Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Andrew Jackson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Copyediting

Carlstak, I find your copyedits largely unhelpful. You're adding sources to the middle of already sourced content for no reason. See here as one example. There is another here. The content is already sourced. What are you doing this for? How is it supposed to help anything? It's a distraction to the problems that we're already trying to deal with here. In addition, you didn't adjust the page range to the source that's already there, which means that it's now too far expanded. Please just help focus on the neutrality question and leave the rest of the article alone. We have enough going on now. I would appreciate you reverting these two changes, and probably some others. Display name 99 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC) You also have an out of place period and bracket in your edit to the Burr conspiracy. Please stop. You're making things worse. Display name 99 (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC) John, since SandyGeorgia asked you to consider helping to copyedit the article, perhaps you would want to look into the copyedits that Carlstak has been making and offer your thoughts. I see some of them as good but others, including some more recent ones, as clearly unhelpful. Other opinions are welcome. Display name 99 (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, you are trying to micromanage the article, which is clearly not of FA quality at this point. The banner at the top of the page says, "Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly". For one thing, the article as presently constituted leans far too heavily on Remini's hagiography, especially his 1977 work, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767-1821, which, as Burstein points out, has passages such as, "As the mutineers approached Jackson presented quite an awesome sight. A shaft of implacable determination stretched high on the saddle of his horse, eyes flashing, grizzled hair bristling on his forehead, Jackson roared a threat to kill any man who defied him. To brave this fury was madness." and "At the time he attended school Andrew was a tall, extremely slender boy, whose most distinguishing features were his bright, intensely blue eyes - how they blazed when passion seized him! - and a shock of long, bushy, sandy-colored hair." This is creative historical fiction and we should not be citing such an adulatory source, especially a modern one. Carlstak (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I point out obvious problems with your edits and you totally ignore my concerns and instead respond with an attack on one of the article's sources. You are not engaging constructively. Display name 99 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert as you see fit. Despite your denials, you keep trying to position yourself as gatekeeper of the article with veto power over suggested changes, apart from my copyedits. This article is clearly based on a white-centric appraisal of Jackson, and is infected in its very bones with the hero worship of substandard sourcing like Remini's historical fiction, which amounts to cringe-worthy fanfic. You are trying to deflect from the fact that Remini should not be cited. It's astonishing that an article so dependent on his antiquated pseudo-scholarship passed FA review. The article should be re-sourced, if not completely rewritten; it's poor quality. Carlstak (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, one of the diffs that I linked to was one of you placing a citation in the middle of text cited to Brands. That doesn't have anything to do with Remini. You're deflecting from the core of the issue, which is what your reason is for these changes. Display name 99 (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, you might want to have a look at WP:FAOWN, and stop making the article worse. Ineffective copyediting is the last thing this article needs at this stage, and I hope you'll stop causing the problems described above. It doesn't make sense at all to be copyediting this article before it's trimmed, and your efforts are not helping. Source-to-text integrity is equally, if not more, important than prose, and you are damaging that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've used up my three reverts for the day. Otherwise, I would have reverted those edits. They still have to go, or at least the one interrupting text cited to the Brands source. There may be others that I'm missing. A few of the copyedits have been helpful (removing one or two obvious typos, etc.), but overall, they're doing more harm than good. Display name 99 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be most helpful if Carlstak stopped doing what they're doing, period; they don't have any experience editing at the GA or FA level. The damage can be sorted after the article is trimmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The article can be trimmed later. Right now, the obvious damage that Carlstak has done that can easily be undone has to be reverted. Trimming the article is difficult without source to text integrity. Display name 99 (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would think that relying heavily on a source that's more than 40 years old is not a sign of FA quality, unless there are truly no more good recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What facts have come to light in the last 40 years about events from over 150 years ago? Articles about aspects of WW2 before Russia had opened their archives to historians may indeed need to be reviewed. Is there any evidence that is the case here? Springee (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that major shifts in the historiography of Jackson and the Trail of Tears have occurred in the past 4 decades. Historians are more critical of established narratives than they were in the 1970s, when critical histories (post-colonial, feminist, queer etc.) were just starting to be accepted by mainstream scholarship as providing valuable critiques. More recently, there has been another wave of reappraisal/decolonisation of European and American history over the last decade. What was disputed in the 1970s among historians was already accepted in 1995: "By 1969, Francis Paul Prucha's influential article defending Jackson's motives released an historiographical firestorm which raged throughout the 1970s ... the critics of Jackson's policy have generally prevailed". Scholars don't stand still, they're always re-examining the primary sources and critiquing earlier secondary sources, adopting new lenses from which to understand the past – so to achieve NPOV we have to cover these shifts in proportion to their weight (equally, this means presenting new critical analyses clearly and with attribution; neither new or old interpretations should be given in wikivoice as fact when they're not currently and very widely accepted). If our article embodies the state of scholarship in 1980, or even 2000, when there continues to be a significant output of new research, then it's out of date. Jr8825 • Talk 07:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted some of Carlstak's edits.

Old sources don't necessarily become less valuable just because they're old. As Springee said, if new information emerges which was not available to older sources, then that is a reason for preferring new sources to older ones. But if that isn't the case, I see no reason why newer sources are better simply because they're new. Just because their perspectives are more modern doesn't mean they're better. The perspectives may switch again in 20 years back to that of the older sources.

Robert Remini is widely regarded as an exceptional scholar. In his own biography published in 2005, H.W. Brands said that Remini's three volume series (1977, 1981, and 1984) was a "monumental work of research and exposition by the dean of Jackson studies." (Brands 2005, p. 606) Jon Meacham, who wrote another biography of Jackson in 2008, said that Remini was "someone who never believed that his interpretation was the last word." He also said, "You cannot write about Jackson without standing on Remini's shoulders." (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/arts/robert-v-remini-andrew-jackson-biographer-dies-at-91.html?mcubz=0) Even scholars who disagree with Remini respect him. Contemporary reviews of his work that disagree with his positions praise him for his knowledge and understanding of Jackson. This has continued to the modern era. Daniel Walker Howe is the author of What Hath God Wrought, a 2007 book about the Jacksonian Era. Unlike Remini, Howe is no friend to Jackson, who does not look good at all in that book. And yet Howe says this about Remini: "A forthright admirer of his subject, Remini is laudatory in his assessments of Jackson's achievements. At the same time, he is also a meticulous scholar who does not allow his prejudices to get in the way of the evidence he finds." (https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-ages-of-jackson/) The fact is that Remini's work continues to be accepted as important and respectable scholarship by historians of the 21st century. That means that it's fine to use him, regardless of how much Carlstak dislikes him.

Remini is relied on more heavily in discussions of Jackson's life before the presidency than he is during it. This is because there is a shortage of sources that deal in adequate detail with Jackson's early life. Meacham's biography is called American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. As the title suggests, it focuses almost entirely on his presidency. Jackson's early life is quickly dispatched with in only a few dozen pages. Brands' biography does touch more on Jackson's early life, but in substantially less detail than Remini. There are good non-biographical resources on the Creek War and War of 1812 (many of which have been added by other editors over the course of the past month), but not for Jackson's life before the War of 1812. Remini's 1977 work is used so often because there are no other sources available which describe Jackson's early life in the same amount of detail and because Remini is still a respected scholar. Nothing else needs to be said.

Also, Remini has nothing to do with Carlstak's unhelpful mutilation of sourcing in the article, which in numerous cases disrupted source to text integrity in text not sourced to Remini. In one case, Carlstak interrupted text cited to a 2005 source by adding a source from 2000. If the problem is that the sourcing here is too dated, that doesn't make sense. I believe that the Remini source was criticized simply to try to create a distraction from that user's problematic editing. Display name 99 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(EC reply to Display name 99): Nobody is saying Remini is less valuable for being old, or not exceptional, or that his works don't fill in gaps that others will likely miss. "Nothing else needs to be said": except that any decent WP article has to reflect the modern mainstream state of scholarship in the field, and not be almost entirely a summary of a book series 30+-years old. The problem is not exclusive to the sources being old, and I'm not sure what you mean by "text integrity" -- if you think the attributed text is interrupted, put another citation on the sentence prior to the insertion. Please consider striking your final sentence.

(reply to all posts prior): At a glance I don't think the characterization of Remini's bio as "creative historical fiction" is at all fair, (especially, with regards to your quote, as he backs up many finer details of Jackson's appearance with inline citations and quotes later on) -- the prose of a book aimed in large part to a public audience notwithstanding, his general rigor and verifiability seem quite sufficient (again at a glance). That said, every other point raised about the flaws in the article appear to be spot-on. The overwhelming reliance on 30+-year-old sources, mostly Remini, is simply inappropriate practice for this type of article (history in a thoroughly-studied subject) to be FA.

This doesn't mean Remini or other sources should be removed, as there is no requirement that each passage be limited one attribution. For something like history, where interpretations can certainly differ, multiple attributions may be extremely important on certain sentences. If all this seems obvious, then the state of the article should reflect it, and it certainly did not as of, say, 2022-08-22. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

"What is with this conversation" is that it started being about source-to-text being broken during "copyediting" and morphed to being a discussion about high quality sources and comprehensiveness; those are three separate issues. Breaking source-to-text integrity while "copyediting" has nothing to do with the quality of sources/comprehensiveness questions, and editors who aren't well versed in two of the three (source-to-text integrity and FA-level prose), probably should not be trying to "copyedit", and breaking source-to-text integrity while doing that. Perhaps a different section to discuss sources would keep that distinction clear. When sourcing issues are agreed upon, editors familiar with FA-level prose can then do the fine tuning, which is really unproductive until the article is trimmed to a reasonable length and uses summary style better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

SamuelRiv, your first sentence is simply wrong on multiple levels. Several editors, including yourself, have said that Remini is less valuable for being old. I will assume you didn't see this, but in an edit summary, Carlstak wrote: "Remini's work amounts to cringe-worthy fan-fic." In his posts on the talk page, Carlstak called his work "hagiography" and, as you noted, "creative historical fiction." How you can see that and still write your first sentence is perplexing.

For what I meant by "text integrity," see the discussion above. Carlstak was adding new sources to the article without explanation to the middle of text already cited to other sources, and not changing the page range in the other sources. In the process, it corrupted the verifiability of content added to the article. His edits had nothing to do with Remini (he was interrupting text cited to sources that were not Remini), but when I pointed it out, he ignored my complaints and instead deflected to an attack on the Remini source. I'm not going to strike my final sentence because it describes exactly what it appears Carlstak did. I encourage you to strike the first sentence of your post saying that nobody questioned the reliability of Remini's work. Display name 99 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

So your response to an attempt to improve an article by an experienced editor ... is that the article should not be improved until the article is first improved in a different manner (which is scheduled for when exactly, and by whom?) ... and should not be improved by anyone without a particular kind of experience ... and if they make a single mistake (like splitting an 8-sentence (and more phrases) paragraph (that's long) which only had a single attribution to a four-page range at the end (that's also long), your response is to revert all their [edit: apologies, this was blatantly not true, most of the edits stand as of this comment; for the purposes of this comment those edits reverted were those that are adding sources to this paragraph in question, which to clarify is the second diff linked in Dn99's original post] edits instead of breaking up the attribution and/or the paragraph yourself ... and then you (collective) accuse them of bad faith? SamuelRiv (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak made dozens of edits. By my count, five were reverted: three for the issue described above, one for original research (adding something to the text not found in the sources), and one for being an edit to material that is under dispute. Please make a habit of reading the discussions on the talk page and the article history before makign comments about it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the hyperbole (and that we may have varying definitions of "an experienced editor"), the mistake was not fixed by the editor who made it, after the issue was raised on talk, and that's a behavioral problem, and one that risks deteriorating a Featured article if it continues. Yes, copyediting an article when about half of its content needs to be cut anyway is not productive considering the work that needs to happen here: 1) resolve disputes on sourcing; 2) address the other disputes; 3) cut the size; 4) and then copyedit what's left, without breaking source-to-text integrity. Ideally, someone with experience copyediting at the FA level would do that last bit. Also, please see WP:FAOWN-- that's a policy page.

Someone makes a mistake: fine. They don't fix it, and a revert has to occur: not fine. Then arguing at FAR that the article is not at FA standard, or is unstable with disputes, because it's been damaged by editing that was unproductive and should not hae happened and the editor who made the mistake didn't respond: not fine. Disruptive editing isn't a reason for an article to be defeatured; better is to use dispute resolution to deal with the disruption first, and then deal with the article issues. The first step in dispute resolution is to discuss with the editor. I've done that, and I hope we don't see a recurrence of such problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak also added a biography of John Sevier to the "Biographies" section of the Bibliography, even though that section is clearly only for biographies of Jackson, while biographies of people other than Jackson go under "Specialized studies." The bibliographical entry was also missing publishing location. I fixed it. Yeah, for the most part, I am not a fan of the so-called "copyediting." I'm glad it's stopped. Display name 99 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Unlike some editors, I don't have time to sit in front of my computer all day. I run a business, and have a life outside of Wikipedia. It's unreasonable to expect someone reading the talk page to read all the walls of text generated above, and my brain has trouble dealing with all the nonlinear text jumping from thread to thread and trying to keep track of the myriad trains of thought.

Display name 99 exaggerates the damage and "mutilation" from my edits. Like I said, the banner at the top of the page still says, "Andrew Jackson is a featured article... Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Therefore, I jumped in, and Display name 99 responded. I read it, and thought, okay, I'll make three more small copyedits and go to bed. Then he has what my grandma would have called a "conniption fit". I didn't have time to address other issues after I added my response above this morning before I hit the road. Judging by his volcanic reaction afterward, I thought he might give himself apoplexy. SandyGeorgia says I was "arguing at FAR that the article is not at FA standard". Huh? I was arguing that right here in this section, not at FAR.

SandyGeorgia and Display name 99 both seem to have a habit of misrepresenting other editor's remarks, done presumably in the heat of emotion, and now Display name 99 thinks he can discern my motives (in non-AGF fashion) and believes that I criticized Remini "simply to try to create a distraction". Amazing. He thinks he can read my mind. These two should relax, rather than creating a tempest in a teapot. PS: Remini's work might have been considered good scholarship in 1977, but it's very outdated now, and the article should not lean on his work so heavily. I never said it shouldn't be used at all. Carlstak (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It's best to focus on the content, not the editors. Springee (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please tell that to Display name 99, too. Carlstak (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

First, Carlstak, my apologies for the misunderstanding due to my sloppy language; I did not intend to say that you were arguing X at FAR, rather than is what is usually seen at FAR in cases like this. People edit in ways that destabilizes an article, then come to FAR saying ... the article isn't stable, or isn't well sourced, or isn't X, Y or Z, when editors are not engaging in a way on talk that would lead to that outcome. The intent of my post was general (not aimed at you), as in, don't go down that road. Collaborative editing, using the talk page for discussing edits before making them, keeping discussion focused on sources, working methodically in a logical way ... all of this works ... and we proved that at J. K. Rowling (JKR) which appeared at FAR with much worse problems than this. Once people realized that FAR is not a place for a speedy delist in the midst of heated dispute, they got to work, compromises were reached, and as far I know, no one left unhappy.

Second, not a tempest in a teapot; the approach to the issues with this article has been all wrong on almost all counts (I say almost because I haven't read the entire talk page), in terms of the very issues I raise, which I hope you'll (all) pay attention to. The "tempest" is that it just makes no sense to attempt a copyedit with so much else going on here. You can't polish prose on a turd. In addition to the copyediting issue, there has been a misplaced focus on the lead; you can't rewrite an article by beginning with problems in the lead; best leads are written last, and flow naturally out of text that is well constructed and based on consensus and good sources. There are sourcing issues, and fhe article is too long and rife with verbosity. It needs to make use of WP:SS in at least three places that I've looked at so far: Military career of Andrew Jackson, Presidency of Andrew Jackson, and Andrew Jackson legacy (a section that has too much quoting by the way). The first way through the problems here should be a discussion of sources without getting distracted by anything else (eg copyediting or fixing the lead): come to consensus on sources without other distractions, so the conversation doesn't go off on all the tangents mentioned by Carlstak. Have a discussion only about sources, just as we did at JKR. After that, cut the article in half, using the same strict approach we did at JKR; focus on the due weight in the highest quality sources and a stricter use of summary style. Then you can start re-polishing the prose that is left. Trying to polish prose before hand is like the proverbial sow's ear and silk; you can't get there from here. And very last is the lead.

Why should you listen me and why go through this? Well, for those who think that getting the article delisted will accomplish <whatever goal you're each after>, you're wrong; what always happens is the opposite. When an article is featured, you can hold it to the highest quality of sources and citation and prose. If it's delisted, no one ends up happy; the article goes to heck, you've got no standard it can be held to, and in a case like this one, if all don't start collaborating, you're only likely to end up in protracted dispute resolution with a damaged article and admins having to sanction people right and left. Nobody wins; getting an article delisted paradoxically lowers the chance of getting issues addressed. If you follow the path I recommend of very systematically working through the content sections first, trimming and summarizing, staying focused on retaining only a strict summary of the highest quality sources, by the time you are ready to tackle the lead, last, you may have learned how to work together, recognized each other's strengths and weaknesses, divided up the work, brought in new collaborators, and heard each others' points in a calmer and more orderly discussion. This is precisely what we did at JKR. I strongly encourage all of you to slow down, stop editing for a bit, go over and read the entire Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 including the talk page with its five archives, and remember that article came to FAR as one of the currently most acrimonious areas of Wikipedia (transgender issues), and came out with its star intact. It is not a tempest in a teapot if I got your attention; the approach here is wrong, and getting the article defeatured will not fix the content issues (neither will copyediting at this stage)-- it is likely, in fact, to make it worse. If you start collaborating, discussing, listening to each other, taking a systematic approach to sources and content, working section by section, ignoring the lead 'til last, by the time the FAR is removed from hold, you will find plenty of experienced editors willing to help at FAR. And those are neutral experienced editors, who aren't going to settle for any POV (nor are they going to settle for a 17,000-word article ... I don't know what was going on at FAC in 2018, but it was not a high point).

Hope this helps, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I know you mean well, but you just added 5,271 bytes in a comment, and thus show you've missed my point. I shouldn't be expected to read such a long text, enough to start an article, and one out of many others to be read on this page. That seems quite demanding to me. Surely you realize that most editors don't have that kind of leisure. I may be old, but I'm not retired. If you want to be read, you should be more concise, please. Thanks. Carlstak (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I got your point and chose to overlook it, hoping some good would come of it. Perhaps when you have a longer moment, you'll read what I wrote and try not to miss my point. If you're short of time, how is copyediting content that shouldn't even be on the page the best use of your time ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Good lord. As if I thought at the time that I was adding "content that shouldn't even be on the page", and doing it deliberately. That's just silly. Carlstak (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I see you haven't yet read what I wrote, as I said no such thing (about you adding content that shouldn't even be on the page"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: If "you can't polish a turd", then why is there such a negative reaction to an editor attempting to do so? Why are you insisting that attempts to improve sourcing to the article (of all things) be put in a procedural queue, behind some bureaucratic arguing over splitting, trimming, unresolved controversy, etc., none of which address the perfectly sound point that the bulk of the text needs to come from a wider variety of more modern sources (among the other substantial points and edits being made, not all being perfect or ones I may agree with, but still ones that may be preserved regardless of the wranglings above).

I may or may not agree, but I don't see why you can't sympathize with Carlstak's point of tldr when in your comment you also note you haven't read the entire Talk page.

"The best leads are written last". In many forms of solo writing, yes, you generally save fleshing out those kinds of sections until after the substance of the rest of the piece is near its final draft. However, on WP there is no "last" -- there is no "final draft". In collaborative editing you don't get a say in when the "best" lead gets written (except in an RfC, which generally is a choice of mediocrity at best that editors then cement in stone after the process). FA is in no way an exception to this.

@plus all others: Sadly the behavior of editors here is not atypical on FA, which contributes to a generally toxic editing environment, especially for prospective editors who may be more drawn to popular articles (the latter point -- that FA are likely to be popular and the new/prospective editors are more likely to start editing those types of articles -- should be demonstrable but I'd have to search around if those numbers have been researched). It also makes FA stagnate as the standards of both WP and the scholarship change around it.

It certainly seems I should support FAR for this article on the bases that the bulk of it is solely sourced to the Remini series (even more so when its nom was approved), thus it should have never been accepted, and that because of the editors' reaction to improving this situation it raises doubt that they will be willing to address this issue. Of course, it's only been a couple days, so maybe we should just assume that there's some shock and fatigue from previous recent arguments and that eventually this thread will start addressing the substantive issues raised on their own merits. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

We already have an editor above who has decided to invalidate the RfC process and make changes to the lead in favor of one position over others while the RfC is still open. This has been a farce from the beginning with certain editors pushing their own personal due weight narratives counter to the actual facts presented. At this point the collaborative effort has broken down because other parties are not willing to allow the process to play out, instead electing to circumvent the process with their own versions of neutrality. --ARose Wolf 14:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't approve of editing the lead without talk page discussion and while the RfC is still ongoing. Cmguy777's default approach is to make changes to the article first and discuss it on the talk page later. It has some benefits because stuff can get done faster, but there are also significant downsides, and in this case, I don't think that the action taken was acceptable. However, there is frustration because the RfC has been open for weeks with no clear consensus emerging, and attempts to find a resolution that is a reasonable reflection of the split results have been rebuffed without any satisfactory substitute proposal. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

All that needs to stop: a new way of addressing the article issues (which are considerabel) is needed, and I offer a sample next. Slow and steady wins the race: stop charging through here as if these issues are going to be resolved quickly. Take a look at how long Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling were at FAR and settle in with a methodology for the long haul. Let's not come to the point where admin attention is needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: I will also offer that J. K. Rowling had one an excessively long RFC with extremely wide participation that resolved nothing and was a massive timesink. Working in the way I proposed was how we got the issues addressed. Because we slowed down and came to trust each other and discovered which editor was best at which kind of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether I agree with @SandyGeorgia's take on the new way of dealing with the issues or not I do agree that there is no time limit here. We should go slow and be very deliberate in approach. I am in no hurry to see any changes made to the article, including any I may feel need to be made. I have intentionally not been editing the article despite seeing many issues because I happen to agree with the sourcing problems and the fact this is not going to be a quick or easy fix. We may never reach a point where we agree because this article is about a very polarizing historical subject but we are doing the encyclopedia and our readers a disservice by trying to rush through this process or force changes into the article when what we really need is a strong neutral reevaluation top to bottom and serious alternative considerations. That is not a slight on anyone that has edited the article to this point but having other viewpoints and bringing in fresh perspectives is never a bad thing and neither is reevaluating sourcing. I'm willing to give @SandyGeorgia's approach the opportunity to succeed. --ARose Wolf 15:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

SamuelRiv, first, I haven't read the entire talk page because I believe FAR regulars should remain neutral on points of potential POV at this stage. When/if we come to that, I will certainly read everything; for now, I don't want to develop an opinion which might bias me.

Second, everyone here is breaching WP:FAOWN, a policy page. If, as someone says, Cmguy is also doing that, it needs to stop.

Third, I absolutely proposed a slower discussion focusing on sources before editing.

And finally, feel free to disagree with me, but the track you all are on will not produce the desired outcome for anyone on any side of the dispute. FAR will never be a speedy solution to solving these issues. We've improved extremely contentious articles by "slow and steady wins the race", I have the examples to back my suggestions, or you can go the route of the British Empire, where no one collaborated and the article was defeaturd after almost a year at FAR, and no one came out happy because the content issues were still not addressed. If there was POV at the British Empire, our readers are still reading it, and our readers don't know or care whether there's a bronze star in the right hand top corner. If, as you all say, there is POV, we want that addressed, right? Regardless of whether the article retains the star. So adopt an approach that will yield that outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise number 2

Here's another idea. I had originally supported waiting until after the "ethnic cleansing" issue was sorted out to deal with this, but since we're getting no closer to an agreement on that, maybe this will help lead to a resolution. The second to last sentence in the opening paragraph now reads: "An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man"[1] against a "corrupt aristocracy"[2] and to preserve the union of states." This has been attacked for supposedly presenting Jackson in too favorable a light. I propose removing this sentence and adding it to the "Philosophy" section, where I think it would be helpful. With the newly added final sentence referencing Jackson's reputation as a populist and defender of regular people, this sentence isn't really necessary in the opening paragraph anymore. Additionally, its removal will create more of a balance in the opening paragraph, because exactly half of the assessments of Jackson will be favorable and half of it is negative. My hope is that removing a sentence seen by many editors as too favorable to Jackson and creating a neutrality issue will serve as some consolation for not including "ethnic cleansing" in the opening paragraph, which I am still unwilling to agree to.

I also propose changing "working classes" to "ordinary Americans," because as someone at the FAR nomination pointed out, the phrase "working classes" is not used in the article, whereas a variety of "ordinary American citizens" is.

The final version of the opening paragraph will read:

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, planter, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Although often praised as an advocate for ordinary Americans and for his work in preserving the union of states, Jackson has also been criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands.

Basically, I propose a deal: taking out a sentence seen by some as too favorable to Jackson in exchange for dropping demands to include the term "ethnic cleansing" in the opening paragraph. It can still go in the final paragraph of the lead (even though I don't think it belongs there) and the body. Pinging some of the main contributors here: ARoseWolf, Springee, Jr8825, Andrevan, BrownHairedGirl. Anyone else with something helpful to add is obviously encouraged to chime in. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiments behind this compromise but I can not support it so long as it is tied to any stipulation of dropping the demand for "ethnic cleansing" to be in the lede paragraph along with "forced removal". As pointed out, the two terms receive almost equal hits in search engine results and even when you parse through those hits you find they receive almost equal usage in quality academic sources. To continue to elevate one term over the other in wikivoice is to take a position of leading the general reader in a particular direction more favorable of Jackson rather than presenting the equal position of sources both favorable and critical and allowing the reader to determine for themselves. To relegate ethnic cleansing to another place in the lead or the body of the article and present it as a lesser opinion of less quality sources will present a false neutrality in Wikivoice. --ARose Wolf 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It would not be described as a minority opinion. A version that I proposed above would add that it was described that way by "many scholars." If the other side can't move past its insistence on including this term in the opening paragraph, unless the results of the RfC finally start to swing one way or the other, I don't think that this dispute will ever end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The insistence is that the two terms be used equally. Just a thought. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The RfC isn't closed but that isn't supported by a survey of RSs. Springee (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have now told you that you are incorrect about your assessment. Reliable sources, in fact, support both terms and both terms are widely used. I wish you would stop presenting this false narrative as fact. --ARose Wolf 19:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, nothing you have presented in regards to the use of ethnic cleansing is a true compromise considering the starting positions of those presenting the RfC. And what you think is a compromise is actually doing more harm by presenting something that isn't reflective of reliable sources and presents a false neutrality in Wikivoice. As it stands right now, the omission of ethnic cleansing from the article is a travesty to the Native American cultures affected by the Indian Removal Act but to present ethnic cleansing as a minority opinion accepted by "some scholars" while forced removal is presented as the overwhelming majority opinion accepted by all of academia and therefore not needing to be labeled or attributed would be more detrimental. --ARose Wolf 19:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, about half of the respondents to the RfC opposed the use of ethnic cleansing in the lead. About half of them supported it. Placing it in the lead but in a less prominent position is a fair reflection of how the RfC has gone. Furthermore, you have misquoted me. My version does not say "some scholars" but "many scholars." Forced removal works best because it says exactly what everyone agrees happened and nothing else. "Ethnic cleansing" is more vague. It can imply extermination, which, though not to diminish the deaths that occurred during the removal process, was not Jackson's goal when he crafted the policy, or genocide, which is debated. It also doesn't necessarily imply removal; it could mean that Jackson ordered all of the Indians killed where they were. That's false, but an uninformed reader seeing that written in the opening paragraph without clarification would have no way of knowing that this was not the case. Forced removal says specifically what took place and has no danger of suggesting anything that is either untrue or in dispute. Display name 99 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been told this before but your assessment of the definition of ethnic cleansing is so far off base that its preposterous to even try to discuss this further with you. Ethnic cleansing further defines what happened and includes but expands on Forced Removal. Forced removal is the vague and incomplete terminology here. The intention of Jackson is irrelevant. No one here is a mind reader and Wikipedia should not present Jackson's intentions or what any another person thinks his intentions were, without attribution, so we deal in results and it's called by its results. When a term is presented which better defines the results and becomes widely used in reliable sources we can use that term to describe the results. It wasn't just a forced removal. It was an ethnic cleansing of Native cultures resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Native lives and the destruction of generations of stories and songs and lessons. these aren't just words. These are human lives that were tossed to the side in Jackson's ideals and to a greater extent those of the general populace which he represented. And just for the record, as I was taught growing up, telling a half truth is telling an untruth. --ARose Wolf 20:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"It wasn't just a forced removal. It was an ethnic cleansing of Native cultures resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Native lives." Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, nobody has told me that. Barely any effort has even been made to respond to these arguments, although I've posted them several times. Instead, people respond with messages heavy in emotion and rhetoric but short on substance, such as your own just now. Display name 99 (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And clearly you aren't really reading what I post. I told you. I gave the Merriam-Webster definition of ethnic cleaning and now I will summarize that along with the definition from Wikipedia, Britannica, the United Nations and Oxford dictionaries; "ethnic cleansing" is the policy of forcing, by a dominant majority, an unwanted minority ethnic group (a group of people that share a cultural tradition, religion, etc.), by expulsion, imprisonment and/or killing, to leave an area or country. I tried to look up "forced removal" in any of those same places and possibly give a summary and the only thing that came up was from Merriam-Webster "the act of removing something by force". You tell me which term is more vague and which one more accurately describes the forced imprisonment, expulsion and subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of Native people with their own distinctive cultural identity by a colonial expansionist government that simply wanted them out of the way. --ARose Wolf 13:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is still more vague. If the definition can mean "expulsion, imprisonment, and/or killing," then that's a lot to choose from. By and large, the Indians weren't imprisoned. Many were killed, but most not deliberately, and most not under Jackson's administration. The term does not convey what happened in adequately specific terms, whereas "forced removal" does. Display name 99 (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a lot to choose from when all of that happened under the enforcement of the law which even your most celebrated biographers stated is one of Jackson's defining accomplishments. Okay, I'm done discussing this because you clearly are making no attempt at a true compromise based on what is in the article and only from your personal perspective. Anyone that wants to know if Native Americans were imprisoned, expelled or killed as the result of the Indian Removal Act asked for, signed into law and enforced by Jackson then they can clearly look up the Wikipedia articles on both the Act and the Trail of Tears or Indian removal to see that, in fact, they were imprisoned, expelled and thousands died as a result of Jackson putting pen to paper and signing this law into being. They can also go look at the sources themselves for these articles. Your use of terms like "deliberately" are simply your attempts to deflect and rationalize, albeit it in poor taste and offensive to many. I will not make assumptions as to why you are attempting to deflect because only you know that. --ARose Wolf 15:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It's as if you have to respond to every utterance; no wonder you seem to be emotionally exhausted. Your post below that starts, "Since the beginning of this discussion..." sounds like a cry of despair. Trying to follow all the arguments on this page would drive me to despair, too. It's cacophonous to my brain, and I can only look at it for a few minutes before I have to go back to copyediting the article, which has other problems. Carlstak (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where editors have shown I'm incorrect. Conversely, we have sources that argue the term should be used. At best I recall someone saying that sources in just the last 10 years have said EC is the correct term. But that would mean we accept just the last 10 years and ignore the 150 before it even though we aren't dealing with late breaking discoveries. Unless new facts are coming to the table why use such a narrow time window? Springee (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles. I have stated my position. If others want to read further then they can starting at the top. No need to rehash the same discussions. --ARose Wolf 20:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

What if the lead paragraph bypasses the "ethnic cleansing" vs "forced removal" question by stating the policy name, the Indian Removal Act? Springee (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99: whatever the merits of this proposal, I don't hold with using it as some sort of lever to justify the omission of "ethnic cleansing" from the lead.

The issues should be considered on their own merits, and not used as chips in some editorial poker game. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Not omitted from the lead (even though I believe it ought to be), but from the opening paragraph. And we've been debating the issue on its own merits for weeks and gotten nowhere. Display name 99 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Ethnocentrism is a better word than Ethnic cleansing in the first paragraph. Can someone write or make an alternative paragraph so editors can choose between two versions? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the beginning of this discussion, I have been accused by multiple editors of displaying ownership behavior of this article. I think that any editor should be disabused of that notion by reading the conversation above. I do not believe that Indian removal needs to be specifically mentioned at all in the opening paragraph. (No other issue in Jackson's presidency is.) I do not think that the term "ethnic cleansing" should be placed anywhere in the lead at all. However, I have conceded in both cases out of both respect to other editors' opinions and a desire to end the controversy and find a solution. In addition to that, I have offered to take out a sentence to which other editors object. Contrary to claims that have been made that I am trying to own the article and control the language, I have given up plenty of ground in the interest of coming together to find something that a majority of editors can accept. However, some of the editors on the other side refuse to give an inch. That's the reason why we're still here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In the article there should be only one place for Jackson's Indian removal policy. Otherwise it is repetition that does not belong in the introduction and undo weight. In the interest of the article I suggest making the change proposed by Display name 99, then mention ethnic cleansing in the paragraph that discusses Jackson's Indian policy during his presidency. I say just do it. Then fix the last paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph should mention ethnic cleansing. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's better to use it in the fourth paragraph, which discusses historians' opinions on Jackson, to say that many scholars call it ethnic cleansing. We have had two votes in the RfC so far today: one for ethnic cleansing/both and one more recently for forced removal. We're not going to arrive at a consensus anytime soon. My proposal is a fair representation of the views of the editors who have voted. Neither side is going to get everything that they want when the results of the RfC are split roughly 50-50. That's just how things work. I've given up quite a bit and, to end the dispute, I ask only that the editors on the other side give up a little as well. Display name 99 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Other than arguing which paragraph, what historical source says Jackson practiced Ethnic Cleansing? We need a book and page number. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

We have had two votes in the RfC so far today They are not votes. Literally !votes. It is the arguments that count. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the difference is between a vote and a !vote. There have been intelligent and reasoned arguments made on both sides of the issue. However, this has not led to a consensus. That's why we need to meet somewhere in the middle. Display name 99 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the term "ethnic cleansing" from a reliable source to the Indian removal section of Jackson's presidency. Just a simple sentence. The term ethnic cleansing can only be used once in the introduction. It really does not matter what paragraph. I would use the 3rd paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The difference between votes and !votes is that votes imply that the side of the argument with the most votes wins, but that is not how it works here. !votes indicate someone's preference, but what they bring to the discussion is new arguments, and it is the strength of the arguments that determine the outcome. That is why an uninvolved closer will be required to evaluate the RfC and why I suggested that all arguments be kept in the RfC thread. It is often the case (and probably should be the case more) that a closer will side with a side with fewer !votes, because they have brought clear arguments rather than lots of people saying "per nom."

Also I agree with meeting in the middle. I just don't think you have done so yet. The RfC question is which term should be used? Forced removal or ethnic cleansing? 2 choices and we have no consensus. But we have a third option: both. User:Aquillion suggests "ethnic cleansing by forced removal". It doesn't have to be that wording exactly but if you are looking for a compromise, you need one that treats both terms equally. At this stage you are still attempting to give primacy to one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, please revert. You have been warned before not to make contentious edits without prior talk page discussion. You should have cleared this on the talk page first. The source that you have used is not written by experts in the period. Furthermore, I have argued that the best place to add it was the Historical reputation section, because that is where the article discusses the evaluations of Jackson's policies. I agree that ethnic cleansing can be added to the body of the article. However, I do not feel that this is the ideal placement for it. Furthermore, the fact that you continue to make edits to topics under dispute while not discussing them on the talk page after being warned borders on WP:Disruptive editing. You are not a new editor. You know better. Display name 99 (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC) The tone of this was a little too harsh. I apologize, although I still think it would have been better if it had been discussed on the talk page. Cmguy, I would move it to "Historical reputation" and allow for better sourcing. Display name 99 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Look the sourcing is good. But to say ethnic cleansing in the article you must say it in the article. My edit did not call Jackson an ethnic cleanser. I can move to the historical reputation section. A lot of sources do not call Jackson an E C. Whether they are protective of Jackson. I do not know. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The source I used had been given on the talk page prior to the edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The words "ethnic cleansing" are in the article, the reputation section. I don't think there is going to be an agreement on where to put e c in the introduction. I would just put e c in the fourth paragraph. This article I believe could be scheduled for Featured Article. We have to get the introduction right sooner than later. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the intent was reasonable. As integrated it felt like a stand alone sentence that was there because we were told to add it. Note I'm trying to speak to the way in reads as part of the whole paragraph, not with respect to the include/exclude question. I think the changes DN99 made help it fit into the text better. Springee (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think it looks okay now. At least we've made progress on getting the term into the body. Now we just have to resolve in the impasse in the lead. Everything in the opening paragraph is supposed to be covered in greater detail later on in the lead. So if Cmguy777 is right that the term "ethnic cleansing" should only be used once in the lead, then it shouldn't appear in the opening paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite right. It is undo weight to say ethnic cleansing twice in the introduction. It only takes one sentence to mention in the introduction. Just have to write the sentence. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Jackson's Indian policy is already described in detail in the article. Ethnic cleansing is just a modern two word term to describe it. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The article could definitely be updated with more recent sources. I find these words by Claudio Saunt in his "Unworthy Republic: The Dispossession of Native Americans and the Road to Indian Territory" germane to the discussion (no tq template, too much green text hurts my eyes):

"Removal" is equally unfitting for a story about the state-sponsored expulsion of eighty thousand people. It is "a soft word," said the Massachusetts representative Edward Everett in a debate on the floor of the House in 1830, "and words are delusive." Then and now, it conveys no sense of coercion or violence. The phrase "Indian Removal," coined by proponents of the policy, has all of the problems of its two constituent terms and possesses an additional fault.' In the nineteenth century, people removed themselves to new locales or were removed for committing crimes. "Indian Removal," however, was an unusual construction that left unstated who was removing whom. Were Indians doing it to themselves? The phrase is artfully vague.

There are other ways of describing what the United States did to indigenous people in the 1830s. Human rights activists, writing about events in the twenty-first century, speak of "forced migration," but I am not alone in finding the phrase too distant from events on the ground. "Ethnic cleansing," a term of propaganda that became widely used during the Bosnian War in the 1990s, is rightly criticized for being nebulous and even for obscuring violence. "Genocide" elevates a single question above all others: Does the event fit the definition of the crime, as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide? European colonists and their descendants undeniably acted with genocidal intent at certain times and places...

Carlstak (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea who made these unsigned comments. I am not disputing whoever said this, but the article says Jackson's Indian removal policy is today called ethnic cleansing in the reputation section. Jackson is not on trial for crimes against humanity and Wikipedia is not a forum to put Jackson on trial. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I'm asking you to revert your disruptive edits before I do it. You deliberately edited portions of the article under consideration in the RfC and presented a false neutrality by giving preference to one of the terms under discussion over the other. --ARose Wolf 13:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Endless discussions and the neutrality tags that lead to no compromise is what is disrupting the article, not me. Jackson deserves better than this. I simply added that Jackson's forced Indian removal policy today is now called ethnic cleansing. The lead is so bad the article was considered for delisting from featured article status. This is a presidential article and the neutrality issues should be resolved at a faster pace. Good day. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I will take a break from the article and hope editors will work together and resolve the neutrality issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: an RFC is open above, at #RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead. It has been open only for 15 days, so it has another 15 days to run.

You and by @Display name 99 have been trying to bypass the RFC and to propose compromises and horse-trading deals and other immediate changes.

Please stop this, both of you. All this extra activity is merely forking the discussion and creating avoidable drama. Just let the RFC run its course, and then we can discus how to implement its outcome. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the idea of how me proposing possible solutions on the talk page while the RfC results are roughly split between both sides, and the fact that I have not implemented them when I did not gain consensus for them, is somehow bypassing the RfC is ridiculous and unfair. Furthermore, your post is made over a day and a half after the change. The change was already reverted and Cmguy777 had already promised to step away from the article. So I don't understand what your comment is supposed to accomplish other than inflaming tensions. If you're not here to say anything productive, go away. Display name 99 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99: my comment was intended to discourage you and @Cmguy777 from continuing to disrupt consensus-forming by forking the discussion, and discourage you from degrading editorial standards by turning content decisions into a horse-trading exercise.

So I treat your request to me to go away with the contempt which it so thoroughly deserves. I will continue to ask that editors allow RFCs to run their course, do not fork discussions, and they they so not try to turn editorial decisions into some sort of hostage game ... and if you have a problem with any that, take it to WP:ANI. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

BHG, I don't see anything wrong with trying to come to an agreement what to do next based on trying to read the RfC tea leaves. So long as people wait for the RfC and ensure that the proposed solution is both compliant with the RfC closing and has consensus of editors I don't see any issues in the upfront discussion on the talk page. Springee (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is Cmguy777 did the exact opposite. They tried to force changes they felt needed to be made and the RfC is still open. They took the discussion you three had above and claimed it as consensus in the edit summary and made alterations. As to the issues BHG has with @Display name 99, I don't have an issue with discussion. I do take issue with telling me that if I accept a compromise then I must give up on advocating for something else. That was inappropriate. But I won't support any decision which I feel creates a false neutrality and downplays the significance of this event in this article that affected so many lives regardless so it would be moot to seek my support for that proposal. That includes calling it anything but what it was by the term that best exemplifies exactly what happened. Forced removal implies nothing other than a removal by force. That's it! That is the literal definition of forced removal. It tells nothing else. It encapsulates no other actions that took place as a result of the removals. Ethnic cleansing provides those details. Native American were imprisoned, were expelled and were killed. That's the facts. They lost their homes, their sacred lands, their hunting grounds, their meeting places. They lost their identity. The land was ethnically cleansed of their influence and their stewardship. It may have returned over time in some degree over small portions of land such as The Qualla, Nikwasi, Cowee, and Kituwa but that progress has been painfully slow and the lives lost along with the damage done will never be reclaimed. The process deserves the full time allotted without holding half the discussion hostage. --ARose Wolf 12:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What insulting nonsense. If you don't want to help end the drama, you could at least not add more of it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I stepped away from editing on the article but my name keeps getting invoked. No horse trading deals on my part. Ethnic cleansing should only be mentioned once in the introduction to avoid undo weight. There are too many cooks in the kitchen. A lot of this could be ironed out with a little common sense and logic. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet you are giving undue weight to "forced removal" by mentioning it twice thereby giving one term unequal preference over the other when both are nearly equally accepted and used in reliable sources. You are creating a false balance and false neutrality within the article. There is more controversy in reliable sources on if to classify it as genocide or not than it is to classify it ethnic cleansing. There is relatively no argument against calling it ethnic cleansing in reliable sources. --ARose Wolf 12:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)