Category talk:Ethnic cleansing in the Americas

How can a term invented in the 1990s in Yugoslavia be OR'd into a general category like this?
"Ethnic cleansing" seems to have been painted with too broad a brush here, it's a modern term specifically referring to the actions and type of actions taken in the Former Yugoslavia, it's anachronistic and out of place here. I'm not in the mood for a CfD, I just think there's a lot of over-categorizing going on including misapplication of terms for which there are already categories. And with decidedly POV intent it seems this was created, also. Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "If the shoe fits..." I'm thinking that just because it's a modern term and was invented recently doesn't mean that our language can't change and apply what happened recently in a modern context to a similar/same thing that happened over the course of 200+ years in a very different place. It seems reasonable to me that this be here in this way. Hires an editor (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's also known as revisionism. I agree with Skookum1. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with Skookum1 and Ironholds, but that's because I think "genocide" is a more appropriate term. JMO. "Ethnic Cleansing" is too narrow and has a limited historical context; also, in some respects, ANY war or conflict that included elements of what happened in the former Yugoslovia (kill lots of people, take away people's land, rape the women, destroy homes and livlihoods, etc.) is pretty typical of most wars, and particularly those prior to the modern era. The American exchange was of a very different scope and vastly longer time period than any single war or atrocity.  Montanabw (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * just to note that something like a "genocide of Native Americans" cat was CfD'd a while ago because of the POV language...but definitely a more citable term for the fate of North American indigenous peoples (and South American) but it's not just them; there's the Acadians, Metis, Japanese Canadians/Americans (and Germans and Ukrainians and others in Canada also) and native-native genocides like what happened Huronia and to the Stuwix and others)....and various Aztec conquests....it's such a broad brush, the juxtaposition to the reign of terror under karadzic et al just not valid, and only propagandistic hype...yes, it is revisionism, and therefore SOAP. There were smiliar name problems re internment camps.....some citations (usually op-ed in nature) use "concentration camp" for places where Japanese Canadian were interned, as if they were comparable to Auschwitz and Treblinka. Retoolling and rewording the past is not Wikipedia's mandate....I have stress issues right now, anyone else care to CfD this?Skookum1 (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Genocide is the more appropriate term, but you won't get that past the Manifest Destiny / Eurocentric American POV group.  GregJackP   Boomer!   13:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Greg, that sounds like the voice of experience, but seems like these days there are more of us than there used to be. Are there categories for genocide of other people?  Seems if there are, we can look at this again; though I don't know how long ago the last knockdown dragout was... and so timing may be an issue.   Montanabw (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" is an appropriate term for referring to forced removals and isolation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * It kind of is now, but the Yugoslavia situation also included mass murder, and the phrase was created in reference to Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Prior to that, we can go back to things like the Babylonian captivity for forced relocation. What do we call these ancient ones or even those pre-20th century?  I suppose the Trail of Tears would count as "ethnic cleansing" by that definition... not sure what the most current def is, but in either case, the Comanche really don't fall under it.   Montanabw (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)