Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 10

RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead
Should Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies be described as "ethnic cleansing" or "forced removal" in the lead? (Discussion may be found here). Display name 99 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal-The term "ethnic cleansing" has been used by some reliable sources to describe Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies, and thus it would probably not be inappropriate for us to use that term somewhere in the body of this article. However, it is better to use "forced removal" instead of "ethnic cleansing" in the lead for a multitude of reasons.


 * "Forced removal" is a more precise description and less open to controversial interpretations. Ethnic cleansing is more vague. It has multiple definitions, of which forced removal is only one. It could mean that no Indians were moved at all and that Jackson simply ordered them slaughtered instead. That didn't happen, and yet someone seeing removal described as "ethnic cleansing" with no further explanation would have no way of knowing that. Genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing. While some scholars have applied the genocide label to Jackson's Indian removal policies, there are others who explicitly dispute that characterization. Two of these historians are mentioned in the Indian removal article in the "Changed perspective" section. They are not the only ones. It would be irresponsible to use language that might imply something that some reliable sources dispute when we could easily avoid that by phrasing it a different way. If we are going to use the term "ethnic cleansing," it needs to be in the body of the article, where we can explain events in actual detail and avoid misconceptions. Basically, forced removal is better because it is specific. It says exactly what happened and does not make any implications that are either blatantly false or not accepted by all reliable sources.


 * "Forced removal" is more widely used in the sources. While some reliable sources do describe the events as ethnic cleansing, a great many do not. There have been four major biographies written of Andrew Jackson during the 21st century. The authors are H.W. Brands, Sean Wilentz, Jon Meacham, and David S. Brown. None of these biographies describe Jackson's Indian removal policies as "ethnic cleansing." Brown's biography is the only one that even mentions the term. The purpose of the lead section is to summarize succinctly why a subject is notable, and in biographical articles, it makes sense in my mind to refer most closely to biographies in determining how to do that. If no scholarly biographies call Jackson's policies ethnic cleansing, while we could still call it that in the body of the article if other sources support it, it would not be appropriate for us to do so in the lead, and certainly not in the opening paragraph, as some have suggested. It would be giving WP:Undue weight to some sources over others. Additionally, just as a sampling of other sources, Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars by Robert V. Remini (2001), The Rise of Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln by Sean Wilentz (2006), Separate Peoples, One Land: The Minds of Cherokees, Blacks, and Whites on the Tennessee Frontier by Cynthia Cumter (2007), and The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward Baptist (2014) are all recent, significant history books about the period that deal substantially with Indian removal. None of them are Jackson biographies. All four books mention "forced removal," or something similar, but none of them use the term "ethnic cleansing." It would thus appear that "forced removal" is a more widely used descriptor than "ethnic cleansing," and while both may be appropriate for this article, preference should be given to the former because of its greater usage. Display name 99 (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think forced removal is apt for a situation like the Expulsion of the Chagossians - where the UK re-settled a number of islanders from an Island, to nearby Islands, soley for the purpose of defence, that is in order to build a base on the Island. In this case, none of them were harmed in the relocation, there wasn't any physical conflict involved, the land wasn't resettled by another ethnic group, and they were given compensation - they were however given no choice but to leave and many were and still are unhappy. The difference with Ethnic cleansing, it's normally in the context of warfare or conflict between two ethnicities, the process of removal is often violent and results in (sometimes large scale) death itself, and a different ethnic group is then moved into the area that was vacated, sometimes for strategic reasons. Good examples are the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, the Serbian wars and Turkey and Armenians/Turkey and Greece. My point is...these are two different things!!!!! Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that ethnic cleansing is not an accurate description of what happened. I'm only saying that "forced removal" is the term that should be used in the lead because it's less vague and more widely represented in the sources. I've accepted that "ethnic cleansing" is going to be in the article somewhere. I just don't think it's appropriate for the lead. It should be saved for the body of the article when the events can be described in more detail, thereby helping to avoid confusion or misconceptions that the term might otherwise create. Display name 99 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Both - we should use both terms when describing it since both are used in many sources. Andre🚐 05:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why it would be necessary to use both terms in the lead. Trying to fit both into the lead could extend the lead to excessive length and would likely lend undue weight to Indian removal compared to other issues in Jackson's presidency. It's simplest just to use one in the lead and the other, perhaps, in the body of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Cleansing or Both There has been a number of searches conducted by editors including myself on the (rather lengthy) WP:NPOV discussion that show that both terms are fairly evenly used by academic journal articles, so it is appropriate that both terms are used in the article to reflect this and maintain WP:Bal. These terms are not synonyms, so one shouldn't be replaced with the other, assuming they mean the same thing. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both per the NPOV discussion and Deathlibrarian. They are not synonyms. There's sources that show both are in use when discussing Jackson and should be included in the lede.  oncamera  (talk page) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethnic cleansing or, less preferably, both. Mainly per User:Andrevan's and User:Deathlibrarian's arguments in the RFN discussion. They have shown that the usage of "ethnic cleansing" for the forced relocation of Native Americans in the 1830s is common in modern scholarly sources. (And FWIW, it is also a common thread in scholarly literature – not only recently but for many decades – to emphasize the pivotal role of Jackson in that event; but luckily, there seems to be a consensus that it is ledeworthy information.)
 * As for the application of a relatively new term for an event in the 19th century, nothing precludes us to do so if quality sources do so too. And this has been amply demonstrated in the RFN discussion. The term is used in historical and social studies and properly understood by non-expert readers.
 * "Forced removal" is too neutral a term as it fails to mention the driving agenda behind the Indian Removal Act, while "ethnic cleansing" spells it out. Readers who are familiar with US history know the ethnic connotations of the word "removal" in this context, but for the general audience it merely sounds like a forced relocation comparable to the compulsory resettlement of communities for development projects (dams, roads etc.). –Austronesier (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Too neutral a term...Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so how is it possible for something to be "too neutral" for us? It is not difficult to conceive of the ethnic dimensions behind removal when we specifically say that it happened to Native Americans. (The current version of the article, which I want to keep in place, mentions Jackson's "role in the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.") "Ethnic cleansing" explains that the whites got rid of the natives, but it doesn't say how. "Forced removal" does. Display name 99 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment the wall of text at the noticeboard is impenetrable – 18,500+ words long! Could someone please collate the reliable sources they interpret as being for and against either wording in an organised way and single place for easy access for uninvolved editors? I can see a list at the noticeboard for "ethnic cleansing" but it's formatted in such a way that the name of the publication and date are hidden in unformatted footnote URLs, and several editors commented that the quality of the sources was mixed. If one of the editors in favour of the change could take the time to gather only strong sources and list their publication, it would help others make an assessment.  evidence of sources which dispute "ethnic cleansing" would be helpful (disputing the label "genocide" is a completely different kettle of fish).  Jr8825  •  Talk  11:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If this helps, I can put the results of the searches here, for people's convenience, yes I agree, the NPOV entry is a wall of text!!! These are from Springee and my searches, this better shows the balance between the terms as used by the sources. The Proquest searches are ALL peer reviewed journal articles, so are all strong sources-
 * Proquest peer reviewed journals= "Andrew Jackson" and "ethnic cleansing":79 results, "Andrew Jackson" and "forced relocation": 91
 * Factiva for general common name usage= AJ and "forced relocation": 82 hits, whereas AJ and "ethnic cleansing": 79
 * Google Scholar= AJ and "Ethnic cleansing":1480 results, AJ and "Forced relocation": 747 results AJ and "Forced removal": 2090 results Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My information was more detailed since I also talked about how often the articles on the first page of the results were cited by others. Cited by others is generally considered a strong indication that others are influenced by a work.  Here is what I found with "Andrew Jackson" + "ethnic cleansing"/"forced relocation"/"forced removal":
 * 1) Ethnic cleansing: 1480, The Obituary of Nations” Ethnic Cleansing, Memory, and the Origins of the Old South JT Carson - Southern Cultures, 2008, cited by 14
 * 2) Forced relocation: 747, Abuse of power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian removal act of 1830 AA Cave - The Historian, 2003, cited by 109
 * 3) Forced removal: 2090, Abuse of power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian removal act of 1830 AA Cave - The Historian, 2003, cited by 109, the second place was Farewell, My Nation. The American Indian and the United States, 1820-1890.P Weeks - 1990, cited by 49.
 * It looks like the source cited the most is from 2003 so well after 1990 and it doesn't use "ethnic cleansing". Springee (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is ideal methodology -- you're comparing the impact of just two sources? I would think the raw number of results (i.e. the amount of coverage) in scholarly publications matters more than the impact of individual ones? Jr8825  •  Talk  13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the original edit where I noted the cite count I noted that the sources that used ethnic cleansing typically weren't cited by many other works. The first page of both relocation and removal contained several sources with numerous used by citations.  My point was/is that it's not just that we can find recent sources that use the term but we need to show that those works are influential.  That is where cited by counts matter.  A large number of cites means others pay attention to it.  Springee (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Use “Forced removal” in the lead, as that reflects the most common usage in (both modern and historical) sources… however, the shift towards describing it as an “ethnic cleansing” can and should be discussed in the body of the article. Describe the controversy over terminology, don’t engage in it. Blueboar (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the term "ethnic cleansing" actively disputed by any reliable sources? So far, I've not seen any evidence this is the case. I haven't read the entire noticeboard discussion because it's far too long, but after your comment here I did a quick ctr+F for "ethnic cleansing" in that discussion to see if sources were brought up against it, and I see that Display name 99 (the strongest voice against the term) at one point said "I concede ... several reliable sources on Indian removal describe it as ethnic cleansing, and although many other sources do not use that language, I have not been able to find any which argue that it was not ethnic cleansing".
 * At this point, I'm leaning towards wording such as "his role in the forced removal of ... which is sometimes/frequently characterized as ethnic cleansing", on the basis that although EC may not be the more common of the two terms, it appears to be a major issue related to his legacy. A more general point to make is that my experience at Winston Churchill has taught me that although major biographers of famous statesmen are scholarly and authoritative, they do have a clear tendency to tip-toe sympathetically around the controversies their figures were involved in, in a manner which sometimes doesn't reflect how broader historical scholarship treats issues. I'm seeing signs this may be the case here, particularly as I noticed a similar point at Indian removal and Robert V. Remini (obviously I'm not going off our text itself, I'll need to confirm this by verifying the sources provided, and if it's WP:OR it'll need to be removed). If there is a tendency to portray Jackson sympathetically among his major biographers (compared to other historians) it's an important consideration to make of the sources. I'll examine the sources myself before making a firm !vote in the next few days, but again, it'd be very helpful it both sides laid out their sources more clearly here. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The question isn't, is it disputed. The question is, is it widely accepted as the correct description of this event.  If it isn't then we don't use it in the lead.  Springee (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * In the absence of sources arguing it's an incorrect description, and with the existence of multiple reliable sources describing it as such, it looks from a cursory glance as though there's no serious academic dispute the events were equivalent to ethnic cleansing? And if it's not factually disputed, the question becomes whether there's sufficient weight for inclusion – and multiple scholarly sources would indicate that, if they exist. (Again, determining weight here is difficult as nobody has conveniently gathered a neat list of sources.) We need to be aware of the real risk of systemic bias on a topic such as this, particularly with older sources. Is there scholarly literature accounting for the Native American perspective? Jr8825  •  Talk  12:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, you're right. No known sources exist arguing that it was not ethnic cleansing. So it becomes both an issue of weight and what is the simplest term that describes as closely as possible exactly what happened and makes no implications beyond the simple facts. That term here for me is forced removal. In response to your point about biographies, it is true that biographers have a tendency to sympathize with their subjects. However, all modern Jackson biographers do criticize him to some extent for removal. The fact that none of them use this term is therefore more significant. I have compiled a small list of a handful of other sources (included in my post in this RfC) which are not biographies and don't use the term. My position basically is that although both positions are correct, "forced removal" is the term that is more widely used and is the safest by not suggesting anything that is untrue or not agreed upon. Using both terms in the lead would, in my opinion, be cumbersome and lend undue weight to the issue of Indian removal compared to other events in Jackson's life and presidency. So it's best to simply say "forced removal" in the lead and then mention "ethnic cleansing' somewhere in the body of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal Ethnic cleansing has not been shown to be a common and widespread description.  It may be DUE in the body to note that some scholars have applied this relatively recent term to these events but it should not be treated as a description widely accepted in scholarship and in particular historians.  Springee (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "forced removal" has been the widely accepted term for a long time. If we are going to change it or even suggest a debate about it in an article that is not specifically about this topic it needs to basically be one of the most significant things about the person Andrew Jackson.  While the events are one of the most significant things, the debate about what it's called has only become a thing in the last 30 or so years or about 150 years after the subject of this article died.  Springee (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Evidence would need to be shown that it's treated as a major part of his legacy/life. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, Springee Proquest peer reviewed journals= "Andrew Jackson" and "ethnic cleansing":79 results, "Andrew Jackson" and "forced relocation": 91 - so yes, "ethnic cleansing" IS as widely used as "Forced removal", certainly within peer reviewed academic sources. You yourself quote it used in Google scholar 1480 times - compared to "Forced removal": 2090 results, that is widely used, it's certainly not fringe. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since it is not really contested that the execution of the Indian Removal Act was a significant event during Jackson's presidency (and of great personal importance for himself), we are not bound to look only at sources that specifically discuss Andrew Jackson. We need to look how the event is commonly referred to scholarly sources in general, since this is Wikipedia and not AJ-pedia. But FWIW, search results for "Indian Removal Act"+"ethnic cleansing" vs. "Indian Removal Act"+"forced removal" yield similar counts anyway, with "ethnic cleansing" still trailing (which btw doesn't change my non-arithmetic arguments above). –Austronesier (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What are the results for "Andrew Jackson" and "Genocide"? If people are going to combine "forced removal" and "forced relocation", it follows that we also have to make some effort to add up terms comparable to ethnic cleansing - I am not suggesting that we would actually use "genocide" in the lead, but sources that describe it that way need to be taken into consideration. For example,  classifies it as "latent genocide" (When the dominant group persists in these violent efforts and refrains from obviating the adverse, unintended consequences,such behavior may be termed genocidal.) - 149 citations, fwiw.  Or  To face responsibility for specific killing might have led to efforts to stop it; avoiding individual deaths turned Indian removal into a theory of genocide. - 755 citations, first published in 1991. EDIT: Also, what are the results for "forced removal" or for "forced relocation" when "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" are excluded?  Some sources are going to use multiple terms, since calling it both is not unreasonable. The core debate here is whether calling it ethnic cleansing is appropriate or not, not whether we should eg. also mention that the ethnic cleansing was done via forced relocation, so a source that calls it both "forced relocation" and "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" cannot reasonably be cited as an argument against the change. --Aquillion (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To emphasize the recent and debated nature of calling this ethnic cleansing look at the intro to Anderson's 2014 book on the subject . The author specifically says what these actions against the Native Americans should be called is not settled.  He argues that ethnic cleansing is the correct term.  This makes a strong case for including a discussion about what to call it.  However, it means as recent as 8 years ago people were debating, arguing about what to call events that happened no more recently than a century back.  That says this isn't settled and thus Wikipedia, a source that should always follow, not lead on these changes, needs to use the long established term and then mention the debate in context, not in the lead.  Springee (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethnic cleansing As a descendant of a Cherokee man who was marched on the Trail of Tears, I have always had a deep antipathy for Andrew Jackson and curse his name. Our article Trail of Tears uses the term "ethnic cleansing" in the second sentence of the lede, and that suits me fine; I say it should be used in the lede here as well. As Austronesier says, Forced removal" is too neutral a term as it fails to mention the driving agenda behind the Indian Removal Act, while "ethnic cleansing" spells it out. I second that—we should not equivocate. Carlstak (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was added to the TofT article recently and with little editorial review. That suggests it was switched because editors felt it was correct rather than because a review of scholarship shows that it is the widely accepted description.  Springee (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change my opinion; I'm not basing my position on that one example. Carlstak (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There was ample discussion/editorial review/scholarly review at the Trail of Tears page re:ethnic cleansing. It’s in the archives as well. The larger discussion there is about representation of genocide on the page.—Hobomok (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Cleansing For the reasons described above, but also because a significant number of scholars and high-level secondary sources (as outlined above and throughout) call it ethnic cleansing.


 * Also, as another user pointed out, "Genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing." If so, the historians claiming that removal was genocide can also be grouped under the "ethnic cleansing" banner, albeit a specific, much worse type of ethnic cleansing. As such, other scholarly sources could be added (see: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Jeffrey Ostler, and Dina Gilio-Whitaker. See also that: it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623520601056240 Patrick Wolfe). Genocide, of course, need not be included here (that is a whole new conversation), but those arguing for the genocide label would at least argue for ethnic cleansing, while those who argue for the ethnic cleansing label don't necessarily argue for genocide.


 * At any rate, I'm confused by the refusal to acknowledge that a significant number of reputable sources call Jackson's policies ethnic cleansing. They do, and it should be represented here. The historical gatekeeping on some U.S. history pages (presidents, founders, etc.) is unnecessary and unhelpful, as is the refusal to accept some sources (even peer-reviewed articles or University Press books) while long-time editors cling tightly to others. It is the job of an encyclopedia to include relevant information from reputable sources, and this does indeed seem to be relevant and reputable. On other historical pages (Trail of Tears, for ex.) there seems to be open, level-headed discussion about change reflected by scholarship. Why not here?--Hobomok (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal. I find 's and 's arguments to be convincing. I also agree with 's suggestion that the shift towards describing it as an “ethnic cleansing” can and should be discussed in the body of the article or even in the 3rd paragraph of the lead where the Trail of Tears is mentioned. However, I oppose adding the term to the opening paragraph, because, as MOS:OPEN tells us, the opening paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. Writing that some historians characterize Jackson's policies against Native Americans as ethnic cleansing is, in my view, too specific. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ethnic cleansing. It's supported in many reliable sources, and not contested by any known. It's neutral and factual by any definition of "ethnic cleansing" and makes no unfair implications. "Ethnic cleansing" is more descriptive than "forced removal". Saying "forced removal" is accurate, but it misses an aspect of Jackson's actions that many historians find notable: Jackson's support for racial homogeneity. Indigenous people were removed (and massacred) because they were "Indians," and the term "forced removal" dances around this fact. Ethnic cleansing implies forced removal; it is impossible to ethnically cleanse a population without forcibly removing them from society. Ethnic cleansing is more descriptive than forced removal and should be preferred. FinnV3 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This shouldn't be opened when there is an active conversation about it at the NPOV Noticeboard that was opened in an attempt to form a consensus. It seems it is still active. As WP:FORUMSHOP points out this is unhelpful. You are asking here and there whether this is NPOV. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you read that discussion, at the end of the discussion several editors agreed it was time for an RFC. Andre🚐 22:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per Andre the NPOV discussion stopped when it was agreed it was not likely to reach a consensus, and both sides agreed it was time to go to this RFC. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is a neutral term. But one thing getting lost here is Jackson defied the Supreme Court in removing the Cherokee. Is violating the Supreme Court a crime? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Andre🚐 23:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , You are incorrect. The Supreme Court never ordered Jackson not to remove the Cherokee. Jackson also wasn't the one who removed the Cherokee. Van Buren did. But to my main point, what are you trying to say? This isn't what the RfC is about and it's not clear what changes you are suggesting. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Worcester v. Georgia and Treaty of New Echota - sounds like Jackson did basically want to remove them, and also defied the Supreme Court ruling that would have entitled the Cherokee to their land. Whether he finished the job might or might not be material to the question, but I think Cmguy777 is at least 80% correct in his statement that Jackson had the intent and helped execute the Cherokee removal. I will confess that I am going off of what our article says and not based on additional research on these questions. I don't remember the specific details from school history classes well enough to quote them back on what exactly Van Buren's role was... I definitely have a gap in my knowledge when it comes to the American Whigs. Though I know he is Dutch and was known as Old Kinderhook, that's about all I can muster on him right now. Try me on Rutherford B. Hayes though. Andre🚐 01:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Georgia had a law that prohibited whites from entering native lands without a license. It was designed to keep our whites who would talk to the Native Americans and try to stir up resistance among them. In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court overturned that ruling. It did not forbid the removal of the Cherokee in that case or any other. Display name 99 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Worcester set forth Cherokee sovereignty, Jackson didn't respect that - he sought to remove the Cherokees. You earlier mentioned the Nullification Crisis as a significant event in Jackson's biography. It was in part about the Cherokee issue, further reinforcing the point that Jackson's view on Native American issues was a defining part of his life. Andre🚐 02:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Congress passed a law signed by the President. The precedent that the Supreme Court could declare laws unconstitutional was already accepted, and yet the Court never acted on it. In 1831, the Court had declined to hear a case brought forth by the Cherokee against Georgia. Jackson continued his efforts to remove the Cherokee, and despite numerous petitions against it through the judiciary, the Supreme Court never intervened. Display name 99 (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "As a boy in the 1770s, Jackson had listened to stories of Indian violence toward settlers, and with no apparent understanding of their motives, he developed prejudices that he—like many Americans of his day—held throughout his life. He routinely called Indians “savages” and people of mixed heritage “half-breeds,” and he was unshakable in his conviction that Indians should be removed from the South. When news that the Red Sticks were attacking settlers reached him in Nashville, he asked: “Is a citizen of the United States, to remain under the barbarous lash of cruel and unrelenting savages?”" " Congress was hotly debating the Indian removal bill, a measure Jackson had introduced to establish an “ample district” west of the Mississippi to which the Indians of the South could move. On one hand, he had said in his inaugural address, Indian emigration “should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land.” On the other, he made it clear that Indians could not live as independent peoples within the United States: “surrounded by the whites with their arts of civilization” they would be doomed “to weakness and decay.” They had either to submit to state laws or go." Andre'🚐 02:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it was in agreement with Chief Justice Marshall, who, in refusing to hear Cherokee Nation v. Georgia on the grounds that the Cherokee were a nation dependent on the United States and lacked jurisdiction to sue, said that the relationship between an Indian tribe and the United States was like "a ward to its guardian." Display name 99 (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, whether Jackson was defying Marshall or they were both being paternalistic, it's evidence for the racial dimension and the personal dimension to Jackson. Andre🚐 03:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never denied either of those things. However, a claim was made that Jackson defied the Supreme Court. What I did was point out why that claim was erroneous. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair, however you did write, "Jackson also wasn't the one who removed the Cherokee. Van Buren did." I think it's clear that Jackson both personally advocated for the removal and also made it a reality. Andre🚐 04:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ethnic cleansing with context (described as such by modern scholars) – following a review of modern scholarship. Continuing on from the discussion just above this, the argument for including "ethnic cleansing" is the claim that reliable sources describe Jackson's policies as such, and that they were a major part of his legacy, whereas the argument against is not that his policies don't amount to ethnic cleansing (no sources have been found saying this), but that the term is undue/not widespread. I carried out an extensive review of sources on JSTOR, which tends to turn up more recent scholarship (helpfully addressing the concerns I raised above about possible systemic bias in older, less critical sources). Interestingly, "ethnic cleansing" is the more common of the two terms on JSTOR. (See "Andrew Jackson" "ethnic cleansing", "Andrew Jackson" "forced relocation"). It's clear that scholars have come to commonly describe Jackson's policies of forced removal as "ethnic cleansing", and there's now no doubt in my mind we should too:


 * My proposed wording for the lead would be "Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his driving role in the Indian Removal Act, which saw the forced expulsion of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands, a policy commonly described as ethnic cleansing by modern scholars." Jr8825  •  Talk  00:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice work reviewing these sources. Andre🚐 00:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I consider that undue weight for the first paragraph. The outcome would be more tolerable to me if we followed 's suggestion of not including it in the first paragraph but having it in the third, although consensus may dictate otherwise. If there is consensus for including the term "ethnic cleansing" in the first paragraph, I would dislike it, but your version is one that I would be able to accept. Display name 99 (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * From what I understand the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee to keep their land. Jackson chose not to enforce the Supreme Court decision. Jackson then made aggressive treaties with the Indians and then forced them off their land by threat of expulsion or war. Jackson never intended the Cherokees to keep their land. Vann Buren just finished the job of forced removal of the Cherokee people started by Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Worchester v. Georgia (1832) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No strong preference where in the lead it's mentioned, as long as it's there and connects logically to the surrounding sentences. Generally, I think it's best to cover assessments & criticisms of a person's legacy in the final paragraph of a lead, keeping a basic summation of their importance in the first paragraph. Given that the term "ethnic cleansing" is a modern assessment, I think it could go either at the end of the lead paragraph or the lead section. My proposed wording is based on a principle of minimal change (i.e. staying as close as possible to what's already present), but I have no issue with a bolder restructure/re-ordering of the lead (which is a tad too long anyway). Jr8825  •  Talk  01:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Treaty of New Echota (1836) Cmguy777 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 45,000 Indians were relocated while Jackson was President. A court ruling not enforced is not a ruling. It is just empty words and an opinion. Jackson defied the courts. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed text is poor for several reasons. First, it only focuses on "modern scholars".  Second, the way it's phrases suggests that most modern scholars call it "ethnic cleansing" and certainly that ethnic cleansing is now the primary term used.  However, based on the raw number of search hits it isn't the most common term.  It is in fact still the minority term as compared to "forced removal".  It's also reads oddly to put some debate about what to call the forced removal in the opening paragraph.  It reads like something an editor is trying to push into the lead rather than something that is in the lead because it naturally falls out of the body of the article.  Looking at the cited references I think it's notable that many are arguing that this is or should be seen as ethnic cleansing.  Basically they are trying to persuade the reader.  Several also describe it as a forced removal.  If the authors need to persuade the readers rather than state it as fact that means it's not the accepted description of events.  That means we would be using Wikipedia to pick the winner rather than doing what we are supposed to do, wait and see then respond when history has made the change clear.     Springee (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a couple of points here,
 * "suggests that most modern scholars call it "ethnic cleansing" and ... [this is] the primary term used", "it isn't the most common term. It is in fact still the minority term": the JSTOR results indicate that "ethnic cleansing" may well be the most common term has comparable use among scholars nowadays (~270 results, compared to ~82 ~330 for "AJ"+"FR", see my links above). This quantity is not just the product of wet-behind-the-ears researchers, it has appeared in writings by well established scholars such as John A. Lynn, Fred Greenstein and Shamus Khan. All of the sources except one were published by university presses. A Google Scholar search, which turns up a more balanced mix of old and new scholarship (so will therefore favour "removal", as "ethnic cleansing" only emerged as a concept in the late 90s) shows that both terms are very common among academics (~2100 for "AJ"+"FR"; ~1500 for "AJ"+"EC"). If the search is limited to since 2018, the results are ~535 "AJ"+"FR"; ~423 "AJ"+"EC". Raw Scholar search numbers aren't ideal (WP:HITS) but an Ngrams search isn't possible in this case as we're looking for the connection between two terms.
 * "many are arguing that this is or should be seen as ethnic cleansing" this is only true for the earlier sources in that list. Which is to be expected, as "ethnic cleansing" is a relatively recent term. "we would be using Wikipedia to pick the winner" I think it can be seen from above that EC has become accepted as the most accurate and appropriate descriptor for Jackson's policies, and is not seriously disputed among academics (it has already "won"). In addition, several scholars specifically pointed out that, in comparison, "removal" is inferior as it's a euphemism for what the policies entailed dating from Jackson's day. Jr8825  •  Talk  11:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that your above JSTOR counts only include "forced relocation" but not "forced removal". As many of us have pointed out, "forced removal" numerically still "wins". But there is more than just metrics which should guide us here, as I have tried to explain in my !vote. "Forced removal" will be immediately understood in its full extent by people familiar with 19th century US history, which is also the reason why US historians will use the term for in-group recognizability and also out of scholarly terminological inertia (even if they are proponents of the genocide assessment). But for our general readership, we have a choice between this "bland" term and a commonly used explicit term. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for highlighting my mistake, I've struck through the incorrect figures. I still think my point stands: scholars who use FR don't preclude the term EC, many scholars now use EC exclusively or uncritically (demonstrating acceptance). The substance of the sources should be considered too: scholars who explicitly discuss terminology prefer EC, and say there's an important distinction as EC is more accurate. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That some scholars use it doesn't mean it is the new accepted description. You need to show that the old term has been widely displaced not just preferred by some.  Can you find examples of scholars actually saying their view/description has changed? Springee (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, the claim that "ethnic cleansing" is the current term is speculation and simply not supported by the sources. If the example sources which tend to argue we should see this as ethnic cleansing aren't the best sources then we need to show the sources that say the common description has changed.  That hasn't been shown. Springee (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is quite accurate -- it's not that "forced removal" has been replaced by "ethnic cleansing", as EC involves forced removal. Hence the interchangeable use. What the sources do show is that scholars now consider the forced removal to be ethnic cleansing, the Anderson, Lynn, Pinnen & Weeks, Khan and Huggins sources above in particular show this. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Concur with Jr8825. Andre🚐 16:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal in the lead. It was called the Indian Removal Act. Discussion of considerations of ethnic cleansing can occur in the section of the article.   Cynistrategus (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal in the lead, as that reflects the most common usage in both modern and contemporary sources. The lesser and recent descriptions as an “ethnic cleansing” might be in the body but seems sensationalising and recentism. I agree with Blueboar that if included it should be as a description of the controversy over terminology, not as taking a side.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal in the lede as somewhat NPOV, note both and controversy over terminology in the main body of the article. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think NPOV is relevant here. I've not seen evidence of a controversy among experts over whether "ethnic cleansing" is the correct term. Several editors have asserted a controversy exists without providing evidence, I presume this must be due to either the editors' own opinions (in which case it's WP:OR), or the existence of non-expert, non-reliably published voices that consider "ethnic cleansing" disputed or controversial. I don't see why we should be accounting for these. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal in the lead best avoids anachronism and presentism, and best represents the body of literature. It also commonly connects it to a general 19th policy of regularly negotiated, albeit unfairly and often cruelly obtained, migration of peoples (who had varying cultures) but movement within the nation, where inducement and some continuation of various cultures occured -- its analysis as a type of ethnic cleansing obviously arose over a century and a half later and the controversy and details of such analysis and how and why it arose, if anywhere, go in the body. Moreover, "Indians" while arguably a 19th century "race" (so policy was arguably "racist"), had many different ethnic cultures, and simple use of "ethnic cleansing" denies or distorts that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your final point about "ethnic cleansing" denying or distorting ethnic diversity is not an issue I found discussed in any of the academic sources I reviewed. Could you provide a source? Jr8825  •  Talk  14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the points raised by Jr8825 here, among other issues with this reasoning, to call these removals “negotiated” is a strange view. Also, Native peoples, “Indians” were VERY much viewed as an entire race in colonial philosophy. That viewpoint underpins much of U.S. Indian policy before and in the 19th Century (see, for example: Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny (https://books.google.com/books/about/Race_and_Manifest_Destiny.html?id=lzgbP40wcjgC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false) or Berkhofer, The White Man’s Indian (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_White_Man_s_Indian.html?id=HcGGDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1#v=onepage&q&f=false). Again, the hesitance among editors to reflect the bulk of recent scholarship is unsettling.—Hobomok (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject here is the 19th century, so your response makes no sense. Negotiated was the method of "treaties" employed, there is nothing "strange" about it. Removal is the name of the historic policy in modern literature, and ethnic cleansing is an analysis in modern litarature but it does not and cannot rename the historic policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that I said, and both of the cited sources discuss, race philosophy as a tool of removal before and in the 19th century. It makes perfect sense, as it took place in the 19th century.
 * Negotiation implies that there were not colonial power dynamics in play that forced the removed peoples into removal. Negotiation implies a fair and level playing field. Thus, in the context of removal and the multiple resulting trails of tears, negotiation is a strange term to use. —Hobomok (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Your response does not make sense, it does not challenge anything I said about about race in the 19th century.  Apparently you did not read what I wrote. I said it was invariably unfair.  The only thing "strange" is your non sequiturs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Following this, I went looking for specifically for academic criticism of "ethnic cleansing" in this context, and although the majority of scholars have adopted the term approvingly and without criticism (as can be seen from the source review above) I was able to find an academic critical of it – the first I've come across so far in the context of Jackson, although that criticism is that it's insufficiently explicit. It also goes against the claim that "removal is the name of the historic policy in modern literature". Generally, in all the sources I've examined "forced removal" receives stronger and more frequent academic criticism.


 * Jr8825 •  Talk  15:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this is generally what you’re going to find—scholars now arguing that ethnic cleansing is insufficient, and in some cases that genocide should be used (see sources I’ve cited above such as Ostler and Gilio-Whitaker). If scholars disagree with genocide, they most likely argue for ethnic cleansing, as you’ve shown time and again. It is also, in my mind, hard to argue with Perdue—she is one of the foremost experts on Cherokee removal, having written “the book” on the subject multiple times over.—Hobomok (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Both those sources say removal is the name of the historic policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the policy was literally called “Indian Removal” by Jackson and his contemporaries who enacted it. Many scholars (the majority) say that the policy constituted ethnic cleansing. Nobody’s saying the page should remove the name of the policy. The suggestion is to show simply that Indian Removal policy constitutes ethnic cleansing according to many, many scholars who study it.—Hobomok (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of them is as follows: "removal" is the historic name for the policy, originating from contemporary proponents; modern evaluations consider "removal" to be an inaccurate/misleading descriptor of what the policy entailed, the equivalent modern term is ethnic cleansing (or possibly even a more severe term). Jr8825  •  Talk  15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So therefore, removal better serves against anachronism and presentism. None of the sources presented argue that it was not forced (including in unfair treaties), nor that it was not in fact, removal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that a majority of sources say that removal was ethnic cleansing, so they should be represented in this encyclopedia. All of the cited scholars are trained, respected historians. They’re not going to go down the road of anachronistic presentism.—Hobomok (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are indeed reliable sources which use the "ethnic cleansing" label. But not every scholarly opinion needs to be in the lead. But there are other reliable sources which argue that Jackson's removal policies were actually largely correct and saved the Indians from extermination. Robert V. Remini, the most prolific Jackson scholar in history, who wrote mainly in the late 20th century and into the 21st, is a prominent example. Francis Paul Prucha, who wrote a little earlier, is another. Both are mentioned under "Historical reputation." It would be unnecessary and undue weight to include this opinion in the lead, and the same goes for "ethnic cleansing," a term which, though used in several sources, is not used to describe Jackson's actions in a single biography of him, and is also omitted from several significant modern non-biographical works. The lead should simply summarize the basic facts about what happened as a result of Jackson's policies, and then say broadly that his actions resulted in controversy and criticism. The rest of the debate can be saved for the body. Display name 99 (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it unclear what is being discussed, we are talking about the lead, not the body. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. The term "ethnic cleansing" does not appear in the article at all. Some editors have argued for its inclusion, and there was an attempt to add it to the opening paragraph. Most editors have conceded that it should be mentioned somewhere in the body. However, the "ethnic cleansing" side continues to argue that this is not good enough and it needs to bein the lead. The position of myself and the rest of the "forced removal" camp is that the term can be added to the body but is not suitable for the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it can't be in the lead because of anachronism and summary, as it can only be presented with analysis in the body. One source just presented expressly says use "removal" when writing in the historic context, and more or less, all the modern sources do, that is precisely support for using removal here in the lead of a nineteenth century person's bio, because it guards against anachronism and presentism, and is summary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Once it goes into the body it should be summarized in the lead. A simple sentence following removal in the lead (ex. “Many scholars have stated that Jefferson’s removal policy constitutes ethnic cleansing”) summarizes these points and what would presumably go into the body. There have been many, many examples provided throughout this discussion of reputable scholars call removal ethnic cleansing. Surely enough for due weight. I’m not going to rehash what’s already been explained above regarding regular bias in biographies, regardless of how prolific a biographer is. Moreover, the scholarship describing ethnic cleansing is not presentist, and it doesn’t suddenly become presentist when it goes into the lead. Wikipedia editors deciding not to include certain information from numerous scholarly sources because they believe it is presentism (when they’re not historians) is problematic.—Hobomok (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is what is faithful to the body scholarship. The sources use removal in historic context, and that is faithful to pretty much all modern scholarship (see anachronism and presentism), and precisely what should be done in the lead of a 19th century bio. We will no doubt also say in the lead forced removal policy is critcized, then and now, without the detail and detour of argument about modern concepts of ethnic cleansing -- that is proper summary, we will also summarize in the lead the terrible effect by calling out the "Trail of Tears", proper and good summary is breifly "show me, don't tell me." No one will or can be misled or not understand the effects of removal or why critcism exists, when proper summary historic context is used. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , agreed. Also, the effects of Indian removal are properly summarized. This is from the third paragraph of the lead: In 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which forcibly removed most members of the major tribes of the Southeast to Indian Territory; these removals were subsequently known as the Trail of Tears. The relocation process dispossessed these nations of their land and resulted in widespread death and disease. I think that this is an adequate summary of the policy and its impact. The policy is also addressed in the opening paragraph, and there is an additional sentence in the final paragraph mentioning the criticism that Jackson has received for it. There's enough about Indian removal there without us having to dive into arguments over what to call it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - Alanscottwalker "expressly says use "removal" when writing in the historic context, and more or less, all the modern sources do" - sorry this is completely incorrect. "Ethnic cleansing" is used roughly similiarly to "forced removal" in regards to Andrew Jackson, and in more recent sources is actually used more. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. The sources say expressly say use removal when writing in the historical context, eg., ""I do not use [Indian Removal] except in historical context" ... ""Ethnic cleansing," a term of propaganda that became widely used during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, is rightly criticised for being nebulous ...". (see the sources cited above) It is also false that "forced removal" is a euphemism -- "forced removal" is regularly used in this historical context today, and it is most certainly not used as a euphemism.   Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you back up this claim that *all* the modern sources say that "ethnic cleansing" shouldn't be used? There are hundreds of articles written on Jackson and ethnic cleansing/forced relocation. The ones I have looked at certainly don't all say don't use the term. As wikipedia editors we are supposed to reflect the sources, and many of them use "ethnic cleansing" as the standard term in this discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to avoid responding further to this discussion so as to give other editors space to share their views, but I wanted to point that a number of the reliable sources listed in the collapsed sections above explicitly make the point that "forced removal" is a euphemism couched in contemporary connotations of either voluntary migration or penal justice, and that it sanitises and normalises the exceptional scale of violence, injustice and outright theft involved, both to a 19th century audience & a modern one. This doesn't negate the term or make it invalid (as it clearly has wide usage), but it's a consideration that should be accounted for. Jr8825  •  Talk  02:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jr8825 Andre🚐 02:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those sources says "forced removal" is a euphemism, nor can "forced" be construed as voluntary nor penal. Nor can or will "forced removal" be used in this context without refering to the forced dispossesion, and violence up to death it entails.  There is a source that says "ethnic cleansing" is recently originated in propaganda and nebulous.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Jr8825 - ethnic cleansing and forced removals are not synonyms - they imply different things.Forced removals is a lighter more ambiguous term.Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not one of the sources Alanscottwalker provided is peer-reviewed or from an academic press, as compared to the numerous quotes cited over the course of this RFC using ethnic cleansing. There's no author attached to two of them, which are museum websites for children. Is the argument simply that these sparse educational materials don't use the term ethnic cleansing?
 * The third one is a popular forum for academics, where History professor Christina Snyder doesn't use the term ethnic cleansing. Again, your argument is that she doesn't use the term ethnic cleansing while she discusses slave plantations after the Trail of Tears? Hardly a smoking gun.
 * On the other hand, in the review of her book that is the basis for the article you've linked to, Great Crossings: Indians, Settlers and Slaves in the Age of Jackson and published in American History (a peer-reviewed journal), reviewer and historian James Taylor Carson says: "What Snyder has found in the story of a modest school that ran for twenty-odd years in the bluegrass of Kentucky is the perfect confluence of the ethnic cleansing of Native America, the absolute manacling of black America, and the consequent creation of white America's modern United States."
 * Seems that when it comes to peer-reviewed scholarship by experts, ethnic cleansing is accepted. In educational materials for 4th graders about the basic facts it might not be used, but that hardly means anything. I have trouble, at this point, believing this specific discussion on this RFC is taking place in good faith. A majority of scholars say that this was ethnic cleansing. Full-stop. It's not propaganda and it's not nebulous according to experts. You are not an expert. You don't get to decide what terms are nebulous in historical scholarship. You don't get to decide what terms are "presentism" in historical scholarship. The experts quoted and cited here do. They disagree with you. Their words are the ones that matter, because an encyclopedia represents what experts say, not what a random volunteer editor thinks.--Hobomok (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes to support Hobomok, the term ethnic cleansing is definitely accepted in peer reviewed articles. As mentioned, Proquest, limited to Peer reviewed, gives "Andrew Jackson" and "ethnic cleansing":79 results, "Andrew Jackson" and "forced relocation": 91 Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add, relative to the article by historian Christina Snyder linked by Alanscottwalker, her book (which the article is based on) uses the term ethnic cleansing to describe removal: Indian Removal "was not a single act of Congress, or a lone experience endured by Cherokees on the Trail of Tears; it was a thousand betrayals, a series of dispossessions, an ethnic cleansing designed to radically restructure North America" (145).--Hobomok (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ""Ethnic cleansing," a term of propaganda that became widely used during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, is rightly criticised for being nebulous ...", in the book, The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears (cite above) [in the book Unworthy Republic (cite above)] is not me saying it, it's that source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC) (struck and [fixed] Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC))

While I'm sure there are still things people could seek to clarify/point out in each other's arguments, I think it might be a good idea if the participants of this RfC so far step back, on the assumption that enough has been written to allow other editors to make a fair judgement of the issues, the discussion is becoming circular, and it's unlikely minds will be changed with further discussion? Jr8825 •  Talk  03:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Jr8825. However, I will make one final statement: Alanscottwalker completely made up the above quote from page 42 of the book. I have The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears in front of me. Following a quote from the Cherokee Phoenix, page 42 states, in whole: "In the twentieth century similar government policies of expelling one people to make room for another have been called 'ethnic cleansing.' No one thought of such a harsh term in the early nineteenth century--people preferred an antiseptic, impersonal one like 'removal,' even though to the Indians there was nothing impersonal about it. In one sense, removal was a continuation of policies created by Europeans when they first came to America, took a piece of land, and pushed the Indians off it so they could use it for themselves" (42). Alanscottwalker is falsifying quotes, this is not a good faith discussion. Quote is from Saunt book, which was misattributed.--Hobomok (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The qupte is apparently from a different book: Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory Andre🚐 03:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I did not make it up, I mistyped the source. I will strike and fix. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you strike through your comment as I'm sure everyone here is participating in good faith. The error comes from the collapsed quote box above, they misread which source it was from as I put the book titles above the quotes, rather than below them. All of these quotes are included in the collapsed box. I invite others to add any sources that are missing. Jr8825  •  Talk  03:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ethnic cleansing for reasons noted above. Forced removal is a euphemism which apart from being used less often as scholarship matured (which is incorrectly described as recentism) also softens the language in favor of a particular vantage point. If we can, today, in common discussion (and in discussion among scholars) recognize that forced removal is ethnic cleansing then it behoves us to use the right term in summarizing what happened. We should not (as a comparison) refer to 19th century slavers as "gentlemen of property and standing" despite that term being preferred among white slavery supporting sources at the time. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal per Springee.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 23:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both - I have already suggested potentially wording to this affect in another discussion. The overwhelming majority of sources use either forced removal or ethnic cleansing or some variation of both. I believe @Dethlibrarian and others, myself included, have laid this point accurately in the RFN discussion. The two terms are not exactly synonymous. The argument that calling it ethnic cleansing doesn't accurately describe the action take is not exactly accurate but does hold some merit. It explains, in modern terms, accurately the results of the action taken. The action taken is forced removal. The results is ethnic cleansing. Some would even argue the results were genocidal in nature. We can accurately describe the action, forced removal, while also accurately describing the results, ethnic cleansing, in one lead sentence and then go on later to describe the action and results in detail within the article. This would most closely follow the majority of sources accurately. -- A Rose Wolf  16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Take Indian Removal Act as an example though we can follow our own path through this RfC to come up with exact wording. In that article they call the action taken "forcibly removed" while later in the sentence calling the results "genocide". This can be done and accurately portray the events, both actions and results, as described in the majority of sources, historic and modern. -- A Rose Wolf  16:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Cleansing, or Both. Both are used in sources, and even though ethnic cleansing is a new term, it is descriptive of the event, and as language changes and adapts, writers should adapt and change too. To use only forced removal would be POV in that it ignores something important that many scholars are saying. I think using both is fine and the most NPOV way forward, but if we were to only be allowed one term, the best term going forward would be ethnic cleansing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal It is more informative on what actually happenned vs. "ethnic cleansing" which is vague and thus sacrifices informativeness in order to be nastier sounding....the latter is because common meaning of the term include other things that were not involved then.  North8000 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What parts of "ethnic cleansing" do you think don't apply to Indian Removal? The vast majority of academic sources have no issue with it for this case. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the way that I explained it above was that ethnic cleansing has multiple potential meanings, of which "forced removal" is only one. Ethnic cleansing can also mean extermination or genocide. Although there was widespread death and disease in the removal process (which is mentioned in both the lead and the body of the article), extermination was not the intention behind the policy. Additionally, the removal of the Cherokee, which had by far the most deaths, occurred in 1838, after Jackson had left office. So while Jackson was certainly responsible for crafting the policy that led to it, it was not his responsibility to oversee it and insure that it was done in a safe and humane manner. The genocide label is applied to Indian removal by some scholars but explicitly disputed by others. A crucial reason why forced removal is better than ethnic cleansing is because forced removal is more specific. It says exactly what everyone agrees happened and nothing more. Ethnic cleansing has the potential to imply conclusions that are either false or not agreed upon by all reliable sources. I'm not against the use of the term in the article, and I've accepted that it's going to be there somewhere, but it needs to be in a place where we can actually explain the context in order to avoid misconceptions. The lead, and certainly not the opening paragraph, are not adequate places for that. Display name 99 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal As noted above, the wording "forced removal" is more specific than the term "ethnic cleansing". Wikipedia reflects how the topic is covered and worded in the best reliable sources. The comprehensive biographies from the current period discuss the topic using the narrow wording "forced removal". --Guest2625 (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both terms. Ethnic Cleansing is the more contemporary term, and Forced removal has a long history of usage. This is a huge issue in Jackon's career and legacy, and the lead should use both of the terms commonly used by scholars to describe the process. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethnic cleansing, although since the terms are not incompatible we can describe it as ethnic cleansing via forced removal. At least as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of sources describe it as either ethnic cleansing or genocide, and relatively few sources seem to dispute that view; since the terms are not incompatible, the argument for excluding ethnic cleansing is weak. In fact, based on the sourcing, genocide is by far the most common term used; I support using ethnic cleansing instead, but that's already a concession towards our preference for more neutral language. Either way, since "genocide" is an even more strident term than ethnic cleanisng, the heavy use of it makes it hard to defend the assertion that reflecting the fairly widespread description of ethnic cleansing in the lead is inappropriate. A Google scholar search for "Andrew Jackson" "Genocide" returns 5,680 results, more than all the other terms referenced above combined, and going over that quickly finds high-quality sources that describe Jackson's actions using that term, with more citations than have been produced for any above. Even if we apply "trail of tears" to all four searches, "genocide" clearly wins out. (Forced relocation, Forced removal, Ethnic cleansing, Genocide.) And nearly half of the "forced removal" results also call it genocide or ethnic cleansing - as you can see when those terms are excluded, the number of results is cut in half. There's simply not enough sources that completely avoid "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" to justify completey exclusion from the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethnic Cleansing or Both the article should not shy away from accurately describing the documented crimes that he committed. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 01:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What crimes did he commit? If he did why wasn't he impeached or otherwise charged?  Just asking for the sake of accuracy. Springee (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not wildly inappropriate. I don't care what white supremacists think. It is obvious editors are trying to protect Jackson's legacy in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean for that to be a reply to my comment? Springee (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that was meant in response to @BrownHairedGirl's calling their comments @ 05:05, 20 August 2022 'wildly inappropriate". I think it is likewise inappropriate to claim that those who oppose certain points are "white supremacists" or that it is "obvious" that certain editors are trying to protect Jackson's legacy. While I may disagree with both yours and Display name 99's position and view of the article, I vehemently disagree with the attacks on your character displayed here and I think it would be a good idea for @Cmguy777 to take a breather before coming back to the discussion. Personal attacks against other editors get us no closer to a potential resolution. -- A Rose Wolf  14:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I struck the comments out. I was not inferring editors were "w s". I felt my character was being attacked with the "wildly inappropriate" comment toward me. I apologize. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Forced removal and ethnic cleansing we should call it what it was. The terms are not synonymous and both are supported in the sources. Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal, I don't think at the time it would have been accepted as ethnic cleansing, and even still is a contentious topic. In the body, sure maybe mention that can be considered by some as ethnic cleansing, but I don't think it would be accurate to summarize his actions in that way in the lede.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ethnic Cleansing Briefly mention ethnic cleansing in the last paragraph. It is undo weight to mention ethnic cleansing twice or more in the introduction. Jackson is not on trial for crimes against humanity. Wikipedia is not a format to judge Jackson for his Indian removal policy. Allow the reader to have their own opinions on Jackson and ethnic cleansing of Indians. That would make the artical neautral. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Forced removal Ethnic cleansing is a term created to describe the treatment of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. Applying it to a period long before it was created and to dissimilar circumstances is anachronistic. Journalists often do this because it quickly conveys what happened even if it is not entirely accurate. It's like describing Caesar as left-wing and his assassins as right-wing. In a sense it helps to convey the political situation of ancient Rome. OTOH it creates more confusion than clarification. TFD (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So just on a point of order, the term predates that conflict quite considerably. "In its complete form, the term appeared for the first time in the Romanian language (purificare etnică) in an address by Vice Prime Minister Mihai Antonescu to cabinet members in July 1941" - see Ethnic Cleansing. And it is actually a perfectly good descriptor of what happened, which is why so many sources have been shown above to use the term. Genocide would be less accurate, as the policy was not intended to wipe them out. I think your remarks are spot on as a critique of the use of Genocide but Ethnic Cleansing is perfectly accurate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible solution
There are a roughly equal number of forced removal votes compared to ethnic cleansing/both votes. We are still divided and there is no consensus. Voting has slowed, and while waiting longer may allow for more votes, I don't think that those votes are likely to sway the results either way. I propose adding ethnic cleansing to the third or fourth paragraph of the lead as well as to the body and keeping it out of the opening paragraph. This seems like a fair reflection of the things that people have said here. We can discuss here both whether that would be an acceptable compromise and how to word it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It needs to follow the action taken to keep it associated. I don't believe ethnic cleansing is synonymous with forced removal but is a direct result of the action, regardless of intent. The two are undeniably related and so should be connected where it is discussed in the lead. I'm interested in hearing your reason for keeping it out of the opening paragraph? -- A Rose Wolf  18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am ok with this proposal. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the mention of the term would be done in a manner to make it clear that it's referring to the removal of the Native Americans. One way to incorporate it would be through this sentence in the final paragraph: His reputation, however, has suffered since the 1960s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of Indian removal. A revised version of it could read: His reputation, however, has suffered since the 1960s, largely due to his policy of Indian removal, which has been described as ethnic cleansing by many historians,[citations] and anti-abolitionist views. I'm against using the term anywhere in the lead. I think that I have pretty thoroughly explained why in both the thread on the neutrality noticeboard and in my posts in this RfC. I'm not sure what new ground we could cover. I am only proposing this because the results of the RfC are pretty evenly split both ways and I would like to find a resolution. Display name 99 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems like a reasonable middle ground. Jr8825  •  Talk  19:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also agree that this is a fair compromise. Nettless (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As for incorporating it in the body, I propose that a sentence be added in the "Historical reputation" section, just before the sentence that mentions Prucha, reading: Many scholars have used the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe Jackson's removal of the Indians.[citations] Display name 99 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, I disagree. The two terms are irrevocably attached, one being the action taken and one being the results of that action. Armed men forcibly removed Natives from their homes and lands, dispossessing them of the land they were stewards over and thereby destroying the ethnic and cultural identity they had with the land they possessed. Anyone that understands Native cultural identity understands the importance the lands had in their cultural and ethnic beliefs, from the medicines they used to the ceremonies they performed. The results was a cleansing of the land from those ethnic identities in order to pave the way for their expansionist agenda. Even those that were persuaded to move voluntarily fall under this umbrella when ethnic cleansing is looked at for what it is, not just those rounded up into camps and forced to march under cruel conditions where countless thousands died. Therefore the direct result of the Indian Removal Act proposed and signed by Andrew Jackson, also the majority of treaties were coordinated by Jackson, was ethnic cleansing. Forced removal is discussed in the opening paragraph of the article and the results of that removal should be there too. For the record, I'm a proponent of the entire treatment of Native cultures from the beginning of North American colonization to the Eugenics programs in the late 1970's as genocide. This would include Jackson's involvement in the Indian Removal Act. For me, even having ethnic cleansing and forced removal in the article period are compromises and an attempt at neutrality. -- A Rose  Wolf  19:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're still arguing for using the term "ethnic cleansing" in the opening paragraph, I understand you, but your position isn't supported by consensus. My position, which is that ethnic cleansing does not belong anywhere in the lead, is also not supported by consensus, but I respect the results of the RfC and am attempting to find a result that will satisfy both sides to the extent possible. There is about an even division, which means that neither side can have everything that they want. There will have to be a compromise somehow. I'd like to have you on board, but I think that a compromise will take place even without your support. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to go against. Consensus is still building and your compromise proposal, while I appreciate it, is a bit premature though I was willing to entertain support for it. I am not arguing with you over anything. We are having a discussion and bringing forward points we see as potential compromises and our view of what is the most neutral position for the article. You mentioned your personal viewpoint that ethnic cleansing doesn't belong in the lead at all so I mentioned my personal belief that ethnic cleansing doesn't go far enough. These are our opinions and I respect yours. Knowing our positions reveals what may tend to lead to us having a difference in opinion on what is actually middle-ground for the article. I don't believe either of our most neutral positions go against policy, per se. Hopefully a compromise can be reached and hopefully I can support it but since I will not compromise what I believe to be the most neutral position within the article the possibility remains that my position may not be that of consensus and I am okay with that. I will still be involved in discussion and will respect consensus. -- A Rose Wolf  20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even though I support the compromise, as a positive solution that takes into account the discussion, the RFC has only run for 5 days. They normally run for up to 30 days or more before closure. A closer might decide to close it a certain way based on the strength of the policy-based arguments depending on how it lands when and if that happens. So I'd be inclined to let the compromise offer lay on the table for a couple days and discuss it more if there are more topics that people want to bring up. If everyone agrees the discussion has taken its course, it could be closed early. But I'm not quite sure that has occurred as yet. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will wait and see how editors respond to this proposal. Display name 99 (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources use both, so I would see the middle ground as having both in the opening para, not excluding one or the other. That's following the rules for WP:BALANCE in representing the various views of the sources. As per the other editors, I'm happy to wait and see how the votes go. (I do appreciate the effort in trying to find a compromise solution here) Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input, but I don't see having both as being any kind of middle ground. The issue of whether to describe Jackson's actions as ethnic cleansing in the lead is what this whole dispute is over, and I don't see how saying that we should while also calling it forced removal constitutes any kind of concession. Display name 99 (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, it doesn't matter what we think. Wikipedia needs to reflect what the sources think, with a balance that is reflective of the weight for one term, or the other that is in the sources. Thems the rules.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was your argument for including the term in the lead. However, you did not have consensus. Neither side did, and so now we're trying to meet somewhere in the middle. Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, its not an argument. It's just me stating the policy we are supposed to follow, specifically WP:BALANCING and WP:WEIGHT."Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." You don't make consensus about following rules. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, we do. Not everybody interprets the rules in the same way, so when there's conflict about how we should proceed based on Wikipedia guidelines, it gets resolved by consensus. Your interpretation of what the rules tell us to do here does not take precedence over that of the 50% of respondents to the RfC who disagree with you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That would apply to the description in the article body. In the lead we don't need to put in that much detail. Springee (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you. However, there is no consensus for either position, and I fear that some concession is necessary. It looks like not enough people are ready to accept this proposal now. I can wait and see where things lead. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Display name 99 that's the policy as I understand it, so I think may be we will just have to agree to disagree on this. And also, if Wikipedia policy is being broken, or queried, it isn't simply overidden by consensus. Clarification of the policy should be sought via the policy noticeboard at Village_pump_(policy)  Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * NPOV says we need to present the topic, not that we need to use a particular name, one that isn't universally established as a description of the topic. As was said before, often this is material where the writer is arguing we should call it/view it as ethnic cleaning or says it meets the definition of ethnic cleansing.  That says they are trying to change the term rather than the name has changed.  You mentioned the Trail of Tears article but if you look at how it was written it becomes clear this was an editor forcing the term into the article less than a year ago .  If this were such a universal term why was it only added in the last year?  If the term is universal then why does Andersen introduce his book with an argument that we should see this as ethnic cleansing.  That means that a relatively recent work (8 years back describing events from over a century and a half back) needs to argue that this is the correct term.  That means this is absolutely not the universal term and the way it was added to the Trail of Tears article was improper.  It would have been proper to add it to that and similar articles in a section saying recent works have argued that this is "..."  but it's not correct to treat it as the default term or even widely accepted term.  Springee (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If it is a widely accepted term in sources then yes, it can be presented just like any other term stated in a large number of sources. The fact is that forced removal isn't as widely used anymore to describe these events. Academia changes terms all the time. Wikipedia follows suite as these changes occur. We don't protect specific wording or the use of specific terms in articles because the original writer of that article wants it to be that way. The fact the sources that use the term are more modern does not mean we should relegate it to be buried deep in the article or lead in one sentence that states that some say it's "this" but its not really because it wasn't called that for nearly a hundred years before that and oh yeah, btw, Jackson did those poor "Indians" a favor. By that same logic we should be saying that some historians still refer to it as "forced removal" rather than just accept it wholesale. We present the sources and we word the articles in a neutral way according to what the sources say. The lead is a summary of important facts, the things that made the subject notable. We aren't talking about three or four sources calling Indian Removal ethnic cleansing. This is not minor position. We are talking about a very large number of high quality academic sources, historians even, since that seems to be about the only sources that matter to some folks here. And even those that call it genocide can be pulled into the column of those supporting that it was ethnic cleansing as genocide is a form of ethnic cleansing. That further bolsters the use of ethnic cleansing to define what happened. Forced removal just says they forced them to move. Ethnic cleansing is understood to mean more because it was more than just a forced removal. Individuals were dispossessed of home, property, culture and their ethnic identity if not their very life. It was destructive to the Native nations that were cleansed by way of removal from their cultural and ethnic homelands. The fact that many of these nations found a way to live on despite the circumstances is a testament to the people but does no exonerate nor excuse the action and we shouldn't trying to push an agenda of sugarcoating it for any reason. -- A Rose Wolf  13:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee - Ethnic cleansing is is a widely accepted term in the sources. Editors have posted search results here multiple times on multiple databases, and you can clearly see it is widely used. Also the fact the Trail of Tears article was wrong for so many years, isn't a justification for it remaining wrong! Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think in the desire to exclude the other term and reduce it to either "forced removal" or "ethnic cleansing", both sides here are doing a disservice to what the sources, taken together, say. It's apparent that a major shift in scholars' thinking has occurred in recent years (particularly the last decade) – part of a broader development across academic treatment of colonial and imperial issues. Some laypeople accuse this shift of being driven by politics or identity, but when the sources themselves are examined (as above) it's clear this re-evaluation is accepted by the vast majority of historians and driven by a more critical examination of sources than previously.

Forced removal is still used by many sources because it was the historic name of the policy, it's widely recognised, and in a simplistic manner the policy largely involved this. There is now stronger criticism about its appropriateness than previously, and as the source review above shows, Jackson's policy is now usually accepted as being analogous to the modern crime "ethnic cleansing" (notwithstanding the minority of scholars who instead believe genocide is a better approximation). As can be seen from the above review, ethnic cleansing became frequently applied by scholars to Jackson's policy around ~2007-2009, and there has been a marked intensification in its use since Anderson's 2016 article, to the point that it's fair to say that the term is now commonly applied.

Our article body should explain this. The recent acceptance of, and discussion around, ethnic cleansing is now a significant aspect of the historiography so should also be mentioned in the lead per MOS:LEAD. However, any summation must explain that it's a modern evaluation. I don't see a need to use the precise phrase "forced removal" if "Indian Removal Act" & "forced expulsion" are used in combination (as used in my proposal above; several scholars commented that expulsion is preferable to removal) but neither do I see a need to completely avoid "forced removal" provided up-to-date thinking about ethnic cleansing is covered in the same place. Given that legitimate scholarly reservations about the label ethnic cleansing were eventually found in the above discussion (even if it's a minority), I now think per MOS:OPEN that it's better explained in a later lead paragraph. Jr8825 •  Talk  15:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a very thoughtful response, @Jr8825. Thank you. If the consensus is to explain it better in a later lead paragraph then that is where it should be mentioned at all in the lead. There is no reason to label it forced removal earlier in the lead and then later explain it as ethnic cleansing further down in another paragraph. In my opinion the lead is already longer than it should be. It should be all in one place in the lead clearly denoting that the two terms, in this case, are directly connected. Neither should be given prevalence over the other. -- A Rose Wolf  16:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, The only place it should be mentioned in the lead is in one place. Right now there is a sentence calling it forced removal in the first paragraph and then it is later discussed again in the last paragraph. These should be combined into one denoting the connection of forced removal with that of ethnic cleansing. I've already stated my view of the action being forced removal and the result being ethnic cleansing and the fact that the action and result are indistinguishable though they are not exactly synonymous. I wont rehash that again but I agree with @Jr8825 that both terms deserve mention in the lead and detailed in the body. I just think it should be in the same location of the lead.</S> -- A Rose Wolf  16:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence calling it "forced removal" in the opening paragraph was added as a temporary compromise following complaints that the opening paragraph did not specifically mention Indian removal at all. It says forced removal instead of ethnic cleansing because that matter was unresolved. If we're going to call it ethnic cleansing in the lead, I agree with Jr8825 that the opening paragraph is not the right place to explain it. However, that would require removing the sentence that was added as a temporary compromise. I'm not opposed to it myself, but I imagine that would upset some people.
 * There isn't anything wrong with mentioning something more than once in the lead. The format of this lead, as well as that of other high-quality articles, is that the first paragraph succinctly summarizes why something is notable, the second and third paragraphs summarize it in more detail, and the final paragraph explains the overall influence and legacy of that thing. If a topic is important enough to the subject of the article, it can be mentioned in all three. Display name 99 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I retract my statement on length of the lead or the layout in principle and have struck those comments. @Display name 99, you are correct about the format of the lead. That changes my position slightly and now I see why so many say that ethnic cleansing should be used in the first paragraph. If forced removal is used, and I agree that it should based on format, then ethnic cleansing belongs in the same sentence paralleled as my position on the connection of the two terms in regards to this specific event has not changed. To not include the two in concert with each other and plainly stated in a concise manner is doing a disservice to the sources and to our readers, many of which may be descendants of those Native nations decimated by this cruel action, who expect we will be display what the sources say accurately and that includes even the most modern definition where it is found in a considerable amount of reliable sources. My thoughts pertain to the lead and the body of the article. I will not lend my support to any proposal where one term is used without the other because I believe we have shown they are irrevocably linked and can not be discussed with any amount of accuracy or neutrality without. If we are to believe that there is "legitimate scholarly reservations about the label ethnic cleansing" and there are a considerable amount of scholarly sources which specifically call it ethnic cleansing then there are equally legitimate scholarly reservations with just labeling it forced removal. To dismiss those reservations and proceed with a term that has been established as being not wholly synonymous would be tantamount to creating a false neutrality. -- A Rose Wolf  20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Andre for your support. I will take 80% correct anytime. Latner (2002) p. 109 says Jackson's humanitarian Indian policy was laced with "ethnocentrism and paternalism". I would use those terms in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The term "ethnocentrism" could be used in place of "ethnic cleansing" as a compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would say this in the introduction: "Jackson's humanitarian Indian policy was laced with ethnocentrism and paternalism." Cmguy777 (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , please try to make sure that you are not basing your position too much off of your personal feelings about this action. We aren't supposed to base our judgments off of whether or not we think that something was a "cruel action," but on what sources tell us about it. I disagree about the use of ethnic cleansing in the opening paragraph, and we have already debated heavily about why, and I don't see the benefit in doing so any further. About half of the responders to the RfC also disagree with your position about using ethnic cleansing in the lead, while about half support it. Even Jr8825, who voted "ethnic cleansing" in the RfC, is now against using it in the first paragraph. Agreeing to use it later in the lead and not in the opening paragraph seems like a solution that is reflective of consensus. Each side gets some of what it wants but not all. If you still don't agree with it, I won't attempt to persuade you any further. We'll just have to wait and see what others say., while that is one historian's opinion, it's also extremely partisan language, and not something that we would say in Wikivoice. Display name 99 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I am basing my position of what should be in the article on that of the sources that have been provided to this point. My calling it a cruel action in discussion is based on my view of the affects of the action itself. I never stated that had to be put in the article. While we are to remain neutral in how we word articles on Wikipedia we are not required by any policy to never have a personal opinion or never voice a reasoned opinion in discussion. I have two eyes, the ability to read and at least a measure of common sense. I can see the historical results of the Indian Removal Act and the evidence left behind as a result of it's enforcement. I have never seen anyone say the Holocaust wasn't a cruel act. Was the Armenian genocide a cruel act? How many lives have to be lost before it becomes cruel? Please refrain from lecturing me on how I may or may not refer to an action in which sixty to eighty thousand people were displaced from their homes with tens of thousands of them losing their lives. I'm not sure why you were trying to persuade me in the first place. I was not trying to persuade you from your own viewpoints. This discussion has always been about offering different viewpoints to other editors. I know where you stand as you have been allowed to make that perfectly clear. I have made my position clear and I stand by my position that this "compromise" presents a false neutrality and still prefers the mildest of terms that could possibly be presented from those found in sources. Indeed, we shall see what consensus forms based on this discussion. -- A Rose Wolf  20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would not call Latner (2002) partisan. He is an established historian. I understand Ethnocentrism is a 19th Century term. But it is a modern historical view of Jackson. It is a description of Jackson's Indian policy, not a judgement. Jackson is not on trial. I don't think Jackson hated Indians. Ethnocentrism is what Jackson as President practiced from a modern point of view. Wikipedia should allow modern points of view in the article even in the introduction. No. Jackson should not be presented as a villain. But we should not casually address his Indian policy either.Cmguy777 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote is clearly designed to portray Jackson's removal policies in a negative light. Nobody says "laced with" in a good way. Historians can be partisan. They have beliefs like the rest of us. When these beliefs come from reputable historians, we acknowledge them in our articles, but we don't necessarily present them as if they are absolutely true, as other reputable sources may have different beliefs. You added Latner's opinion to the Historical reputation section. It's fine there, but it's clearly undue weight in the lead, especially because there are many historians who have written much more about Jackson than Latner. His work on Jackson is only a 20-page piece from a much larger work about presidents. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Editors put in the article what reliable sources say. We can't second guess whether historians intentions are positive or negative. The article makes no judgements on ethnocentrism or Jackson. Jackson was probably an ethnocentrist against British people because of what the British soilder did to him when he was young. Ethoncentrim is neither positive or negative. It is just a word. Again Jackson is not on trial, a villain, or being charged with any crimes against humanity. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "negative opinion" and "partisan." The implication of the latter is that you are advancing a political position that makes you not impartial due to your affiliation with a particular party or political group/movement. Some historians are more pro-Jackson, some are not too big on Jackson. There used to be a lot more people loving Jackson, now it's more in vogue to hate on Jackson. Still, historians that dunk on Jackson are OK to use for the project and for weighing the opinion on him - which is very mixed and even probably trends more negative nowadays, but there is a good proportion of more conservative views on Jackson around as well. That's why my view is that we should explain both the more modern view on Jackson and the older more parochial patriotic take on Jackson. Jackson is kind of a villain to a lot of people, and that's purely due to the actions he took and the actions that he represented to Native Americans. We need to give that the due prominence reflected to it in scholarly sources. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never denied any of these. Both sides are already represented in the lead. I was responding above to a proposal to quote a particular historian's opinion in Wikivoice in the lead. The historian, though reputable, isn't even among the most prominent Jackson scholars (the quote comes from a 20-page essay on Jackson in a larger book about U.S. presidents), and while we do need to represent both sides (which I would argue the article does already), the proposal was plainly not suited to be acted upon. It's unfair to suggest that my opposition to it means that I am trying to hide negative views of Jackson. I thought that this would have been known by now. Display name 99 (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand you agree that we must reflect both sides in the article, and I acknowledge your cooperation on that. I think it's a persuasive argument that Latner isn't the major Jackson expert or Jackson scholar. But I don't know that I agree that he's partisan. It says in his bio: "Latner’s research lies at the intersections between History, global American Studies, and Cuban Studies, with a special emphasis on social movements, race/racial justice, political theory, globalization, U.S.-Cuba relations, and U.S. foreign policy." It's not partisanship, but it sounds like his particular area of scholarship is actually a specialization in the history of race. So that might be why he views Jackson more through that lens. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By partisan, I meant simply that it's his opinion, not that he is an unreliable hack with a partisan agenda. We acknowledge experts' opinions on Wikipedia, but we don't give their opinions in Wikivoice on contentious issues. That's why Cmguy777's idea was not a good one. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The job of Wikipedia editors is to put the opinions of scholars in the article. I did nothing wrong. Ethnocentrism does not make Jackson a villain. It does not make Jackson the bad guy. Jackson was just a man of his time. Let's let the article reflect that. Latner (2002) covers Jackson's whole presidency, not just Indian removal. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Latner's work is a brief 20-page summary of Jackson's presidency. Off the top of my head, I can think of more than two dozen scholars who have written more about Jackson and done so more influentially than Latner. He is a reliable historian, but not a particularly prominent Jackson scholar. We should not give more prominence to his views than that of other historians who have written much more about Jackson. The lead is supposed to a brief overview of the article. It is not the place to quote a historian's analysis of a particular policy of Jackson. And if I had to pick one historian to quote, it wouldn't be Latner. Again, Wikipedia articles do reflect the views of scholars, but we don't quote their opinions as if they are fact. When they give their opinions, we acknowledge them as opinions. So we would say "According to historian Richard B. Latner, etc." or "In Latner's opinion,..." The way that you have proposed it is not suitable. Display name 99 (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cmguy777: Your comment of 05:05, 20 August 2022 is wildly inappropriate for a discussion such as this.
 * The question of whether Jackson is a "good guy" or a "bad guy" or whatever are POV approaches which should have no part in this discussion.
 * Such assessments depend on the assessor's viewpoint. From a white supremacist POV, Jackson was probably a great guy.  From a Cherokee POV, terms such as "villain" are inadequate.
 * It is not Wikipedia's role to arbitrate between those POVs, or to find some middle ground. Instead we apply WP:WEIGHT.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I don't mind using his name in the lead. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)