Talk:Ethnic cleansing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recent bold edits

I changed

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic and systemic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.

to:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal or extermination of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, violence or intimidation aimed at coercing the victim group to leave, as well as mass murder. Although it is not a separate crime under international criminal law, ethnic cleansing constitutes crimes against humanity and potentially war crimes or genocide.

Debresser keeps reverting this edit. But the issue is that "genocide" is not a method or means of ethnic cleansing, it is a legal category (that includes other methods besides physically killing most or all members of the group as a means of removal). The new version therefore clearly distinguishes between actions and the legal categories that are applied to them in prosecutions before international courts.

Unlike the previous version, the content in the new version is verifiable to reliable sources. (Citing a book without a page number or chapter is not verifiable).

In addition, the use of the word "systemic" in the previous version is incorrectly used, see [1] (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

References

First of all, please review WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit which is reverted, that is a sure sign that there is no consensus for your change, meaning that it is your responsibility to establish consensus for it. Edit warring is not the same thing.

Your edit also removed a "Citation needed" tag without any explanation.

I don't agree with your statement that the fact that a page number is lacking means that a statement is not verifiable. Compare for example WP:SOURCEACCESS. By the way, your proposed edit refers to a chapter in a book. Also not ideal.

I think that systemic is fine in this sentence.

Likewise I disagree with your statement that genocide is not a method or means of ethnic cleansing. "Genocide" is something that has al legal definition and legal repercussions, like many words, which does not mean it stopped being a word in common English.

Likewise I oppose your removal of "genocidal rape".

I have no problem with the new sentence starting "Although", which I actually considered leaving in place when I reverted. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

BRD does not mean that any editor gets a veto over a content change.

I have no objection to leaving cn tag in place.

If there's no page number, how do I find the information in the book? Reading it all is impractical.

The "genocide" as a means is not backed up at all with any reliable source. Compare the UN website, which you removed without any explanation:[2]

The Commission of Experts also stated that the coercive practices used to remove the civilian population can include: murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extrajudicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, severe physical injury to civilians, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, use of civilians as human shields, destruction of property, robbery of personal property, attacks on hospitals, medical personnel, and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

Whereas genocide is a criminal classification:

The Commission of Experts added that these practices can “… constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.”

What source for genocidal rape? And per the above quoted source, it is not necessary for rape to be genocidal to be a form of ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you argue against the obvious.

See for example this article which says: "To qualify as genocide, the actions must be done with intent to eliminate an entire group of people. Without provable intent, a group or individual can still be guilty of “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing” but not genocide." From this it is clear that the same actions that are "only" ethnic cleansing when done without intent, constitute genocide when done with intent. Meaning that when done with intent, genocide is a means of ethnic cleansing. In any case, you focus on the legal difference, which is completely out of place when not in an international court of law. The word "genocide" carries more than only its legal definition. It actually existed long before that legal definition was made up. Use a dictionary, not a legal textbook, next time you come to edit Wikiepdai, please. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

PBS is not a great source for highly technical and contested legal questions such as this one. Their statement is incorrect or at best misleading; no one can be guilty of "ethnic cleansing" as it is not a crime.

Compare the entry "'Ethnic cleansing' versus genocide" in Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (2010):

Explaining the relationship between ethnic cleansing and genocide has caused controversy. Ethnic cleansing shares with genocide the goal of achieving purity but the two can differ in their ultimate aims: ethnic cleansing seeks the forced removal of an undesired group or groups where genocide pursues the group’s ‘destruction’. Ethnic cleansing and genocide therefore fall along a spectrum of violence against groups with genocide lying on the far end of the spectrum.

According to this entry, there are some events which were both ethnic cleansing and genocide, such as the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This is basically same issue that has arisen on other articles. Buidhe insists on their own interpretation of “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and other editors disagree.

In this particular instance Buidhe fails to provide a link to the source, which, unfortunately, is also they commonly fail to do (and it’s time wasting and exhausting to get them to provide just a link to a source). Here is the source [3]

The part of quotation that was omitted above is as follows:

”The two are distinct where ethnic cleansing does not lead to destruction of groups, but extreme cases of ethnic cleansing overlap with genocide when the means employed to carry out ethnic cleansing lead to genocide”.

And

”The overlap between genocide and ethnic cleansing is greatest when genocide is conceived of as Raphael Lemkin originally described the term”

Volunteer Marek 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't quote an entire chapter, that would violate copyright rules, not to mention waste time. I don't see how these quotes undermine my argument at all. For instance, where does it say that genocide is a method of ethnic cleansing, as Debresser has been insisting without a source? (t · c) buidhe 23:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a matter of common sense. I mean, how is mass killing people of a certain ethnicity not ethnic cleansing? According to the legal definition you like so much, as explained in the source I provided and other sources that discuss the UN definition, genocide is ethnic cleansing per definition. Ergo, genocide is a way to do ethnic cleansing, QED. In addition, I think that the source I provided says this clearly enough. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lieberman (previously cited source) says that some genocides (notably the Holocaust) were not ethnic cleansing, since the goal was not removal of Jews from a certain area, but total elimination wherever they happened to be. Since it's peer reviewed, it takes precedence over your claim that "genocide is ethnic cleansing per definition" (although I'm not sure how you conclude that from the source you cited) and OR conclusion that genocide is a means of ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a very arguable argument, and more of a technicality than an issue. And not really relevant in either case, because I never claimed that all genocides are a mens of ethnic cleansing, only that genocide can be a means of ethnic cleansing. Although II find it hard to think of an example when it isn't (being that I disagree with Lieberman's hair-cleaving). Debresser (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem with "systemic"

Systemic means "property of a system".[4] It makes no sense to call something systemic without specifying what system it is a property of. (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Which version should be used as the first paragraph of this article; Version A, Version B, or something else? (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Versions

Version A:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic and systemic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.

References

Version B:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal or extermination of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given area, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal (deportation, population transfer), it also includes indirect methods aimed at coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, threats, and property destruction. Ethnic cleansing is part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group. Although the term ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, it constitutes a crime against humanity and may also fall under the Genocide Convention.

References

Version C (=version A + last sentence of version C):

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic and systemic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape. Although the term ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, it constitutes a crime against humanity and may also fall under the Genocide Convention.

References

Survey

• Version B.
  • Unlike Version A, it is fully supported by reliable sources, verified with quotes available, and reflects the consensus of peer-reviewed scholarship.
  • In Version A, the word "systemic" is not used correctly, see explanation of the difference between "systemic" and "systematic"
  • Version B reflects the distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide most commonly made in scholarship.
  • It is not necessary for rape to be genocidal to be a form of ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version B.
  • This is if I had to choose between just those two, as I don't have an 'other' to offer.
  • Version A starts off a little clunky ("systematic and systemic"), and is lacking in support.
  • Version B could use some minor c/e, and should include all the links that Version A contains.
  • Version B is more comprehensive a better supported. (just my 0.02¢) - wolf 07:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC) changed to
• Version C best of the 3 choices (it wasn't available when I posted my previous !vote). - wolf 03:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version A: I don't agree with "Ethnic cleansing is part of a continuum ... genocide." It has a lot of references but some of them doesn't support the claim. E.g "Hitler wanted the Jews utterly exterminated, ... Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand ..." or "It is important - politically and legally - to distinguish between genocide and ethnic cleansing. " They both imply that ethnic cleansing and genocide are orthogonal. It also seem to me that the sources for the continuum claim are argumentative in nature: "Here's why I think ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide ..." I'll change my vote if that sentence is scrubbed/fixed. ImTheIP (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  ImTheIP, Thanks for your comment. It's true that different sources present this distinction differently. Another phrasing would be,

  "Ethnic cleansing is distinguished from genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group." However, that makes them sound mutually exclusive, which is not supported by most sources. (Eg the Armenian genocide is widely described as both ethnic cleansing and genocide.)

  Three of the sources as quoted above acknowledge overlap between ethnic cleansing and genocide. Of the other two,

  • Hayden is explicitly arguing against those who use the word genocide expansively, arguing that the entire ethnic cleansing in Bosnia was a genocide. But maybe this isn't the right source to cite — he is apparently an anthropologist, and this paper predates the later court rulings on Srebrenica genocide.
  • Walling also states, "Although the removal of populations by states, government elites and rival ethnic groups can be traced to antiquity, distinctive differences exist between contemporary ethnic cleansing and its early antecedents - forced population transfer and removal. These methods are a part of a wider continuum ranging from genocide at one extreme to emigration under pressure at the other. (p. 49)" Perhaps that quote should be used instead. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion ethnic cleansing and genocide are not on a continuum - ethnic cleansing is not "little genocide" and genocide is not "big ethnic cleansing." There is an overlap to be sure, but not everyone agrees on what the overlap is ("An instance of genocide would be the Holocaust... ethnic cleansing, while it also involves the intention to exterminate a population, it is more limited to forced deportation or population transfer"[5] "Though others view ethnic cleansing as similar to genocide, in Schabas' opinion, ethnic cleansing and genocide are entirely distinct concepts."[6]). I think your version is better but I don't comparing ethnic cleansing to genocide works. ImTheIP (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• "...from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group..." Does it means that polyethnic Soviet Union under Stalin committed no ethnic cleansing?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Paul Siebert, I removed this claim from Version B; it is not included in most definitions as far as I can tell. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Version C The original Rfc was misleading in that it gave the false impression that the last sentence of version B could not be added to version A, or that its addition was contested. As I have stated above, that is not the case, and I support its addition to the present version. So regarding the first part of the section, I propose to stick with the consensus version (A, with the additional sentence = C). My arguments are: genocide and genocidal rape are means of ethnic cleansing, and the article should say so. The word' systemic" is fine in this sentence. The sentence in version B about a continuum is not needed, and only pushes the nominators point of view, which is overly focused on a legal definition of the word "genocide" that was adopted recently by the UN, and disregards the normal, dictionary definition of the word. I prefer "Genocidal rape" to "rape", . Debresser (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  My version is based on the account of the distinction given in the majority of reliable, scholarly sources. Whereas Debresser has not cited even one source stating explicitly that genocide is a means of ethnic cleansing. (And not all of these scholars, eg Norman Naimark, use the UN definition either). (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

There is the source I mentioned above,[7] which can be added, if needed, although I think common sense clearly dictates that genocide is a means of ethnic cleansing. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this source does not explicitly support Debresser's contention that genocide is a means of ethnic cleansing. (see discussion above) (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Version C. The notion that there is this continuum is particular to just one source afaict and even then I'm not convinced it conveys the source correctly given the context. This may be mentioned in text and attributed but it shouldn't be part of the very first sentence in the lede. Like Debresser I think "systemic" is fine. Volunteer Marek 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, it is supported by at least four sources using synonymous words, "spectrum" (Naimark, Lieberman), "continuum" (Martin, Walling). (t · c) buidhe 21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And still it seems out of place. Because, as I said, don't go al legal on us, talk plain English to us, please. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: I appreciate the changes you've made with this new version c, but I have to ask; having "systematic and systemic" like that in the opening sentence... are you set on it? Would you consider any change at all to break that up somehow? (Even keeping both words and just spreading them out a little.) As is it just seems kinda clunky. - wolf 01:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Absolutely open for improvement. I don't see why we had to start an Rfc with fixed sections, instead of working out all the issues separately. I think that treating each issue separately makes more sense than combining them in one package. I am open to removing "systemic"; even though I think it is correct, it is definitely not necessary. I am open to replacing "genocidal rape" by just "rape". I could even live with the "continuum sentence", even though I really don't think we should have it. And I agreed beforehand without problem to the last sentence. But all of these things together, sorry, then I'd prefer the previous version. As I said, it would have been better to work out issues separately, rather then trying to force-feed us a version with all the problems together. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and your willingness to reach a compromise. Cheers - wolf 03:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Version B
  • Unlike other versions, it is fully supported by reliable sources, verified and it does indeed seem to reflect scholarship, not editor's personal views. It does not include any personal view on the editor's part which may be inferred in the other versions. Davide King (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The phrase “by a more powerful ethnic group” should probably be edited or removed, as it is not defining. For example, ethnic cleansing was conducted many times by the Soviet Union’s ideological régime, which did not represent an ethnic group in theory nor in any objective analysis. —Michael Z. 14:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  Hm, the more I think about it. . . . Accusing an ethnic group, i.e., not just specific individuals, of guilt for a crime, is not acceptable. I presume this is just the result of careless language, but it’s exactly like statements that have historically been used to create division, demonize innocent people, and sometimes to justify ethnic cleansing. —Michael Z. 16:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Although you are taking the argument to an extreme. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Version B, per Buidhe and Davide King. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version B considering it has more references compare to A or C. Idealigic (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version B, as per Buidhe and Davide King. - Wakemeup38 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Version C, "extermination" in B is covered just as well in C which is anyway more succinct and better phrased than B.Selfstudier (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
• Version B. The fact that ethnic cleansing includes indirect methods and exists as a spectrum (which appear to be the main points of dispute) is well-cited and central to understanding the topic. Furthermore, the aspects of the topic covered by those sentences have significant coverage in the body and should therefore be in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• None It's a euphemism for genocide, it should be redirected to genocide per these reliable sources [8] [9] the second source being very a high quality one in my estimations " 'Ethnic cleansing' bleaches the atrocities of genocide, leading to inaction in preventing current and future genocides." Spudlace (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Version C preferred, or Version A if that is off the table. Version B is too unwieldy for a lead paragraph. That is not to say that the text doesn't belong in other parts of the article, but we do not need a more or less exhaustive list of examples of ethnic cleansing branching off into another list of examples of prevention of return mashed into one sentence. The bit about a continuum (or spectrum, in some sources) is also an interesting addition, but it likewise doesn't belong in the lead. This merits some discussion in its own article section below the lead. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  AlexEng, Actually, I did a search for the definition of ethnic cleansing and as you can see from the quoted sources, most of them actually do define it as (part of) a continuum. If the proposed paragraph is too long, the issue of criminal categorization could be moved to a separate paragraph in the lead, but I do think that the continuum is emphasized in most definitions and a necessary part of understanding the concept. (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  Even if I accept that (which seems fair), I still can't agree with Version B because of the other issue I described above. Honestly, this is a prickly enough subject that it would have made more sense to more narrowly pose the RfC to a single sentence at a time. As it stands, though, I agree with the more easily graspable language in Version C with the caveat that it could stand to be improved with additional language about the continuum you've presented. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  AlexEng, The problem is that Version C also presents a list of methods of ethnic cleansing "The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape." The last two items however, are not supported by reliable sources, and "ethnic dilution" is a technical term that most readers are unlikely to understand. I can see that the list in version B may be too long, but it could be trimmed. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC result

@Buidhe: How do you figure that your version (B) won? The votes were 1, 6, and 5 for A, B, and C respectively, so, seemingly, the matter is wholly undecided. ImTheIP (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP, I thought the first step was to remove content that was unsourced and/or factually incorrect, such as the previous content stating that "genocide and genocidal rape" are methods of ethnic cleansing. What changes would you suggest? (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no box around the RfC so has it concluded? If not, I believe you should wait. Since opinions were evenly split between A+C and B, it seems fair to try and find a compromise between those versions. ImTheIP (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's accurate, RfC's automatically conclude after 30 days. (t · c) buidhe 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This diff is an attempt at a compromise. Which I think is reasonable since opinions were almost evenly split:

Sentence 1

• B: Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal or extermination of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given area, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
• C: Ethnic cleansing is the systematic and systemic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous.
• Picked: B

Sentence 2

• B: Along with direct removal (deportation, population transfer), it also includes indirect methods aimed at coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, torture, arbitrary detention, threats, and property destruction.
• C: The forces which may be applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), ethnic dilution, intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.
• Picked: Along with direct removal (deportation, population transfer), it also includes indirect methods aimed at coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction. One of the objections to version B was that it was too long, so removing some "examples" seem reasonable.

Sentence 3

• B: Ethnic cleansing is part of a continuum of violence whose most extreme form is genocide, where the perpetrator's goal is the destruction of the targeted group.
• Struck: Not present in A or C.

Sentence 4

• B: Although the term ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, it constitutes a crime against humanity and may also fall under the Genocide Convention.
• C: Although the term ethnic cleansing has no legal definition under international criminal law, it constitutes a crime against humanity and may also fall under the Genocide Convention.
• Picked: B (they are the same)

ImTheIP (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP, Thank you. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Tigray

The Tigray war and the ethnic cleansing of Tigrayans from Western Tigray by Amharan Forces should be included here. More than 1million people are still unaccounted for and 2.5 million people are IDP while 60,000 are refugees in Sudan The USA, The UN, WFP, TPLF forces,... All have confirmed this, countless satellite images of razed villages and towns, ghost towns, persecution of Tigrayans and more is still going on It should be written here or in Genocide Euphrosine14 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of text

Someone removed text here [10] claiming it was "POV-pushing", how exactly is this "POV-pushing" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The article shouldn't focus on individual examples, since there's a separate list for that. Any list here is simply duplicating content that belongs elsewhere, which should be avoided. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

::Not to mention that restoring only one of those events from the list in this article but leaving all the others out is a clear POV violation. SoaringLL (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון)

Global coverage in section "As a military, political, and economic tactic"

Responding this revert by Buidhe with the edit summary "I don't think this is necessarily imbalanced, it simply reflects the fact that Europe and adjacent areas had much more ethnic cleansing than other parts of the world and it peaked in the mid twentieth century after wwii". That doesn't make sense to me. I would expect a section with this title to compare the use of this tactic at different times and places and highlight similarities and differences. Or at the very least analyze consequences in a few different circumstance beyond population numbers. List of ethnic cleansing campaigns sadly contains many examples, and it's unclear to me the ones mentioned in this section are actually the ones that affect the most people. BTW, the first paragraph doesn't actually seem to analyze at all; without that, it seems like a very long example in the wrong section. -- Beland (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If you think it can be improved, feel free to do so. I don't think a poorly sourced Wikipedia article is a good source for what would be "balanced".

Nevertheless, it would not be an improvement to cover all parts of the world equally. A predominant argument in the scholarly literature is that ethnic cleansing happens most commonly as a side effect of the building of nation-states in ethnically heterogenous areas. The ideas that led to ethnic cleansing originated in Europe and left this continent significantly more ethnically homogenous by 1950 compared either to its own past or to other parts of the world. (EG see [11], [12]) My understanding is that the single largest act of ethnic cleansing (at least in the twentieth century, otherwise I guess it depends how you count) is considered to be the expulsion of Germans after World War II.

At the end of the day, improvements to this article are only going to come from a good understanding of scholarly literature. (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

@Tamzin: This article doesn't mention the Israel-Palestinian conflict: why is it subject to the rules described here? Jarble (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jarble: It is "related content" as defined at WP:PIA, because there has been edit-warring over whether to mention the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Note that the editnotice says "You are subject to additional rules when you edit parts of this article" (emphasis added). Currently that part is only the hypothetical part that would be created by adding content about the topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Mutual ethnic cleansing

I cannot access the sources, but am a bit sceptical about some of the entries in "Mutual ethnic cleansing". Do significant WP:RS really describe the aftermath of [[[Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)|the Greco-Turkish War]] as 'ethnic cleansing'? This is usually described as a a population exchange, since the terms were negotiated (certainly against a background of the likely alternative being mutual random expulsions & communal violence).

Also probably the largest scale modern example of mutual ethnic cleansing is missing, that resulting from the Partition of India which involved about 15 million people. Pincrete (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you know anything about the Greco-Turkish population exchange, at least half of the "exchange" was completed prior to the agreement in the context of significant violence.

Ethnic cleansing is often defined as any case where people are forced to move against their will, regardless of whether political leaders agreed to it. Calling this case ethnic cleansing is not particularly controversial as you can tell from a quick Google Scholar search[13] (t · c) buidhe 07:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's discuss the edit instead of warring

[14]

• Dianagurman, first of all, you are not supposed to be editing content related to Israel/Palestine for the reasons mentioned in the notice I left on your talk page. Second, at least one of the sources does seem to support calling it ethnic cleansing although it is not clear whether mentioning it in this article would be wp:due.
• Murtaza.aliakbar in order to show that the content belongs in this article, rather than some related one such as list of ethnic cleansing campaigns, I would expect it to be discussed in overviews of ethnic cleansing in general. There are a lot of incidents of ethnic cleansing in history and not all of them can be mentioned in this overview article.

(t · c) buidhe 17:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims

A previous version of the lead claimed that: "The first instances of industrialized, state-orchestrated ethnic cleansing in modern history were implemented by the Russian empire during the latter half of 19th century as it expanded southwards and launched extermination campaigns against Circassians, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, etc., while also intensifying pogroms against Jews."

• The first claim is quite extraordinary and unlikely to be true in light of how far behind Russia was compared to Western Europe in terms of industrialization
• The pogroms had only a limited degree of government involvement

(t · c) buidhe 15:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe

In-line citations from the sources have already been provided. If your problem is with "industrialized", I have removed it.

• Buidhe: "pogroms had only a limited degree of government involvement"

Thats not what the sources say.

This coincided with the launch of yet another campaign - the pogroms and expulsions of Jews. The careful timing, planning and systematic organization of the ethnic cleansings and genocide against Crimean Tatars, Caucasian Muslims and Jews indicate that imperial Russia, even during the reigns of different monarchs, did not follow a random strategy in her southward expansion, one that Catherine II and her favorite Grigory Potyomkin had designed in order to "gain Constantinople and Jerusalem". Also regarding the more general history of the time, the systematic use of ethnic cleansing, pogroms and genocide as a means of imperial expansion and colonization marked the beginning of a novel and sinister trend in imperial politics. What was launched by Russia's brosok na yug, with their first victims being the Crimean Tatars and Circassians, was continued against the Jews, and the fashion was soon exported both west - targeting Jews across Europe since the 1870s...

• In the summary of the edit that removed the image of forcibly expelled Circassians, user Buidhe wrote: "If a lead image is used it shouldn't be a random example but one that is connected with the development of the term or one of the largest scale examples"

This is bizarre, since the in-line citation in the reference clearly states:

One hundred and thirty years before the Serbian phrase etnichko chishenie became infamous around the world, Evdokimov had already conceived of the notion of “ethnic cleansing.”

So far Buidhe has only made WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which cannot be used to censor well-sourced contents.

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers,.. is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." WP:CENSORSHIP

Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

If you actually read the policies you cited, you would learn that being verifiable does not guarantee inclusion. This has nothing to do with censorship. WP:Extraordinary is part of the verifiability policy and is not just my opinion.(t · c) buidhe 19:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the publisher of the source you're citing but if it is this one it's definitely not a reliable source for this topic area, let alone for contradicting widely accepted facts about Russian history. (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

The false belief that the Russian government was responsible for pogrom turns out to be based on a forgery, but obviously your source is more reliable than specialists in Jewish history. (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe: "The false belief that the Russian government was responsible for pogrom"

That's one pogrom that happened in 20th century. Kishinev pogrom.

Although the Steven Zipperstain claims in that interview that he do not personally view that the Tsarist government was involved in the pogrom, he also states regarding the mainstream academic view:

"Part of the knowledge that ends up being canonized is that the pogrom was organized by the imperial Russian government"

[15]

So this is far from the bogus characterization of WP:EXTRAORDINARY that Buidhe alleged. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

He never said that this is the mainstream *academic* view. Please stop misrepresenting sources. Your source is still not proven to be a WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What did he mean by "canonized" then?

Also you havent provided any evidence to your claim that the source as unreliable. The book is listed in the collections of United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (link)

An academic review of the book published by Brill states:

The unquestionable value of this book lies in the richness of the information which it provides on every ethnic minority under discussion: each presentation proceeds from history and historical debates on the origins of a given group to the description of today’s state of affairs.

(source)

It has also been listed by the ECMI library as an academic source. (link) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I think to be considered WP:DUE in this article the source needs to be about ethnic cleansing, not about ethnic groups in the world. I would expect it to be published by a respected academic publisher rather than what might be a self-published outlet. As far as I can tell the author of the chapter has not published any research on ethnic cleansing and shows no indication of meeting WP:SPS. Sourcing standards for this article must be high due to the controversial nature of the topic.

All of these considerations are regardless of the WP:FRINGE issues I have identified in the source that render it unusable.

As multiple sources I have provided attest, with the Russian pogroms there is a divergence between the popular understanding and the result of scholarly research. Wikipedia is based on the latter. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe

You didnt attempt to establish any sort of consensus and steam rolled through the article, pushing your view. I view this as a disingenous edit war tactic. No where have you established any form of understanding with me for you to claim that the source was unreliable "per talk". You should speak for yourself.

However, I will ignore this to prevent edit conflicts.

But the image, which you removed under the guise of opposition against that reference (which is actually an academic reference) will stay in the page. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on you to generate consensus that a source is reliable and for the inclusion of disputed material. (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary it did look like censorship, since you removed all the contents enmasse. You could have attributed it or could have transferred the contents to the body but you did neither of that. Instead, you just blanked the contents.

Buidhe's whole argument is based on "extraordinary", yet it appears as if the user has not read what the policy states and overlooks the fact that Russian empire was the largest settler-colonial empire in history. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If the cited source is not reliable—I've seen no evidence that it is—then the content must be removed, even if you may not consider it WP:FRINGE.

My position is that no content is WP:DUE for mention in the article unless it is cited to a scholarly source that is specifically about ethnic cleansing in general, rather than a specific example of ethnic cleansing. The article is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of all acts of ethnic cleansing in history. Your repeated insertion of the content into the lead looks like shoehorning a particular example into a more prominent position than it is granted in sources about ethnic cleansing. (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like Zipperstein, how about let's check an encyclopedia entry by another respected historian of Jewish studies, Robert Weinberg. Similar to Zipperstein, he says, "the perception that Jews in the Russian Empire lived in constant fear of their Christian neighbors and a murderous regime is rooted more in the imagination of writers and filmmakers than in the realities of daily life". More specifically: "The tsarist government, wary of all manifestations of public disorder and unrest, strove to prevent anti-Jewish violence on the part of civilians, police, and soldiers." However, even if your source were in the mainstream on this point (it's not), it would still need to be shown to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, which I am interested to see. (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You brought that quote yet literally ignored the initial part.

The second sentence of that chapter literally states:

"Subject to an imposing edifice of discriminatory legislation, Russian Jewry was often the target of state - sanctioned anti-Semitism and popular hostility."

(pg. 451) (link)

I have removed anti-Jewish pogroms from the lede, since your source does claim that the anti-Jewish pogroms were not state sponsored. However, the anti-Jewish pogroms may be discussed in the body with proper attribution and without pushing any fabricated assertions of "consensus". Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What does this even have to do with ethnic cleansing? (t · c) buidhe 05:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

References