Talk:Trail of Tears

message: 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: . 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   - 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)
replies: text:   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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LutonDi, did you try pinging the editors? Netherzone (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   I apologize for not pinging you in my reply. LutonDi (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:   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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Currently the infobox uses two terms to describe the "Attack type": forced displacement, and ethnic cleansing. However this Google scholar N-Gram 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Outdent/random break

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Death counts 

message: I am moving this here for clarity (as it may have gotten lost above), and hopefully bring us closer to consensus. 
Our neighborhood sock puppet, 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. Here are recent stats:
SUPPORT including the word genocide in the infobox: 
*Shearonik
*Hobomok
*Larataguera
*Netherzone
*Indigenous girl
*CorbieVreccan
*Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) [Adding myself in Support here, in case this issue is challenged at a later date. Kevin Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk) 13:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , you do realize that people did not only lose their culture, but their lives? I'm not sure if you saw 's comment in the section above; I'm copying it here for ease of readability since it's buried in the discussion on "edit warring":  Netherzone (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

text: We can wait a bit if you want, but I think the consensus is clear. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy ping @GenQuest. Netherzone (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with @CorbieVreccan that the consensus is clear enough for a decision to be made. Discussion can be revisited at some point if there is enough evidence presented which show something different. --ARoseWolf 16:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "genocide" in infobox 

message: It's interesting that nowhere in this article does it mention that Andrew Jackson was a Democrat. 2601:C8:C000:3CE0:93A:BAAA:69AA:4C3F (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: During the era in which the democrats were the right-wingers? (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: Change line “Trail of Tears was an ethnic cleansing and forced displacement” to “Trail of Tears was a forced displacement “. Remove words “ethnic cleansing”. In accurate historical context, Trail of Tears is not an ethnic cleansing. More than 60,000 people were forcibly moved and over 1,000 died from starvation. 2600:100B:B023:6579:F4D7:500D:D680:309F (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm also confused by your last point - forced displacement of an ethnic group is by its very definition ethnic cleansing. Tollens (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2023 

message: I have heard Germans use the term "trail of tears" to refer to the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950). 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:6DFA:8BC8:9F2C:8F40 (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other event with this name 

message: — Assignment last updated by Osa401 (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

message: I would like the word "small" to be changed in this sentence, over 4,000 people is not a small number, especially not to the actual people or their descendants.
"A small (change small to sizable) number of non-Indians who lived with the nations, including over 4,000 slaves and others of African descent such as spouses or Freedmen,[16]" 
Best,
Stephanie J. Stephanie615tn (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: I suggest changing your request to remove the word small altogether because different people would consider the number to be larger than other people would.  Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I've removed "small" from the wording. It is important to note that this adjective was likely relative to the entire displacement. Even still, it seems contentious. Replacing this with another adjective should be consensed. — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮  13:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't necessarily disagree with the edit but, when put in context of the overall numbers, 4,000 is a relatively small number (about 6% of those affected). As far as the impact on those individuals and their descendants, sure. But a big number in that case is one. --ARoseWolf 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024 

message: I request that the first sentence be edited for clarity. It currently reads: "...and the additional thousands of Native Americans within that were ethnically cleansed by the United States government."
It's unclear what "within" refers to. Is this within the US? Within that same time period? Is the word even necessary? Rosmarinus1810 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protected edit request on April 5, 2024