Talk:Ethnic cleansing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethnic cleansing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Can we add this image?

Palestinian refugees.jpg

Man see school nakba.jpg

The description of the violent expulsion of Palestinians to make way for the new state of Israel in 1948 (the Nakba) as ethnic cleansing is widely accepted by most historians.^[1] May we please add one of these images to this article? It would serve a purpose not only in demonstrating ethnic cleansing, but also in describing the historiography, why it can be disputed by some historians outside the fringe, etc. 222.152.25.14 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, pp. 30, 65, 71, 81, 182, 193–194; Abu-Laban & Bakan 2022, p. 511; Manna 2022; Pappe 2022, pp. 33, 120–122, 126–132, 137, 239; Hasian Jr. 2020, pp. 77–109; Khalidi 2020, pp. 12, 73, 76, 231; Slater 2020, pp. 81–85; Shenhav 2019, pp. 49–50, 54, and 61; Bashir & Goldberg 2018, pp. 20 and 32 n.2; Confino 2018, p. 138; Masalha 2018, pp. 44, 52–54, 64, 319, 324, 376, 383; Nashef 2018, pp. 5–6, 52, 76; Auron 2017; Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2017, p. 393; Al-Hardan 2016, pp. 47–48; Natour 2016, p. 82; Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, pp. 3–4, 8–18; Masalha 2012; Wolfe 2012, pp. 153–154, 160–161; Khoury 2012, pp. 258, 263–265; Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 4–5, 25–32, 109, 180–182; Lentin 2010, ch. 2; Milshtein 2009, p. 50; Ram 2009, p. 388; Shlaim 2009, pp. 55, 288; Esmeir 2007, pp. 249–250; Sa'di 2007, pp. 291–293, 298, 308; Pappe 2006; Schulz 2003, pp. 24, 31–32

The Alhambra Decree was "an early example of ethnic cleansing"

The article says that the The Alhambra Decree was "an early example of ethnic cleansing."

While I personally believe it was ethnic cleansing, do we have reputable sources that state this? The fact that Jews were allowed to convert and stay also challenges traditional notions of "ethnic" cleansing, and suggests that religion was the core focal point.

To be clear, I am not defending what the Spanish did (it was despicable obviously), but it seems like this characterization might be original synthesis.

The following articles on the expulsion and pogroms of Jews from Spain do not even have the phrase "ethnic cleansing" even once:

Phantomette (chat) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed (t · c) buidhe 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'etnicheskoye chishcheniye' doesn't exist in the Russian language

Such a combination of words doesn't exist in the Russian Language Hew Folly (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exact phrase did the Soviets used in the 1970s? Этническая чистка or Этническая очищение or something else? If it's Этническая очищение, then the source is just missing an "o." AndyBloch (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, not 1970s but 1980s are discussed in the books. Second, there are at least three sources with the same mistake. The original one did not claim that the term was used to describe the actions of the Azerbaijani side but rather what was taking place between both Azerbaijan and Armenia. Hence, two other sources not only plagiarized but also distorted the original quote. Hew Folly (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to originate from this 1988 article by the William Safire in the NYTimes. Safire cites "Sol Steinmetz, executive editor of Random House dictionaries," but I can't find Steinmetz's original. AndyBloch (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publish date of this article is March 14, 1993 (Link)

And the full text is as follows:

Quote: In 1988, well before the Soviet Union came apart, clashes broke out between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the autonomous enclave of Azerbaijan known as Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Sol Steinmetz, executive editor of Random House dictionaries, who cites Serbo-Croatian sources, the attempt by one group to drive out the other was called by Soviet officials etnicheskoye chish cheniye , "ethnic cleansing. Hew Folly (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe here is the original quote that was distorted and plagiarized by Allen Tim & Jean Seaton, and later, Feierstein Daniel in 2023.

Quote from the 2001 Ken Booth book: Ethnic cleansing is similarly linked to the Russian words, chistka and etnicheskoye chishcheniye. The former, which combines the notions of purging and cleaning, was used to describe Stalin's ideological cleansing of the Soviet Union. Soviet officials used the latter phrase, literally translated as 'ethnic cleansing', during the 1980s to describe the ethnic-based expulsions which took place between Armenians and Azerbaijanis in Nagorno-Karabakh.* (Link): Hew Folly (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foibe massacres

In relation to this revert, I think instead the Foibe massacres are encyclopedic, and the sources are third-party and reliable, therefore their detailed citation has all the relevance of being included in the article in question. @Est. 2021:, since you have contributed a lot to the article Foibe massacres and since you are involved in a discussion about it, maybe you are interested in this discussion. LukeWiller (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

It would probably be appropriate to include the rest of the participants of that discussion if referencing it as apposed to just one, just to keep it open and neutral, otherwise it can potentially be seen as Wikipedia:Canvassing. Notifying @Bigsurge97:, @Zerbrxsler:, @Thhhommmasss: and @Peacemaker67:.

Also I was restoring this revert from earlier today and advocated using the talk page to perhaps better describe back and forth discussion. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I didn't think about including the other users because they were inactive for too long or active (in the latter case, since the topic is the same, I thought it was useless to involve them, given that their interventions on "Foibe massacres" talk are immediate, even if the article is different). LukeWiller (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Some of them also edited the article it appears at a similar time. At least the Thhhommmass user. But since they are all participating in the same linked discussion it probably is better to include them. Hopefully a consensus can be reached. Regards. OyMosby (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's undue for this article to go into the details of the particular event when the article is about ethnic cleansing in general (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OyMosby: Exactly: what I also fear, that is, that an authentic consensus will not be reached, given that some users who tend to have a certain view of the topic in the article are inactive, while users who tend to have the opposite view on the topic they are all active. LukeWiller (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Firstly give it time for other editors such as the one you pinged to chime and. Also as is typical in these situations it is standard practice of the onus being on the proposed edit and editor. It doesn’t make sense to have the proposed version in the meantime before consensus is reached. At least this is what I have been told in the past on Wikipedia. Regardless of some of the sources being RS or not, doesn’t guarantee it being added. I say give it a few days to see. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn’t been any consensus gained so re-adding the contentious content doesn’t make any sense. Otherwise anyone can make any edit and just ignore the talk page unexplained or agreed upon. OyMosby (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeWiller Sourcing is not the only concern here. Please reread this part of the talk as well as the diff summary in this edit. If I understand @Buidhe: correctly they are not against mentioning Foibe completely, a mention is fine but not massive paragraphs taking up a huge chunk of this article. Correct me if I mistaken, Buidhe, you are not against any mention just not a hyper-focused one? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[EC-1] Sabbagh-Khoury 2023, pp. 30, 65, 71, 81, 182, 193–194; Abu-Laban & Bakan 2022, p. 511; Manna 2022; Pappe 2022, pp. 33, 120–122, 126–132, 137, 239; Hasian Jr. 2020, pp. 77–109; Khalidi 2020, pp. 12, 73, 76, 231; Slater 2020, pp. 81–85; Shenhav 2019, pp. 49–50, 54, and 61; Bashir & Goldberg 2018, pp. 20 and 32 n.2; Confino 2018, p. 138; Masalha 2018, pp. 44, 52–54, 64, 319, 324, 376, 383; Nashef 2018, pp. 5–6, 52, 76; Auron 2017; Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2017, p. 393; Al-Hardan 2016, pp. 47–48; Natour 2016, p. 82; Rashed, Short & Docker 2014, pp. 3–4, 8–18; Masalha 2012; Wolfe 2012, pp. 153–154, 160–161; Khoury 2012, pp. 258, 263–265; Knopf-Newman 2011, pp. 4–5, 25–32, 109, 180–182; Lentin 2010, ch. 2; Milshtein 2009, p. 50; Ram 2009, p. 388; Shlaim 2009, pp. 55, 288; Esmeir 2007, pp. 249–250; Sa'di 2007, pp. 291–293, 298, 308; Pappe 2006; Schulz 2003, pp. 24, 31–32

[1]