Talk:Trail of Tears/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Classification as genocide

Multiple scholarly sources characterize the Trail of Tears as genocidal in nature. In his paper Towards a Theory of Displacement Atrocities: The Cherokee Trail of Tears, The Herero Genocide, and The Pontic Greek Genocide, University of Calgary professor Andrew R. Basso wrote that "The Cherokee Trail of Tears should be understood within the context of colonial genocide in the Americas." In addition, George Washington University professor Dinah L. Shelton lists the Trail of Tears as a genocide in her Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity. Even if these descriptions of the Trail of Tears as an act of genocide do not constitute a scholarly consensus, the fact that multiple scholars describe the Trail of Tears as genocidal in nature should at least warrant a mention in the lede. Perhaps a sentence along the lines of "Multiple scholars of Native American history have characterized the Trail of Tears as an act of genocide" with citations to the relevant scholarly sources? CJ-Moki (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think if you are going to include something in the lede that calls it genocide, it needs to reflect the text in the body where it is discussed in detail. If there are a body of authors that call it that way, it seems a valid inclusion to include their reasoning, as long as it isn't seen as fringe. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion needs to be revisited in the article's body and the article's lead with current scholarly texts in mind. For example, many scholars have recently made convincing cases that removal, and the Trail of Tears, constitutes a genocidal act (Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler, and Gilio-Whitaker), and it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by Patrick Wolfe.

The case against, however, as represented by the article's citations, includes a misguided popular article, based in disproven histories (ex. that lack of immunity to old-world disease is largely responsible for Native depopulation) from a historian who focuses on medieval economics (Fynn-Paul). For points on some of the numerous issues with this article from other scholars, see here and here. Previous conversations have utilized American History textbooks and a presentation by academic Daniel Feller, whose presentation of Jackson many other scholars have taken issue with.

I bring these examples here before changing the article's lead and body because these conversations have already been had, but, as I said, they need to be revisited.--Hobomok (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide or not, forced relocations are currently considered a crime in their own right due to the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949):

• • "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected people from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive." Dimadick (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, but there are many scholars who have called and are calling this a genocidal act, and the encyclopedia should reflect this. It absolutely should not use the Fynn-Paul article in the face of peer-reviewed work or work from reputable university presses. Recent reversions of additions from respected scholars, and calling such additions “POV” is misguided, considering this reflects current scholarship. —Hobomok (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Forced relocation is a different beast than genocide. The Trail of Tears itself was not a "genocide." Please gain consensus here before making controversial changes to the article, and review BRD and LEDE. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If it can be found that the scholarly consensus is that the Removal should be classified as a genocidal act then I would be willing to agree that it has risen to the level of due weight to receive significant coverage in the article. Beyond that we know it was forced relocation and it has been established that it constitutes ethnic cleansing as this continued into the 20th century with the forced assimilation policy of the US. I believe it extended as far as the 1970's with eugenics programs in the US and not only against Native populations. Taking the viewpoint that, by today's standards this would be considered genocidal, in my opinion, is the wrong approach from a historical standpoint. But I will concede that if it can be proven to be the consensus among a majority of scholars. As of now I don't see that being the case. It is, however, a viewpoint of at least some scholars so perhaps the discussion should be how much weight should be given? --ARoseWolf 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m going by what the cited scholarly sources say, and representing what those sources say, per encyclopedic form. The work here comes from multiple reputable academics and their work in peer reviewed journals and in top tier scholarly presses.

CJ-Moki Made the case for genocide represented here per sources originally. Deathlibrarian, who originally broached the topic as represented in the archives, agreed, saying, “If there are a body of authors that call it that way, it seems a valid inclusion to include their reasoning, as long as it isn't seen as fringe.”

The represented authors are indeed a reputable body of scholars making that case, and none could be considered fringe.

This seems like a consensus for such representation on this page to me, as you seem to be the only editor in opposition. —Hobomok (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Genocide as defined by the United Nations directly contradicts that statement. The term is defined in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf)

It is undeniable that the trail of tears committed the acts A (the policy was intended to destroy the ethnic group, and many were killed in the process) and B (many were physically harmed and it is believable that all were likely physically harmed). Every other act can be argued that it was committed in the Trail of Tears. There is no more reputable source on the crime of genocide than the organization that defined it as a crime. The trail of tears is without a doubt an ethnic cleansing, however, it is also a genocide. GenghisN7 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece of the United Nations. Wikipedia takes into account all reliable sources. Can you provide, in the governments own words, where they stated their intent was to destroy the entire ethnic group? Even the United Nations says there must be intent. From what I can see the US was greedy as hell and manipulated local and national councils to steal the land and force people off of it but it was all geared towards control of the land. To have a President of the US, in Jackson, who was willing to defy a Supreme Court ruling and a Congress that was complicit in the act of Removal by passing the bill along with a military that carried out its Commander in Chief's orders to the letter, not to mention all of the individual states who were more brutal in their response than even the federals, and yet nearly every tribe they forced to relocate survived to modern times doesn't speak too highly of an intent to destroy the entire group. If the stated goal of the Removal was to commit genocide then there were far more efficient ways to go about it. By the definition provided the forced assimilation of Natives that continued into the mid to late 1900's was more genocidal in nature. --ARoseWolf 15:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ARose, please see the four scholarly sources I cited. There are many primary sources from Jefferson and Jackson motioning toward “extermination” and “extirpation.” However, this isn’t the space for dissecting primary sources, because the cited secondary scholarly sources study those primary sources and come away arguing the Trail or Tears should be seen as genocidal. As you point out, it is a large and ongoing conversation across academic fields.

I believe the additions I made yesterday, which were reverted, point to that conversation. The conversation can then be fleshed out in the article’s body over time, which I am more than willing to take on, with those cited sources as the main body to be drawn from.

Also, I want to point out again that the Fynn-Paul article should be removed for the reasons I outline in my original comment. That article has been disregarded many times over in scholarly literature. If any information is “fringe” here, it is that article.

I would have to think that, at this moment, consensus seems to be moving towards inclusion of the sources claiming the Trail or Tears was a genocidal act, as there is only one major dissenting opinion.—Hobomok (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hobomok, I did see and read all of the sources you provided. I agree that they agree in principle with each other. I'm not convinced as of yet that they constitute a scholarly consensus enough to include more than a simple statement at best in the article under the section of Terminology along with the term "death marches". It's hard for me to agree to start retroactively calling actions genocidal when the United Nations and none of the scholars nor anyone commenting here was involved. As I stated above, I might agree if we can find a way to definitively prove a large percentage of scholars agree on calling the act genocidal, not just four. --ARoseWolf 15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ARose, I have read these sources multiple times over. I have taught the four sources that I am citing in a college classroom. I have cited the four sources in my own work. I would not cite anything that I have not read and am not familiar with. Wolfe is a foundational scholar in settler colonial studies. Ostler is a recognized, chaired recently emeritus professor of Native American and U.S. history. Gilio-Whitaker and Dunbar-Ortiz are widely respected scholars in their fields (Native American and U.S. history). These sources most definitely represent conversation in their fields currently. They are also more scholarly and more of a consensus than the Flynn-Paul article. I could include an entire list of articles here, but these are a combination of the most clearly written, foundational, and recent works across fields representing these studies. These four articles would be a fine start to a literature review in an academic article. I do not understand why they cannot be representative for Wikipedia, especially when previous debate in the archives hinged on one editor skimming a U.S. history textbook and the cited Fynn-Paul article (which isn’t peer reviewed, in a scholarly press, or written by a relevant expert).

With respect (sincerely), You may not feel comfortable with this label, and you may want to hear from these scholars themselves, but that’s not how Wikipedia works. It’s an encyclopedia, so it represents what relevant high-level sources say about page subjects. These highly respected scholars label this genocide, along with many others. Thus, the page should represent this, regardless of how editors feel about a given subject. —Hobomok (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, consensus among editors of this encyclopedia is a foundational principle. Something does not just get to remain in the encyclopedia because you have a source or four sources for the information. It must pass the muster of consensus to remain. You boldly added information in good faith. It was reverted in good faith. Now gain consensus or it doesn't belong. That's how it works. Consensus is critical to cooperative editing. Without it, people are simply shouting at each other. Consensus doesn't mean you agree. Sometimes the consensus feels very wrong. That's ok. Disagreement, however, is not a permission slip to edit against consensus which is what you are doing by continuously trying to add information to the article that you feel should be included because it exists after it has been reverted. Gain consensus. I suggest making a proposal and allowing time for others to comment and discuss. There is no hurry to include anything. --ARoseWolf 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding info on the scholars mentioned by Hobomok to the body of the article. I think we then need to tweak the lead to avoid implying that it's just Harjo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ARose Re: consensus, that is fair and I completely agree. That is also why I came to the talk page first and why I made the appeal with the sources I did. It would seem to me, though, that currently consensus is 5/2 in favor of including this scholarship.

I am also trying to point out, though, that I didn’t just pick sources out of thin air—these ones are representative of a larger conversation, and they also represent a combination of the most clearly-written and foundational sources in their fields.

Were consensus reached on inclusion, I would be happy to make a pass at including these sources in the body of the article given familiarity with said sources, of course knowing that other editors would help with wording.—Hobomok (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You came to the article talk page and then went forward boldly including the information you wanted to include before gaining said consensus. This is okay and within policy. We love bold inclusion. And unless it is reverted it is the primary way information is added to the encyclopedia. But you can't use that as a means to then say you were looking for consensus. Had you been seeking consensus, first, for something you knew would be controversial, due to previous discussions, you would have come to the talk page here and waited for other editors to discuss what you wanted added to the article. Instead you came here and promptly added the information and only chose to further discuss once it was reverted. Now we are attempting to gain consensus. I would suggest you propose exact wording so we can discuss prior to inclusion, not after. --ARoseWolf 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, Patrick Wolfe did not consider the Trail of Tears to be an act of genocide but that American Indians were the unfortunate victims of "settler-colonial tendencies" (pg. 387) of his report on settler colonialism and the elimination of the native in the Journal of Genocide Research. He goes on to say that "the primary motive for elimination (i.e. Removal) was not the race itself...but access to territory." (Pg.388). Wolfe further argues that this act of settler-colonialism was itself a manifestation of genocide (the greater act beginning with colonialism) but that it was not genocide itself. By contrast, G.C. Anderson, in his 2014 report Ethnic cleansing and the Indian: The crime that should haunt American., categorically dismissed that genocide ever happened in America (pg. 13). Instead he proposed that colonialism was ethnic cleansing as proposed and accepted by a large number of scholars and by consensus here in discussion about the sources presented by @Deathlibrarian. Anderson contends that “many Indian tribes (indeed the vast majority) survived, along with their culture” (p. 11), so it is impossible to claim that American Indians experienced any sort of genocide. Of course, my personal counter to that would be that the Holocaust is considered a genocidal act and yet Jews still exist. I should know. These are just two contrasting views in the wide expanse of scholarly opinion on the matter. My point being that neither Wolfe nor Anderson believed it was an act of genocide when you get down to the actual action taken, The Trail of Tears itself, by the federal government and the states. Ethnic cleansing? Anderson seems to think so. A part of a larger action of genocide (colonialism)? Wolfe seems to think that's true. But Wolfe believed the Removal was an unfortunate manifestation of the larger issue, not the issue itself. Anderson believed it was, likewise a part of a larger issue of ethnic cleansing but he believed this action was part of the issue, not a manifestation of it. Because there are scholars that contend, one not mentioned by @Hobomok being D.E. Stannard, the Removal was an act of genocide I would agree to it's inclusion but only so far as a consensus of editors agrees to the weight of such a term, not @Hobomok's personal perception of the weight, before its inclusion, not after the fact. --ARoseWolf 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf The primary motive for elimination was land, according to Wolfe. However, that does not mean that removal does not constitute structural genocide, per Wolfe pp. 403-04. It is fine that Anderson can dismiss genocide and propose ethnic cleansing. My point here is that there is a conversation that should be attended to and represented on the page. I am not calling for the page to claim genocide as if that is the scholarly consensus. I am explaining that the very real and very robust conversation be attended to. There are also a lot of sources presented re: [in the original archived discussion], and I've provided four here on top of those sources. Some of the sources provided by DeathLibrarian are indeed good, but others do not represent any kind of rigorous scholarship (do teenvogue, peoplesworld.org, and vox stand up to peer review and scholarly publications?). Therefore, it's important, I think, to represent that there are known, reputable scholars doing research and coming to the genocide conclusion, and other reputable scholars who argue differently. Those should be represented as well, and they should be represented by peer-reviewed publications or work in scholarly publications. They should not be represented by a popular article by a medievalist that has been roundly dismissed by experts. That does a disservice to both sides of this scholarly conversation, and to Wikipedia itself.

Also, just because a people and their culture survive genocide does not mean genocide was not committed. Jewish people and culture survived the holocaust, Serbs and Serb culture survived genocide in Croatia at the hands of Axis powers, Bosnian Muslims and culture survived the Bosnian genocide, and the list continues.

On a related note from Ostler, "In Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, ... The death rate (3.6 percent) was substantially lower than that of Native Americans during removal, even without including the post-removal demographic declines. By the standards of what happened in Bosnia, Indian removal clearly had genocidal consequences" (365). Beyond that, Ostler explains that the threat of genocidal violence is also important, quoting Jackson that if Native people "refused to sign a removal treaty, Jackson 'would march an army into their country,'" and if Native people fought, Jackson said "it would be the ruin of their tribe." When it comes to Cherokee removal specifically, "compliance was the only way to prevent 'destruction.'" Ostler explains that this "revealed an intention, inherent within the policy's structure, to use genocidal violence to enforce compliance when necessary" (367). Going back to Wolfe, this structure, while ultimately about land, is genocidal in nature, and according to these sources, removal is a genocidal act within that structure. As Ostler ultimately contends, "In its outcome and in the means used to gain compliance, the policy [removal] had genocidal dimensions" (368).

Again, all I'm pointing out here is that there are many scholars who believe this was a genocidal act. The examples I've chosen, in my mind, are the most recent and best representations of this argument. Again, there seems to be consensus that this information be included (previous caveats being that a good number of reputable scholars claim removal was a genocidal act, which has been established, so consensus is 5/2 according to this discussion). As such, I can work on writing something up based on the exemplary sources I've provided, and I can put it in this talk space before editing the article.--Hobomok (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I contend that it is not a 5/2 consensus because this is a discussion, not a vote, and nothing has been proposed other than the fact that something needs to be included, which I said I would agree with, so you have no idea what my vote would be in the event something was proposed. Propose the wording. Allow us time to review it and if anyone thinks there should be alterations we can propose that here on the talk page. That's how consensus works. --ARoseWolf 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, regardless of what current consensus may or may not be currently, as I said in my previous response, I will work on writing something up based on the sources provided and then propose it.--Hobomok (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with summarizing the conclusions of different historians concerning the effects of the forced relocations, and their overall implications. History and historiography are subject to interpretations, not to monolithic views on the right way to deal with things. We also site different definitions of what is ethnic cleansing, and one of the definitions includes "confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas". Which I would suggest is an apt description for Indian reservations. Dimadick (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting genocide in Article

I’ve already said this elsewhere here in the “Classification as Genocide” tab, where a good case was already made by one user (CJ-moki) and another user (deathlibrarian) agreed that this should be added if it is represented in scholarship. It is indeed represented in scholarship, but changes have been reverted since I’ve attempted to add that scholarship, so I wanted to place it again so that it is easily findable:

This discussion needs to be revisited in the article's body and the article's lead with current scholarly texts in mind. For example, many scholars have recently made convincing cases that removal, and the Trail of Tears, constitutes a genocidal act (Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler, and Gilio-Whitaker), and it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by Patrick Wolfe. The case against, however, as represented by the article's citations, includes a misguided popular article, based in disproven histories (ex. that lack of immunity to old-world disease is largely responsible for Native depopulation) from a historian who focuses on medieval economics (Fynn-Paul). For points on some of the numerous issues with this article from other scholars, see here and here.

Previous conversations about this as represented in the archives have utilized American History textbooks and a presentation by academic Daniel Feller, whose presentation of Jackson many other scholars have taken issue with, to make cases for not including genocide in this article. These sources are not nearly as reputable as the others represented here. American history textbooks used in high schools are especially suspect.

I bring these examples here before changing the article because these conversations have already been had, but, as I said, they need to be revisited in light of current scholarship. —Hobomok (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, why not keep discussion in one section? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, this was my mistake--I thought my previous comment was missed, as it wasn't immediately responded to following reversion of my addition to the article.--Hobomok (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this if, as you say, there are sources for the case, and the cases against are flawed. The removal was done in such a way that many of them died...so direltcy, or inderectly, they were removed from their territory in such a wasy that many of them died, and replaced by white man. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I've moved this section up (and turned it into a subsection) to keep the discussion re: genocide in one place so it is easier to follow and determine consensus. If someone objects, it can be moved back. Netherzone (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the sources that classify the removal as genocide are valid sources and should be added to the article. But I think they should go into the body first, and when there is a stable consensus on these additions they might be integrated into the lead. Hobomok, would you consider making these additions to the body first? perhaps they wouldn't be reverted there... Larataguera (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think it makes sense to add these to the “terminology” section first. Then the lead can be revisited. I will write something up, put it here, and then put it in the body. It may take a bit as I am currently swamped with real-life obligations, but I’ll get it here. —Hobomok (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the scholarly references brought by Hobomok it seems clear that the Trail of Tears removal has also been described in multiple reliable sources as a "genocide" or "genocidal" events. I have no objection to that being used in the body of the article and in the lead. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wading through the wall of words above, I caution that we have to consider the historical view(s) of these events, and that they must be put into historical context. The article currently does that. Outright calling these Trails of Tears genocide when that was demonstrably NOT the intention of the key actors back in the day—flies in the face of 150 years of scholarly opinion. Mentioning that there are now some new interpretations of these events in light of modern sensibilities in the article is just fine and dandy, as long as NEUTRALITY is observed. The very use of the word "genocide", IMO, mostly precludes that. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 12:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recommend taking a close look at the scholarly sources in question. These are not simply blogs or websites, but rather heavily and carefully researched scholarship. Ostler specifically provides much evidence from Jefferson and Jackson around their use of the rhetoric of “extermination” and “extirpation” of Native peoples in personal communication, which calls into question your claims around intention.

Also, and again, the plan here is to mention that some scholars have recently provided evidence and argument for removals to be seen as genocidal acts, not that this IS historical fact. —Hobomok (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I dare say you both are proposing the same thing. So we have come to a general consensus, along with others here, that something should be added. I believe there should be a formal proposal and agreement on that added wording. If we discuss openly and follow general practice for the addition of contentious material to the article then the encyclopedia benefits and so does our readers, no matter where you are on the spectrum. --ARoseWolf 14:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

As I understand the guidance on consensus, a neutral uninvolved editor should determine whether or not consensus has been reached. I think it is advisable to wait and see if others weigh in, especially since GenQuest kindly posted on the talk page WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America requesting further input. Netherzone (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been a proposal of any kind to form a consensus on other than the question of if something needs to be said in the article or not. My use of the word consensus was meant to lightly and gently move the discussion forward. I'm perfectly fine with waiting as long as it takes. I know the real consensus building will be in what needs to be said not if something needs to be said. --ARoseWolf 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that the usage of the term "genocide" to refer to the Trail of Tears is disputed, at best. Scholars generally agree that the Trail of Tears was not genocide but instead ethnic cleansing. Former professor of colonial history, Daniel Blake Smith states that "Arguably the most tragic interracial event in American history, the Trail of Tears has sometimes been called an American holocaust or genocide. It was neither—no one wanted, let alone planned for, Cherokees to die in the forced removal out West". There are some sources describing the event as a genocide, as noted above, but I believe that the debate could be described in a (sub-)section in the article's body, not in the lead. Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this whole page getting a little sprawling? Could we maybe keep all current/future posts in the Outdent/random break section below? This section hadn't had a reply from April until yesterday. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If the subject is important enough to warrant its own sub-section, it should be summarized in the lead, per WP:Lead conventions. Subject is a major conversation in U.S. History, Indigenous history, and genocide studies scholarship.—Hobomok (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Outdent/random break

It seems this discussion has stalled. In light of this I did a Google N-Gram search and genocide is used logarithmically more than forced removal, or extirpation or extermination in relation to Trail of Tears. Hopefully this link will be viewable: [1]. I propose that the word "genocide" is permitted to be used in this article, and that sources that use that word be allowed to be added. Netherzone (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. To be blunt, I have glanced through many of the posts above (from April? not all the walls of words but, anyway..) and am familiar with the article but I feel like we've all been dancing on the head of a pin. Ethnic cleansing is not a value-neutral act and is not a value-neutral term. The forced relocation of all of these peoples didn't just paternalistically move them from one area to another in comfort and ease, *bonus*! this long-running action killed thousands along the way and decimated entire ways of life. Frankly, to state that the tribes were "relocated" only because the European-Americans merely wanted to move the tribes off the tribes' land ignores the fact that the very act of taking their land away from these peoples (ethnic cleansing) destroyed their culture as they had known it for generations (also ethnic cleansing) and destroyed thousands of lives (ah, then, here we have it...genocide). Shearonink (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Netherzone for bringing this up again. I've been busy with related work off-wiki and this got lost in the shuffle. I propose using the sources I mentioned above (Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler, and Gilio-Whitaker) as the beginning ones for this. Those texts are solid scholarly work in my mind, and they are already present in the body of the article, so their glosses on genocide could be added pretty easily I would think. Of course, open to hear what others think.--Hobomok (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding a section in this article presenting different views on whether the Trail of Tears constituted genocide, as long as undue weight isn't given to certain viewpoints. I do however object to adding genocide to the infobox. It should also be noted that genocide is already mentioned in the lede, despite no mention in the body of the article, with the opposing opinions of Suzan Shown Harjo and Gary Clayton Anderson mentioned, so if a section or paragraph is inserted into to the body of the article to include more opinions on this, the lede sentence could be simplified to along the lines of: "Some historians have described the event as a genocide, although this label has been rejected by other historians." LutonDi (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok LutonDi - Does anyone know what the ratio of reliable sources is for these differing opinions? Genocide/No genocide? How that sentence in the lead section is constructed should depend on what the reliable sources state...the sentence could also possibly be "Many/most [instead of Some?] historians have described ... but other historians/experts have stated this instead was an ethnic cleansing" or something similar. Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

shearonink The majority of recent, reputable scholarly sources will reflect Ostler, Dunbar-Ortiz, and Gilio-Whitaker. There will be much older scholarship that one can dig through to find differing opinions or there will be bad faith arguments (like the out of field Flynn-Paul piece that was removed from the article for the reasons stated above), but the majority of recent reputable work by recognized experts will most likely be along the same lines as the sources I’ve pointed to. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the argument is settled by any means, but as you point out, language should reflect recent scholarly trends in such a direction. —Hobomok (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason you object to it being placed in the infobox? Also, if editors object it might be helpful to provide some scholarly sources that argue against genocide.—Hobomok (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I objected to genocide being added to the infobox because another editor twice added it as fact when the debate isn't settled and that editor didn't even contribute to this discussion. From the earlier discussion in April, it didn't seem like it was even being proposed that genocide be added to the infobox. The issue was if the debate among historians over whether the event constituted genocide should even be in the article and if so, how much weight should be given to this subject. I think it should be in the article since some notable scholars and historians call the Trail of Tears genocide while others disagree, including Norman Naimark, and Gary Clayton Anderson, who is presently sourced in the lede. LutonDi (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LutonDi, did you try pinging the editors? Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Netherzone I apologize for not pinging you in my reply. LutonDi (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant pinging the editors that you said "didn't even contribute to this discussion", as that may help to move this discussion forward. (I am watching this talk page, so no need to ping me.) Netherzone (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So we've added ethnic cleansing to the infobox because Anderson claims that is what all U.S. Indian Policy constitutes (many would disagree with his readings of specific events beyond the Trail of Tears, ex. California and boarding school policy), but we cannot add genocide alongside it even though many would argue for genocide and against ethnic cleansing? I would say that both can be added there, and the language around genocide/ethnic cleansing in the lead be hashed out here before being added. Most recent scholarship would argue genocide, although past scholarship has argued for ethnic cleansing. Specifics from Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler, Gilio-Whitaker/Anderson, Naimark can be discussed in the body.--Hobomok (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, as far as I know, Anderson's opinion had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing being originally introduced into the infobox. It was added following a discussion on this talk page from November last year. That archived discussion includes many recent sources, mostly from 2015 onwards that use the term ethnic cleansing. Are there multiple reputable sources specifically arguing against the Trail of Tears being described as ethnic cleansing? I haven't come across any, whereas there are such sources arguing that it wasn't genocide. Do you have specific sources summarizing recent scholarship as mostly arguing that the Trail of Tears was genocide? Or is that your own personal observation of the scholarship? I will also add that scholars calling it genocide wouldn't necessarily argue against the term ethnic cleansing either, since genocide often includes ethnic cleansing. LutonDi (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LutoniDi Yes, it does include many sources, and many of those sources don't argue explicitly against genocide, while some do. A lot of the popular sources simply summarize what's been said in scholarly sources. Further, I'm not making the case that this was not ethnic cleansing, rather that several recent (or in the case of Wolfe foundational) scholarly sources make the claim for genocide, which should be included in the article and infobox alongside ethnic cleansing. I've provided at least four sources from the beginning of this discussion, please refer to them at any point throughout. Those are the sources I'm basing my "observations" on. Proof of relevant scholarship has been provided throughout this discussion. Again, this is very much an ongoing scholarly debate. The lede should reflect that claims have been made, the body can succinctly summarize said debate, and genocide should be in the infobox alongside "ethnic cleansing" given the number of claims on both sides of the debate.--Hobomok (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources disagree, so both opinions/conclusions should be in the infobox and both should be in the main text and both should be in the lead. - Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently the infobox uses two terms to describe the "Attack type": forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing. However this Google scholar N-Gram[2] comparing genocide with these other two terms clearly shows that starting in the 1990s, genocide is used much more than ethnic cleansing or forced displacement. LutonDi could you please elaborate on your rationale why genocide should not be used in the infobox, and why the other terms are the better choice in your opinion? Netherzone (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Google scholar N-Gram, just because a book appears in the list, doesn't mean that book is saying that the Trail of Tears was genocide or even specifically discussing it in relation to genocide. For example A problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Power appears in the list as connecting genocide and the Trail of Tears, however it does not even discuss the event. The term only appears in a reference the book uses called "Europe's Trail of Tears". Another example that appears, is the 2019 book, Genocide: A World History by historian Norman Naimark. This book, on page 56, does in fact discuss genocide in relation to the Trail of Tears but rejects it, stating that "the Trail of Tears" - an "eight hundred mile nightmare" - across the southern states to a reservation in Arkansas cannot be considered genocide, even though a substantial number of Cherokees, as many as 8,000 out of 18,000, died as a result of internment, disease, exposure, and hunger. Here, the historical terminology of "ethnic cleansing" - violently driving out a people from their territory without the goal of elimination - can most fruitfully be applied." Most of the books that appear are more general books about genocide that may even reject the term genocide for the Trail of Tears, as Norman Naimark does, or may not even specifically discuss the issue like Samantha Power's book. I would also note that many books will not even use the terms ethnic cleansing or genocide in relation to the Trail of Tears and consequently will not even appear. It's therefore a flawed tool for reaching certain conclusions. I doubt many scholars would deny that the Trail of Tears constituted ethnic cleansing or forced displacement, so these terms should be in the infobox, while on the other hand, the debate on if it constituted genocide certainly isn't settled. LutonDi (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I semi do not understand why including both is an issue. Scholars and sources disagree so Wikipedia shouldn't favor one conclusion over the other. It still feels like we are all dancing on the head of a pin. Regardless of if this ongoing event is characterized as an ethnic cleansing or as a genocidal act, the end result is the same...thousands of people died, dead by omission instead of commission is still dead. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

What the heck?

Looks like I stumbled on a year long edit war. Can the last sentence of the intro really be the consensus version? One person says this, another says this, and we will not mention this ever again in the article is an absolutely terrible way to write a Wikipedia intro. Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not an edit war, it's a discussion. I may or may not agree with you however, that was the stable version of the article and removing reliably sourced content while simultaneously not proposing anything to take its place is not an improvement on the article. WP:EPTALK more or less states prior to removing contentious content one may want to consider discussing it on the talk page. Whether to include or remove ethnic cleansing or genocide from an article on the removal from their homeland, dispossession of their culture and subsequent deaths of thousands of Native Americans at the hands of a colonial power might be considered a little contentious. I advised discussing the content here first. --ARoseWolf 20:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, you stated above you were working on something to be added to the terminology section of the article. Did you complete that task? If so we may have something you can present for this discussion that we can begin the process of gaining a consensus. --ARoseWolf 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is unfortunate for our readership that this has become stagnant. To help move things along here is a summary of my contributions for what it's worth:

• Based on the scholarly references brought by Hobomok it seems clear that the Trail of Tears removal has also been described in multiple reliable sources as a "genocide" or "genocidal" events. I have no objection to that being used in the body of the article and in the lead.
• I propose that the word "genocide" is permitted to be used in this article, and that sources that use that word be allowed to be added (to the lead, the body of the article text, and the infobox)..

Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, Netherzone, I apologize for dropping the ball on this. I've been very busy in real life and this commitment slipped my mind.

I agree with Netherzone's proposal, and I will write up a concrete section that reflects the above. However, I am currently away from my office and books, so I will not be able to do so until mid-next week. It is in my calendar now to post a new 2-3 paragraph body section on current discussions around the Trail of Tears as genocide from the scholarly sources above, and then propose a new 1-2 sentence closing in the lead that reflects that new body section.--Hobomok (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to note that the scholarly consensus as described by Jochum (2017) does not call the Trail of Tears a genocide, even if a few historians do so. Even Howard Zinn, a very harsh critic of Jackson and his policies, doesn't call it a genocide and instead labels it ethnic cleansing. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Murphy (2014) has provided a comprehensive argument on why the Trail of Tears shouldn't be considered a genocide. Wilentz (2004) also criticizes the genocide narrative (p. 324). Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the proposed body section and the edited lead will reflect current scholarly discussion based on the sources that have been outlined above. For the record, the link to Jochum will not/should not be used, as neither Jochum's description of Kelton's talk from 2017 nor Kelton's talk itself hold the weight that books from major university presses and peer-reviewed work do. We've all made our feelings on the subject very clear. No need to rehash what has already been discussed above and create a new wall of text.--Hobomok (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Then Dunbar-Ortiz and Gilio-Whitaker shouldn't be used either imo. They don't hold the weight that books from major university presses and peer-reviewed work do either, as both pf their books are published by Beacon Press and the latter isn't even a historian. However, from the sources you provided above, I believe that Ostler and Wolfe are good. Also, if/when you can, please provide a page/quote for the Ostler source. I can't find the part where he calls the ToT a genocide. Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Antiok 1pie, Beacon press is a member of the Association of University Presses (https://aupresses.org/membership/membership-list/#B). Gilio-Whitaker is also a recognized expert in Indigenous Studies. I will definitely include the direct page number from Ostler in my write-up. I’d provide you the exact page number now, but I don’t have access to my copy currently, my apologies for that.—Hobomok (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't oppose using them in the body as long as their opinions attributed. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A source from the Office of Communications & Marketing of Stony Brooks University is fine to quote from for uncontroversial facts but should not be used to gauge the scholarly consensus of the field. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I can agree to not using that source in the lead, as well as attributing it to Jochum if needed. Antiok 1pie (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason why we can't use all three descriptors that are used in reliable sources. According to sources the method was forced removal. The action resulted in genocide by way of ethnic cleansing. All three terms have a slightly different flavor, so to speak. I love to play the Tibetan bowls. They have a very distinct sound. Forced removal is like the mallet as I am getting ready to strike the bowl. Ethnic cleansing is the song played but genocide is an individual note within the song. All three are intricately linked but they are not equal and that's why it can be difficult to distinguish between them for some. There can not be ethnic cleansing without a removal by force and though you can have ethnic cleansing without genocide, genocide took place when individuals died along the trail as the direct premeditated result of people murdering them in the numbers that they did because the government which forced these removals did little to nothing to protect them. We have the sources to back that up already presented. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The term "genocide" is disputed by several scholars and avoided by others, even harsh critics of Jackson, (I provided sources/examples above) so we can't write a sentence in the lead calling the event a genocide unequivocally. If there are enough sources calling it a genocide, then I propose adding a sentence in the lead such as: There is debate among historians and scholars on whether the Trail of Tears should be described as a genocide and creating a new "terminology/nomenclature/" (sub?)section in the body. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus about not applying genocide to this thematic here. It is based on quoting the historian Gary Clayton Anderson. But according to him the indian removal falls squarely under "crimes against humanity", should that not be used in the article.Jochum (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was pretty clearly for Hobomok to write up a 2-3 paragraph summary of current scholarly literature that does use the word genocide, and a sentence summarising that material for the lead. Unfortunately, they never did, and I think now they've retired. Larataguera (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur the consensus was to use the word genocide in the article. I think Hobomok may have given up because this discussion dragged on so long. I've pinged them also, hopefully they will receive the notifications. The extreme walls-of-text in this discussion may have rendered reaching a clear consensus difficult to unpack. Netherzone (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the general consensus is something needs to be said. What that something is and whether it deserves a mention in the lead is very much in doubt. The request was for Hobomok to write something up and post it here on the talk page for discussion prior to anything being placed in the article. As it stands now, "genocide" is introduced in the lead but is no where explained in the article which goes against the MOS. We have left that in the article at this point to avoid further edit warring but this version of the article is not in compliance and is therefore not a stable version. --ARoseWolf 17:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I have emailed with Hobomok and confirmed that they are not planning to return to Wikipedia (really too bad!), so I will offer the following proposal based on the sources that they have provided above in the hopes of wrapping up this discussion which has really foundered for too long. I am proposing that the following sub-section "Classification as genocide" be placed in the existing section on "Terminology". If this is agreed, I will propose a one or two sentence summary of the material to place in the lead. Larataguera (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame that we lost Hobomok, thank you for emailing them. Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There already exits a summary in the LEDE (although something better may be substituted if agreed here):

"According to Native American activist Suzan Shown Harjo of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian, the event constituted a genocide,[13] although this label has been rejected by historian Gary Clayton Anderson.[14]"

Anything beyond that would not be LEDE-worthy, and would probably border on revisionism. GenQuest ^"scribble" 23:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Classification as genocide

There has been debate among scholars about whether Indian removal and the Trail of Tears were genocidal acts. The term genocide was coined to describe systematic mass-killings in the 20^th century (especially the Nazi Holocaust), and there are some important considerations in comparing Indian removal to these modern genocides: Indian removal occurred over a much longer period than the Holocaust; Indians are frequently conceived of as a single racial group, but actually exist as separate nations with distinct identities that were not uniformly targeted for destruction or removal; both state and federal governments had differing roles in the war against Native people; disease played a larger role in 15^th-19^th centuries than it did in 20^th century genocides; and the genocidal dimensions of settler colonialism are not affected by regime change.

Patrick Wolfe argues that settler colonialism and genocide are interrelated but should be distinguished from each other, writing that settler colonialism is “more than the summary liquidation of Indigenous people, though it includes that.” Wolfe describes the assimilation of Indigenous people who escaped relocation (and particularly their abandonment of collectivity) as a form of cultural genocide, though he emphasises that cultural genocide is “the real thing” in that it resulted in large numbers of deaths. The Trail of Tears was thus a settler-colonial replacement of Indigenous people and culture in addition to a genocidal mass-killing.

Historian Jeffrey Ostler argues that even when genocide was not unequivocally carried out, the threat of genocide was used to ensure Natives’ compliance with removal policies, and concludes that, “In its outcome and in the means used to gain compliance, the policy had genocidal dimensions.”

Contemporary Native communities have widely expressed their perception of Indian removal as a genocidal event. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz describes the policy as genocide, quoting Cherokee principal chief Wilma Mankiller:

The fledgling United States government's method of dealing with native people—a process which then included systematic genocide, property theft, and total subjugation—reached its nadir in 1830 under the federal policy of President Andrew Jackson.

Mankiller emphasises that Jackson’s policies were the natural extension of much earlier genocidal policies toward Native Americans established during the Jefferson administration, (an observation echoed by Wolfe).

Dina Gilio-Whitaker, in As Long as Grass Grows, describes the trail of tears and the Diné long walk as structural genocide, because they destroyed Native relations to land, one another, and nonhuman beings which imperiled their culture, life, and history. According to her, these ongoing actions constitute both cultural and physical genocide. Gregory Smithers similarly argues that use of the term “ethnic cleansing” rather than genocide to describe the removal era is a “willful misreading of the historical record.”

References

Comments on proposed text

I'm aware that I haven't provided counter-arguments here (such as Anderson's rejection of the term genocide mentioned in the lead.) My intention was to provide a well-documented argument for the use of the term genocide, and I assume that other editors with reliable sources for the counter-argument could place those as they see fit. Larataguera (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Larataguera your suggestions are sound, and you have my support. Netherzone (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Although I’ve retired, I wanted to return briefly to say that I support this well-written suggested addition.—Hobomok (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I support the wording of what has been written, not from a historical perspective because we clearly do not have a "smoking gun" when it comes to the personal thoughts or motivations of each individual participant in these events but from a modern interpretation of the results. As I have stated in other discussions around these events and Jackson/Van Buren's motivations and personal position, this was an ethnic cleansing by way of forced removal which resulted in a genocidal act. Separate the people from the land and you separate the people from their culture as it was. Did the people survive? In a sense. The language changed, rituals and beliefs changed, the lifeway of thousands was irrevocably altered. This is how it constituted a genocide in my view. Nothing is voluntary under threat of death so I do not consider those that left their native lands "voluntarily" to be voluntary participants. For the overwhelming majority they were left with no other option to stay. --ARoseWolf 18:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I support adding some of the proposed text with revisions. We shouldn't give undue weight to this one specific viewpoint so other contrasting viewpoints would be added as Larataguera suggested. I would cut it down most of the first paragraph because it comes of as vague and not adding much substance. For example, the mention of settler colonialism and regime change is confusing and sourced to Wolfe, who's opinion on settler colonialism is immediately mentioned in the next sentence anyway. The reference to disease in the 15th-19th centuries vs 20th century and state and federal governments is also vague. Some of the other paragraphs should be reworded in places so certain viewpoints are more clearly attributed to the author. Other sentences could be clarified such as "Contemporary Native communities have widely expressed their perception of Indian removal as a genocidal event" and the reference of the "genocidal policies" of the Jefferson administration. What exactly is this referring to? LutonDi (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that some the references are missing page numbers: Jeffrey Ostler and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. LutonDi (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Antiok 1pie to the discussion, as they mentioned numerous sources in September with other viewpoints that could be useful to add as well. LutonDi (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with LutonDi here. The 1st paragraph doesn't mention the Trail of Tears so I don't believe that it should be added at all. Regarding the 2nd paragraph, some of the proposed text states: The Trail of Tears was thus a settler-colonial replacement of Indigenous people and culture in addition to a genocidal mass-killing cited to Wolfe (2006). However, I don't see Wolfe mentioning the phrases "settler-colonial replacement of Indigenous people and culture " or even "genocidal mass-killing" in his article. While I also agree in adding the rest of the paragraphs to the article, we should remove the final sentence which states Gregory Smithers similarly argues that use of the term “ethnic cleansing” rather than genocide to describe the removal era is a “willful misreading of the historical record.” since, after doing a bit of digging to find the source for this statement, I discovered that Smithers writes about "the history of the United States" as a whole and not about the removal era as incorrectly stated in the above sentence [3]. Antiok 1pie (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What I think would be helpful (at least to me) is if LutonDi could write up the paragraph they propose so we could compare that to the paragraph Larataguera proposed. I know this requires more editor time, but I think it may help move this discussion forward to be able to compare them side-by-side. Netherzone (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added quotes to support Smithers' statement about willful misreading of the historical record, which is clearly in reference to the removal era. And another to support Wolfe's discussion of the relationship between mass murder and genocide in the context of the Trail of Tears. I have also struck the first paragraph, as it doesn't seem to have consensus. I do think this background comparison between removal/ToT and the 20th century genocides that coined the term can be helpful, but maybe it belongs somewhere else. Do people think it would be helpful at Indian removal for instance, where perhaps it could be expanded for clarity?

I suspect (and hope) that with these changes we are getting to the point where this can be placed in the article and further changes can take place there, which is more efficient than doing it here. Otherwise, we might have to take Netherzone's suggestion of side-by-side comparison of proposals on the talk page. We would still need to revisit the existing sentence in the lead to make it better reflect the new material. Larataguera (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose a true stickler for the rules might say that the final sentence from Wolfe is a synthesis of the two quotes provided, but I think it reasonably conveys the overall sense of the article without actually adding anything new. (there's no C in the A+B=C formula for synthesis). But I'm open to a different phrasing of course, if anyone else wants to give it a try Larataguera (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Smithers, the full quote (as you added) says: One historian has argued that removal only impacted Native people in the Southeast, while another contends that “ethnic cleansing” more accurately frames the history of the United States. The former argument is factually wrong; the latter relies on a willful misreading of the historical record.... So, to my understanding, the former argument, (i.e that removal only impacted Native people in the Southeast) is factually wrong, whereas the latter argument, (i.e that “ethnic cleansing” more accurately frames the history of the United States) is a willful misreading of the historical record per Smithers. That's the way I understand the sentence: Smithers doesn't write about the removal era when he writes about a deliberate misreading of history, but rather about the whole of U.S. history. Regarding, Wolfe and the 2nd paragraph thanks for providing the relevant quote. I don't have any strong opinions concerning the 2nd paragraph so, if there are no objections, it can be added. Antiok 1pie (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but both the former and the latter are curious claims about the removal era Larataguera (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

But also about genocide in US history as a whole. The latter claim falls under that. Antiok 1pie (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Disassociating genocide from Indian removal seems like a fairly acrobatic reading of this sentence. But if other editors agree that these two ideas (factually inaccuracy in regard to removal, and genocide in regard to US history) are actually intended to be separate from each other, I will happily strike it. Larataguera (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Netherzone, I'm a bit busy to write my own proposed text but the current slightly cut down version generally looks good and I would support adding it with some revisions and clarifications. Perhaps Antiok 1pie would be better to write an alternative paragraph if that's not too much for them, since they have already investigated the sources. LutonDi (talk) 09:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems like there is a loose consensus that the modified proposal above is a reasonable addition, even if there are some remaining concerns about some of the details, so I have added it in an effort to move this forward. I made some very minor changes that attempt to address some questions or concerns that other editors voiced (and I improved reference formatting). If this content seems stable, I will suggest a sentence for the lead to replace the existing sentence. Thanks Larataguera (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I support this addition to the article. Netherzone (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GenQuest reverted my addition. I'm wondering why they didn't voice concerns earlier? They did express concerns about changes to the lead, but I didn't make changes to the lead. In their edit summary, they express concern about lack of balance and NPOV. I invite them to restore my edit and add any balancing opinions they find necessary (provided they come from high-quality peer-reviewed sources or books from a university press to match the sources I have added). I think this reversion violates NPOV by implicitly favouring the viewpoint that the Trail of Tears did not have genocidal dimensions, even when that viewpoint is clearly present in legitimate scholarship on the topic. What's the point of months-long talkpage debate and consensus building if the result of that process is immediately reverted?Larataguera (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The agreement discussed here was to create additional balanced content (see [[LutonDi above for instance) to be reviewed and agreed to first. That was not giving carte blanche to add a huge, unduely weighted section. Nor should existing counter opinions be totally ignored in any such added content. That's the definition of POV pushing. I honestly await you presenting a balanced and encyclopedic review of scholarly discussion on the subject, and commend you on observing BRD on this, but please try again. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 00:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

PS:As for the rest of your screed, I ask that you do not put words into my mouth or put spin to my stated stance on this. I am not implicitly favoring anything but Wikipedia. I am, however, EXPLICITLY favoring neutrality and non-revisionism, per Wiki policy, a concern that I have voiced for years at this article. It is not I who is late to this party. Please review Righting Great Wrongs also.—GQ

@GenQuest, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth, and I apologise if it came off that way. My intention was to restate the concerns you voiced in your edit summary about balance and POV since you had not yet stated those concerns in relation to this proposed material. I think I did that faithfully.

Otherwise, I'm pointing out that excluding legitimate and notable scholarship about genocide and the ToT implicitly favours the POV that ToT did not have genocidal dimensions. That exclusion isn't NPOV. The terrain of this debate is asymetrical and shaped by systemic bias. I see no reason that I should bear the burden of providing counter-arguments. There is no corresponding requirement for the existing non-genocide POV to supply opposing perspectives. Also, righting great wrongs refers to unsourced or poorly sourced material: If, however, the wrong that you want to address has already been sorted in the real world, and if you have the reliable sources to support it, then please do update the articles. The material I added is well sourced and would correct existing POV problems in this article.

All that said, I'm not opposed to counter-arguments, but I can't supply them on the basis of an abstract demand. Someone needs to bring forward specific peer-reviewed articles or books from a university press to remedy this supposed imbalance if they are to be included. @Antiok 1pie, User:LutonDi has nominated you for that task, are you willing to take it on? Larataguera (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look into it this week. Unfortunately, I have a busy schedule this week so I'll probably start expanding the current paragraph with some contra arguments on Friday/Saturday. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@GenQuest, what might help move this year-long impasse forward would be if instead of simply reverting what you disagree with, is to consider modifying what was added in good faith by Larataguera? See WP:Revert only when necessary. There are obviously scholars on both sides, why delete what you don't agree with rather than trying to incorporate both sides, as both Hobomok and Larataguera have written. With all due respect, and I mean this in complete good faith, but you do not own the article. There are numerous editors here who have made extremely astute recommendations for balance and NPOV. Is it possible for you to work on the wording collaboratively with others? That was why I suggested that we put the two preferred versions side by side, rather than continuing this non-productive wall of text. Is there a specific reason why you personally do not wish to use the word genocide? The reason I ask is that there's a tremendous amount of scholarship that does use the term genocide, which you disagree with. Netherzone (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Antiok 1pie for volunteering to do that.

In the meantime, I am going to re-introduce limited content from my proposal that I see as genuinely bullet-proof according to the following criteria:

• POV 1: Trail of Tears is not genocide.
  • POV 1 is included with loose requirement for secondary sourcing. A statement by Anderson is sourced to Anderson's book.
• POV 2: Trail of Tears is genocide or has genocidal dimensions.
  • POV 2 is included with strict requirement for secondary sourcing. A statement by Ostler is sourced to a review in a peer-reviewed journal that isn't written by Ostler.

This criteria favors POV 1 and cuts out everything by Wolfe and Gilio-Whitaker, whose statements were sourced to their own work. (Interestingly, Wolfe's position may be sourced to Anderson, but I'll leave that up to Antiok 1pie.)

Given the uneven requirements for inclusion in this edit, It will be hard for me to assume good faith if it is reverted. If other sources for POV 1 are to be included, other editors have the burden to add them and source them properly.

When Antiok 1pie finds time to address this edit, (and I hope they will) I do ask that they remedy this imbalance by finding secondary sourcing for Anderson's statement (in a book review, for example), or go into Anderson's book for a statement made by someone else and repeated by him. Alternatively, they could restore some of Wolfe or Gilio-Whitaker to balance the inclusion criteria. Thank you Larataguera (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Done [4]. Hopefully there aren't any issues. I could find a secondary source for Anderson's statement, but I actually favor removing him as he writes about genocide in the U.S. way too broadly and doesn't seem to specifically invoke/analyze the Trail of Tears in his work. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Antiok 1pie Thankyou for your more balanced addition to a difficult section re: classification. The current section is quite acceptable. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I am a concerned that these additions create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. None of these sources in support of POV 1 (as defined above) are from a university press except Cole, which is thirty years old. The blockquote is from a tertiary source, which are great for broad overviews, but not really appropriate for nuanced analysis. That source explicitly cites Prucha, who was writing on this topic in 1969! Also, the only statement from a strictly secondary source (as described above) is by Remini (cited to Cole) in 1993. I'm not going to revert this or anything, but I would like to hear other editors' thoughts about how to address the clear difference in quality between sources supporting POV 1 and POV 2. We can't just put them next to each other as if they were equal caliber arguments. But I will say that this is progress in a year-long stalemate, so I'm happy for that!Larataguera (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am a supporter of the cultural genocide argument but I also am open to criticism of that pov. The sources supporting pov 1 that were added are notable and are reliable. Remini is an accepted historian, especially on the subject of Andrew Jackson and the policies and years surrounding his presidency. While I support institutions of higher learning they are not the end all authority on any subject and whether a university press published something or not is of no consequence and adds no more or less credence to a subject, in my opinion. They involve people and people have biases and opinions, just like I do. While that does not preclude their usage as reliable sources it does give me reason to pause and that affords me an opportunity to see things from multiple perspectives. I believe the additions by Antiok 1pie should stay in the article and do not create a false balance as has been suggested. --ARoseWolf 14:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with ARoseWolf. In addition, thanks to Larataguera and Antiok 1pie for building up the section and thanks to everyone else involved. LutonDi (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Death counts

For Cherokee this claims a scholarly consensus of 4,000 deaths. I can't find anything to support the low range of 2,000 previously listed in the article. Larataguera (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Since LutonDi's edit regarding Seminole death counts was reverted, there is some question about this number. Perhaps it should be given as 700-3000? I recall briefly researching it when that edit was originally made and concluding that historians were very uncertain about this number. I don't think there is any sourcing for a number in this article? Correct me if I'm wrong! Larataguera (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with changing the count as you propose here. In my mind, the entire treatment of genocide on this page should be revisited considering the major role LutonDi played in blocking the addition of genocide and the major contributions they made to the page in its current form. —Hobomok (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Contributions by LutonDi

LutonDi has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Stumink. Their contributions to this page are few too many for me to disentangle as an uninvolved user, but I want to notify any watchers that those contributions to the main text can be removed, and their participation in consensus-building discussions carries no weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this. The discussion around genocide and how it is presented on this page needs to be revisited considering the major role LutonDi played in blocking such discussion and its eventual representation. Given LutonDi and the other related socks’ bad faith efforts across Wikipedia relative to colonial violence, I might also ask those who sided with LutonDi to reflect on their own biases.—Hobomok (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that consensus process was compromised by an editor who is known to systematically understate the impacts of colonialism through bad-faith editing and sockpuppetry. It's hard to know how it would have turned out had this not been the case. I suspect there would have been something in the infobox, for instance. I did voice concerns at the end of that discussion about false balance, because I felt that older and tertiary sources were placed against more recent secondary sources that better reflect current scholarly consensus, and it was treated as if the sources were of the same caliber. There were other issues as well.

That said, I am more interested in some other articles right now, so while I would support that reevaluation Hobomok I don't feel prepared to craft proposals right now. You might have to come out of retirement if you feel strongly that the article has issues in its current form. (Or, of course some other editor could suggest changes) Larataguera (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this notice about LutonDi. I would think one of the first things to check is if any of their socks contributed to talk or to the article directly. thanks for posting the report, @Larataguera. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I welcome additional discussion on the subject, however, Wikipedia is not the place for activism. With regard to bias, and with all due respect to Hobomok, we all are biased and, for my part, it has been formed through my experiences. We probably share more alike than you think. However, that bias is checked at the door where I remove my activist hat and put on my editor hat. I accept the bias of Wikipedia itself in order to be an editor here. If I can not then I have two options, I can try to gain consensus to change policy or go write a media blog decrying how biased and mean Wikipedia is. Since I doubt anything would change if I did write a blog and seeing as I don't believe Wikipedia is inherently bad or mean, even if biased, then it seems I can either accept the bias and work within it until a majority of verifiable sources catch up or try to change policy which, in my opinion, would just be exchanging one bias for another. I do appreciate Vanamonde for notifying us. Sockpuppetry has blocked too many consensus gathering discussions and damaged far more of the encyclopedia than even vandalism. --ARoseWolf 16:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Working to eliminate bias upholds WP's pillars. While it's true that some bias is inherent to the sources, and we must accept that for now, the encyclopedia in its present form presents 'bias squared': a biased reading of biased sources. I think 'squared bias' is present in this article, although it's better than it used to be. We don't have to change policy to present a balanced reading of existing sources. Indeed, that is the policy at present. Larataguera (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

All true but Hobomok wasn't directing his statement at the sources. He directed it at fellow editors claiming their personal bias is the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with him. I maintain that the majority of positions shared here are simply an interpretation of current policy and are balanced. While we agreed that something needed to change the very ones proposing that change provided nothing when it came to exactly what needed to be said and instead bemoaned the process. My hope is that we can finally have a proper discussion and proposals rather than just complaining that it's all wrong. I agree with Netherzone that Hobomok has made great observations and their suggestions are worth exploring and I share in the hope they stick around and we can finally form a consensus around creating a more balanced article. --ARoseWolf 20:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I just want to clarify that I was not speaking about you when I stated there were some biases at play in previous discussions, ARoseWolf. I know that our biases align quite a bit from our previous interactions on Wiki.

As far as bemoaning process and not contributing, to be frank, I was, and still am, burnt out on contributing to Wikipedia. Especially having tangled with other socks of LutonDi’s on multiple pages (see Nettless here, for example, on a page I have contributed to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Population_history_of_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas).

Of course my biases influence my thinking, of course people are free to disagree with me, and of course I can and will continue to be wrong about many things regardless of others’ biases. I simply wanted to point out that LutonDi and their other socks frequently argued in bad faith and misrepresented sources (See Nettless again here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_removal). So, those editors who may have taken LutonDi’s side without question may want to approach another discussion with a fresh mind in light of how that user has operated over multiple sock accounts.—Hobomok (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your statement, Hobomok. I didn't believe that you were specifically speaking about me. I brought myself up to show that I am biased but I can set aside my bias to attempt collaboration to affect change, albeit slow and methodical. I never expect to get everything I want in an article. Instead I listen to others and try to find compromises within the structure of policy to bring about changes that we may both agree with even as we may disagree about others. I want to have genuine discussion about this topic and for our consensus to be solid no matter what. It is regrettable that a sockpuppet interfered with that discussion. I am so sorry that you were burned you out and and remain so. I can empathize with your position quite well. I hope you are able to find enough peace to be able to contribute heavily to this discussion as we move forward. I want to hear your ideas. --ARoseWolf 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of moving forward, I think this statement from above is worthy of discussion: are the older and tertiary sources of the same caliber as the recent secondary sources that better reflect current scholarly consensus? Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there is no current scholarly consensus. We went through this on other articles like Andrew Jackson. While current academia is more in favor of terms like "genocide" or "genocidal acts", there is a new term being floated in "cultural genocide" which I happen to lean more towards, today than in the past it still ranks behind other terms like "ethnic cleansing" in usage in scholarship. Amazing research went into the RfC on Talk:Andrew Jackson and subsequent discussion and we ended up with little to no consensus through the RfC. It was only after persistent discussion, after the fact, that we were able to hammer out changes that didn't meet every aspect that every person wanted but met some of each of them. It's a better article for it but doesn't even approach what is being requested here. I'm not sure we will be able to find a definitive current consensus on exact terminology. That may change and I welcome that change as scholarship looks at all aspects of the continued impact this action has had on those cultures. And then you you go on to the next topic. What is current scholarship? How is "current" defined? Where is the demarcation between current and old scholarship? --ARoseWolf 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both.

Re: Netherzone's question: Some of the sources quoted and used in the genocide section are strange and certainly not of the same caliber as university presses (Yale/Beacon) and peer reviewed articles (especially Wolfe's article in Genocide Research). For example:

1. There's the campus news summary of a lecture at Stony Brook University. The lecture isn't peer-reviewed, doesn't appear in a book, and comes from a campus news source. It does not hold the same weight as other sources.
2. Daniel Blake Smith's American Betrayal is also suspect. Smith's Google books bio says he is a former professor of history and now a screenwriter. I cannot find any previous affiliation with the University of Kentucky aside from Smith's own materials, the book was published with Henry Holt and Company, a popular press, and the book is not cited in other works on Cherokee history during the Removal period. Smith is not an expert as far as I can tell, nor is his book on the same level as the others cited.
3. The edited collection by Justin D. Murphy (cannot find any information about said editor) is published by ABC CLIO, which publishes reference sources for educational libraries. Essentially, the book is an encyclopedia, and Murphy's conjectures do not meet merit of other sources. For reasons similar to removing Smith, Murphy should also go.
4. Finally, the are also issues with the Cole source from 1993, as it's dated. Beyond that, quoting Remini in Cole is problematic for many reasons: First, the quote shouldn't come from Cole's literature review. It should come from the original source. Second, given the way that Remini excuses the violence and reasoning given for Jackson's Indian policy throughout his work has been the subject of much debate at Andrew Jackson's page, and most of Remini's thoughts on Indian Policy have been removed for that reason. Remini shouldn't continue to be cited here if he's not cited at Jackson. Third, using Cole's 1993 literature review for a "state of discussion" is a major issue, because the book was written in 1993. It does not capture the current state of scholarly discussion around genocide and Removal broadly, nor the Trail of Tears specifically.

That leaves Wilentz and Clayton Anderson as the two sources to draw from for contemporary argument that the Trail of Tears did not constitute genocide. Clayton Anderson should most definitely be included, as the book is from a reputable press, Clayton Anderson is an expert, and he's one of the only remaining voices on the opposite side of the genocide debate. It does not matter if I or anyone else disagree with him--he's a reputable expert and his book is published by a reputable academic press. The numbered sources above, though, seem to be haphazardly compiled in order to create some sense of a debate, even though the authors and publications do not meet the same level of rigor as the other sources in this section.

As far as discussion of terminology and inclusion: If a book is not written by an expert (Smith) or comes from a suspect press, especially when the authors' credentials cannot be verified (Murphy), especially compared to the other authors and presses on the page, then they do not belong. This is why Clayton Anderson should undoubtedly be included.

As far as dated scholarship: Cole wrote his book 30 years ago. If it still held weight or someone was building on his ideas, scholars on either side would still be engaging with him today. Neither side of the debate (Ostler/Gilio-Whitaker/etc. or Clayton Anderson) engages with or citing Cole's book. On the other hand, for example, Ostler and Clayton Anderson regularly engage with one another's ideas and words. There are plenty of books of that era and far before 1993 on similar subjects that are still cited and their ideas engaged with. For example, Henry Nash Smith's Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth from 1950, Richard Slotkin's Regeneration through Violence from 1973, or Robert Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian from 1978 are all books that continue to be discussed, studied, cited, and their ideas engaged with by people like Ostler, Clayton Anderson, and Gilio-Whitaker. These books are dated, but their ideas hold weight. Cole's book is outdated and the ideas within don't hold weight any longer.--Hobomok (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I would just like to state that Remini is still cited at Jackson. It's true that a lot of Remini has been removed but that's because the entire section was almost all Remini with a few others sprinkled in. Part of our agreement through discussion was to bring in other perspectives to more balance the section. We also had to decide what to cut out of the article because of its size. There were actually two sections on Indian policy in Jackson's article. It was reduced to one with one paragraph basically presenting both "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" as debated terminology discussed in the Legacy section. Remini's work is probably still quoted as much with regard to the Indian Removal Act and its devastation on Native cultures as anyone else, if not more. "Genocide", though included in the article, was not added to the lead though we did manage to get "ethnic cleansing" added. The only terminology included prior to that was "forced removal". --ARoseWolf 15:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

There are so many articles and books on this topic that anything we cite should be a relatively recent tier 1 source. If there is truly no consensus among scholars it should be possible to set the highest standards for sourcing and find roughly equal numbers of sources supporting both POVs. I think that older sources and lower-tier sources supporting either position in the genocide debate should be removed. If that leaves one side underrepresented, then better sources should be found. Larataguera (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:TIER1 is an essay, not a policy. AFAIK, there is no policy in wikipedia limiting our sources to only university presses, although they're of course ideal. Nevertheless, I want to add some links regarding Justin D. Murphy and Daniel Blake Smith since Hobomok had trouble confirming their credentials. Murphy's assertion actually goes back to 2014, in a book edited by Paul R. Bartrop and Steven L. Jacobs, two respected historians & genocide scholars. Smith's book has received overall favorable reviews and is cited in several books/articles regarding Removal. Also, regarding the Cole source, I don't see any issues with it. Cole is a subject matter regarding Jackson and his book is cited only to present his and Remini's opinions. It's not used in wikivoice. However, I can cite the original Remini source if needed. Lastly, I'm neutral on the campus news summary so I'll replace it with another source. Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

An essay, in this case on what sources should be used, can guide what’s added to a page. In this case, sources should be high-level, and the Murphy and Blake Smith book are still suspect compared to other sources like Ostler and Clayton Anderson. Murphy’s book as quoted is an encyclopedia published by a marginal educational press. Do we know how Blake Smith’s book is quoted in other books? Do we have specific citations that show these other books treat it glowingly or agree with it? You’ve linked a Kirkus review, which is hardly substantial, and a review from a journal which brings up serious issues with Blake Smith’s historical inclusion in its penultimate section. That section of an academic book review is usually where major issues are raised and the reviewer tells you what they really think about the book. The reviewer points out Blake Smith did not include any treatment of the three Cherokee Women’s petitions (three MAJOR TEXTS of that period). In a book about removal is a MAJOR issue. It’s not the positive review you think it is. Finally, if you want to cite Remini then remove Cole and cite Remini, but we should have a discussion about Remini’s inclusion on this subject. He was not an expert on removal or the Trail of Tears. His overuse on Jackson’s page, stemming from him writing popular histories and biographies of Jackson, which this project overwhelmingly relies on, has led to him being used throughout treatment of this period on Wikipedia.

Finally, let me ask this: You’ve doubled down on your arguments from previous discussions on this page. Those arguments were formed and the page’s current writing done in partnership with a user known for being racist on pages about Native history and black history in the United States over multiple accounts over the course of years. Wouldn’t it make sense to think for a bit about what it means to keep defending positions that person fought for?—Hobomok (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This could be seen as an attack on another user and I encourage Hobomok to find another way to get their point across like focusing on the merits of edits themselves without their perception of the personal positions of other individuals in this discussion. The final comments above do nothing to advance towards gathering a consensus through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources are not "suspect" at all. They're written by two historians who are affiliated with two respected universities. Regarding the journal review of Smith's book, despite the minor criticisms, it is overall positive. It concludes: Overall though, An American Betrayal is an engaging and persuasive reevaluation of the removal debate within the Cherokee Nation that anyone interested in this history will enjoy. The "major" and "serious" issues, as you call them, don't seem to be treated by the reviewer as such. You also said that Remini "was not an expert on removal or the Trail of Tears" (whatever that means), but in my opinion this is not important. Are Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Dina Gilio-Whitaker and Wilma Mankiller "expert[s] on removal or the Trail of Tears"? The answer is no. Should we remove their opinions? Again, I'd say no. Remini is still regarded as the foremost authority on Andrew Jackson and, considering that the Trail of Tears is heavily linked to Jackson, his opinion matters and is definitely relevant. The same applies to Cole who, although isn't as monumental as Remini, his work remains important. And to comment on this edit summary, the "professor of national security affairs" is also the Thomas & Mabel Guy Professor of American History and Government at Ashland University and former Co-Chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Finally, I'm not interested in the whole LutonDi debacle or what that person "fought for". Antiok 1pie (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the recent sockpuppet names (2019-2023) in the SPI report against the contributors in Talk Archive 2, and did not find a direct match; but that did not include the many IPs LutonDi used. I also plan to check those names against article contributions. My time is limited for the next few days, but will continue to work on that. I also want to say hello to Hobomok and hope they stay around, I thought you had many good observations and suggestions in the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just popping in to make a few observations. First off I have some concerns about some of the sources. The article currently contains sources that are outdated, biased (in the forward to The Trail of Tears: The Story of the American Indian Removal 1813-1855, Jahoda is forthcoming about this and Jacksonland: President Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab by Inskeep is not only biased but not something I would personally have in my library with regard to quality) and relies heavily on Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz. The Cherokee section is much longer than that of the other Nations however there is no mention of the Old Settlers who moved to Indian Territory prior to December 1835. Under Landmarks and commemorations there is no mention of the annual commemorative Choctaw Trail of Tears Walk. The article is lack in so many ways and heavy in others. The lack of balance is frustrating. Indigenous girl (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, that's not an attack on another user, Hobomok is justified in feeling frustrated by the Sockpuppetry and how it, in part, shaped the article and the talk discussion. Please do not attempt to diminish their character. They have brought excellent, peer-reviewed, vetted sources to the table, and have made praiseworthy, cogent arguments against several of the out-dated sources. Indigenous girl, I agree that there should be balance of coverage of various Nations including the Choctaw; and am aligned with your analysis of sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy heck, I just skimmed through the archives. I do believe this is the first time I have been rendered speechless on the 'pedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It may make sense to unpack the archive and place it back here. If there are no objections, I'd like to do that. Netherzone (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I for one would find it very helpful. Things seem confusing as they stand now with nothing to go on. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the content from Archive 2 above, since it was prematurely archived. The discussion does not yet seem to be resolved, and the sockpuppet contributions should be taken into account as to their credibility and neutrality. BTW, If someone knows how to turn off auto-archiving, I am requesting that you please do so (not sure who it was that set up the archive that way.) Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Netherzone, of course, I'm just as frustrated with the Sockpuppetry but I'm not telling other editors they need to rethink their position simply because they happen to share some points of view. The only and I repeat, the only reason to do that is to undercut and diminish the position of fellow editors. Ironically the very thing you are accusing me of which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm wanting both sides to knock it off. Hobomok has presented very compelling arguments and they should be addressed and discussed for their merit. There is no need for the other, frustrated or not. I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed. And to make it very clear, my position has not been and is not swayed by the sock or anything they said. Their edits should be removed unless another editor wishes to take responsibility for them, period. --ARoseWolf 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I went through this article history in regards to LutonDi and found that every edit he made was almost immediately removed, with the exception of one (cited) statement that low-balled the death toll, an edit itself reverted since then. He has had virtually NO EFFECT on the article content as it now stands. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - LutonDi was adamant that the word, "genocide" should not be used in the infobox. However several editors disagreed with that and felt it had a place there. If I have not counted incorrectly, that would be:

• SUPPORT including the word genocide in the infobox: Shearonik, Hobomok, Larataguera, Netherzone, Indigenous girl
• OPPOSE including the word genocide in the infobox: LutonDi (blocked sock);
• CONDITIONAL: Antiok 1pie: I would oppose simply adding the word "Genocide" in the infobox, but I don't think that I would oppose the addition of "Genocide (disputed)", or something like that.; ARoseWolf: I am in favor of adding genocide to the infobox but more specifically, cultural genocide. If there is no consensus for cultural genocide then I recommend genocide without the disputed tag unless we are willing to add disputed to all terms listed.
• NEUTRAL: Firefangledfeathers

Question -GenQuest and ARoseWolf, Antiok 1pie, and anyone else I forgot to mention, do you care to weigh in on this matter?

Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the term is disputed. As such, I would oppose simply adding the word "Genocide" in the infobox, but I don't think that I would oppose the addition of "Genocide (disputed)", or something like that. Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

They are all disputed terms in one form or another. It wasn't just a forced displacement of people. It wasn't just ethnic cleansing of the territory. The questions are now being asked and explored by scholarship as to whether it was cultural genocide or not. I believe there is enough evidence, as presented, to show that the Removal of these Nations was another step in the degradation of Indigenous Cultures in North America. The cultures across the world have historically been tied to the very land they were stewards over. The landmarks are interwoven into their traditional stories and beliefs. It was no different in North America. By removing the people from their ancestral homeland you further erode and degrade their culture and in a lot of cases genocide it altogether. The people lose that connection. After Native Nations were removed to reservations the next step was the assimilation of those that remained. In steps the boarding schools. I am in favor of adding genocide to the infobox but more specifically, cultural genocide. If there is no consensus for cultural genocide then I recommend genocide without the disputed tag unless we are willing to add disputed to all terms listed. --ARoseWolf 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on genocide in the infobox. While we have some editor attention on it, I'd love to see the citations for "ethnic cleansing" removed, or at least repeated and summarized somewhere in the body of the article. I'd also like to sincerely thank the editors that worked to add more mention of the genocide debate in the lead and body of the article. Comparing to the Jan. 2022 version, this is spectacular progress. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)