Talk:Andrew Jackson

Oh, that Theodore

I saw Theodore mentioned in this main Jackson article and then, of course, mentioned over at List of children of the presidents of the United States and I got curious so I went looking for him...and, I couldn't find him. He isn't mentioned as an adopted son or a family-member by the folks at The Hermitage, he isn't mentioned as an adopted son or family-member by the Library of Congress, he doesn't appears as any kind of an adoptee in any official or scholarly sources that I could find, except, supposedly in Brands' Jackson biography and, well, there are a whole lot of problems with that....
I do want to mention that although Jackson does not have an "Official Presidential Library" as modern US Presidents do, The Hermitage is operated as a 501c nonprofit and the Foundation has been in existence since 1889. Their scholarship seems impeccable. For what they had to say about family life at The Hermitage see their webpage on "Children".

The Jackson article's sentence stating "Jackson had three adopted sons: Theodore, an Indian about whom little is known" along with the reference citing Page 198 of Brands' book was added in 2012 by a now-moribund account. I went to Brands' actual Page 198 and this is what Brands quotes as being Jackson's letter:

• "I send on a little boy for Andrew. All his family is destroyed. He is about the age of Theodore."

but Brands then goes on to comment:

• The young boy named Theodore had come to live at the Hermitage earlier, under circumstances lost to history. ... In Jackson's case, he pitied the Creek child—named Lyncoya—but he also wanted to provide Rachel another child and Andrew (and Theodore) a brother.

Frustrating Bonus! in all of this: Brands doesn't provide any sourced footnotes for this letter that he is quoting so I had to go looking for a published source and my quibble with Brands is that what he quotes isn't exactly what Jackson wrote.
In this particular letter Jackson is referring to the well-known Lyncoya Jackson, Brands mentions Theodore in passing but he does not state that Theodore is himself adopted. The actual November 4th, 1813 letter from Jackson to his wife Rachel states - as published on Page 444 of The Papers of Andrew Jackson, V. II, 1804-1813. Ed. Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984. - the letter states:

• I send on a little Indian boy[4] for Andrew to Huntsville-with a request to Colo. Pope to take care of him untill he is sent on-all his family is destroyed-he is about the age of Theodore [5]

with the editors commenting in [4] and [5] that

• 4. Lyncoya (c1813-28), a Creek infant orphaned at the Battle of Tallushatchee, reached the Hermitage in May 1814. He remained in the Jackson household until his death.
• 5. Theodore (cl813-14) was probably another Indian child at the Hermitage. Jackson and Rachel mentioned his death in their letters of March 4 and 21, 1814 (DLC).
  

So the editors of the authoritative/published Papers of Andrew Jackson do not refer to Theodore as anything but a Native American living at The Hermitage. The WP-editor who added that "3rd adopted son" information was mistaken in their assumption. I intend to adjust that particular sentence and maybe add information & references etc about the Jacksons' living situation at The Hermitage, especially regarding the various Native American boys like Theodore and Charley who lived there for at least a time as companions for the Jackson-related boys (including Andrew Jackson Jr, Andrew Jackson Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Hutchings). I wanted to post here on the talk page about my impending edits to Theodore's "adopted son" status since this article is a Featured Article and for page watchers to know that this change is not some kind of an inconsidered vandal-edit but rather a correction to a long-standing error in the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and edited that section, correcting the information about Theodore and adding references etc. Also corrected the infobox. We can discuss the changes here. Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink, I brought this article to FA status and am sort of its self-appointed guardian/custodian. I'm kind of pressed for time now and can't really do in-depth research at the moment, but I know you to be an experienced editor and the changes which you have made definitely seem good. Thank you for your improvements. I will contact you if I have any questions or suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is it more "neutral" to discuss Jackson's ideals rather than his policy?

Antiok 1pie recently made an edit with the "npov" justification, but this edit seems to just create more bias. They're taking away statements about the broad and observable effects of Andrew Jackson's policies, and replacing them with propaganda about how he defended human rights and empowered the "common man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnV3 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the sources you provided don't support your statements. The 1st source, simply describes the Indian Removal Act in detail; it doesn't say Jackson played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States and the 2nd source is not reliable. It's an 1835 letter from Jackson to Amos Kendall (see WP:PST). The text is also WP:UNDUE; he is not notable for protecting slavery or for his "major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States" Secondly, his role in ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph and his thoughts on slavery are mentioned in the body of the article. Lastly, I don't see how the sentence Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union is biased or "propaganda" as you've claimed. As a matter of fact, a historical term symbolizing the years of Jackson's presidency is "Age of the Common Man" [1]. It's a simple and adequate sentence for the introduction and it's also supported by reliable sources. There's nothing wrong with it. I would advise you to gain some sort of consensus before re-adding your edit in the article. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Antiok 1pie. As the author of the text in question, I would like to add to what was already said that the sentence about preserving the Union was added primarily with the Nullification Crisis in mind, not the issue of slavery. Adding that he sought to preserve the Union by protecting slavery completing obliterates the Nullification Crisis, which was a much more momentous issue in Jackson's presidency than the question of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've found more precise sources and integrated it better with the existing "common man" text. It seems extremely misleading to keep the "common man" text without mentioning his genocide of many of the common men he ruled over. I also added a citation that does a better job connecting the Nullification Crisis to the issue of slavery. FinnV3 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is unacceptable. It's not necessary to specify that Jackson's reputation was among white men. Indians and blacks generally did not have public political positions. We are implicitly already speaking only about American citizens here, which Indians and blacks generally were not. It is also not necessary to say that his Manifest destiny ideology was limited to whites; anyone who clicks on the article can see that the idea of Manifest destiny was never understood to apply in any broad sense to blacks or Indians. Describing Indian removal as "ethnic cleansing" is loaded language not widely found in major sources of Jackson. Its inclusion arguably compromises NPOV. Saying that his work to preserve the Union took place through preserving the Southern slave economy is vague. It's unclear what this means. What did protecting slavery have to do with nullification? The answer is nothing, because an attack on slavery was never seriously considered by tariff advocates, and thus rarely mentioned even by the hard anti-tariff men. We encounter here the same problem as before: the text obscures and pushes aside one of the most crucial episodes of Jackson's presidency in favor of talking about nothing other than slavery.

Additionally, what you have done conflicts with MOS:OPEN. A full lead section has four paragraphs. The first paragraph of a full lead section describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics. The detail that you have added here is too great.

I will also say something to you generally that may be of course as you continue to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy, as you probably know, states that articles are to be written with a neutral point of view. Historians are people just like anyone else. They have biases and beliefs which other historians may challenge. Unless there is overwhelming consensus one way or the other, Wikipedia is required to remain neutral in these debates. To wit, you can't simply say whatever you want and slap a citation at the end of it, because even if the citation supports what you are saying and is to a reliable and trustworthy source, another reliable and trustworthy source may disagree. That is why we must be careful that, when we see one belief that a historian or a group of historians holds, not to insert it into an article as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia policy, as you probably know, states that articles are to be written with a neutral point of view." Yes, I know. My main motivation for editing this article in the first place was that the introduction was extremely biased and pro-Jackson. The current version of the article is in gross violation of WP:NPOV.
• "To wit, you can't simply say whatever you want and slap a citation at the end of it, because even if the citation supports what you are saying and is to a reliable and trustworthy source, another reliable and trustworthy source may disagree." Yeah, it seems like this is exactly what you did. The original text described Jackson as a hero of the "common man," which is plainly ridiculous. You can't just slap a citation at the end of it.
• "It's not necessary to specify that Jackson's reputation was among white men. Indians and blacks generally did not have public political positions. We are implicitly already speaking only about American citizens here, which Indians and blacks generally were not." Yes, that's the whole problem here. The article is written completely from a white American perspective. That's the bias I was trying to remove. Why is it preferable or more "neutral" to implicitly focus on white men? Not coincidentally, the white male bias is present in the sources you prefer in part because of Jackson's removal and censure of opposing views, so it really doesn't make sense to reproduce that bias here.
• "A full lead section has four paragraphs. The first paragraph of a full lead section describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics. The detail that you have added here is too great." Right, my original edit was more brief, but it was shot down for being too brief. This most recent edit was an attempt to reach consensus, as I was instructed. I agree that the earlier version was better, with less detail, but User:Antiok 1pie was adamant that the "common man" quote was necessary, so I tried to integrate the two.
• "Saying that his work to preserve the Union took place through preserving the Southern slave economy is vague." What is it? Am I too detailed or too vague? It strikes me as a lot more vague to leave it at "Jackson sought ... to preserve the Union."
• "Describing Indian removal as 'ethnic cleansing' is loaded language not widely found in major sources of Jackson." What sources are you looking at? I added several citations that use that language. What makes your sources more "major"? Describing it as ethnic cleansing is uncontroversial by any definition of the term, and it's a term that modern readers are more likely to be more familiar with, but feel free to change the language if you disagree.
• "We encounter here the same problem as before: the text obscures and pushes aside one of the most crucial episodes of Jackson's presidency in favor of talking about nothing other than slavery." Wikipedia policy is to focus on noteworthy content. What makes your text more "crucial" than mine? Slavery was a big part of the economy at the time, and the connections to the later Civil War are nontrivial.

I have made a good-faith effort to reconcile the versions and reach consensus, but none of the issues I've brought up have been addressed. You've simply reverted my edits. Wikipedia policy discourages edit warring. Please make an effort to reach consensus instead of simply reverting an edit. FinnV3 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just passing by as yours edits are causing no target errors. Can I suggest reading WP:BRD and reverting you edit? From there the best cause of action is to try and talk put the issues here. If you can't make any headway then you can always post notices to wiki projects and notice boards to get third party opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This should not be taken as supporting either side in this discussion, in which I'm neutral. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also passing through - I don't have a strong opinion on how the intro should be structured here, but I do want to voice my strong opposition to the aforementioned suggestion that calling the Trail of Tears an ethnic cleansing is loaded language. It was an ethnic cleansing. The Wikipedia article on it already calls it an ethnic cleansing. I think dancing around the term is less neutral than just calling it what it was. I doubt there would be any objection if the subject was not an American president. Connor Long (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, please do not lecture me about edit warring when you are yourself reverting a change before discussing it. Here is my response to your statements.

1. There was no bias in the lead paragraph prior to your changes. It simply describes, in general terms, his major achievements and broad policy goals as president. It takes no side either way, and uses quotations around “common man” and “corrupt aristocracy” to draw a distinction between objectivity and the pro-Jackson view.

2. The text does not describe Jackson as a “hero of the common man.” You have distorted the truth here. It says that he “sought to advance the rights of the common man.’” This is true. The sense in which common man was understood was generally white man, and this is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks. Jackson did fervently support fewer constraints on the liberties of ordinary white American men. Nothing is untrue or biased about this sentence.

3. The opening paragraph of an article, as I have mentioned, generalizes in broad terms what the subject of the article is. Jackson’s expansionist policies are mentioned, and nothing more is warranted here. Mention of slavery is not warranted here because it was not important enough during his term in office. Look further down in the lead. There is more about Indians and blacks there, but it is does not belong in the top paragraph, and certainly not in the language that you have used. Of course, information about how Jackson’s policies affected non-whites should be included, but what you seem to be forgetting is that including information about Jackson’s policies towards non-whites doesn’t mean that we include nothing about his policies towards whites. Regarding this statement: Not coincidentally, the white male bias is present in the sources you prefer in part because of Jackson's removal and censure of opposing views…, it both unhelpful and not very polite to accuse an editor of using biased sources without citing evidence.

4. Your original edit was rejected for two reasons. The first was because, as Antiok 1pie pointed out, your efforts at sourcing it were atrocious. The second was that has the same core inaccuracies and biases as your newer edit. Its brevity was better, but it still had major problems.

5. I guess it’s not so much vague as inaccurate and misleading. Slavery was not under any serious threat during the Nullification Crisis. Of course, it was a crucial part of the economy, but no Northern politicians were seriously making it an issue during the Nullification Crisis. As such, Jackson didn’t need to protect it from anything, and so saying that he sought to preserve the Union through protecting the slavery distorts or triviliazes the nullification issue. There were two major instances in which the Union came under threat (or in which Jackson felt it came under threat) during Jackson’s presidency and in which Jackson sought to preserve it. The first was through nullification, in which Jackson sought to preserve the Union through a mix of threats and compromises aiming both to intimidate and to appease South Carolinians who were ardently against the tariff. The second was in the growth of abolitionism later in his presidency, which Jackson fiercely opposed in part because he felt it inflamed sectional jealousies. Both of these are important, but in the interest of brevity, neither are specifically mentioned in the lead paragraph. Because the top paragraph should be short, I am in favor of neither one being specifically mentioned, but if more detail is to be added, slavery cannot be mentioned without nullification.

6. Slave labor was a major part of the economy, of course, but mostly not a major political issue until well after Jackson’s presidency. The two major parties in Jackson’s presidency-the Democrats and Whigs-transcended sectional divides by having both Northern and Southern elements. The result was that everybody basically agreed not to talk about slavery. The biggest issue regarding slavery in Jackson’s presidency was the abolitionist tracts during his second term. Although this should not be overlooked, it did not provoke the same level of controversy as some of Jackson’s other actions. As such, it should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

The article was better without these changes. I also removed the POV tags that you added to the top of the article. There is no consensus for adding them. In fact, as the article passed featured article review in a manner close to its current form, consensus would appear to be against them. Adding them in the middle of this dispute was clearly designed simply to inflame tensions and antagonize the opposition. I find it inappropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

To expand on User:Display name 99's 4th point, the sources still do not support the statements that FinnV3 wants to add. The current version of the opening paragraph says: His expansionist ideology included White supremacy and this is cited to Haveman 2016 p. 84 & to Anderson 2014 p. 151, 158. Yet these sources don't claim, or even imply, that His expansionist ideology included White supremacy or that (as seen in previous edits) his expansionist ideology was limited to whites; he played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Display name 99, please read the instructions in Template:Systemic bias: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved." No consensus has been reached. You cannot pretend there is no dispute simply because you don't want there to be one. FinnV3 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an interesting summary of the history and controversy. I think noting his popularity and inclusion on the $20 bill in the lead would be appropriate. It's also important to note his role in Indian Removal and as a slave holder in the opening paragraph. The Nullification Crisis set the stage for the later secession crisis and states rights v. federal power as they related to the institution of slavery. I'm surprised his Old Hickory nickname doesn't appear. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

His inclusion in the $20 bill could be mentioned at the final paragraph, where the rest of his legacy is discussed. Jackson's status as a slave-owner, however, isn't notable enough to be included in the opening paragraph (OP). 18 U.S. presidents owned slaves but their status as slave-owners is never discussed/mentioned in the OP. Also, I'm against mentioning his role in Indian Removal in the OP, because, as User:Display name 99 noted, the opening paragraph describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics (MOS:OPEN). It is already mentioned, in much detail, in the 3rd paragraph. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the current version is better than the "common man" one. FinnV3 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Responding belatedly to a point made by Connorlong90 about the use of ethnic cleansing as loaded language, Jackson's role in Indian removal is still contentious. Although there isn't a single scholar on the Jackson era from the late 20th century until now that I'm aware of who does not recognize the removal of Indians as orchestrated by Jackson as a humanitarian catastrophe and an extremely sad event, there is still considerable debate as to Jackson's personal responsibility in the matter. There's evidence that he wanted the Indians to be treated well, and it's not proven that he was aware of mistreatment carried out by soldiers during the relocation process. Additionally, it has been seriously argued in recent studies that as terrible as removal was, Jackson's decision to carry it out really was the best option available. Here is how the argument usually goes. Had Jackson attempted to protect the rights of the tribes, he would have been unable to do so because he lacked popular support, and such attempts could have led to insurrection. Had he done nothing, encroaching white settlements would have led to a protracted and bloody war between whites and Native Americans which the whites eventually would have won, leading to more Native American deaths than took place during the removal. Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had. Robert V. Remini was an academic historian who wrote a massive three-volume biography of Jackson that was published in the 1970s and 1980s, among other works. His studies of Jackson have formed a foundation for all scholarship of him that has taken place since. He largely defends Jackson's removal policies as tragic but necessary. Several other historians have taken that view, two of whom are mentioned in the "Historical reputation" section of the article. Regardless of the extent to which Jackson's policies meet the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing, the term has such a negative connotation that I fear that using it without any context or further explanation obscures the very real and ongoing debate surrounding Jackson's motives and whether or not his decision, despite the suffering that resulted from it, was correct. That's in addition to the point that has been previously made regarding the opening paragraph not being suitable for discussions of specific policies.

I agree with the point made above by Antiok 1pie. I think the problem here may be that some people come to this article with a preconceived and strongly held negative position of Jackson and expect that position to be supported by the first thing that they read. Just because the article does not begin by condemning Jackson as an evil, racist, genocidal slaveholder does not mean that the impact that his actions had on Native Americans and slaves is ignored or trivialized in the article.

FinnV3 has yet to respond to the latest points made by me and Antiok 1pie. If he cannot, I think that the tags should be removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"I agree with the point made above by Antiok 1pie. I think the problem here may be that some people come to this article with a preconceived and strongly held negative position of Jackson and expect that position to be supported by the first thing that they read." That's not the problem here. The problem is that the current introduction is extremely misleading. It's written under the assumption that "common" means "white," cherry-picking minor quotes that give Jackson a semblance of egalitarianism. It's biased to focus on internal white politics and exclude Jackson's significant impact on non-white Americans, and this issue has not been resolved. FinnV3 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained the use of "common man" in the introduction. I will do so again. Jackson's defense of the "common man" is an important part of his legacy. Common man did generally mean white men at that time, as blacks and Indians were usually not seen as American citizens. This is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks. The opening paragraph mentions Jackson's role as an expansionist president, and this implicitly refers in part to his policies on Native Americans. It also says that he sought to preserve the Union, which in part means that he largely favored protecting slaveholding interests against abolitionists, whom he viewed as a threat to the Union. Again, more specific details are not proper for the opening paragraph.

Cherry-picking minor quotes... what quotes are you talking about? There aren't any quotes in the introduction. The brief terms that are quoted are there to provide an overall sense of Jackson's political philosophy, which was dismantling what he saw as a corrupt system of government and giving more power to the people. You still have not responded to any of the arguments that have been made here against your position. Display name 99 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson's defense of the 'common man' is an important part of his legacy." I believe you, but the article as it stands is misleading without additional qualification. I tried adding the additional qualification I was looking for, but I agree it made the introductory paragraph too bulky, so I don't think it's worth including at all.
• "Common man did generally mean white men at that time, as blacks and Indians were usually not seen as American citizens. This is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks." Why are we using the language of the time? It just makes the introduction read like white nationalist propaganda, and Wikipedia strives to be more inclusive. See WP:BIAS.
• "The lead mentions Jackson's role as an expansionist president, and this implicitly refers in part to his policies on Native Americans." How? By phrasing it as "expansionist", this is doing the exact opposite: framing the issue of genocide in terms of expansion of whites rather than contraction of non-whites.
• "Cherry-picking minor quotes... what quotes are you talking about?" The ones you described as "acknowledged through the use of quotation marks."

I've made an edit that I think addresses these issues, keeping it brief without using language too extreme or flowery. FinnV3 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledging Jackson's legacy as an advocate of ordinary Americans belongs in the article. He did, as you acknowledge, have a reputation for standing for the interests of ordinary white Americans, and the idea that it's "white nationalist propaganda" to acknowledge that strikes me as a little ridiculous. Regarding expansion, nothing about that is misleading. Although expansion of whites did usually mean the removal of non-whites, this was not always the case. Indians who agreed to accept American law were permitted to remain where they were. There is also no scholarly agreement that Indian removal was a genocide. Although some historians have gone so far to label it as such, quite a few others have disagreed. The article on Indian removal lists a few examples of that.

I removed your edit from the article. When a topic is in dispute, it is best not to make edits to the article but instead to have a discussion on the talk page. Although you said that you attempted to incorporate the objections of me and Antiok 1pie into the article, it appears to me that you made very little attempt to do that. You still described Jackson as a slaveowner despite our position that this was not appropriate in the opening paragraph. You also added the term "ethnic cleansing" despite my stated opposition to it. Your version removes any mention of his reputation as a defender of ordinary white Americans against what he viewed as abuses committed by the wealthy and powerful, which was the core of his philosophy and a major part of his legacy. In seeking to give greater attention to blacks and Native Americans, you have removed almost everything about whites. It may help if you ask yourself whether your problem isn't that the section does not mention blacks or Native Americans, but instead that it doesn't mention only blacks and Native Americans, and that it does not do so in extremely biased language. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"It may help if you ask yourself whether your problem isn't that the section does not mention blacks or Native Americans, but instead that it doesn't mention only blacks and Native Americans, and that it does not do so in extremely biased language." The current version of the introductory paragraph is three sentences. The first two are solely about his role in white politics. My version changed the third sentence to talk about both white and non-white politics; you want to replace it with another whites-only sentence. Take a look at other pages for ethnic cleansers; they don't focus on how the ethnic cleanser helped their own race. FinnV3 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If the term "common man" is so controversial, I would be willing to rephrase that part of the introduction as: Jackson sought to advance the rights of ordinary white Americans against what he saw as a corrupt aristocracy. I believe that the rest is fine as is, and I don't think that I'd be willing to accept any other revisions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Jackson's position as a slaveowner is not notable for the opening paragraph. It does not distinguish him in any sense. 12 out of the first 18 presidents owned slaves. Jackson isn't unique for it in any way. Display name 99 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had." It sounds like you've stopped arguing that it wasn't ethnic cleansing and started arguing that ethnic cleansing was justified. I don't want to misrepresent you. Is this what you're saying? FinnV3 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"I fear that using it without any context or further explanation obscures the very real and ongoing debate surrounding Jackson's motives and whether or not his decision, despite the suffering that resulted from it, was correct." When I added the context and further explanation, you described it as too long. There's plenty of context and further explanation in the rest of the article. In @Antiok 1pie's words, "it's a simple and adequate sentence for the introduction and it's also supported by reliable sources." It seems like you're trying to shift the focus from "Jackson is notable for the Indian Removal Act" to "Jackson might have been egalitarian in spite of his ethnic cleansing." Why? FinnV3 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted by others, touting Jackson as a champion of the "common man" is grotesque given his role as a slaveholder who led Indian removal efforts. Indian removal must be included in the opening paragraph because it's such an important part of his life as a general, how he rose to popularity and became president, and in his controversial legacy we are discussing. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not touting him and it isn't "grotesque." Rather, it is an honest reflection of his philosophy and legacy. There are quotes around it to demonstrate that the sense in which Jackson and his supporters understood "common man," which was generally limited to white men, may not have been the only definition. Please take a look at a compromise version that I have proposed above which replaces this language. As for mentioning Indian removal in the opening paragraph, the Bank War isn't specifically discussed, neither is the Nullification Crisis, his work dismantling corruption, paying off the national debt, foreign affairs, the Petticoat affair, or any of the specific battles that he fought as a general. All of these are very important as well, but none of these are mentioned in the opening paragraph. Nor should they be, as the opening paragraph is supposed to be extremely brief. I see no reason why Indian removal ought to be mentioned if these matters are excluded. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, please stop your reverts. Yes, multiple editors have objected to the content, but multiple editors have also supported it. When such a dispute occurs, the pre-existing content should remain until a consensus exists to replace it. Discuss changes on the talk page, not through reverts. You called the language in the article "bigoted and offensive." This confrontational language is unnecessary and reveals a barely-hidden partisan agenda. "The exclusion of his leadership as general and president of Indian removal efforts and slaveholding has also not been resolved" Your point? You told me to "please seek compromise." I did; you did not respond but simply inserted your own version into the article. That is unacceptable. I'm the one trying to talk. For these reasons, I have reverted your change. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "This confrontational language is unnecessary and reveals a barely-hidden partisan agenda." I would say that it's "both unhelpful and not very polite to accuse an editor of using biased sources without citing evidence." Your language throughout this talk page has been far ruder in my eyes.
• "You told me to 'please seek compromise.' I did; you did not respond but simply inserted your own version into the article. That is unacceptable" You have been repeatedly inserting your own version into the article, including removing the dispute tags. Let's focus on the issues here rather than pointing fingers. FinnV3 (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this removal: FinnV if you take a look at the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States page, you'll notice that most surveys (excl. the last 2 ones which put him the middle) rank Jackson favorably, despite the plunge in recent years. There is no reason to remove the sentence, as it is present in every U.S. President's wiki article except Millard Fillmore's for some reason. I will restore it. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to remind everyone that I proposed an alternative version to part of the opening paragraph that replaces the language which the two editors in the opposition objected to most strenuously, and yet neither of them has responded to me. Are we going to keep fighting and reverting each other or are we going to try to work out a solution here? Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone cares, I just read through the initial paragraphs for the articles on the other 11 presidents who owned slaves. Not one of them mentions that they were slaveowners. I'm not sure why the Jackson article should be any different. It's mentioned further down in the lead, as it ought to be. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, I did not see the posts that you made above until very recently. I shall respond to them.

I don't know whether Jackson's policies should be considered ethnic cleansing or not. But as I said, it's strong language that should not be used without an explanation about the debate surrounding the extent to which Jackson's actions were necessary. As an editor of Wikipedia, it is not my job to take a position on the issue one way or another, but there are several notable historians who argue that Indian removal, despite its horrors and no matter if it was ethnic cleansing or not, was necessary for the survival of the people being moved. Remini is a scholar who probably knows more about Jackson than any human being who has ever lived, and he takes that view. These beliefs cannot be ignored, and that using the term "ethnic cleansing" implicitly describes the removal was unjustified, and in so doing creates a bias in favor of one side of the debate against the other, which would violate Wikipedia policy. Also, your changes were rejected not exclusively for being too long, but because they were written in a partisan and inflammatory way and were not supported by the sources which you added.

Responding to the points you made about my most recent comments, while the content is in dispute, the article should remain as it was. Both you and FloridaArmy have made a habit of not proposing changes on the talk page but instead directly editing the article as you see fit without first soliciting feedback from the other side. That naturally leads to conflict. WP:BRD is a useful guide here. If you make an edit and it is reverted, discuss it on the talk page, and don't try to change the content again until a new version is agreed upon. As far as me being rude, the language which the two of you have used in reference to the content that I wrote is likely to elicit strong responses, and your consistent failure to address attempted compromises in the article while instead moving on to new and more outlandish claims is no less frustrating.

The maintenance tags that you added to the final paragraph of the lead are not proper. All that you need to do is take a cursory look at the "Historical reputation" section in this article to see examples of how he is regarded as a champion of democracy and ordinary Americans. I don't care whether you think such praise is justified or not. What matters is that it is factual to say that he received it. The tags ought to be removed.

I keep saying that I proposed an alternate wording to the "common man" sentence, but you have not given me your thoughts. Here it is again, in full: An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of ordinary white Americans against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the union of states. This removes the term "common man" that you find so offensive. I also feel that "union of states" is better than simply saying "union" because a non-American might not know that union is synonymous with United States. However, for reasons stated many times, I do not support adding anything else to the opening paragraph. If you accept this change, we can settle our differences regarding the opening paragraph and then work on resolving our disagreements with the final paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• "You have not given me your thoughts." I have.
• "If you accept this change..." I do not.
• "These beliefs cannot be ignored, and that using the term 'ethnic cleansing' implicitly describes the removal was unjustified." How so? I tried to use neutral language. Why does justification of ethnic cleansing matter so much to you? And why is Jackson more notable for "democracy" than ethnic cleansing?
• "They were written in a partisan and inflammatory way." The current version seems a lot more partisan and inflammatory to me.
• "The maintenance tags that you added to the final paragraph of the lead are not proper." The tags I added were to a sentence so vague that it's practically meaningless. I think something similar could be useful there, but it needs more context and/or fewer vague terms like "widely," "democracy," and "common." FinnV3 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Ethnic cleansing" is not neutral language and was not supported by your sources, as Antiok 1pie mentioned. Ethnic cleansing or not, Indian removal was only one of several major policy initiatives undertaken during Jackson's presidency. To describe each of them would be too much detail,, but his status as an advocate for democracy and the common man describes the essence of his public image and the legacy of Jacksonian politics. That's why that is mentioned in the opening paragraph.

• Sentences in the lead are supposed to general. If people want more specific details, they need to go to the body of the article.

We're clearly getting nowhere. I suggest we take this to dispute resolution to try to get other opinions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify a few points for me? I'm still struggling to understand your argument.

• "'Ethnic cleansing' is not neutral language and was not supported by your sources." What's not neutral about the language "ethnic cleansing"? If anything, it seems euphemistic to me. And what's not supported by my sources? It seems pretty unambiguous to say removal "constituted ethnic cleansing under almost any definition," as one of my sources does. Do you know of any reliable sources that reject it as ethnic cleansing? I agree that "genocide" is more contentious because it sort of implies extermination as the goal, but "ethnic cleansing" seems about as neutral as it gets.
• "His status as an advocate for democracy and the common man describes the essence of his public image and the legacy of Jacksonian politics." What makes you say this? I agree that that's the general tone in some white American resources on Jackson, but what makes you say that's his "essence"? I get the sense that deportation of indigenous peoples is the main thing people associate with Jackson, and these policies had a lasting impact on U.S. demographics. Why do you think that Jackson's efforts to protect human rights are a more important part of his legacy than his efforts to dismantle them? Why do you think that the introduction should focus solely on Jackson's impact on white politics rather than including his impact on nonwhite populations?
• "Sentences in the lead are supposed to general. If people want more specific details, they need to go to the body of the article." I agree, but I think that ethnic cleansing is fairly general. It covers his actions both as a general (when he was directing military force to encroach on land used by indigenous peoples) and as a president (when he was implementing legislation to remove indigenous people more systematically). Limiting the introduction to whites seems less general to me.

If you really don't think "slave-owning" and "Democrat" are worth the extra two words, I'll drop those for now and propose the following change to the introductory paragraph:

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Jackson is noted for his role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States and his efforts to preserve the Union.

FinnV3 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

FinnV3, I could not find any sources that explicitly reject the argument that it was ethnic cleansing, but there are still a great many that don't use that term. As I have said before, I think that the term has such a negative connotation that including it without context creates bias against Jackson's decision, whereas the justification for his removal policies has been debated, with some historians taking the view that his actions were necessary for the protection of the Indians. Furthermore, the lead should be a reflection of the body of the article. The term "ethnic cleansing" is not mentioned in the body of the article anywhere. I would not oppose a sentence added to the body that says something like "Many scholars regard Jackson's removal policies as ethnic cleansing," followed by appropriate citations.

Nowadays, you are correct, the most basic thing that most people know about Jackson is his deportation of Indians. But this is not what people best knew him for during his time, or even after his death until very recently.

• "Jackson men insisted that a vote for Jackson was a vote for the people while a vote for Clay was a vote for the privileged. The means, then, matched the message, for both were about the aspirations of the enfranchised masses. 'The Jackson cause is the cause of democracy and the people, against a corrupt and abandoned aristocracy,' the president’s supporters wrote." (Meacham, 2008, p. 219)
• "[French statesman Michel] Chevalier compared Jackson’s torchlight parades to Catholic processions, saying that the images of Jacksonians surging through the streets 'belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy.'" (Meacham, 2008, p. 220)
• Jackson's supporters described him as the "champion of democracy." (Meacham, 2008, p. 436) Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The tumults of the mid-1830s had many causes, but to conservative Whigs, they all boiled down to one—the rise of Andrew Jackson and his demagogic Democratic Party. 'They have classified the rich and intelligent and denounced them as aristocrats,' the Richmond Whig declared, 'they have caressed, soothed, and flattered the heavy class of the poor and ignorant, because they held the power which they wanted.' In pursuit of their selfish ends, the Jacksonians had destroyed the political system designed by the Framers: 'The Republic,' the Richmond paper cried, 'has degenerated into a Democracy.' Yet to the Jacksonians, for whom democracy was the fulfillment of republicanism, the transition was far from complete, and the continuing political challenges of Jackson’s second term raised difficult questions about how it might be done." (Wilentz, 2006, p. 425)
• "Votes for Jackson were votes against corruption, votes for the principle of democracy, votes for the people by the people themselves." (Brands, 2005, p. 400)
• Jacksonian democracy "stretches the concept of democracy about as far as it can go and still remain workable. ... As such it has inspired much of the dynamic and dramatic events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in American history—Populism, Progressivism, the New and Fair Deals, and the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society." (Remini 1988 p. 307)
• "Jackson’s regard for the working classes reached the point where he invariably credited them for whatever triumphs the democracy realized. They constituted the very essence of the democracy, he said. It was their virtue and patriotism that protected the nation against the corruption of the wicked money power." (Remini, 1984, p. 428)
• "Indeed [Jackson] saw the fight as the same old contest for liberty, the same 'battle . . . between the aristocracy of the few against the democracy of numbers, etc.'" (Remini 1984, p. 440)
• "For Jefferson and Jackson, the demands of the future-whatever readjustments they may compel for our governments and for our economy-will best be met by a society in which no single group is able to sacrifice democracy and liberty to its own interests. 'It will never be possible for any length of time for any group of the American people, either by reason of wealth or learning or inheritance or economic power,' declared Roosevelt in 1936, perhaps a trifle optimistically, 'to retain any mandate, any permanent authority to arrogate to itself the political control of American public life. This heritage . . . we owe to Jacksonian democracy—the American doctrine that entrusts the general welfare to no one group or class, but dedicates itself to the end that the American people shall not be thwarted in their high purpose to remain the custodians of their own destiny." (Schlesinger, 1945, pp. 522-523)

No matter the limitations of Jacksonian democracy, and no matter your opinion about whether the praise that Jackson received for promoting democracy is justified, these examples should be sufficient to demonstrate his legacy as a defender of the "common man" and democracy, and to convince you that the tags which you added to the final paragraph of the lead were not warranted.

Your proposed opening paragraph is not acceptable to me both due to its use of the term "ethnic cleansing" and its removal of any mention of Jackson as an advocate for "the common man." The following would do: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president who oversaw the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union." Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The justification for his removal policies has been debated, with some historians taking the view that his actions were necessary for the protection of the Indians." Why does justification matter here? Shouldn't the introductory paragraph focus on basic statements about what Jackson is notable for? There's plenty of room in the rest of the article for your justification of ethnic cleansing.
• "Furthermore, the lead should be a reflection of the body of the article. The term 'ethnic cleansing' is not mentioned in the body of the article anywhere." Yeah, I agree, but this seems like a separate issue. I agree with @Connorlong90 that we shouldn't be dancing around the term. I can spend some time in the next few days working on the body of the article so that it's more consistent with my proposed introduction.
• "As I have said before, I think that the term has such a negative connotation that including it without context creates bias against Jackson's decision." What is the negative connotation? Are you saying the phrase implies something that isn't true? What does it unfairly imply? It seems like a description that will be familiar to modern readers and that's not disputed by any sources.
• "Nowadays, you are correct, the most basic thing that most people know about Jackson is his deportation of Indians. But this is not what people best knew him for during his time, or even after his death until very recently." Why do you think we should focus on what people used to know about Jackson? Why should we dismiss more recent information? Wouldn't that introduce more bias? Also, again, you seem to be focusing on Jackson's public image within white politics. When you talk about what "people" knew Jackson for, you're omitting indigenous perspectives. Those on the Trail of Tears would not have had the same view as those in your quotes.

I propose the following compromise: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes described as a populist, he was known is his time for defending working-class white men, but today he is best remembered for his role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States." FinnV3 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing implies that Jackson sought to remove the Indians out of hatred for them and because he wanted to be rid of them, possibly even that he wanted to exterminate them, while several notable historians say that he sought to remove the Indians in part to protect them. I'm not omitting indigenous perspectives or recent scholarship. I simply do not want to focus almost exclusively on the Indian perspective of Jackson. Your version of the paragraph uses the term ethnic cleansing and omits mention of Jackson's work to preserve the Union. I do not accept it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing implies that Jackson sought to remove the Indians out of hatred for them." What makes you say that ethnic cleansing implies hatred? The term is used in the context of coercive child adoption, but adoptive parents generally don't hate their children. To include the bit about union preservation, I'll propose this compromise: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. While he was championed in his time for his efforts to preserve the Union and advance the rights of working-class white men, his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act." FinnV3 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For the example cited, the foster parents certainly wouldn't hate the children, but many people would certainly not say the same about the people who engineered such a scheme. I don't think that's a good example. I've shown myself willing to compromise by making more specific mention of Indian removal (as you can see in the last version that I proposed), but "ethnic cleansing" is a red line for me. I will not accept anything that has that language. I also don't think that we should say in the opening paragraph that some of his policies were praised while others were criticized. Jackson's economic policies and his "spoils system" received much more vigorous criticism from his political opponents during his lifetime than his Indian removal policies did, and that was the same with historians as well until only about the last 50 years. The first full scholarly biography of Jackson was by James Parton, which was released as three volumes in 1859 and 1860. Parton harshly criticizes Jackson, but not for his Indian removal policies, but for his patronage, economic policies, and temperament. Noted historians Richard Hofstadter and Bray Hammond published major studies in 1948 and 1957, respectively, which featured Jackson prominently. Both scholars excoriated Jackson for his economic policies but paid little or no attention to Indian affairs. While assessments of Jackson's economic policies have been more favorable than negative, focusing negative assessment on removal in the opening paragraph ignores the fact that this was not seen as Jackson's most controversial decision either during his lifetime or during the 100+ years after his death-only really since the 1970s. The last version that I proposed is as far as I'd be willing to go. Display name 99 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"For the example cited, the foster parents certainly wouldn't hate the children, but many people would certainly not say the same about the people who engineered such a scheme. I don't think that's a good example." Why not? What makes you so confident that "the people who engineered such a scheme" are more hateful than Jackson? This is a bold claim, and I'd like to see the sources that led you to this conclusion. Also, I'd still like to know why you think ethnic cleansing implies hatred. FinnV3 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"'Ethnic cleansing' is a red line for me. I will not accept anything that has that language." Why not? I still don't understand your opposition. For clarity, I'll list the reasons I think the term "ethnic cleansing" is appropriate:

1. The Indian Removal Act constitutes ethnic cleansing under every definition of the term I've seen.
2. Usage of the term is supported by reliable sources.
3. Jackson's ethnic cleansing is not refuted by any known sources.
4. The supporting sources are all more recent than your preferred sources (which do not use the term).
5. The fact that your preferred sources do not use the term is easily explained by the fact that your sources were written in the 1980s, well before the term "ethnic cleansing" was widely used. The fact that Remini doesn't use the term is irrelevant.
6. The term is widely used today, and will be familiar to modern Wikipedia readers.

Again, why do you reject the term? "Ethnic cleansing is unpopular" is not a good reason. "Jackson's ethnic cleansing was justified" is not a good reason. What is your reason? FinnV3 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Jackson's economic policies and his 'spoils system' received much more vigorous criticism from his political opponents during his lifetime than his Indian removal policies did, and that was the same with historians as well until only about the last 50 years. The first full scholarly biography of Jackson was by James Parton, which was released as three volumes in 1859 and 1860." Again, your sources are outdated. Modern historians don't rely on secondary sources written that long ago. When they do, they're using them as primary sources. Over-reliance on secondary sources written back when slavery was legally enforced is a surefire way to introduce systemic bias. FinnV3 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said that they would be considered more hateful than Jackson. Only that people would consider them hateful. Historians can use works from whatever time period they want so long as they're helpful and reliable. Historiography takes into account the study of history through all periods of time since the events occurred. When describing Jackson's legacy, we can't only care about how he is viewed today, but also how he was viewed before the modern age. Jackson's contemporaries were much more affected by his actions than any of us. They lived with him. And for most American citizens in his time, removal was not the greatest concern. We can't ignore that just because it is the topic of Jackson's presidency most scrutinized today. What makes you think that your preferred sources have any less "systemic bias" than the ones which I have cited? I do not think that biases are any less present today than they were in the past.

Regarding "ethnic cleansing," as I have already explained many times why I object to that term, I won't answer it again. But let me flip it back to you. If ethnic cleansing does not suggest anything unique, if I am wrong in saying that it implies that Jackson hated the Indians and that the removal was unjustified, why are you so insistent on it being included? If there is really no difference between my text, which calls it "forced removal," and "ethnic cleansing," why not just settle for my version when I am so strongly opposed to yours? Display name 99 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson's contemporaries were much more affected by his actions than any of us. They lived with him." See WP:PST. We should depend primarily on reliable secondary sources.
• "And for most American citizens in his time, removal was not the greatest concern." Once again, it is biased to focus on white men.
• "When describing Jackson's legacy, we can't only care about how he is viewed today, but also how he was viewed before the modern age." See WP:AGE MATTERS. We should prefer newer sources older older ones. I think that the content you're describing belongs in the Andrew Jackson#Historical reputation section.
• "Regarding 'ethnic cleansing,' as I have already explained many times why I object to that term, I won't answer it again." I still do not understand your explanation. It was unclear to me. Maybe we should try something different: I'll explain how I understand your argument, and you can fill in the gaps and correct my misunderstandings:

1. You admit that there is an "extent to which Jackson's policies meet the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing," that reliable sources prominently use that terminology, and that no known sources reject it.
2. You use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in quotes, indicating that you do not believe Jackson's actions constitute true ethnic cleansing.
3. You believe that the term "ethnic cleansing" is inappropriate because it implies a level of hatred that Jackson did not have.
   1. You have not provided evidence for this alternative definition of "ethnic cleansing" that implies "hatred."
   2. To justify Jackson's lack of hate, you described an "ongoing debate" about whether ethnic cleansing was the "correct" decision, but all of your sources are from the '80s or earlier.

• "Why not just settle for my version when I am so strongly opposed to yours?" Again, your opposition makes no sense to me. As a general principle, I try to avoid "settling" with those who "debate" the "correctness" of ethnic cleansing without fully understanding their rationale. I also think that "ethnic cleansing" has two advantages over "forced removal":

1. It's more descriptive for the same number of words. Ethnic cleansing implies forced removal, but it also implies another dimension to the violence, without increasing word count.
2. It's familiar terminology among modern English speakers, and while there is no one standard super-precise definition, all of the familiar definitions are more precise than simple "forced removal." FinnV3 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If both "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing" are accurate and neutral terms that don't imply anything one way or another, you should have no problem agreeing to the one that I would rather have in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that "ethnic cleansing" is a better description that would improve the article, and I'm still trying to understand your preference. The term "ethnic cleansing" does imply things that "forced removal" does not. FinnV3 (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with using the term "ethnic cleansing" as well. There is no source which says that Jackson played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. This is improper synthesis. I think that FinnV3's rationale goes like this: Because Jackson played a major role in Indian Removal and Indian Removal was ethnic cleansing, Jackson also played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. Even if true, it's improper synthesis and against the wiki's rules. The sentence should instead be like this: Jackson played a major role in advancing the policy of Indian Removal, by signing the Indian Removal Act in 1830. Antiok 1pie (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You're using an old version of my proposal. My compromise says that Jackson "his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act." FinnV3 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Surveys of historians and scholars have not ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents

When I asked for a citation for the claim that Jackson was ranked favorably, the citation added showed Jackson ranked #22 out of U.S. presidents. Why is it not worth including the single word "slave-owning" in the introduction section (because "18 presidents owned slaves" so it's not notable) but it is worth including a whole sentence describing Jackson's rankings as favorable (because somehow #22 is exceptionally notable)? And how are "president rankings" even a useful concept? This whole article reads extremely biased with a pro-Jackson slant. FinnV3 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, see Antiok 1pie's comment in the above section. Slaveholding is mentioned in the introduction section. See this sentence in the second paragraph: Jackson purchased a property later known as The Hermitage, and became a wealthy, slaveowning planter. We aren't trying to keep his status as a slaveholder out of the lead altogether. We simply object to it being mentioned in the first paragraph. I will point out that Antiok 1pie was mistaken in saying that 18 presidents owned slaves. 12 did. He probably became confused looking at the list of presidents on Wikipedia who owned slaves. The last one listed is Grant, who was the 18th president. But the point that he was making still stands. Jackson's slaveholding status deserves mention in the lead section, just simply not in the opening paragraph.

Regardless of how you feel about including rankings in the articles, they have become a standard part of the introductions to articles about U.S. presidents. They're in the lead section of almost every presidential article, and Jackson has usually been ranked among the upper tier of presidents. As Antiok 1pie says, it wasn't until very recently that his ratings took a plunge.

With that said, there are ways to make this part better and incorporate some of FinnV3's objections. To begin, I feel like it would probably be a good idea to have citations for that sentence in the lead. While content in the lead generally does not need citations, MOS:LEADCITE says that material in the lead that is challenged or likely to be challenged should have citations, and this sentence obviously meets that criteria. Secondly, although it's true that most rankings of Jackson do have him ranked highly, perhaps it would be appropriate to acknowledge the recent drop. Therefore, the sentence could read something like: However, surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents. I would also restore the two citations to the end of the sentence. Does that satisfy everyone? Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources would you cite for that new claim? I don't see it in the links you sent before. FinnV3 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources that I included have him ranked in the top half in previous surveys. There is another source here that I found. It reads: "Thirteen polls of historians and political scientists taken between 1948 and 2009 have ranked Jackson always in or near the top ten presidents, among the “great” or “near great." The two original sources basically say the same thing as each other. I propose replacing one of them with this source and re-adding the sentence as I have written it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to exclude recent surveys? What makes the favorable results more "usual"? That source is a high school study guide and I don't see anything about what those polls actually were. FinnV3 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No one wants to exclude recent surveys. See this summary of historical surveys which mostly rank Jackson in the top 10 best U.S. presidents. As late as 2015 Jackson was ranked as the 9th greatest U.S. president. Also, this "high school study guide" was written by historian Daniel Feller, a reputable source on Jacksonian matters. Antiok 1pie (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As Antiok 1pie says. It would be cumbersome to include citations for every single poll, but this article written by a reputable scholar summarizing those polls is suitable. The source establishes for decades that Jackson was almost always ranked in the upper tier of presidents. Only within the past 5 to 10 years has this changed. The drop is acknowledged by saying "usual," so your accusation that I am trying to "exclude recent surveys" is utterly preposterous when I am instead attempting to reach a compromise by doing just the opposite. Display name 99 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like a compromise to me. "Usually favorable" seems misleading when the most recent survey ranks him sixth-to-last in the "Pursued Equal Justice For All" category. It seems like something like "mixed" would be more appropriate. FinnV3 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just one category and it's just one survey. The clear majority of surveys that have been done rank him favorably. To say otherwise is just not true. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Relative to this discussion, and the one above, I think there's been a lot of cherrypicking here in terms of which scholars we're hearing from and which ones we're not. There's a lot of Remini, a lot of Prucha, and a lot of Feller, and their working is doing some heavy lifting here. By my count, Remini is cited over 125 times. That's too much reliance on one historian given the multitudes of studies about Jackson, even if Remini was a known Jackson biographer. I think it would make sense to include other scholarly perspectives, especially around Indian Removal, especially given how the related pages (Indian removal and Trail of Tears) make clear note of Jackson's role in Removal, his history with Native peoples, and his responsibility in the violence of removal, and how easy it would be to add a sentence or two for some balance beyond "many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Why? Can we have some specifics? Surely it is one of the things Jackson is most known for. As it stands, this page leans heavily on specific scholars and a couple suspect sources (see below on Bradley J. Birzer). By no means should this page outright chastise him, but it should represent the myriad scholarly perspectives on his role in removal, at the very least.

For example, underneath "Legacy--Historical Representation": We've got one sentence critical of his dealings with native peoples, followed by three sentences listing specific arguments for why Jackson was not racist and he was benevolent toward Native peoples: "Jackson's initiatives to deal with the conflicts between Native American people and European-American settlers has been a source of controversy. Howard Zinn called him 'the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history' and 'exterminator of Indians.' Conversely, in 1969, Francis Paul Prucha argued that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the extremely hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence. While Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. Bradley J. Birzer argues that Jackson was not a racist and that he thought of Indians as inherently equal to whites, even if he also believed that Indian civilization 'lagged behind'. He believed that the whites frequently mistreated the Indians and that the Indian removal served the interests of both the Indians and the white settlers who would otherwise come into conflict with each other." What makes Birzer's (a Tolkien scholar) book from Regnery Publishing particularly notable that it must be a third opinion? Surely there could be a bit more scholarly critique on this topic aside from Howard Zinn. It is out there, and it's even represented on the Trail of Tears page pretty clearly, so it wouldn't be hard to migrate some of those sources over to this article's body (see also scholars listed below, for example).

In terms of Jackson's role in removal and its label as ethnic cleansing or genocide, a number of historians have discussed Jackson's role in the Trail of Tears and it being genocide (Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Jeffrey Ostler, and Dina Gilio-Whitaker), and it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by Patrick Wolfe. Of course, other scholars have argued that it is an example of Ethnic Cleansing (Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America would probably be the most prominent example). Simply adding some information from one of these sources might be enough to illuminate the vague statement that "many historians consider [removal] the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Or, at the end of the section on removal, a statement that "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Then, of course, you could include that Prucha believed Jackson was acting benevolently. Essentially, these represent pretty clear and present conversations, and should be included.

Finally, regarding Feller's reputability on Jackson recently, I think a good number of reputable historians (note H-net's use of the word "genocide") would disagree. Does that mean Feller's wrong? Certainly not. But it does mean that there's a conversation around the way he's presented Jackson recently, which is exemplary of my entire point here: A few critical scholarly sources could be added in a few places for balance outside of Remini, Feller, Prucha, et al.. Further, given the bias around high school materials, is that really the best source to use?

TL;DR: I have to say this page requires a couple more, widely sourced scholarly opinions on Jackson's role in removal. And that Birzer source is really, really suspect.--Hobomok (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there could be more negative evaluations of Indian removal included in the "Historical reputation" section. If you want to add something to that section about some historians regarding it as a genocide or ethnic cleansing to make it more balanced, be my guest. Regarding the three favorable evaluations that are already there-Prucha, Remini, and Birzer-Prucha and Remini should both stay (Remini especially), as they are both noted Jackson scholars and their opinions lend some balance that would be absent if they were missing. I have no objection to Birzer being removed. Antiok 1pie was the editor who added him. I had never even heard of him before he was added to the article, so I have no strong opinions about him. I pinged Antiok 1pie to give him a chance to say something in Birzer's defense if they want, but based on your own evaluations, I agree that he can probably be removed.

I would not approve of this statement: "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Not all historians who reject the genocide label have called it ethnic cleansing. It would be enough simply to say that Jackson has received heavy criticism for his removal policies, with some historians labelling it a genocide, while others disagree and defend certain aspects of his decisions.

Regarding changes to the section on Indian removal itself, I would think that it would make more sense organizationally to confine detailed discussions of historians' views on the matter to the "Historical reputation" section. If you have information in a source that has not yet been utilized which you think might make the removal section better, I encourage you to add it. But I think that it would be difficult to follow the article if we broke up historians' evaluations by citing some opinions in the main narrative and others at the end in the Legacy section. I would encourage you to remove Birzer and replace him with a sentence or two summarizing one or more historians' negative characterizations of removal, and limiting any edits you may make to the removal section itself to shorter observations from historians not currently cited or small bits of information that you think might be helpful.

As far as what you have said about the over-reliance on some sources, the encouragement that I just gave you to add more perspectives is all that I can really do. I am the primary author of the article. I tried to incorporate information and perspectives from a variety of authors, but there simply isn't a reliable source for Jackson that matches Remini's three volume biography in the amount of information and intricate detail that it contains. Display name 99 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Feller isn't currently cited in the article at all. The statement that Jackson has generally been evaluated favorably in presidential rankings was challenged, and I found an article by him to support the statement. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, I question your decision to remove citations from the opening paragraph. It was my understanding that direct quotes in the lead needed to have citations. I don't think that this being a featured article would change that. Can you please explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I did not remove citations. That was Hoppyh, who also removed tags added by another user, stating that one needs consensus to add tags. I undid their original edit, because I’m 99% sure one does not need consensus to add tags—one only needs to have an active dispute on talk reflecting those tags, which is currently taking place. Hoppyh then undid this again, but has not engaged in any discussion here.—Hobomok (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to Birzer being removed either. However, I agree with Display name 99 that Remini & Prucha should stay. Also, Remini is cited 125 times in the article because he is the most prominent scholar on matters relating to Jackson. As noted by John William Ward, "No historian knows more about Andrew Jackson than Robert V. Remini". I, personally, see no issue with Remini being cited that many times. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I have issue with Remini cited that many times (again, he was a prominent Jackson biographer). My point (per my final two sentences) is that certain scholars are cited many, many times over, and other notable, reputable scholars of the Early American Republic, Jacksonian Age, and Indigenous history with differing thoughts are left out. There needs to be a more diverse range of scholarly thought represented here. It doesn't seem like anyone objects to that, though, so I'll see what I can do to add it and we can return here if there are issues.

On another note, previously I've tried to soften a paraphrase of Remini under that same section, which states: "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett," but it was reverted because Remini makes specific mention of the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. I do understand the quote from Remini says that these peoples are no more. However, the Mohicans and the Narragansett still exist. Their wiki pages say so, their websites say so, and personally I've worked and collaborated with people who are active members of both Nations. Wouldn't it be best to simply state "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated."? This paraphrase gets across the same idea, and it's not harmful or ahistorical. The clarifying note can stay below for inclusion's sake, but the paraphrase as it stands is unnecessary and harmful. --Hobomok (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

OK Hobomok. My apologies. Hoppyh, can you please explain the removal of the citations? Direct quotes in the lead are supposed to have them, and I am unaware of any policy saying that featured articles are exempt. Hobomok, regarding the Remini sentence that you find problematic, what if we simply replaced annihilated with "destroyed?" It gets to the same point but is a little less strong, and doesn't imply that these tribes were completely exterminated. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, Display name 99. Regarding the Remini paraphrase: I do think it best to remove the names of specific tribes. Such statements are false, and they contribute to ahistorical narratives around extermination and disappearance, especially for tribes in the Northeast like the Mohicans and Narragansett, who have been regular subjects of such extinction narratives (See: historian Jean O' Brien's book, Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England, historian Daniel H. Usner Jr.'s "Iroquois Livelihood and Jeffersonian Agrarianism: Reaching behind the Models and Metaphors" in Native Americans and the Early Republic, and historian Robert F. Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian, from Columbus to the Present).

Remini's argument, that Jackson believed the five tribes would be exterminated without removal and he was doing them a favor, is just as clear without mention of Nations and people that are not extinct.--Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Content removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, Cmguy777 made an edit to the sentence of the article about presidential rankings. I changed it again. It now reads: "Surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents, although his ratings have recently declined." Please let me know if you think that this is an improvement. If you think it is, would you remove the tag that you added for that sentence? Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. My preference is still to remove the rankings entirely from the introduction, but I won't make a stink about it. FinnV3 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It would help to let editors edit in this article freely. There is a lot of complaining and editor control. Editors are not working together. The rankings is a number system...1,2,3...4,5,6,7...8,9,10... I am not even allowed to say Jackson is in the top ten. Of course rankings are needed for each President. There seems to be a controlling editor. This is creating conflict. I am shying away from editing on this article. Latner is a great source. Even he is questioned. Enough said. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Jackson has been widely reviled in the United States as a destroyer of democracies

The current introduction states that "Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man." Isn't he better known for his role in the dismantling of democracies? It seems misleading and biased to describe him as pro-democracy when in reality he was systematically replacing existing democracies with white nationalist versions. FinnV3 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

systematically replacing existing democracies with white nationalist versions. Um...WHAAT????? Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're not going to clarify what the heck you're even talking about here, I will remove the tags. Display name 99 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As in, rejecting the sovereignty of the other peoples living in North America, disbanding the existing social structures, and strengthening control of the U.S. government in these regions. Jackson's version of democracy was significantly more white, and depending on how you define nationalism, arguably more nationalistic. FinnV3 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Were the tribes whom he moved democracies? Did their political structures change after they were moved? The sentence is talking about his role in white America, where he has unquestionably been lauded as a champion of democracy (see my list of quotes from historians above). His actions towards non-whites are already mentioned in detail. Please don't mix them up. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"The sentence is talking about his role in white America, where he has unquestionably been lauded as a champion of democracy." Right, that's why I added the "vague" tags. "Democracy" is such a vague term, and I think more context is needed here. As written, it seems to imply that Jackson supported democracy and working-class people in general, when he had a hugely detrimental effect on many of the democracies and working-class people subject to his rule. More context would ensure that readers "don't mix them up." FinnV3 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to do that. His well-established role as an advocate for democracy is already presented alongside is contentious status as an advocate for Indian removal. Additionally, Jackson did not force all Indians to move. Indians could stay if they wanted, be subject to state law, and amalgamate with the whites. (Remini, 1981, p. 270) Jackson encouraged removal ahead of this option, but the fact was that it still remained an option. Some took it. A few even owned slaves and became a part of the planter aristocracy. Describing Jackson as an advocate of democracy is therefore relevant not only for whites, but also Native Americans who lived as whites.

You have not answered my question challenging your description of Jackson as a "[dismantler] of democracies." What tribes were governed as democracies, and how were their political systems destroyed by removal? Display name 99 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You're omitting some crucial context around that citation: Jackson made that suggestion in the context of a threat, where he was telling those who remained that they would "disappear and be forgotten" and that their "national character will be lost."

As for the democratic nature of indigenous society, there's plenty of evidence that democratic procedures go back a millennium in the groups that Jackson deported, see doi:10.1017/aaq.2022.31. European ideals of democracy were heavily influenced by their interactions with North American indigenous peoples, as described in detail in "The Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. FinnV3 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A threat is one way of interpreting it, but Remini maintains that it Jackson simply saw it as the truth. They could try to live among the whites and maybe be treated as citizens, but their neighbors might not accept them and their culture would disappear. But if they wanted to give it a try, they could. Again, no matter how incomplete Jacksonian democracy was, and no matter what you think about the justification for the praise that Jackson received for promoting democracy, the fact is that he did receive it, and the sentence is thus a fully accurate assessment of Jackson historiography. Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Also, let's not forget about freed blacks in the North, of whom there were plenty. Although many of them were unable to vote and therefore had a small at best influence on political affairs, they still had jobs, so Jackson's policies on the working classes would have affected them as well. When describing his position as an advocate for democracy or the common man, specifying that we mean white people is both unnecessary and, in my mind, also misleading, as it seemingly erases from existence Indians who lived as whites as well as freed blacks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There were much more enslaved than freed. Isn't it worse to "erase from existence" the common men who were enslaved and ethnically cleansed? I propose the following change to the paragraph: "In his retirement, Jackson remained active in Democratic Party politics, supporting the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk. Though fearful of its effects on the slavery debate, Jackson advocated the annexation of Texas, which was accomplished shortly before his death. Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. Jackson was widely revered in the United States as an advocate the white working class and Jacksonian democracy, but his reputation has suffered in recent decades, largely due to his white supremacist views as a slaveowner and ethnic cleanser." FinnV3 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to erase the memory of slaves and Indians. Both of them are given plenty of mention in the lead already. But your version obfuscates the existence of freed blacks and Indians living like whites. Furthermore, it diminishes the basic language of Jacksonian democracy, of which terms like "common man" were a critical part. Jackson's supporters, both in his time and up through the past decades, have not described him as an advocate of the "white working class" but for the "common man" or "ordinary Americans." However flawed and inaccurate you think this is, that's what they have said, and it is not biased to use the language of Jackson's supporters when the article also notes his racial policies and mentions the criticism that he has received for them. I do not agree to your proposal. Display name 99 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The democracy for white Americans yes. Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans, and women no. There could be more clarification in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• "But your version obfuscates the existence of freed blacks and Indians living like whites." Again, your version obfuscates the existence of slaves and victims of ethnic cleansing. There were a lot more of these people, and I find this obfuscation more serious.
• "Jackson's supporters, both in his time and up through the past decades, have not described him as an advocate of the 'white working class' but for the 'common man' or 'ordinary Americans.'" Isn't that true of most populists? Why are we focusing on the language of Jackson's supporters? Sure, they use the words "common" and "ordinary" to mean white, but we should be writing from a global perspective. We should prioritize clarity in writing, and we can't expect the casual Wikipedia reader to understand that "common man" means "white working class" in this context. FinnV3 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would focus on two things in the intro. Jackson the ethnic cleanser of Indians, and he stopped the mail, possibly illegally, from northern abolisionists to the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I included censorship of abolitionism in my original version, but Display name 99 removed it. I agree it would be better with that included. FinnV3 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's include the Bank War, the victory at New Orleans, the fact that he once killed a man in a duel, the Nullification Crisis, the paying off of the national debt, the spoils system, the purges against political corruption, the campaign against "internal improvements," the Petticoat affair, the Creek War, the invasions of Florida, the trade agreement with Britain, the treaty with France, the recognition of Texas, the attempted assassination, and maybe a few other things when we can think of them. Starting to get a little out of hand? That's the problem. The opening paragraph should focus on broad themes, not specific policies. Display name 99 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC) And for the record, Jackson did not directly use the government to stop abolitionist mailings from going into the South. Rather, he chose to allow Southern postmasters to stop the mail if they so decided. Display name 99 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add a critical article on Jackson from vox.com. This article was deleted. No wonder this article has been cited for neutrality concerns. It appears nothing critical can be said of Jackson. Historiography can include web articles. The article was critical but reliable. This is 2022. There is the internet. I am not sure how anything critical can be added to the article. There was no time to let the edit settle. It was immediately removed even before the information was placed in the article. Editors don't have to agree with the article, but a critical assessment of Jackson should be allowed whether from a reliable website or book. I don't agree with everything in the article, but it was a critical assessment of Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, please explain to me how a Vox article about Jackson deserves an entire paragraph in the "Historical reputation" section. There are whole books written about Jackson or featuring him prominently by professional academic historians that receive a sentence or less of mention in this section, but you think it's appropriate to add a full paragraph about a random article on the Internet written by a non-historian? Do you have any idea how long this article would be if we added a paragraph summarizing every article that any journalist has ever written about Andrew Jackson? The author of the article is a guy named Dylan Matthews. Click on his name in the article and read what he has to say about himself: "I joined Vox as one of our first three employees in February 2014, and have been here ever since, writing about everything from furries to foreign aid. Right now I'm particularly interested in global development, anti-poverty efforts in the US and abroad, factory farming and animal welfare, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy." Does that sound like a professional American history scholar to you? Anyone who wants to can write an article on any website that will publish their work about any topic that they want, but that doesn't mean that we must or should address every single one. The analysis should be sourced to qualified historians. Hobomok has opined that this article would benefit from citing a wider group of scholars, and I have welcomed their efforts to find more. Assessments of all kinds are welcome, but they have to be high quality. If you want to add a critical assessment of Jackson, take the time to look one up in a book instead of just jumping to the first anti-Jackson opinion piece that comes up on Google. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not protesting the removal, but it is historiography. It is just a critical view of Jackson. I don't see anything fringe from Dylan Matthews. No, Matthews is definitely not a scholar. However, historiography has to do with how the public, society, or press views Jackson, including websites. It is just an opinion of Jackson from the 21st Century. Again, I don't agree with everything in Matthew's article. I do have a scholarly source Richard B. Latner (2002) in Graff's 'The Presidents book, on the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a better example of historiography. Ken Burns is a filmmaker. He is neither a historian nor a historical scholar. He did attend Hampshire College. I remember my history professor in the 1980s made it mandatory for his class to watch Ken Burns's film on the Civil War. Although Burns is not a historian, his film works have been lauded, except maybe for his film on National Parks. That is historiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the "Historical reputation" section could do with more critical assessments, just not in the manner that you added. Popular opinions of Jackson do deserve attention, but not more than professional historians. Here is what I think would probably be best. Negative evaluations of Jackson's racial policies are largely confined to this: Jackson's initiatives to deal with the conflicts between Native American people and European-American settlers has been a source of controversy. Howard Zinn called him "the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history" and "exterminator of Indians." The article would benefit from a sentence or two added on to that. I suggest either adding another general sentence about how people view Jackson today sourced to either a couple historians or multiple journalistic articles, including perhaps the Vox article, or a brief critical quote from a modern historian. Daniel Walker Howe's book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America is a high quality source which is critical of Jackson, but there are no mentions of it in the "Historical reputation" section. There could be. I recommend that you read parts of that book if you have not already, and add a brief sentence or two to the article either quoting something that Howe says about Jackson's policies on Indian removal or slavery or briefly summarizing one or more of his arguments. Display name 99 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Also, not really on topic, but your history professor in the 1980s could not have required you to watch Ken Burns' Civil War documentary because that film was released in 1990. Display name 99 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It was 1990. I went to the university in the 1980s and early 1990s. My point was that Burns is not a historian, but his Civil War film series was lauded by the public and my history professor. The controversy with Jackson today was the new $20 bill in 2016 and Harriet Tubman. That could be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I added two Latner (2002) critical assessments of Jackson's Indian removal policy and Jackson's hostile view of abolitionism. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I added critical assessments of slavery and Indian removal to the introduction in the last paragraph. I hope the edits will stand and the neutrality tags will be removed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, yes, works by non-historians can be discussed, but usually only when they have a major impact on how we remember something. Burns' Civil War documentary certainly deserves a place in an article about how we remember the Civil War because of its immense popularity and influence. But a random Vox article doesn't deserve the same kind of treatment.

Thank you for your edit to the "Historical reputation" section. I have moved it from the end of "Historical reputation" to the middle, right after Zinn's critical assessment of Indian removal. It looked out of place at the end and I felt like it would be better placed after another criticism of removal. I also made a few copyedits. I think it looks pretty good. Thank you for adding it. I do however ask you to delete this last sentence: Latner said that the Jackson administration "certainly was hostile to abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South's "peculiar institution."" The reason is because it's not an assessment of how Jackson's pro-slavery beliefs affected it's legacy. It's just a fact. Yes, we know that Jackson supported slavery. The sentence doesn't add anything to a discussion of his legacy. You can replace it with an evaluation of Jackson's support for slavery, preferably from a different historian. (Again, Howe, maybe?) I didn't remove the sentence myself. It's still there. But I think that you should replace it with something different. As to the rest, I have no problem with it and I think that it makes the article better.

I am reverting your edit to the lead. To begin, the lead right now is being actively debated. When content is under dispute, it's best not to make edits directly but to propose changes on the talk page. Your edit is problematic because, by saying that Jackson's support for slavery represents a "dark side" to his movement, it makes a moral judgment about something. Now you're not wrong in saying that support for slavery is a dark side of Jackson's legacy. I completely agree with you. But it's not how Wikipedia articles are written. Consider the article about Adolf Hitler, the most infamous man who has ever lived. The article does not say "Adolf Hitler was evil." Instead, it references historians calling him evil. We have to remain neutral on moral matters, even ones in which the difference between right and wrong is very clear. I also believe that there is already enough on Indian removal and slavery in the lead. Both are mentioned in the third paragraph as part of the summary of his presidency, and their impact on his legacy in the fourth paragraph is already discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The "dark side" came from the Latner (2002) edits. Not my idea. I think it should stay in the introduction because the word "dark side" is supported by Latner (2002). You might disagree with Latner but he is an established source. I think it best to resolve the neutrality of the article as quickly as possible. Nobody said Jackson was evil. All the Latner source is really saying is there was a good and bad side to Jacksonian Democracy. And the dark side is not derogatory specifically toward Jackson. The edit said the dark side of Jacksonian democracy. The edit did not say dark side of Jackson. I think you may be misinterpreting the Latner source. In fairness, I see no good in letting a presidential article stagnate and mire in neutrality tags. Jackson deserves better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Historians can write that way, but Wikipedia editors don't. Yes, it would be best to solve it quickly, but unfortunately things don't always work like that, and third parties making edits without consulting anyone doesn't usually make things better, in my judgement. I think that there's enough about slavery in the lead already, and even if there wasn't, that statement would still go against WP:NPOV. If you disagree, there is an active discussion about the article going on here. You are welcome to add your thoughts. I also think that that the statement in the Historical reputation section is little vague. What was the "one source" that Latner noted, and might it be best to refer to that directly rather than Latner? Display name 99 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ask Latner. Not me. I just put in what he says. Allowing the term "darker side" would allow the article to achieve neutrality, quickly. The endless discussion does nothing. That is why I make the edits and expect results. I have been making edits based on discussions in that I have participated. Maybe you should participate by making edits that will resolve the neutrality issues in the article instead of complain about mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is already neutral, and adding what you wrote to the lead makes it not neutral. Have you considered replacing the slavery sentence in Historical reputation with something else, as I suggested? Display name 99 (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the "darker side" reference. I believe there is a neutrality issue. This article has been tagged. But please don't undermine efforts to make the article neutral to remove the neutrality tags as quickly as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, again, I suggested that you replace this sentence: Concerning slavery, Latner said that the Jackson administration "certainly was hostile to abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South's "peculiar institution." It's not an assessment of the importance of anything. It's just a simple statement of fact that is already well-established. Thus, it doesn't add anything to the Legacy section. Can you please consider replacing it with a sentence that in some way analyzes or criticizes Jackson's support for slavery rather than simply states that he supported it, which the reader should already know by this point? Display name 99 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Latner says Jackson was hostile to abolitionists. That is part of Jackson's legacy. I had put in an article that directly affected Jackson's legacy of being on the $20 bill. That article was removed. Jackson's ethnocenticy to Indians and his pro slavery policy was Jackson's legacy. Jackson defied the Supreme Court and forcibly removed Cherokees from their land. That is Jackson's legacy. Jackson ordered his Postmaster to sieze anti abolitionist tracts. Latner is a respected historian. His views of Jackson should be allowed in the article. You don't have to agree with them. This is not helping getting the neutrality tags removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Joshua A Lynn on JASTOR has authored an article on Jackson's legacy. The Democratic party split between anti slavery Democrats and pro slavery Democrats. For some reason some Democrats believed Jackson was anti-slavery. Not sure why since Jackson's primary wealth came from his slaves. Any way the Jacksonian Democracy era lasted for thirty years after Jackson's death until the outbreak of the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, you're not listening. My problem isn't with Latner. It's how you're presenting him, and instead of trying to understand my comment, you went on a bizarre rant about the split in the Democratic Party and the end of the Jacksonian era, which, by the way, most historians believe, contrary to your statements, ended with the conclusion of the presidency of Polk, not with the outbreak of the Civil War, as you have said. Even if you were right about this, what was the point in saying it? Summarizing Jackson's views doesn't explain what his legacy is. Explaining how those views have been interpreted does. Jackson supporting slavery isn't part of his legacy. Jackson being criticized for supporting slavery is. Explain how Jackson was criticized for supporting slavery. Don't jus say that he supported slavery. We already know that. Display name 99 (talk) 04:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Latner says Jackson was hostile to abolitionism. This is demonstrated by Jackson ordering his Postmaster to seize abolitionist literature. That goes beyond being pro slavery. There is a difference. Please read Latner's quote. Do you have something against Latner, an established historian? I as an editor just put in what the source says. You are free to remove the Latner quote on Jackson being hostile to abolitionism. We are going in circles. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We are going in circles because you either cannot or will not read what I am saying. I removed the sentence and replaced it with this: "Historian Daniel Walker Howe accuses Jacksonian Democrats of hypocrisy by criticizing government favoritism of special interest groups while also heavily favoring slaveholding interests." It's better because it's an actual assessment of something, not just stating a basic fact that everyone knows. Display name 99 (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't assume everyone knows anything. Your edit looks good. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The statement says nothing about Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The legacy section does not have to focus exclusively on Jackson himself, but on his political movement, which that sentence addresses. Also, your original version said nothing about his legacy. It just restated a fact that was already established elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection requires fully registered editors

Please make sure you are fully and properly registered as required by the protection established for this FA. (Your User Name should not be a dead link.) Thank you. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean users who haven't created userpages? I don't believe there is any requirement to create a one, and it's not linked to registration. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Biased presentation of the Creek War

The section about the Creek war seems like it was written from a very white American perspective, and I think it would benefit from more recent sources. For example, compare presentation of the Fort Mims "massacre" and the "battle" of Horseshoe Bend. It's biased in favor of Jackson and against the Red Creeks. FinnV3 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, can you please explain? Just saying "It's biased!" and not adding anything to clarify why you believe it to be so does not help anyone. It's not the duty of other editors to investigate your claims of bias. If you think that the text is biased, present the evidence yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, updated FinnV3 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Please continue with excellent coverage of the facts

I came because I saw this at the NPOV notice board. IMO an enclyclopedia article should inform, including covering the facts whether they be good or bad. People come here for information, not for somebody's characterization of the facts, especially value-laden characterizations. I did a fast read and in my view it does an excellent NPOV job of doing that. If there is more factual wp:due material about Jackson with direct relevance to Jackson to be added it should be added, whether it be positive or negative. IMO value-laden characterization / opinion words are not informative and are best left out. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see it as a "value-laden characterization" to describe the white working class as the "common man"? What makes a characterization "value-laden"? FinnV3 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't see that word as a value-laden characterization. That doesn't mean that it is always a good word to use. If you have a specific use in question, I'd be happy to look at it. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually miles away from "value laden"........it's not even POV'ish. Has a pretty straightforward definition; like "the undistinguished commoner lacking class or rank distinction or special attributes" (per Webster) North8000 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Value-laden characterizations in the Creek War

@Nettless recently made an edit under the justification that the "Battle of Horseshoe Bend isn't a massacre." Where are you getting this information? I was trying to address the biased characterization of the Fort Mims "massacre" and the "battle" of Horseshoe Bend. Historians have criticized this dichotomy and described Jackson's attack on Horseshoe Bend as a massacre (Anderson & Cayton 2005, p. 232). Re-added with a better citation. FinnV3 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of the term massacre is not appropriate. Hoppyh (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hoppyh:, Secondary literature published in university presses and peer reviewed venues disagrees and argues that it should be seen as a massacre.

Beyond the Anderson and Cayton citation @FinnV3: provides, see:

1. Historian Roger L. Nichols Massacring Indians: From Horseshoe Bend to Wounded Knee, 2021, U of Oklahoma Press (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Massacring_Indians/bzYGEAAAQBAJ?hl=en) and,

2. Historian Jeff Ostler, “Genocide and American Indian History”, 2015, in American History (https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3) (specifically: “This event, usually termed a battle, had some characteristics of a massacre.”).

At the very least, this view should be reflected in the article. The language FinnV3 introduced (that some historians argue this event constitutes a massacre) makes sense to me, and adding citations from four respected historians across three high-level scholarly sources should be enough to keep this information in the article. —Hobomok (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, you’ve made my point—views aren’t facts.Hoppyh (talk)

@Hoppyh: Wikipedia goes by what the reliable secondary sources say. This is what those sources say. Contrary to what you believe, YOUR view doesn’t matter. The expert scholarship, as it is written, is what does. This is what experts say. This is what an encyclopedia represents.

YOU don’t believe the term is appropriate. These historians, writing in peer-reviewed university presses do believe it is appropriate. The former are the views of a random Wikipedia editor. The latter are secondary sources that Wikipedia relies on. The latter is what is represented. —Hobomok (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect on use of these opinion pieces here. You also should familiarize yourself with the WP policy on the improper use of all caps, as above. See WP:SHOUT Hoppyh (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: A legitimate question: Since when are two books from university presses and a peer-reviewed journal article categorized as opinion pieces?—Hobomok (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, how helpful, thank you for engaging in such good-faith discussion.—Hobomok (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

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 (Summoned by bot) 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. @Display name 99: 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#Jackson's reputation 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)

Jr8825, 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)

  To emphasize the recent and debated nature of calling this ethnic cleansing look at the intro to Anderson's 2014 book on the subject [2]. 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 Display name 99's and Springee's arguments to be convincing. I also agree with Blueboar'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)

Cmguy777, 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)

Andrevan, 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?”"[3] " 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:

Selected academic sources available on JSTOR which describe Jackson's policy as "ethnic cleansing" & Jackson's role as historically significant

--Anderson, Gary Clayton (2016). "The Native Peoples of the American West: Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing?". Western Historical Quarterly. 47 (4). Oxford University Press: 416. ISSN 0043-3810. JSTOR 26782720.: "Jackson ... narrowly push[ed] through Congress the Indian Removal Act, which called for the forced deportation of all Indians east of the Mississippi River to lands west of it. ... The largest tribes to face deportation were Choctaws, Cherokees, and Creeks, with a total population of nearly 50,000 people. But many small tribes in the northern states were forced into removal as well. ... No other crime committed against Indians can equal in severity this mass deportation, a policy in which nearly 10,000 Indians died, mostly from disease and the poor quality of food provided by the government during migration. Surely, this was ethnic cleansing—a policy with a clear foundation of intent initiated by civilians and often carried out by the army—not genocide." --Greenstein, Fred I. (2009). Inventing the Job of President: Leadership Style from George Washington to Andrew Jackson (Ebook ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-691-16091-7. JSTOR j.ctt7t2xc. "Jackson’s support for Indian removal was grounded in his long-standing conviction that Indians and whites could not live securely in the same area. In his second message to Congress, he called what now might be referred to as ethnic cleansing a "benevolent policy"..." --Lynn, John A. (2019). Another Kind of War: The Nature and History of Terrorism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. p. 78. doi:10.2307/j.ctvk8vzjr. ISBN 978-0-300-18881-3. JSTOR j.ctvk8vzjr. "...we could also consider other serious indictments of ethnic cleansing by the White community against others, most notably Native Americans. ... In the single largest relocation of Native Americans, Andrew Jackson advocated the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and then, against a decision by the Supreme Court favoring the Indians, forced tens of thousands of Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Seminoles to move west across the Mississippi—the "Trail of Tears" along which many thousands died between 1831 and 1838." --Carson, James Taylor (2008). ""The Obituary of Nations": Ethnic Cleansing, Memory, and the Origins of the Old South". Southern Cultures. 14 (4). University of North Carolina Press: 6–31. ISSN 1068-8218. JSTOR 26391777. "Andrew Jackson had advocated the expulsion of First Peoples since his days as the commander of the Tennessee militia in the Creek Civil War, and after his election to the presidency he made their conquest an administration priority," ... "Without a doubt Jackson’s vision held a powerful appeal in its day. Candidates for office in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi made Removal an electoral issue, proto-Democrat and proto-Whig factions formed around the issue..." ... "The Trail of Tears was neither a natural outcome of the flow of progress nor a regrettable artifact of the Old South’s prehistory when brave men first tamed the land. Removal was an act of ethnic cleansing..." --Haveman, Christopher D. (2016). Rivers of Sand: Creek Indian Emigration, Relocation, and Ethnic Cleansing in the American South. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p. 297. ISBN 978-0-8032-7392-4. JSTOR j.ctt1d988rc. "Throughout his presidency, Jackson extolled the virtues of the "healthy" Indian territory, a place where native peoples would prosper and be happy. The Creeks, however, repeatedly warned Jackson that the West was "a graveyard." Unmoved, the administration charged ahead with relocating Indians across the Mississippi River. There is little doubt that what occurred in Alabama and Georgia between 1825 and 1837 was ethnic cleansing." --Nichols, David Andrews (2018). Peoples of the Inland Sea: Native Americans and Newcomers in the Great Lakes Region, 1600–1870. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. pp. 167, 169. doi:10.2307/j.ctv224tvbb. ISBN 978-0-8214-2320-2. JSTOR j.ctv224tvbb. "...in the 1830s and 40s, when the US War Department implemented the Indian Removal Act. This mass ethnic-cleansing operation had precursors earlier in the century, when federal officials persuaded several thousand Lakes Indians to move voluntarily. The more concentrated and coercive program of Andrew Jackson and his successors, however, swept nearly all of the remaining Indians in the southern Lakes states and confined to enclaves the more populous nations of the more populous nations of the northern Lakes." ... "Removal proved expensive, costing the United States nearly $70 million during Andrew Jackson’s presidency (1829–37). The motives driving the United States to organize an ethnic-cleansing operation of such magnitude..." --Shire, Laurel Clark; Knetsch, Joe (2017). "Ambivalence in the Settler Colonial Present: The Legacies of Jacksonian Expansion". Tennessee Historical Quarterly. 76 (3): 269, 271. ISSN 0040-3261. JSTOR 26540292. "Some 175 years after the Jacksonian ethnic cleansing campaign in the southeast, 6.6 million people claim American Indian or Alaskan Native heritage, about 2% of the population of the U.S.A in 2015." ... "While the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the 1830s and 1840s removed many Native people, remnant populations persisted in the east, as did post-removal nations in the west. After the Jacksonian era, however, historians do not know how to include Native peoples, now scattered and historically disconnected, in historical narratives." --Wooster, Robert (2021). The United States Army and the Making of America: From Confederation to Empire, 1775-1903. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. pp. 96, 110. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1tqcxs7. ISBN 978-0-7006-3064-6. JSTOR j.ctv1tqcxs7. "To direct his War Department, Jackson selected men who shared his views on American Indian removal." ... "Cognizant of the choppy political waters but desperately needing additional manpower to fight the war in Florida and to carry out the ethnic cleansing of Indians east of the Mississippi River, War Department officials in March 1836 unveiled a plan..." --Vine, David (2020). The United States of War: A Global History of America's Endless Conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. pp. 71, 75. ISBN 978-0-520-30087-3. JSTOR j.ctv153k68c. "Jackson’s conquests and a series of eleven enforced treaties with Native American peoples ethnically cleansed large parts of the South for Euro-American settlement." ... "Adams was defeated in 1828 by the general known for New Orleans fame and ethnic cleansing in the Southeast, Andrew Jackson. ... In the era of Jackson, the dispossession of Native Americans would accelerate. In contrast to Adams's opposition to displacing the Muskogee, the new president continued his pattern of ethnic cleansing." --Pinnen, Christian; Weeks, Charles (2021). Colonial Mississippi: A Borrowed Land. University Press of Mississippi. p. 135. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1j55gt4. ISBN 978-1-4968-3270-2. JSTOR j.ctv1j55gt4. "As Daniel K. Richter puts it, Jackson and William Henry Harrison, "two of the most successful political leaders of the United States" in the 1820s and 1830s, completed the process of "ethnic cleansing that had begun in 1763." --Khan, Shamus (2019). "Unholy Alliances". In Klinenberg, Eric; Zaloom, Caitlin; Marcus, Sharon (eds.). Antidemocracy in America: Truth, Power, and the Republic at Risk. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-231-19010-7. JSTOR 10.7312/klin19010. "While Jackson’s populism helped break elite control of democratic institutions, it was built, as most populisms are, on a narrowly circumscribed definition of "the people." Ethnic whites supported Jackson in no small part because of his ethnic cleansing of the nation. Commenting on the horrors unleashed against Native Americans by Jackson, Alexis de Tocqueville, who watched as the defeated tribal members were force-marched through Memphis, would write in his diary, “In the whole scene there was an air of ruin and destruction, something which betrayed a final and irrevocable adieu; one couldn’t watch without feeling one’s heart wrung..." --Huggins, Stephen (2019). America's Use of Terror: From Colonial Times to the A-bomb. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. p. 60. doi:10.2307/j.ctvx8b7dn. ISBN 978-0-7006-2855-1. JSTOR j.ctvx8b7dn. "Jackson had begun his presidency in 1829 by advocating "voluntary emigration. 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." Despite these words, the president spent the next few months creating a rationale for removal. In his first annual address to Congress in 1830, he proposed his “Indian Removal Policy,” which he characterized as "not only liberal, but generous." The purpose of the removal—a polite term for territorial cleansing—was to "place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters".

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 Antiok 1pie'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.

Example of academic criticism of terms

--Saunt, Claudio (2021). Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xiii‒xiv. ISBN 978-0393609844. "I do not use [Indian Removal] except in historical context" ... "Removal" is equally unfitting for a story about the state-sponsored expulsion of eighty thousand people. ... Then and now, it conveys no sense of coercion or violence. The phrase "Indian Removal," coined by proponents of the policy, has all of the problems of its two constituent terms and possess an additional fault. In the nineteenth century, people removed themselves to new locales or were removed for committing crimes. "Indian Removal," however, was an unusual construction that left unstated who was removing whom." ... ""Ethnic cleansing," a term of propaganda that became widely used during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, is rightly criticised for being nebulous and even for obscuring violence." ... "I use three other words to describe U.S. policy in the 1830s ... "deportation" ... "expulsion" ... when appropriate, I use a third term, borrowed from the perpetrators themselves, who on certain occasions referred to their goal as one of "extermination."" --Perdue, Theda; Green, Michael D. (2007). The Cherokee Nation and the Trail of Tears. New York: Penguin. p. 42. ISBN 978-0143113676. "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."

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)

Alanscottwalker, 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. [4] [5][6] 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: [7] 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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)
• 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 23 August 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? --ARoseWolf 18:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I am ok with this proposal. Andre🚐 18:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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🚐 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)

Springee, 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 Wikipedia: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 [8]. 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[9]. 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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. --ARoseWolf 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)

ARoseWolf, 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. Cmguy777, 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)

Display name 99, 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. --ARoseWolf 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🚐 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🚐 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)

Cmguy777, 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. BrownHairedGirl (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)

• 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)

Delisting this featured article

Hello, I am considering bringing this featured article for FAR. This article is tagged at the top and the lead is kind of a mess. If these issues are not fixed, then I think it is time to delist the article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity, concerns were raised about the neutrality of the lead a few weeks ago and maintenance tags were added. The issues are being discussed one at a time. If you look above on this page, you will see that there is ongoing discussion and an open RfC. I encourage you to give the editors here a chance to come to an agreement before taking such a step. Display name 99 (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest editors make some sort of compromise before any delisting. There has been ample talk. Time to make the changes. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

At least the RfC should be closed and enacted since the scope of the changes proposed are small in scope. Springee (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I agree. I proposed a compromise solution which would mention ethnic cleansing in the final paragraph but not the opening paragraph. That seemed like a fair middle ground, especially seeing as the results are split almost exactly evenly between "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing," and leaving the RfC open for additional time has thus far not led to a major tilt one way or the other. However, not all editors were on board with it. If you and Springee will get behind it, we may have broad enough consensus to close the RfC and enact it. I agree; the discussion has run its course, there is no consensus either way, so we should meet in the middle. Display name 99 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am for your compromise of using ethnic cleansing in the last paragraph. It should be mentioned the talk page time to wrap things up and discussions can continue after changes are made. But changes should be made to keep the article listed. The whole idea is remove Indians from farm land and use slaves to grow crops to make money. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really like that solution but I can see the wisdom in implementing a compromise, consensus supported solution vs punting to NOCON and restoring the previous lead. When a true consensus can be found we should prefer it over a NOCON reversion. While I would endorse the compromise solution, I think letting the existing RfC run it's course as well as ping participants to see if they are comfortable with this compromise solution is required here. A consensus among four editors shouldn't have precedent over the voices of the other 18 RfC participants. Springee (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Rather than restoring a previous introduction, a compromise should be put in the introduction to avoid delisting. A continued discussion can be made in the talk. But the compromise should be basic. White supremacy was not the sole factor in Indian removal. It was getting the profits from farming on Indian land by slave labor that motivated Indian removal. That is all that should be said now. Here is a sample sentence: "Although ethnocentrism (ethnic cleansing) was a part of Jackson's Indian removal policy, the profits gained from farming by white settlers using slaves, caused a land rush into the South." Jackson himself profited from slavery and crops. That is a general idea. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: I am definitely not comfortable with any "compromise" which removes from the lead either of the two terms. Both are widely used in the reliable sources, and since this is a key part of Jackson's legacy, both the major terms should be used. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the compromise that I proposed does not seek to remove either from the lead entirely. The results of the RfC are split almost evenly between votes for forced removal and votes for ethnic cleansing/both. The solution that I proposed here would use the term "forced removal" in the opening paragraph and "ethnic cleansing" in the final paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99: by final paragraph, do you mean "final paragraph of the article" or "final paragraph of the lead"? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, final paragraph of the lead. A brief discussion of the term would be added to the Legacy section at the end of the article as well, as mentioned in the above discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC) I proposed changing 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.-to 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. This would be the only time in the lead where the term is mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, @Display name 99.

However, I am troubled by the substance of that proposal. It seems to me that in this proposal, the stronger and more modern term ethnic cleansing is being relegated to almost the very last sentence of the lead. Even worse, its use is qualified as a post-1960s assessment, which seem to me to be giving WP:UNDUE weight to developments in white scholarship whilst downplaying long-standing native American critiques.

It seems to me that this proposal is more of an attempt to compromise with objecting editors than to uphold WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. That is understandable and collegial, and I am sure it was done in good faith, but I think that it is mistaken.

The bottom line for me here is that I cannot imagine a similar approach being taken to the lead of an article on a leader from outside of the Anglosphere who was responsible for crimes against humanity such as slavery and ethnic cleansing. In those cases, the term ethnic cleansing would get much higher billing.

So I think that this proposal would not resolve the {{POV lead}} and {{Systemic bias}} problems rightly identified in the banners added[10] on 31 July by @FinnV3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of "ethnic cleansing" is a recent term and not universally accepted (see the sources arguing that the events should be seen as ethnic cleansing). Longstanding native American critiques aren't bolstered or downplayed by changing the name for the same events. The tags added by FinnV3 are arguably POV pushing by a new editor. I would prefer reverting back to the long standing lead but I agree that a consensus compromise is better than declaring NOCON and following the revert to last stable version. Springee (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not for delisting the article despite the issues with the lead that I feel the "compromise" will not address. I agree with @BrownHairedGirl that the proposed "compromise" is a relegation of "ethnic cleansing" to a location in the article that is overlooked by the general reader. Whether that is by intent or not is irrelevant. By giving one term unequal prevalence it creates a false neutrality within the article and pushes the use of one term over another rather than follow the sources which almost equally discuss so the tags are accurate for this article regardless of how other editors feel about the actions of the one that added them. Despite what @Springee states, "ethnic cleansing" is a preferred term for modern historians and is gaining more traction as we get further from the event itself even being extended as far as being called genocide in many sources now. By claiming that ethnic cleansing is not universally accepted we can also make the deduction that simply using forced removal to describe the death marches for thousands of human beings is no longer adequate as depicted in the sources and those wanting to stick with its usage seemingly are those that are somewhat to very much pro-Jackson. Forced removal is no longer universally accepted. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in the lead

L'Origine du monde, I do not believe that it is necessary to state the exact number of slaves that Jackson had in the lead. He owned 300 slaves during his entire lifetime, not all at once, and this isn't clear from your sentence. Again, the lead is already too long, and this isn't important. Also, I request that you remove your statement that Jackson banned the distribution of anti-slavery tracts. It is factually incorrect. As the article states, he allowed local postmasters to choose not to send them, and later encouraged Congress to outlaw their circulation in the South. But he did not ban them himself. Display name 99 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99 he was a slave owner who exploited over 300 innocent lives. This behaviour should be clearly described in the lede and is important to understanding what kind of man he was. Just writing slaveowner in passing doesn't give an adequate understanding. I have changed the statement to "Later in 1835 he supported restrictions on distribution of anti-slavery tracts."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you L'Origine du monde. I still don't think that it's necessary to give the number of slaves in the lead, but I'm willing to overlook it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Display name 99!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the number of slaves, but that Jackson's wealth depended entirely on slaves outside of military service or public office. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning that he owned 300 slaves improves the lede. I think it would be further improved by changing "slaves" to "enslaved black persons", at least in the lede as first instance. Carlstak (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How about this? Jackson owned hundreds of enslaved black persons throughout his lifetime and profited from the sale of his farm crops. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No. "Enslaved black persons" is unnecessarily wordy. There's no reason to use three words when using one word "slaves" will do it. It's also totally superfluous to say that he profited from farm crops when we already refer to him as a "wealthy planter." Display name 99 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Display name 99. "Enslaved black persons" is just verbose, unnecessary, superfluous redundant verbosity. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I likewise agree that "Enslaved black persons" is too verbose. One word would do in this instance. The details of his slave owning are already in the body of the article. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)