Talk:Ethnic cleansing

Archives

---

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

18th and 19th centuries

I have removed all the entries from the list which did not have a source claiming that the events were ethnic cleansing (genocide is not ethnic cleansing although the two can be intertwined). I have left in place a few entries where I can not check the sources as they are no on line, but have asked for quotes to be provided on the talk page to confirm that the citations support the claim of ethnic cleansing.

See the entry for Ireland in the section "In early modern history" for an example of how an entry for this section can be written. It lists a number of reliable sources that claim ethnic cleansing took place and names in the text a couple of the best sources, (authors/historians) who have made the claim. -- PBS (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already pruned Ethnic cleansing#18th and 19th centuries of those entries which did not have a source, or had online sources which did not describe the events they were cited for as "Ethnic cleansing", unless someone comes up with the requested quotes in the next few days, it is my intention to delete all the entries based on a request for a citation. --PBS (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Calque

There's no "Serbo-Croatian".
Question is, who first used this term. In which language and where (newspaper, magazine, radio, TV, scientific magazine...) has this term appeared first? In Croatian or in Serbian?
That's why I've removed the phrase "Serbo-Croatian". Kubura (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes there is Serbo-Croatian. What there isn't, is such thing as "Croatian language" or "Serbian language".

I mean Kubura, FFS, what kind of "language" is that in which the nationality of the speaker denotes what "language" he is writing in? What if the phrase was coined by some proud Yugoslav? The Serbo-Croatian name of the language must stay, everything else would be misleading BS. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Istria

I reinserted the sourced content about the Istrian exodus removed by DIREKTOR. It's my fault that the user found this page, as I mentioned it in a discussion about the Foibe killings. Unfortunately, DIREKTOR seems to be driven more by a nationalist agenda than by respect for sources, discussions and consensus. With regards to the cleansing of Italians from Istria after WWII, it is a rather clear-cut case of one ethnicity being driven away.JdeJ (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a few Croatian users have taken to repeatedly removing the ethnic cleansing of Italians from Istria, the Istrian exodus, I inserted four new sources that explicitly use the term "ethnic cleansing" in describing these events. The sources include two books on the topic as well as articles by two leading European newspapers, Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent. Further removal of this well-sourced paragraph due to these users' WP:IDONTLIKEIT should probably be treated as vandalism rather than content dispute. There is a large number of independent and reliable sources describing it explicitly as ethnic cleansing.JdeJ (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive the length of the post, but these sort of nonsense accusations demand a proper response, please bear with me. Ok, first of all it must be point out for the benefit of other users that this Italian right-wing claim of "ethnic cleansing" in Istria, is just another POV-pushing attempt by a lobby of Wikipedia Users, frequently called by their opposition as "irredentists" for pursuing historical revisionism in WWII and post-WWII events relating to the fascist Italian rule in Istria, and its subsequent defeat by Allied forces of Yugoslavia. Let's review the claims above. Of the four sources listed by User:JdeJ, we two are unverifiable newspaper articles (no primary sources), and two are published books.

• 1) Of these two, one is a book by an Italian politically biased journalist, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper.
• 2) And at last have a proper source: Ballinger, Pamela (2002). History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans. Unfortunately, this source in no way supports what its been listed next to. This source does not even come close to calling the events "ethnic cleansing", but is used on the part of User:JdeJ to make both others and myself seem like ignorant and biased "vandals".

Now a few facts on the Istrian exodus:

• It is a term used to indicate the departure of Italians from Istria. It took place mostly between 1947 and 1954, over a period of more than seven years. This period of extreme poverty in post-war Yugoslavia is known as the "Informbiro period" ("Informbiro" being the Cominform, the name is used because Yugoslavia left the Cominform and faced economic blockade from Stalin's Soviet bloc.)
• Istria, being mostly populated by South Slavs, was granted to Yugoslavia in the 1947 peace treaty with Italy, soon after which Yugoslavia plunged into a deep depression caused by its unique political situation.
• And the crucial point: not a single person, during the course of these seven years, was actually forced to leave (forced = by force), and this is well known by User:JdeJ. At no point did Yugoslavs, military, civilian, militia or otherwise, actually throw people out of their homes or officially or publicly threaten them if they didn't leave. The departure was ultimately decided upon freely by the emigrants. It was facilitated, but it was in no way "forced" by Yugoslav authorities.
• The economic situation in Yugoslavia was appalling. It was becoming a socialist state, resisting both the West and Stalin (see Tito-Stalin split) and was slowly being forced into poverty by economic blockade. Italy was a capitalist state of the Western bloc. Has anyone ever heard of people emigrating from the Eastern to the Western bloc? I know it sounds familiar...

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It comes as no surprise that DIREKTOR opposes the use of the term "ethnic cleansing", as the user's activites on Wikipedia mostly consist of a complete white wash of the Partisans. For the record, I agree with him to some extent. If we put Tito's Partians in comparison with their opponents, the Wehrmacht, the Chetniks, the Ustashe and the Italian Fascists, then the Partisans definitely come out as the least evil. However, I did not agree that that is reason enough to deny the misdeeds done by them either. When DIREKTOR tries to dismiss the sources, I doubt many will agree with him when he outright denies the use Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent as sources. Both of these highly respected European newspapers, neither of which is Italian or Croatian/Yugoslavian, explicitly describes the event as "ethnic cleansing". Looking through the list of cases listed in this article, few are at the moment as well sourced as this case. DIREKTOR don't like that "his" side is accuses of ethnic cleansing, but that is true of most people. If we would remove every case of ethnic cleansing because some users object to it, despite the ethnic cleansing being support by several sources, we would be left with an empty article. The long post DIREKTOR has written consist of two parts, the first one is WP:IDONTLIKEIT while the second is his own view on the Istrian exodus. He is perfectly entitled to that view, but I would like to remind him that we rely on sources here, not the personal speculations of individual editors.JdeJ (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the issue is one of sources. DIREKTOR is repeatedly editing material on the basis that sources do not exist, when, in reality, they are present. Of course, he may argue that these are not valid or credible sources, but this is a different argument, and certainly cannot be decided unilaterally by him. If he does not like a source, then it should be challenged and debated, if it is subsequently rejected by consensus, then a claim may indeed become unsourced and open to removal. However, it is not up to DIREKTOR, or any other single user, to decide what sources are valid or not, which is what he has been doing through his unilateral deletions. Corinth (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:JdeJ. You should first and foremost try to distinguish between the 1945 Foibe killings, which were by most accounts politically motivated (just like the nereby Bleiburg massacre of fascist Yugoslavs), and the 1947 - 1954 Istrian exodus. "1945" may seem similar to "1947", but I assure you: there's a difference. In light of this, I find your mention of the Yugoslav Partisans (1941-1945) in this context quite revealing of a profound lack of knowledge of this, admittedly obscure, subject. The bulk of the Istrian exodus (1947, Treaty of Paris - 1954) has absolutely nothing to do with either the Partisans or their successor, the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). Concerning sources:
I admit I set the standards high for evidence of this claim. However, JdeJ should probably admit his continued attempts at deception, transparent though they may be. First it was the bogus book source, now we have a claim that the articles are "not Italian or Croatian/Yugoslav" - admittedly the newspapers are not based in Italy, but the guy who wrote an article is Italian. Not necessarily proof of POV, but certainly proof of JdeJ's lack of honesty in this discourse.

• Newspaper refs. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. Why am I so critical of the refs? Because the silliness of this claim is beyond comprehension to me - the crucial question: who performed the ethnic cleansing? is one that has no answer at all. All we get is "Yugoslavs", but what does that mean? Civilians? Certainly not, no kind of imaginary anti-Italian riots took place - it was a police state. The Yugoslav Army? Again, no question: absolutely not. There isn't a single instance between 1947 and 1953 of Yugoslav authorities forcibly throwing out and deporting Italian families just because they were Italian. Indeed, such a move would be suicidal for Yugoslavia - a neutral state in the Cold War, a state flirting with the West in hopes of support against Stalin. The whole thing is unimaginable.
• Re:"It comes as no surprise that DIREKTOR opposes the use of the term ethnic cleansing". Of course not, it is a full-time job reverting (mostly banned) Users such as User:Brunodam, User:PIO, User:Giovanni Giove, User:Ragusino, etc... I am opposed to this kind of blatant POV-pushing and I shall remain so. Do not be "surprised".

User:Corinth. Of course it is not "up to me", this is why I am here on the talkpage, attempting to expose the obvious weakness and fraudulent nature of these "sources". The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. For the term "ethnic cleansing", you usually need sources like the UN or obvious evidence of support among scholars. What have we here? Two Googled unverifiable journalist personal opinions in newspaper articles, and a writer very well known for his bias to anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with this sort of POV-pushing. I leave you with a repeat of the question: exactly who ("which people") performed the alleged "ethnic cleansing" of the Italian minority in SFR Yugoslavia? Was it the JNA? Soldiers with trucks killing people and throwing them into livestock wagons bound for Italy? Did Yugoslav civilians go out into the streets and throw Italian families out of their homes? Did they burn their property? Whodunnit? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, it is the source (the one of the yours even you seemed to like) that link together the Istrian exodus with the partisans and the Foibe killings. As for your remarks about my "deceptions" and "dishonesty", I object strongly to the terms and will report you for personal attacks should they be repeated. If you want to claim that an article in Le Monde Diplomatique is unreliable because the journalist is an Italian and that an article in The Independent is unreliable because the (English) journalist writing it was stationed in Rome, then that says a lot about your personal POV but nothing else. And as is your habit in every discussion in which your involved, you go into long arguments about what you perceive to be facts in history as if it mattered. Wikipedia rely on sources, not on your or mine personal opinions. While I have presented several sources claiming that the Istrian exodus was ethnic cleansing, all you've presented is your personal opinions about the same events as well as a general WP:IDONTLIKEIT about the sources.JdeJ (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you read my post, or do you just want to make me sound like some kind of "nationalist" on purpose? I did not base my skepticism on the nationality (or location) of any author. I hope you'll forgive me if I simply copy/paste my response...

• Newspaper refs. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. For the term "ethnic cleansing", you usually need sources like the United Nations or evidence of obvious support among scholars and the scientific community. What have we here? Two (probably Googled) unverifiable journalist personal opinions in newspaper articles, and a writer very well known for his bias to anyone who's had the misfortune of dealing with this sort of POV-pushing.

Well, "you usually need sources like the United Nations or evidence of obvious support among scholars and the scientific community". We usually need sources like the UN?

1. Where is this rule stated?

2. The UN had hardly come into existence at the time, so we're not likely to find any statement from them.

3. We have loads of cases with no "obvious" support among scholars, in those cases we indicate that the subject is controversial.

Needless to say, we could do the same thing here. Please present some sources (sources, not your personal opinions) that the Istrian exodus was a voluntary act and we can start discussing from there on how to phrase the paragraph. That would be a much more constructive way forward.JdeJ (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Your standard ploy has not, and will not work - I will not be fooled into trying to prove a negative. If you want authors on the Istrain exodus which have not called it "ethnic cleansing", there are more than enough - you yourself have provided one infinitely superior to any of the other rubbish you're trying to pass off as "sources" strong enough to effectively rewrite history. I won't try to disprove something which has yet to be proven.
The paragraph has no basis on which to be included here at all. I will not agree on any form of inclusion here until you can provide proper evidence of scholarly support for this "theory" of yours. In other words, sources which are NOT 1) unverifiable and without primary sources, and 2) plainly biased works, long known to be such, almost indistinguishable from propaganda and paranoid conspiracy theories. Your "evidence" here is practically non-existent. I find your premise that "you have done your part" here absurd. I am still waiting for proper VERIFIABLE sources, the only kind that can be used to justify such outrageous claims.

• Random Googled newspaper articles are not acceptable in support of such allegations. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. Scholarly sources, verifiability, and primary sources, JdeJ, NOT the personal opinions of journalists.
• The book. It suffices to say that it was written by an Italian journalist well known for his political bias, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper. Neutral professional historians, JdeJ, not well known paranoid fanatics with political agendas. Evidence of scholarly support for the term "ethnic cleansing", please.

In the meantime, here's a question for you. It is relevant because it excellently depicts why these claims are outrageous and require high standards if they are to be proven. All this is plain historical revisionism, the only difference is the fact that the subject is obscure. Here it is: Since the bulk of the Istrain exodus took place in 1947 - 1954, who exactly was the culprit, who (i.e. which people) performed the majority of the "ethnic cleansing"??? (Note: this question will not be directly answered, it will either be dismissed or evaded.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would have bothered to read my post, you would not have had to write such a long and irrelevant post. I did not ask you to prove a negative (that it was NOT ethnic cleansing), I explicitly asked you for sources for a positive (that it WAS a voluntary exodus). Surely there are historians and others who have written about it, so I ask you once more to provide sources supporting your view, that it was voluntary. Just as I have provided sources (not long and pointless personal opinions) saying that it was ethnic cleansing. Rather than ranting on about my sources and about your own speculations about the events, provide us with some sources supporting your view of a voluntary exodus. Then we can move the matter forward by discussing the views presented in the sources of both opinions. That is the usual way to deal with differences of opinions, not long and emotional personal outbursts with little factual content.JdeJ (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I read your post and understood it completely, though I cannot say you did the same. I understand that you just want me to prove something you order me to prove. You believe that I am going to dig through sources looking for some argument you yourself defined, that I shall be unsuccessful and that that will prove your point. Not finding sources stating it was "voluntary departure" wouldn't do anything to prove your point that it was ethnic cleansing. Naturally, sources which use alternate terms than "ethnic cleansing" abound everywhere, yet you believe you can cloud this fact by insisting on express confirmation of "voluntary departure". Crucially, you want sources that expressly state that the movement was "voluntary", which is logically assumed unless one explicitly calls it "involuntary". I've seen more of these sort of logical games than you imagine. Nice try, though. Pamela Ballinger, which you yourself quoted, calls the Istrian exodus simply "migration", in no way hinting, by using that term, that it was somehow "involuntary". Indeed even "involuntary migration" (not used anywhere) is not an interchangeable term with "ethnic cleansing". That source, by using another term for the events, is effectively a source against the term "ethnic cleansing". It means this scholar opted to use a different term than "ethnic cleansing".

JdeJ, you're not discussing the crucial point here, the validity of the "sources", thus I am forced to repeat (please read and respond fully):

• Random Googled newspaper articles are not acceptable in support of such allegations. I simply must demand that sources in this delicate and controversial historic subject be actual published historians citing proper primary sources. The subject and allegations could not be heavier, and there can be no cutting corners with respect to verifiability. The articles are not adequate in this kind of serious historic labeling of events. Scholarly sources, verifiability, and primary sources, JdeJ, NOT the personal opinions of journalists.
• The book. It suffices to say that it was written by an Italian journalist well known for his political bias, an author of books on "conspiracy theories" and "cover-up stories" about these events, which accuse not only the Yugoslav government, but also the Italian government and the Western bloc as a whole of "conspiring" against the Italian province of Istria. He is absolutely not a reliable, unbiased professional historian, his works all follow an agenda and are not far removed from obvious propaganda. This can plainly be noted by anyone that goes into the matter any deeper. Neutral professional historians, JdeJ, not well known paranoid fanatics with political agendas. Evidence of scholarly support for the term "ethnic cleansing", please.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying, in effect, is that you don't have sources and cannot bother to search for sources, you just want to rant on about the sources that have been presented and to give your own personal opinions. It seems like you think yourself a great expert and a masterful rhetoric, but neither is of much use here. Your "experice" is still just your personal beliefs and your rhetoric, the quality of which I let others evaluate, does not hide the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims with. Answering a request for sources with saying that you refuse to dig for something I ask you to do, that is perhaps the lamest attempt at avoiding a real discussion I have ever seen. It is time for you to start focusing on facts and not long, wordy, bombastic and irrelevant speeches. This is an encyclopedia, not a political forum.JdeJ (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(bla bla bla, lets focus on the actual sources presented instead of "me and my genius"...)
LoL... :) who do you think you're fooling with that noob rhetoric? So unless I find a source that expressly fits your own definition of a "counter-argument", I "don't have any sources"? :D Like I said, you want sources that expressly state that the movement was "voluntary", which is of course logically assumed unless one explicitly calls it "involuntary". Let's review:

• You're claiming that the term ethnic cleansing is used for these events
• If a professional published historian uses some other term in his work, that is a source against the use of the term "ethnic cleansing". No amount of ignoring will change this simple fact.

Furthermore:

• You haven't a single proper verifiable source confirming that (please do read WP:V and WP:Primary source). And for this type of serious allegations and labeling, you need iron-clad sources.
  • Two are personal opinions of unprofessional journalists.
  • One is a source known to be completely biased in these issues.

What else is there to discuss? Am I going to go around looking for sources that say what you define? No. That's got to be the oldest "trick" in the book. You're trying to prove a positive: that this is "ethnic cleansing". Proper professional sources which use other terms are naturally arguments against the use of this term (and are, of course, arguments for the use of other terms).
But no, you just keep writing that "there are no sources against you". That actually might work - other users just might believe it if you keep repeating it. Oh, and make sure you call me a "POV-pusher with nothing but his opinion" a few more times... that ought to do it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that one of the sources is "known to be completely biased". Known to be so by whom? It's your personal evaluation. Likewise, the journalists of Le Monde Diplomatique and The Independent are "unprofessional". A rather bold claim, given that both these newspapers are among the most highly regarded in Europe. As for your complaint of me calling you a "POV-pusher", I fullt stand behind that accusation and will be glad to defend it should you like to make a report about it. All your edits related to Partisans are heavily biased in their favour and seldom contain anything more than removing claims you don't like even though they are sourced. That it typical POV-behaviour, so I really don't get what you're complaining about. If you want to avoid it, perhaps you should consider interacting with other editors in a more constructive way. It can only do your own cause good. I have given you every chance, even encouraged you, to present sources yourself, but you refuse to do so. That is your choice and I won't argue with it, though it seriously undermines what credibility you might have. All you've done here is to complain that journalists and writers who don't support your personal interpretation of history are "unprofessional" and "biased". In short, all your arguments come to absolutely nothing but empty rhetorics and personal unsupported opinion. I won't engage much more in this discussion since you have made it clear that you're not interested in bringing it forward. Rest assured, however, that I will go ahead and report you should you once again remove sourced content despite having no sources and nothing more than a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT for the presented sources. JdeJ (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please start seriously discussing the crucial point: the concerns about the validity of your sources.

• Misunderstanding: When I said "unprofessional", I of course meant that they weren't professional historians. I didn't assume the writers of established newspapers were not professional journalists. Interesting how you only picked up on that and did not respond to any of my other concerns, completely ignoring quoted policy. Now, I am not prepared to discuss the validity of random unverifiable newspaper articles as "sources" for this matter. They listed no primary sources and are do NOT present the opinions of professionals, but the perosnal opinions of historical laymen. As far as verifiability is concerned: they simply do not exist.
• If we were to take the solitary source you have for this nonsense seriously, we would have to rewrite all articles on this stuff and introduce conspiracy theories against Istrian Italians and all sorts of uncorroborated nonsense. My specific concerns here are as follows: (would you care to actually answer this time?)
  • Judging from the very tone and content of his book, this person's POV jumps up into your face as soon as you read the first paragraph. He is clearly heavily biased towards the Istrian Italian minority, and writes as though he is on a crusade to expose "The Truth". This person is a faar cry from the professional neutrality of Ballinger. The source is not neutral (WP:NPOV).
  • This (secondary) source lists no primary sources confirming the claim of "ethnic cleansing" (if one actually bothers to look), pointing towards the use of that term for "shock and awe" alone, trying to inspire outrage with no real backing.
  • The use of the term "ethnic cleansing" by this author, is an exception. With the exception of this guy, professional scientists do not use that term. His use of the term "ethnic cleansing" is contradicted by nearly all other sources using other terms to describe the events ("migration", "exodus", "movement").

What sources do you want??! Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously, with the exception of that biased conspiracy theorist, calls the events "migration", "movement" or simply "exodus". What do you want it to say? That it was "voluntary migration"? I already told you that it wasn't strictly "voluntary migration", it was arguably "forced on" by both economic and sociological circumstances, but not by the deliberate intent of any government or authority or military group or mob or militia or whatever. This is why I keep asking you: who performed the ethnic cleansing? Who did it? Which people? Its a simple question...

If one actually takes the time to take a closer look: all your talk about sources is actually based on one author of questionable neutrality, and his clearly uncorroborated assessment. An "assessment" that is in actuality his alone and is not really used by the scientific community when referring to these events. Feel free to ignore all the concerns once again and just talk about me. Was the post too long? Am I basing all this on my opinion? How's my rhetoric? Do tell... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What sources do I want? I let you decide that. You say that "Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously" share your opinion. I do not know who these "everyone" are, nor do anyone else. That is precisely the reason I ask you. My asking you for sources is not some form of teasing, as you seem to think, it is the standard procedure in any conflict of opinions. The questions you keep asking me are rather easy to answer according to my own view, and I don't mind doing it, but you still miss the main point. This is not about you and I presenting our views, as they count for nothing. It is about using sources. You have an argument that you think it is wrong to use articles in newspapers as sources for this and that you think the author of a book is heavily biased. Fair enough, that is your view and I have noted it. If you want to change the paragraph, however, you have to do more than just present your personal opinions. The choice here is yours. If your aim is to continue this very long debate, then we go on as before. If your aim is to change the article, then it is time for you to bring forward something else than just your opinions.JdeJ (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is getting repetitive"? well naturally, what options am I left with but to repeat myself over and over again - you keep ignoring my point(s).
Look, JdeJ, could you please be so kind as to stop avoiding the issue of your sources? Read your own post: what are you talking about?

• "You say that 'Everyone who ever wrote about this seriously' share your opinion."

No, that's an obvious play on words on your part. I'm saying that "everyone whoever wrote about this seriously" has their own variable opinion, but obviously does not share your opinion - since noone uses "ethnic cleansing" to refer to these events. You're trying to prove something, not I. Should I list the works not using "ethnic cleansing"?? Is the fact that you're not listing anyone proof enough? (If not, fine...)

• "This is not about you and I presenting our views, as they count for nothing"

JdeJ, I think I finally understand - you think that the only way to discuss is by listing sources, because every single thing we write is "our own opinion". JdeJ - I am discussing sources. You are simply repeating that everything I say "counts for nothing", which is absolutely wrong. I am pointing out the weakness of your sources, and all you do is ignore my point because "my own words are useless". And then you say "this is getting repetitive"... Utter absurdity...

• "If your aim is to change the article, then it is time for you to bring forward something else than just your opinions."

Virtually every single professional work you come across on the Istrain exodus does not use the term "ethnic cleansing". These historians have decided to use another term than "ethnic cleansing". Their professional view is obviously that these events are... whatever they called them - not "ethnic cleansing". These are the sources ("something else than just your opinions") - everybody other than that one guy you listed. Our "job" is to establish the predominant view of the scientific community as best we can.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I don't ignore your points any more than you mine, but I may not agree with all of them. That is not the same thing. Don't get me wrong, discussing sources is necessary, so I don't mind that at all. That is one of the reasons I've asked you to provide some sources that the Istrian exodus was voluntary, as you say. As for the sources I've presented, you've made the point that you don't think articles in newspapers count for much as sources. That's your view, it's a perfectly logic stance (though I would not be so cathegorical myself, we often use newspaper articles as sources here). Regarding the author, while I have heard your point that you think the author is very biased, you have not yet explained why.JdeJ (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR. Debating the validity of sources after you have removed them is not how such disagreements are resolved. If you had done this once, I would believe that it was an error or even overzealous editing upon your part, but repeatedly you have now removed all references to alleged ethnic cleansing of Istrian-Italians, without discussion. Additionally, repeatedly citing Italian atrocities against the Yugoslav here population does not invalidate the reverse - not only is that a straw man argument, but if anything, history has repeatedly demonstrated that these scenarios are often reciprocal in nature. Corinth (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I edit-warring? Naturally, I have acted too hastily and for that I apologize, but I see no point in discussing all that now. Also, I am completely baffled as to why you're saying I'm "repeatedly citing Italian atrocities against the Yugoslav population"?? The Bleiburg massacre? Read the article pls :). Its a crime by communist Yugoslavs against fascist (collaborationist) Yugoslavs (Croats and Serbs specifically). It was meant to point out that fascists were killed in those terrible days indiscriminately, without regard as to their nationality/ethnicity. Indeed, Yugoslav doctrine (with which the whole Partisan movment was totally imbued) by definition places nationality at the lowest possible "tier", equating nationalism with "primitivism". But I only mentioned Bleiburg once... I don't quite understand your post... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ, you don't agree with my point(s), and therefore you ignore them. It is not the same thing to source... I don't know, the launch-date of a video-game, and the claim that a seven-year long demographic phenomenon constituted "ethnic cleansing". The necessity of sources and the demand for their quality always gets more pronounced as the claims get more radical and serious. What you're suggesting is the complete confirmation of all the exiles' claims and complete POV in their favor. Personal opinions of journalists and newspaper articles by non-professionals (in the field!) simply "don't cut it", as it were. I've already listed supporting policy. Nevertheless, if you insist on a list of sources on the Istrian exodus, I will provide a few...

• Dr. Jutta Weldes, Mark Laffy, etc. Cultures of insecurity [1]
  • This author uses the term "emigration" to describe the events, generally referring to them as "the exodus". She is also actively opposed to the label "ethnic cleansing" and provides interesting insight as to its origin in this context.

"Despite the existence of some exiles who recognize the complicated intersections of ideological and ethnonational claims in motivating the exodus, since Yugoslavia's breakup [interesting note] the exile associations and their leaders had considerable success in Italy promoting the exodus as a unitary event following out of a premeditate plan to Slavicize Istria. Such narratives may be linked to morality plays, as Malkki (1995) suggests for accounts told by Hutu refugees in Tanzania. In contrsucting the Istrian exodus as an act of ethnic cleansing and casting it in fundamentally moral terms, exile narratives in Trieste silence competing voices. Conflating Istrian Italian culture/history with all Istrian culture/history, these accounts posit the exiles as the only authentic Istrians."

• Pamela Ballinger (2002). History in Exile: Memory and Identity at the Borders of the Balkans [2]
  • This author uses the term "migration" to describe the events, generally referring to them as "the exodus". At no point does she state the events constituted "ethnic cleansing".

• Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan. Culture and power at the edges of the state
  • This author uses the term "exile", without any further clarification. The work is generally "lenient" towards the exiles' side of the debate, and does not at all describe the opposing view (such as Ballinger and Weldes). Yet, the author only mentions "ethnic cleansing" in parentheses and distances himself from it by calling it the "exiles' argument" (not his own). It must also be noted that the term in his context refers to the Foibe massacres and not the exodus. Additionally, the author states that the Italian population "chose to leave behind their homes, fields, etc".

Possibly the strongest and most universally accepted source is the work by Pamela Ballinger. Her book is without a doubt the most neutral and most professional depiction of events, recognizing the duality of the dispute, and interestingly, completely ignoring the accusations of "ethnic cleansing" pushed on by the exiles and presented in their books. Any objective person can see that Ballinger certainly "trumps" A "Tragedy" Revealed. The matter is extremely complex. It is not a single event. It was not executed by open and obvious force. "Ethnic cleansing" is the extreme POV of the Exiles' side of the debate. WP:NPOV applies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a nice list and I have no immediate objections to it. We should certainly take these sources you list into consideration when editing the article.JdeJ (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

May I ask, what exactly is your position on article content? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to a lack of response from JdeJ, and in light of his above post, I assumed that an agreement has been reached on this issue (after four days). I removed the entry (along with its inadequate and falsely quoted sources). Please do not revert or enter into vague discussion without further scholarly sources on "ethnic cleansing". Above all, the predominant view of professionals on this issue should be established, and mostly has been. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

20th and 21st centuries

See above #18th and 19th centuries

Ethnic cleansing#20th century and Ethnic cleansing#21st century contain lots and lots of nasty events, but unless they are described as ethnic cleansing in secondary sources, they should not be in the list. Take for example these two entries (one from each century):

• "Thousands of armed whites burned ..."
• "In 2003, Sinafasi Makelo ..."

As far as I can tell neither of them are described in the cited sources as ethnic cleansing.

It is no use arguing that because an editor thinks it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks, that it is a duck (or in this case is ethnic cleansing), because we have specific policy against original research, and specifically WP:SYN. If an event is to be included in a list called "Instances of ethnic cleansing" the list must be based on reliable secondary sources which states that an event was ethnic cleansing. As can be seen in the section "In early modern history" this does not mean events that predate the entry of the phrase "ethnic cleansing" into English, can not be included, because reliable sources that postdate the introduction of the phrase into English do describe earlier events as ethnic cleansing. --PBS (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a term can't have been used before the term was actually coined. So why does the entire "Instances of ethnic cleansing" section exist, given that the phrase itself is an euphemism? I think that whole section should be removed and the article restricted to describing the origins of the phrase along some examples (and criticisms) of its (often dubious) usage. Meowy 18:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality and veracity of this article

I am a retired West Point professor and former head of the Cultural Geography instruction at the US Military Academy. We used case studies concerning the 1990s ethno-religious conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the "Devolution" of Yugoslavia, in our course curriculum. For the past 8 years I have lived and worked in the Balkans for the US government as a consultant planning and assisting in the implementation of a single multi-ethnic armed force under proper democratic civil-military control at the national (State) level. (Be careful with the term "National" as locally - it means one of the major ethnic groups - Muslim (Bosniak), Croat, Serb, Slovenian, Macedonian, Albanian, Kosovar, or even Crna Gornik (Serbs in Montenegro). In order to be an effective mentor and to ensure my impartiality and keep a professional and objective outlook on what is still a very destablizing religious and political influence in the region, I have emmersed myself in study of the history of the region. So I believe I have basis of credibility in my criticisms of this poorly written article.

The entire paragraph written by an obvious Croat: "During the 1990s it was used extensively by the media in the former Yugoslavia in relation to the Croatian War of Independence, since Serb paramilitary forces and JNA engaged in forcible removal of Croats and other non-Serbs from areas of Croatia occupied by rebel Serbs. Rebel Serbs and JNA have committed widespread and systematic acts of persecution (murder, violence, detention, intimidation) against non-Serb population creating a such coercive atmosphere, atmosphere of fear, that targeted population had no option but to flee or to be deported by force. These acts were carried out from at least August 1991. The displacement of non-Serb population which followed these attacks was not merely the consequence of military action, but in fact its primary objective."

needs to be removed or substantially rewritten. It is entirely too biased and one sided to be in a reference work like Wikipedia. I tried to completely rewrite it and disovered when saving my changes and additions that it is a protected article, whatever that means. If one studies the United Nations reports, reads Sell's Slobodan Milosevic' and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace, Noel Malcolm's Bosnia-A Short History, and his Kosovo-A Short History, it is obvious that the forceable movement of ethnic populations and attrocities were perpetrated on all sides of the conflict and not only by the Serb para-military forces and Jugoslavian Federal Army (JNA).

Secondly, despite the disclaimer that ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide (which according to the United Nations and the Hague ICTY judgments is a correct statement), this article contradicts that warning note and says in the text that "they are synonymous." Admittedly, the international media who reported on the events during the devolution of Yugoslavia, frequently incorrectly used the terms ethnic cleansing and genocide - causing confusion about their legal meanings (as defined by several international agreements commonly accepted as International Law) by the general population of the world.

Michael M. Toler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Toler (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transjordan before 1948

when King Abdullah was given eastern Palestine, aka east of the Jordan, Jews were made to leave. This happened in 1922. This was ethnic cleansing.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Palestinian exodus as an example of ethnic cleansing

I know that removing this section is going to be a controversial thing, so I am putting my rationale here first.

<The 1948 Palestinian exodus, in which the substantial majority of Arab Palestinians (approximately 700,000) in the areas of British Mandate of Palestine that became part of Israel fled or were forced to leave during and after the 1948 Palestine War.[43][44][45] The 1967 Palestinian exodus, during which 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians, approximately 145,000 of which were refugees from the 1948 war, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces once again.[46][47]>

Based on the definition given in the lede, the Palestinian exodus was not an instance of "ethnic cleansing". However the section contains a disclaimer that states "This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case; nor do all the claims necessarily follow definitions given in this article. Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted."

The Palestinian exodus would be an instance of so-called ethnic cleansing that is not based on the definition given in the lede, since the Israelis did not persecute an ethnic minority (were the Arabs a minority?) but rather prosecuted a war that was forced upon them. Other aspects of the definition are also arguable. But is it true that the Palestinian exodus has been termed "ethnic cleansing" by "academic or legal experts"? And if not (such) experts, is it so noted, as the disclaimer says?

Three references are given (43,44,45) as initial support, and all lack page numbers or specificity. The first reference is to Morris (43), who does not use the epithet "ethnic cleansing" anywhere in the book. While he uses the term "cleansing" frequently, he uses it to refer to "cleansing" of an entirely different type. Examples below. Numbers refer to page numbers of the reference given. It is clear that Morris is talking about a strategic "cleansing" of enemy forces during war. My italics throughout.

464: - "quick and immediate cleansing [tihur] of the conquered areas of all the hostile elements..."

260: - "to 'clean' all the Arab villages that were occupied by the Egyptian military force".

235: - "the continuation of intimidation and cleansing activities as a first stage in operations[geared to] the destruction and conquest of the enemy forces and bases."

65: - "cleansing, conquest and destruction of enemy villages in your area."

518: -"cleansing and destruction of the enemy force..."

The Gelber reference (44) doesn't mention "ethnic cleansing" either except in the appendix to make a case against Pappe's (45) use of the term. "In Pappe's words, reminiscent of Khalidi and Massalha' ... these allegations [of ethnic cleansing] rely on a single paragraph of Plan D's 75 pages and refer to one of the Plan's many aspects while taking this paragraph out of its context and ignoring or blurring the Plan's real task: defending the forthcoming Jewish state from outside invasion being assisted by domestic Arab subversion." pg 303 of the Gelber reference [3]

So two out of the three references given do not support the contention of "ethic cleansing." We are left then with Pappe, though still no page number. Now the disclaimer says that "Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted." Pappe is arguably not an academic or legal expert. Yet it is nowhere stated that Pappe - the third source given accurately as a supporter of the notion of "ethnic cleansing" in relation to the Palestinians - has acknowledged bias and is admittedly not a respecter of facts, rather motivated by ideology and subjectivity.

"Indeed the struggle is about ideology, not about facts. Who knows what facts are? We try to convince as many people as we can that our interpretation of the facts is the correct one, and we do it because of ideological reasons..." [4]

"My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and presumptuous. .....In short, mine is a subjective approach, often but not always standing for the defeated over the victorious..... pgs. 11-12 [5]

Pappe may be an academic, but a subjective one and an admitted disrespecter of "facts" and "truth" and one who "stands for" the defeated. Academic experts do not "stand for" one side or another. That is the function of the propagandist or political activist. There is nothing wrong with being such, but we must not publish their opinion as fact.

The second sentence of this section refers to the 1967 war: "...during which 280,000 to 325,000 Palestinians, approximately 145,000 of which were refugees from the 1948 war, fled or were expelled by Israeli forces once again." While the numbers may be accurate, this is not an issue of "ethnic cleansing" based on our definition, but rather one about people made refugees by war. Here at least we have the page numbers so that we can check out our references. McDowall [6] says specifically, "In 1967 many more lost their homes in Palestine. By December, 245,000 had fled from the West Bank and Gaza Strip across the Jordan, 116,000 had fled from the Golan further into Syria, and 11,000 had left Gaza for Egypt. Of these 145,000 were UNRWA refugees uprooted for the second time. Many more left in the following months, either forcibly expelled by the occupying authorities or choosing not to live under Israeli military government." People who flee or choose to leave can hardly be said to have been "ethnically cleansed." The last sentence lacks all specificity and does not really support the sentence that these numbers were expelled by the Israeli forces. ("Many more left .... in the following months")

The last reference is that of Robert P. G. Bowker in Palestinian Refugees: Mythology, Identity, and the Search for Peace pg 81, which is a footnote page and doesn't refer to "ethnic cleansing". The only reference to "ethnic cleansing" is on page 90, [7] refers to the West and the Serbians, is an analogy, if a backhanded accusation.

In summary, the Palestinian exodus does not fit the WP definition of an "ethnic cleansing," the sources do not support the accusation of ethnic cleansing, and the terms of the disclaimer are not met. Stellarkid (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you said it best. hell, I think the whole section of 'examples" of ethnic cleansing is a problem, as the term is very new, and previous instances of it have been debated by scholars. You also make great points with reference to I/P, as there is substantial twisting of words and stories that go on.Tallicfan20 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tallicfan20. I don't doubt you are right about the "examples" of ethnic cleansing being a problem. My knowledge of most of the others is extremely limited. In fact there are some peoples listed whom I did not even know existed, let alone that they were ethnically cleansed. The lists are nuts, imho. Every group in the world wants to be listed as "ethnically cleansed" and no group wants to be listed as the "cleaner". It would be funny except it really is inflammatory and shouldn't be used without the strongest non-controversial evidence!, in my opinion. Stellarkid (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You didn't argue for this : "Based on the definition given in the lede, the Palestinian exodus was not an instance of "ethnic cleansing". Why doesn't the 1948 exodus fit the definition of an ethnic cleansing (in wikipedia) ? 81.244.176.173 (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede says "Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a local majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory." The Jews did not imprison or kill members of an ethnic minority ... the Jews were the ethnic minority... the purpose was not to achieve "ethnic homogeneity" but to defend themselves from being wiped out as an ethnic minority themselves. The war was not initiated by the Jews, but by the Arabs. When the Jews expelled a population it was to prevent the villages from being used as a base for attacks against them, not to establish ethnic homogeneity. After the tide turned and the Jews began to win the war, they advanced through Arab villages, clearing the territory ahead of them. To this day over 20% of Israel is Arab, Arabic is an official Israeli language...Arabs are citizens...Arabs receive aid from the state. Islam is an official religion. The accusation that the intention was to achieve homogeneity at the expense of the Arabs is simply [biased] opinion. The Jews just wanted to survive in the area that was designated as the Jewish homeland and state. Really, they were so depleted a population (immediately after WWII) in 1948 that it is a wonder that they did not lose entirely. It is important to read Resolution 194 Section 11 to see that the Jews were ready to allow many of the Arabs to return in peace in a timely manner, but the offer was rejected. Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the events before 15 May 1948 were not an ethnic cleansing but just for your information :

• Jews were the 'ethnic minority' in Palestine but the first exodus occured in the territories dedicated by the Partition Plan to the Jewish State and there, they were the majority. More, when Zionist Jews and Palestinian Arabs are compared, Palestinian Arabs were far more weaker
• For the killings, see : Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War... Few before May 1948.
• At Lydda and Ramle (Dani), in North Galilee (Hiram) and North Negev (Yoav), the aim of the expulsion was clearly to get rid of a "dangerous" Arab minority.

You should read a little bit more about the topic and only come back after. 81.244.41.108 (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you've said it best, tho it is important to remind people again what Benny Morris has said about the overall picture, that "Most of the people who were displaced fled their homes. A small number were expelled. Most fled their homes as a result of the war, the fear of battle, the fear of being attacked, the fear of dying. A small number also left because of the economic conditions. And a small number were advised or instructed by their leadership, as in Haifa in April 1948, to leave the country." I put that so now we even have a quote that most Arabs fled, and very few were expelled. And again, Morris says also that the refugee situation is 100% the Arab's fault for going to war and rejecting partition. Not to mention, UN 194 doesn't even say "must," but "should," about refugees, which means its not an order.Tallicfan20 (talk) 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Still not undefinitely blocked ? Strange... 81.244.41.108 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a simple google books search [8] provides tens of examples characterizing what happened to the Palestinian as ethnic cleansing. There are fewer sources for many of the other listing on the page. The "controversy" over "Palestine" tends to result in the setting of special rules. But I don't think the case has been made for this entry's removal and the multiple scholarly sources using the term to describe what happened to the Palestinians is evidence enough to support its inclusion. Tiamut^talk 16:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the sources given do not support the epithet. Nor are they properly sourced with page numbers for quote. Why don't I delete it and someone can return it properly sourced? Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples and accusations of EC

Taking a cue from Tallicfan above, I see that many of these accusations of ethnic cleansing are made with zero supporting evidence. I think this is atrocious. Anyone can claim anything, but without supporting evidence such accusations are cruel and unfair. I think all accusations that have only a ** as sole supporting should be "cleansed" right off the page, immediately. I would be happy to do it myself, if others agree. Stellarkid (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Stellarkid. that idea would be stellar, especially on such a topic. I would be inherently POV for POV to be pushed on such sensitive subjects.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1948 events seen as an ethnic cleansing

• Yes - Nur-eldeen Masalha, Catastrophe remembered: Palestine, ISrael and the internal refugees, § introduction writes : "[other facts and] the facts of the Nakba, Israel's responsibility for ethnic cleansing, the ocean of suffering of the Palestinian (internal and external) refugees, (...) are some issues addressed in this collection.
• Yes - Nur-eldeen Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion uses more than 20 times the words "ethnic cleansing" to refer to the 1948 transfer/events.
• Nuanced - Meron Benvenisti, Sacred landscape: the buried history of the Holy Land since 1948, pp.124-142 analyses the question of whether or not the events were an ethnic cleansing ? According to him (p.127), "(...) the contention that the Jews exploited the Palestinians' weakness in order to carry out unprovoked, premeditated ethnic cleansing does not stand up the close scrutinity. But these unambiguous conclusions regarding "ethnic cleansing" apply only to the first part of the war. (p.142), he adds : "The picture that emerges from a descriptoin of the first part of the 1948 war is not, in any case, unambiguous. It does not fully support the claim of "ethnic cleansing," planned and premeditated by the Zionist leadership. Neither does it support the opposition contention (...). BUT the following events, p.145, he writes : "The expulsions carried out after the founding of the state, and without a doubt those effected after the middle of June (...) came danderoulsly close to fitting the definition of "ethnic cleansing". P.149, he considers that "After the "miraculous exodus" (...), "ethnic cleansing" bacame an acceptable, or even a desirable, means of achieving [the establishment of Israel]." P.155 : "The ethnic cleansing" of the northern part of the country, which was rationalized on security grounds, continued well into 1949. (...)...
• Yes - Tanya Reinhart, How to end the war of 1948, p10 : "By now, there can be little doubt that what they mean by that analogy is that the work of ethnic cleansing was only half completed in 1948, (...).
• Yes - Lila Abu Lughod, Nakba: Palestine 1948 and the claims of memory p.291 writes : "[The partition vote] enabled the Zionist to implement their own even more one-sided partition plan [and] to incorporate into its implementation the transfer (a euphemisms for what we now call ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians (...).
• Nuanced - Benny Morris, 1948: A history of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, pp.407-8 writes : "During the 1948 War, which was universally viewed, from the Jewish side, as a war of survival, although threre were expulsions and although an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing prevailed during critical months, transfer never became a general or declared Zionist policy. Thud, by war's end, even though much of the country had been "cleansed" of Arabs, other parts of the country -notably central Galilee- were left with substantial Muslim Arab populations, and towns in the heart of the Jewish coastal strip, Haifa and Jaffa, were left with an Arab minority."

... 81.244.41.108 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not only an IP editor, but you think because as all of your biased anti-Israel sources say something it means its indisputably true (which would be inherent POV), even tho "ethnic cleansing" is a very loosely defined term with no precise meaning. Also, you cite Benny Morris, as so many do. Lemme quote Stellarkid's post in the Palestinian refugee page ""an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing...." is arguably not the same thing as Benny Morris saying "ethnic cleansing happened." No one argues that there are those who refer to the Palestinian expulsions that way, but because some or even many people refer to something a certain way is no reason to include it. I have shown that Morris in his earlier books used the words "cleansing" to refer specifically to "cleansing" enemy forces during a war, and nothing at all to do with "ethnicity" - eg Birth of the Refugee Problem Revisited 2004

   464: - "quick and immediate cleansing [tihur] of the conquered areas of all the hostile elements..."
   260: - "to 'clean' all the Arab villages that were occupied by the Egyptian military force".
   235: - "the continuation of intimidation and cleansing activities as a first stage in operations[geared to] the destruction and conquest of the   enemy forces and bases."
   65: - "cleansing, conquest and destruction of enemy villages in your area."
   518: -"cleansing and destruction of the enemy force..."  

Also, I will QUOTE Benny Morris here "There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing". And notice he puts it in quotes, implying that its a charge, not even something we can think MUST be true.Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Benny Morris saying "an atmosphere of what would later be called ethnic cleansing" is a source for it being called ethnic cleansing. Nobody said Benny Morris himself sees these events as ethnic cleansing, but it is clear that he does recognize that it has been called such. nableezy - 03:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tallicfan20, which ones of these sources are biaised are why ? Did you try to find other ones instead of just shouting the ones currently in the articles were not good and these ones were biaised ? 81.244.32.223 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tallicfan20 has a point, it seems to me. The article says This section lists incidents that have been termed "ethnic cleansing" by some academic or legal experts. Not all experts agree on every case; nor do all the claims necessarily follow definitions given in this article. Where claims of ethnic cleansing originate from non-experts (e.g., journalists or politicians) this is noted. So we are expecting academic or legal experts, and it should be noted if the accusers are journalists or politicians. The question would be, beside bias, are these "academics" experts in the field (of history of the area) or are they not? Are they biased? It is inherently unfair to demand that someone find reliable sources for something that he holds not hold to be true. It is reasonable to challenge the insertion of material if it is biased. You have asked, so let's begin.

Nur-eldeen Masalha is the first one quoted. His wiki article bills him as a Palestinian professor of religion and politics. His page shows he is extremely prolific and is certainly notable. In the U.S. a "Research Associate" is not a particularly high level rank in Academia. But perhaps things are different in the UK. His WP page is interesting in that by far majority of it is geared to demonstrating his notability, and sounds like an advertisement, curriculum vitae, personal page. The 3 sections that are not part of the advert are three. 1) He co-founded the Holy Land Studies magazine 2) He criticised Benny Morris 1988 book claiming Morris has "pro-Israeli bias" [and what does this reflect upon Masalha?] 3)and others' commentary on his book entitled "Explusion of the Palestinians: The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. According to Edward Said, another notable Palestinian academic and thoroughly pov, "Masalha's book demonstrates that every Zionist leader of the Left, Right or Centre, with no significant exceptions, was in favour of ridding Palestine of Palestinians, by all means necessary, force and bribery included." To an unbiased ear, such praise sounds more like accusation of overriding prejudice. But there is nothing further written of Masalha's thinking at all. Thoroughly biased, his life work seems to be related entirely to excoriating Jews and "Zionists." Masalha may be an academic, but his field is religion and politics, not history. Stellarkid (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Meron Benvenisti is a politician, ex-mayor of Jerusalem, (the Israeli Rudy Giuliani?) often referred to as a "political scientist", "political pundit" - an outspoken critic of Israel and champion of the Palestinians. He is not an objective academic or legal "expert." And as you point out, the accusation is "nuanced." If this is indeed a fair accusation, we should be able to find objective academics (not pro-Israel or pro-Palestine) that make the claim outright. Stellarkid (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tanya Reinhart is a linguist and student of [anti-Israel] Noam Chomsky. There is nothing wrong with that, but how is it related to being an expert on a particular time in middle eastern history? What would make her an expert on ethnic cleansing? All of these people should be noted as political, subjective, and not speaking from their field of expertise! Stellarkid (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Lila Abu-Lughod I am sure is a very bright lady, with a notable father and husband. She is identified in WP as a Palestinian-American and a professor of anthropology and Women and Gender Studies. We are told she supports an academic boycott er.. Academic boycotts of Israel. With the exception of her latest book Nakba: Palestine 1948 and the claims of memory, most of her writings have been gender-related, or political. This book is arguably political. I have no doubt that Ms Abu-Lughod honestly believes it when she says that transfer is a euphemism for "ethnic cleansing," but even so, she is speaking out of her field of [academic] expertise.

I am certainly sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, and to the Israeli one as well. But whether or not it is accurately termed "ethnic cleansing" should not be determined by the people involved or by our sympathies - it needs to be referenced to a wider academic and objective community. Stellarkid (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I see now where someone has added more and altogether different references from those of the anonymous IP above, so the above references are moot. That was surely a giant waste of time. will check out the new refs tomorrow. Let's hope they are more accurate than the initial ones. [User:Stellarkid|Stellarkid]] (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Benny Morris, in the introduction of The Birth (...) revisited, p.5 writes : "An additional reason for this deeper treatment was criticism of my initial treatment of the subject by both Arab and Israeli scholars : Arab historians like Nur Masalha argued that (...)"... It seems that Benny Morris considers Nur Masalha as a scholar, an historian and reknown enough to cite his name and introduce him as a reference. It also seems that Masalha's criticism was one of the reason why Morris "revisited" his former work on the topic.
• If Palestinian historians are not reliable, that decrease the number of possibilities to see the 1948 events described as an ethnic cleansing. Another one is : Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, 2007, p.!&__ : "[they were] to engage in what today is called ethnic cleansing. The neutral, bland term "transfer" was the Orwellian (...)".
• Note that wikipedia is not a wp:rs sources.

81.242.121.24 (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)