Zulu tribal law, you are squatting on their territory. How does quoting Jewish traditional law help us, exactly? Is the Torah now universally accepted as a NPOV source? If so, many articles on Wikipedia need to be rewritten from scratch. Until that happens, I would rather rely on more modern and widely accepted sources, such as International Law, U.N. resolutions, and--yes--even Israeli legislation. Most Israelis are in favour of returning the Gaza strip to its pre-1967 inhabitants, regardless of promises made to our father Abraham 4000 years ago. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Your first sentence shows how little you know about history. The advocates of apartheid in South Africa had very similar arguments to yours to justify forced removals of non-white South Africans from certain areas: they were illegally squating on "white" land, they weren't citizens of "South Africa" but of the "Bantu homelands". Change "white" to "Arab", "South Africa" to "Palestinian territories", and "Bantu homelands" to "pre-67 Israel" and you get the situation in Israel today. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank had a population of 9,000 Jewish settlers, which was removed last week. I know of no action against non-Jewish Israelis residing in the Gaza Strip, if there are any (and there may very well be, as marriage between Israeli citizens and residents of the Occupied Territories is not uncommon). I'm not sure how the matter of citizenship is of any consequence to this issue, or Jewish or Zulu law for that matter.

Indeed many view this displacement as a legitimate act of a government towards its citizens, but others view it as (self-inflicted) ethnic cleansing. Since the title is "Alleged" instances, and there are those who are making this allegation, and the allegation is not unfounded, I think it belongs there.--Doron 08:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gaza evacuation is not ethnic cleansing, this is compromise in land conflicts. There is no racist expulsion involved. Many were upset with good reason. This removal of Isrealis from Gaza was not an antisemetic act, but a step in the direction of peace. --Cocopuffberman 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Plantation of Ulster

I believe that the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century by the British in the North of Ireland should be included as an example of ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of Irish Catholics were forced out of most of the East and much of the rest of the Irish province of Ulster, to be replaced with Scottish and English colonists. This is the reason why the Northern Ireland state exists today, because most of the Unionist community in NI, who demanded and got partition in 1920, are descended from them. (Edward from Ireland)

If you can find a reputable source that agrees with oyu, then by all means feel free to add it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Here is a link but there are many online and I remember learning about this in detail in school. http://www.mccaskie.org.uk/Plantation.htm (Edward from Ireland)

Turks from Bulgaria

The following item removed.

• Forced assimilation and expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey between 1984 and 1989 under Todor Jivkov's assimilation policy. Later, the victims were allowed to return their homeland by Bulgaria, and many did so.

The whole phrasing is infortunate. What actually happened was that the official state policy was that there were no Turks in Bulgaria, but rather Bulgarians forcibly converted to Islam under the Ottoman Empire, i.e., there is a single nation in Bulgaria. Those who did not like this were not "expulsed" by state; they run away themselves when they could. This is hardly fits the definition of ethnic cleansing. 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC) Besides the article mentions the move of Turks during and after the Russian-Turkish war,1877-1878, as ethnic cleansing. At this time Bulgaria was not an organized state able to pursue such a policy. The authority was in the hands of the Russian military commandment and any possible ethnic cleansing would have been prosecuted by them as they did with acts of marauding. The move of the Turks was a rather voluntary act though possibly the result of fear they had of being prosecuted for the atrocities committed by them in the April Uprising 1876. Which can not be said of the policy they pursued against the Bulgarians in Eastern Thrace in 1912-1913, the Armenian genocide, the ethnic cleansing against Grreks, Armenians, etc.