Talk:Hinojosas de Calatrava

Objectivity with regard to judicial, social, governmental, international groups
To ensure objectivity and historical correct examples, I believe all allegations of "ethnic cleansing" cited (which under International law would be identified as either genocide, or Persecutions as a Crime Against Humanity. Meaning, it cannot be a isolated or multiple isolated war crimes or violations of humanitarian law, but a "widespread, systematic acts or series of acts, that are either accepted by, or supported by a de facto organization." This should in my opinion be maintained as ethnic cleansing is a serious crime and like genocide should not be wantonly used for political purposes. Thus I would like to see if most editors agree that at least two "reasonably objective" citation's should be required, that are supporting the contentions of individuals who choose to add an event to the list or the article itself. Disputed acts of "ethnic cleansing" not widely agreed on socially, academically, judicially, or internationally and through government organizations should also be cited separately as "possible" acts of ethnic cleansing, so it is not adopted as confirmed (or widely accepted as there will always be conspiracies, or dissenters), but widely disputed by sources with little to no benefit for opposing the title of "ethnic cleansing". e.g. not individuals who may have participated or been victims, or part of an identified group, who cannot always provide objective analysis aside from witness testimony or citations. Ac220404 (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)