1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + +
→Genocide
::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: I am not expressing an opinion about whether the Indian relocation was good or bad. It was hotly debated at the time, and both sides have some merit. It certainly was not genocide. Nobody intended to exterminate the Cherokees, as far as I know. I just want to state the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:15, 6 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::RSchlafly, you are most certainly "expressing your opinion" when you choose to remove the cited contributions of others instead of adding balance to the article my making ''new'' contributions of your own. That smacks of censorship, but I'm done trying to debate the issue with someone whose only mode of contribution is with an eraser. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:05, 7 December 2008 (EST)
==One-sided comments==
==One-sided comments==
I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)
I see that RJJensen has inserted some more one-sided comments. It does not help to explain the views of one political party, without also explaining the views of the majority party. It also has some allegations that are not supported by the references. I say that the comments should be removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:34, 6 December 2008 (EST)
::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)
::I fear that RSchlafly has fallen into a liberal trap--by which he erases the facts regarding the conservatives and the evangelicals of the days --and erases the judgment of leading conservative historians of our time. That is bad policy indeed for a conservative encyclopedia. The article does explain Jackson's liberal position, but to erase the conservative position is astonishing. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:13, 7 December 2008 (EST)