The section is titled 'Historical comparisons' and it spends six of its seven paragraphs describing different authors' opposition to characterizing the described events as being ethnic cleansing or genocide. It should either be renamed "A historical comparison, and the extensive opinions of those who disagree with it" or it should be removed. One of the explanations of how it isn't genocide or ethnic cleansing includes a comparison to Indian Removal, whose article describes the policy as both genocide and ethnic cleansing. Another cites the historical fear that the Acadian populace might pose a military threat, making the actions carried out against said populace not able to be classified as genocide or ethnic cleansing, a fact that the ICC should probably be made aware of as soon as possible. Wouldn't want them convicting anyone who had "military reasons" for forcibly relocating civilian populations, would we?
On an unrelated note, there is a striking preponderance of Canadian authors cited in the section. This likely has nothing to do with the lengths it goes to in order to say that the acts were indeed not genocide or ethnic cleansing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.202.82 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
