Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Legacy section rewrite – concerns

Hi all. I haven't taken a look at this article since mid-September (link to previous revision I'm comparing) but I'm struck by how the overall treatment of Jackson has changed in the new legacy section, for the worse in my opinion. Among other things, it seems unfocused on Jackson's legacy and less critical (perhaps the previous text was too negative, but a number of sourced critical assessments by historians have been removed despite a large increase in overall length, which is concerning). I thought I'd share my general impressions, apologies if some of these things have been raised previously:

• The legacy section overall now seems excessively long.
• I'm not sure the dedicated subsection on the concept of "Jacksonian democracy" is suitable/due here, and if it is, it's still too long. Extended discussion/argument about what the concept means surely belongs at Jacksonian democracy, rather than Jackson's own page. Given this is the legacy section, I think argument over the nature of his political ideology should be at the very most one or two paragraphs.
  • Most of the first paragraph outlines Jackson's beliefs regarding the constitution; this belongs somewhere else in the article, if appropriate.
  • Alexis de Tocqueville's views are now presented as mixed and non-specific to Jackson (regarding the US political experiment), whereas the previous text represented Tocqueville as being strongly critical of Jackson. Which is a more accurate representation of Tocqueville's view on Jackson?
  • The paragraph on criticism of Jacksonian democracy (as racist) is focused on the concept, rather than Jackson's specific legacy. Some of the sentences are about racism in the US generally during the era, which isn't especially relevant to a summary of Jackson's legacy.
• Modern criticisms of Jackson's alleged demagoguery are gone, and the criticism is now presented as a solely 19th century Whig one.
• Also gone is the brief sentence on 20th century criticism of Jackson in relation to later laissez-faire policies. That criticism seemed tenuous to me and its removal may be a positive, although it was sourced to a modern work on Jackson.
• The sourced sentences describing the movements in Jacksonian historiography since the 1960s have been removed, which I think is a serious loss. They disussed re-evaluations following the civil rights movement and the shift away from celebrations of Jackson as defender of "common man" to more critical evaluations of his exclusionary attitudes.
• The "Native American policy" section is poor and, like the section on Jacksonian democracy, overly repetitious (of the dedicated section further up the article)
  • The first paragraph summarises covers Jackson's pre-presidency actions in excessive detail. Everything after "cede their lands." doesn't belong in the section on his legacy.
  • The second paragraph outlines Jackson's position on removal and his justification for it. This is all irrelevant. Jackson's own assessment of himself/his policy does not belong in the legacy section, which should focus primarily on what experts say. It belongs in the section on the Indian Removal Act further up the page, if anywhere.
  • The third paragraph is dedicated to potential positive benefits of removal, which I suspect is undue. It consists of contemporary arguments about economic improvements (again, this is the legacy section, not the historical narrative), Jackson's own argument about it improving wellbeing and a sentence which misleadingly says "some contemporary historians have agreed with Jackson". I thought previous discussions on this talk page had shown this is now a fringe view among modern historians, and the two sources for this sentence are Prucha (1969) and Remini (1984). The previous revision I'm comparing (link above) includes Prucha and Remini's argument but attributes them in the text so it's clear who is making this claim, and that it's dated.
• The "Historical reputation" repeats some of the content covered in the "Jacksonian democracy" subsection, especially the paragraph beginning "These apparent contradictions..."
• The final paragraph is overly editorial/conversational in tone, rather than encylopedic. A suitable assessment for a historian to make, but not for WP:wikivoice. It's also clearly written for an American audience (see {{Globalize}}).

I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts and see if any of these concerns are shared. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 03:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Wtfiv, as from looking at the talk archive it appears they made most of these changes. Apologies for the long (largely negative) list, I have appreciated your hard work across this article. Jr8825 • Talk 03:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825 Thank you for the ping. Your points are well taken. Would you be interested reworking it? If not, I could do so in light of your concerns, but it seems you have an idea of where it should go. It would also further reduce the length, which was voiced as a concern.

Here's my thoughts:

• Jackson Democracy: The first paragraph could be reduced to a statement or two with the rest of it shifted to the Jacksonian democracy page. Or, it could be moved back into a presidential philosophy section as it was originally.

• The second paragraph could be reduced. Its goal was to give his early legacy. The sections about de Toqueville is here the accessbile archive.org pp. 377-378. De Tocqueville was cited directly in the original, but he's so close to events he seems like a primary source. And he's not talking so much about Jackson, but how Jackson is being driven by the larger forces of American democracy. What are your thoughts?
• The third paragraph gives Jackson's legacy in the 20th century, and the citations describe were the "common man" ideology associated with Jackson arose.
• The critical fourth and fifth can be combined and reduced. To some extent, the race issue should be acknowledged. Even Remini, who strives to defend Jackson from charges of racism, acknowledges that Jackson saw abolition as a devisive issue e.g., Remini vol. II, pp343-344. The Watson and Knott points about exclusionary attitudes and demogogery could be included. And, the points from Hammond and Hofstadter could be brought in, but by citing them directly and not mentioning them in text.

• Native American policy I think the pre-president treaties need mention. They all point to a larger Native American policy, of which the Indian Removal Act is just a small part. But, each of the three other treaties could put in context in the preceding narrative description. The consensus that Remini and Pruha's arguments are fringe works for me: they can just be removed. I think the last paragraph should stay though.
• Historical reputation If the Jacksonian democracy section is reduced much of the repitition should disappear, though some integration may be needed. I'm not sure the last paragraph is just to an American audience. It is a cited comment of fluctuating reputation that closed the legacy, but it can easily be removed.

How would you like to proceed? I'll ping Carlstak, ARoseWolf as they oversaw much of the editing and may have insights. Wtfiv (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Wtfiv; I'll take a look this evening when I have a chance. Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping. I didn't keep track of the edits to the article itself as much as the lead paragraphs but I will most definitely look at the article content, primarily the Legacy section and respond with some thoughts. In principle, I agree with @Jr8825 about the purpose of the Legacy section and also about being careful what we say in wiki-voice. That has been my concern from the beginning. I would go a step further though. The entire article should not have one sentence depicting Jackson's thoughts on himself or his presidency. One of the very prominent responses to unknowing editors that ask if they can create an article about a loved one, themselves or some organization they belong to on Wikipedia is that an article here is about what reliable sources say about you, them or it, not what you think or say. Likewise, an article on Jackson should not contain anything he said or any view he may have had about himself, even if it is attributable to a credible reliable source relaying what Jackson thought. --ARoseWolf 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the mental energy to assess these points now, it's too close to bedtime, but I have implicit faith in Jr8825's competence. I'm sure you guys will work something out, with consideration for ARoseWolf's viewpoint, of course. I'll look whenever I get a chance. Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I do believe Jacksonian democracy belongs in the legacy section but any content stating what Jackson himself thought of it should be removed. I would like to see a trimmed down version of what that subsection would look like. Anywhere we can hit brief highpoints and then direct all deeper dives into content to a specific article on that subject would be better for the article.

The Native-American policy subsection does need some rework. I don't have a problem with mentioning pre-presidential treaties so long as it is a brief mention and the focus is in showing how it relates to Jackson's legacy. The issue I have with Remini is that it appears to be a quasi primary/non-independent secondary source. Remini does interject his own thoughts on Jackson but is clearly a Jackson apologist. The lengths he goes to try and defend Jackson's removal policies as beneficial to Native Americans because at least some of them survived (my paraphrasing) is troubling and problematic to use as some kind of authority on the affects of Jackson's policies on minorities in the US through the successive decades.

I think a crucial component of the Historical reputation subsection is the waxing and waning of support Jackson has gotten from generations of Americans that came after his presidency and especially over the past four or five decades since the Civil Rights Movement and American Indian Movement began, respectively. Including the positions of Jackson apologist and critics is appropriate for this section.

There is no doubt the article is in better shape than it was before these discussions occurred and I am very enthused and excited to see the changes that will occur going forward. I appreciate all of you for being the example of what this community should be through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 15:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaborative and thorough reply @Wtfiv. I'm happy to look at reworking the legacy section in my sandbox and then return here to discuss what I come up with. I'll likely end up with a section roughly similar in length to the earlier version I linked above, which leads to the question of whether the rest of the new content can be cut (considering article length) or whether it's important enough that it needs to be moved somewhere else in the article. I do think restoring a separate "presidential philosophy"/"political philosophy" section ahead of the legacy section is a decent option, if others think it's necessary (it does appear to be an important aspect of how RS treat his life/influence). Otherwise it might be possible to integrate parts into the main Presidency section. Unfortunately I won't be able to prepare an alternative section this week, though, as I have a major (real life) work deadline on 18th Jan. Jr8825 • Talk 06:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jr8825, I like your solution. I think you drafting the legacy to reflect your vision of what it should look like, while accomodating ARoseWolf's comments is the way to go. (And when you are done, I can try to integrate the information on the other treaties in context.) and if you feel they have merit, perhaps accomodating my concerns. but I would prefer you do it so it reflects the vision of a legacy as you see it. I do request that we leave contemporary scholars names out of the main text.

Three requests on my side:

• Let's avoid as much as possible things like: "Historian X says...." If an academic's opinion is mainstream, the opinion should reflect a consensus, and the representative source of the opinion should be clear from the citation. I think Schlesinger may be an exception, as a review of the literature points toward the idea that his work is one that almost every contemporary author responds to. And if the position is more fringe, like Remini and Prucha's, it can be stated as such (or if names are mentioned, stated in a footnote). If you are okay with it, I'll comment or perhaps even edit what you create. I don't think there is a hurry by the way.
• If possible, please try to keep the information about the origin of the "common man" in legacy.
• Include the acknowledgement that Jackson's displacement of Native American populations was larger than just the Indian Removal Act. If you are comfortable with this, I'll go back after you are done and integrate the other treaties into the narrative text.

I'm looking forward to see what you draft! I don't think there is any hurry. I'll keep watching, but please ping me when you have the draft in place and ready for comment. In the meantime, good luck with your work deadlines, I hope they go well! Wtfiv (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 has been on hold now since 25 August 2022-- ample time for the requirement to notice and the dispute to subside and the article's FA status to be calmly reviewed at FAR. In addition to concerns raised by others above, we still have page size issues (over 12,000 words of readable prose), while all of my and Rjensen's suggestions for trimming have not yet been addressed. Is it time to reinstate the FAR? Also, might it be useful to move the old FAR commentary to the talk page of the FAR, leaving behind a link, in the interest of starting anew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, Though good faith efforts were made to shorten the article according to suggestions, including Rjensen's, I'm sure more can be done. I'm finished with direct involvment in shortening it; reducing those 3000 words was hard enough. But, I'd encourage editors who see opportunities to go in and do it directly. I'll help with the gnoming, and my raise questions or concerns that arise. Alternatively, if editors don't want to disrupt the source-citation integrity, the prose can be presented on talk, I'll transfer to it to main page and do the source/text checks.

The issues in the legacy section should be addressed in the next few weeks. Jr8825 will be taking the lead on reworking the legacy in the next few week, and I'm sure the editors here- and anybody new who wants to jump in- will probably work together to strengthen the section. After its done, it will probably need a clean up sweep.

The overall article up to legacy could also use a sweep. Carlstak did a great job of copy editing, cleaning up prose, and correcting factual concerns in the earlier passes. It'd be great if another collaborative editor would directly jump in to look these over again, change style as they see fit, and do any other improvements. I know that I've gotten too close to the prose to be effective. Wtfiv (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Wtfiv. Your labors on the article are greatly appreciated, and the fact that things have gone so smoothly with the changes is a testament to your editorial and diplomatic skills. Well done. It's been a pleasure working with you. I'm consumed with other concerns for the time being, but I'll try to check in if I get a chance. Best, Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wtfiv, now that the FAR is re-instated, could you and all active here be sure to keep it updated on progress (about once weekly)? I'm not keeping up as well as I used to ... thx for the effort here! After you are settled with Jr8825's edits, and update there would be grand ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'll put in a brief summary of changes in FAR with updates as requested. Similarly, if you post specifics that you'd like addressed in the FAR page or here, I'll do what I can to address them. In the case of your concerns, specifics regarding length would be much appreciated. As you can see, I try to take into account all editor's opinions and do what I can when specifics are given. (It be great if a fresh, collaborative editor could jump in, but I know there are lots of pages out there that need TLC.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Jr8825 and ARoseWolf, I've removed the Native American Policysection in legacy. Jr8825 pointed out that much of this was redundant, and conversation at the FAR seems to suggest the same. Both of you also made the point that previous discussion suggested that Remini's and Prucha's views on the Indian Removal Act are problematic, so I removed them. I took the last paragraph discussing ethnic cleansing and moved it down into the Historical Reputation section for now. I think this is important to keep and gets to the nub of the large debate here. As Jr8825 gets time to rework the legacy, it can be better integrated. I think that part will have to remain, as this is a more current aspect of his legacy. I moved mention of the treaties directly into the narratives. Wtfiv (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wtfiv, That's fine by me. The majority of the information regarding Jackson's, and by larger extent the US, Native American policy is covered in the Indian Removal Act subsection and anything related to Jackson's legacy can be covered under the Historical reputation subsection of the Legacy section if it has not already. I'm interested in seeing Jr8825's rework of the Legacy section when that occurs. You have done a remarkable job of striking a neutral tone throughout this discussion. I'm very appreciative of your hard work. I know it has been difficult at times. --ARoseWolf 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

While waiting for Jr8825's edit, I removed many of the items discussed by Jr8825 and ARoseWolf. References to Jacksonian democracy are gone, descriptions of Jackson's beliefs are gone. (I'm assuming the actions in the article make them clear. They can be replaced if editors think they should be.) I made a few elements mentionging Jacksonian democracy more about Jackson, if the citation supported it. As to de Toqueville. I rewrote it as I understood it. In much of it de Toqueville discusses how Jackson is seen in Europe or Jackson as symbol for America, but here's the link to the source in the version cited by Jr8825 to guide other edits or takes on de Toqueville's point: Toqueville, 1969 (1840) pp. 392–394.

@Wtfiv: thanks for continuing to work on this. I hope to sit down and have a proper go at the section over the weekend. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825! This is just a friendly ping. Do you think you'll have time to rework the legacy in the next week or two? Wtfiv (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just another ping Jr8825 about whether you'll be able to work on the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping -- it's appreciated -- and sorry for going missing in action. It's been a busy time in real life and I'm bad at giving time estimates, but I do hope to look at this soon, hopefully the next couple of days. Jr8825 • Talk 00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Reputation decline

@The Night Watch - I reverted your edit to the lead only because statistics show his reputation began sliding in the 1980's which was the 20th century. His sharpest declines have been in the 21st century and I'm not opposed to rewording but making it exclusively a 21st century decline isn't telling the whole story. Perhaps if we say the late 20th and early 21st century it will present a more accurate statement? --ARoseWolf 14:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf That's fair; it is more accurate that way. The Night Watch (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

I reinstated the recently removed legacy in the first paragraph of lead, as this appears in other Presidential pages. (George Washington as Founding Father and "Father of his country" or James Madison as [[James Madison as Father of the Constitution|"Father of the Constitution".

Removed "African American" from last sentence first paragraph of lead, which addresses his legacy as president. Jackson was supportive of slavery, being a slave owner and and against abolition. These are mentioned in the article and his ownership of slaves is mentioned in the lead. But, he did not enact major policy that changed the treatment or status of African Americans. Wtfiv (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

While that’s fair, as keeping articles consistent within one another makes sense, this should probably change for both Madison and Washington, as the legacy stuff should be saved for the end of the lead. As far as I’m concerned, I’m pretty sure that the opening sentences should purely focus on important information, such as their date of birth, name, what they’re known for, etc. Aardwolf68 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo?

Article refers to the "five tribes" as "Southwest" tribes ...as opposed to Southeast tribes. 65.129.81.50 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a typo. That area actually used to be referred to as the "southwest" because at the time it was the Southwest. Take a look at the Old Southwest article the term links to. Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

boot polishing incident

I have been unable to find a source associating a Major Coffin with the “boot polishing incident“. If one exists it should be included.

For that matter, the sources I have checked seem to describe the incident without corroboration. There seem to be variations of the story. What about the witnesses? Is there a reliable secondary source which not only repeats the story but explains the origin? Something better than “tall tales of the revolution“ by Currier and Ives. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted mention of Major Coffin. Page 20–21 of Vol 1. of Remini's comprehensive biography specifically mentions Major Coffin in the incident, but neither Meacham, who is the cited source in the text, nor Wilentz does. Mention of Coffin is not in the illustration either. Wtfiv (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are still some remaining problems with how the article describes this incident.

Page 20-21 of Remini's 1977 book says on Page 20 that Lord Rawdon "dispatched a small company of dragoons under Major Coffin", on Page 21 then mentions "an officer in command of the dragoons" and "the officer" but never specifically states that officer's name in specific connection with the boot-polishing. Then, Remini quotes one "early historian" as stating "afterwards occasioned his death" as if Remini is quoting the source but those exact words do not appear in the footnoted source, which is Eaton's 1817 "The Life of Andrew Jackson:...". Eaton - the source - states "Coffin's dragoons" but then says "..ordered, in a very imperious tone, by a British officer..." and never refers to the officer by name. Now, the problem is that this Wikipedia article states as its source Meacham's "Lion" biography but Meacham does not say anything close to "the British officer in charge", he only describes this orderer of boot polishing as "an imperious officer" which, after all, is closer to what Eaton - Remini's source - actually wrote (keeping in mind that "imperious tone"). So, yes...no Coffin and, actually, no "officer in charge" either. Shearonink (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

So I just now changed that sentence. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Change looks good to me! Wtfiv (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

He was also a SLAVE OWNER!!!!They didnt want to publish that huh.. 2600:1004:B167:9F4C:88B3:F10D:AF4C:B591 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article? His status as a slave owner has an entire section devoted to it. :"Like most planters in the Southern United States, Jackson used slave labor. In 1804, Jackson had nine African American slaves; by 1820, he had over 100; and by his death in 1845, he had over 150." Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a good bet that the IP didn't read past the first paragraph of the lede, if they even bothered to read that. The very second paragraph of the lede says, "Jackson purchased a property later known as the Hermitage, becoming a wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves." Time waster. Carlstak (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds? But he owned less than 200 slaves at any point during his career. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more clear if it said, "A wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves over time", or alternatively, during his life. What does the community think? Carlstak (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this change. --ARoseWolf 14:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The main article states Over his lifetime, he owned a total of 300 slaves. But if it seems helpful to add the qualifier to the lead, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Made the bold edit to add "during his lifetime" as I felt this most closely resembled what was stated in greater detail within the article but also was slightly different wording that closely resembled the best fitting suggestion by @Carlstak. As noted, because this is a bold edit, I am not against any addition to, altering or reversion of this edit should someone oppose the edit or suggest something different. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think ARoseWolf's bold edit is just fine, and I can't see why anyone would oppose it, since per the sources, it's pretty much incontrovertible. Thanks to Dimadick for bringing this up. Carlstak (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo or a porter

judging by your logic we should change Quincy Adams images too. I think that Andrew Jackson's portrait is misleading readers of Wiki. The photo reveals the personality of the US president and the controversy surrounding his figure, portraits can also be left, but only in the article itself ArmenAir (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the portrait should be left as is. The photo is depicted later in the article when discussing his retirement and legacy. I see no policy issue. I would also like to remind @ArmenAir that consensus is generally decided locally on each article and this article is not necessarily bound by what another article, even of a US president, looks like or what consensus is decided on those articles. If someone can convince me that there is a policy issue with the portrait or that there is a logical reason to exchange it for another image, other than personal preference, then that could change so further discussion is always welcome. --ARoseWolf 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ARoseWolf. The daguerreotype reflects Jackson at the year of his death, which was a different time of his life. I think the painted portrait by Earl, who was Jackson's preferred painter while Jackson was president, represents Jackson how he was seen in the prime of his public career. The daguerreotype is already in the article where it illustrates what he looked like in his final year of life. Let's see if there is any consensus in favor of the daguerreotype going in the infobox. Wtfiv (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

War of 1812

No mention of Filipino soldiers fighting for us army. Under. Andrew Jackson command 108.6.19.124 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you add a link when you click on succeeded by Martin van Buren

ggs 2601:247:C100:7E10:E8D9:9645:1BBA:BDB1 (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Y Done Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified officer, not Coffin

There is no evidence that it was Major CoffinDabberoni15 (talk · contribs). The source describes an unnamed officer. Just another case of embellished AWI history. The talk topic containing a thorough search has apparently been archived. I’ll leave it for you to dig and fix. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Y Coffin's name removed. Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the archived discussion on the boot polishing incidence. Wtfiv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Article size

SandyGeorgia —For an article that's very involved with several aspects of American history and other matters it is not very long. Basing the deletion of a very small section on this idea alone isn't warranted and still leaves the article at almost the same length..

The guideline for an article just over 60K of readable prose reads:
WP:SIZERULE: Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

This is a FA about a very famous war hero, and US President, and a controversial figure because of slave ownership. Many FA and GA articles even exceed 100k of readable prose and have no issues because they merit the text. All past presidents are commemorated on US postage, and some on currency, as is Jackson in both cases. Presidential articles routinely display such commemorations in proportion to their fame. Nothing unusual or inappropriate was done here. There's a sub-article for many things involved with this article, and displaying all 12 Jackson postage stamps, along with all the currency, in this article would of course be overkill, but a few are called for here. If this is a pressing issue for you please get a consensus before making another revert. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

And you have WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN backwards; you made a bold addition, I removed it, and you re-instated it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy, for the link to the other discussion. (It doesn't seem reasonable to have expected Gwillhickers or anyone else to have found it there.) I support your revert, for the reasons you gave there. However, I think the link to Army and Navy stamp issues of 1936-1937 should be replaced with a link to Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps. And, should we fail to reach a consensus, I don't see why there would be three old stamps when there was a 1967 and a 1986 issue.

My edit summary: Brief mention and link to stamps, but no gallery, please. YoPienso (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The link to the current Featured article review is given at the top of this page-- the very first thing. The article is undergoing a review to determine if it still meets WP:WIAFA; WP:FAOWN is good reading, and more eyes are on the article via that review. So ... the discussion should be over there, where other editors are trying to preserve the featured status. Thanks for popping in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

All's good, but just on a practical level, I for one would never imagine comments were being made somewhere other than on the article talk page. The review discussion is specifically about the article's status, which doesn't cross the mind of the average non-reviewing editor. I'm glad you commented there, and glad you gave us the link. YoPienso (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia — Thanks for the feedback. The stamps in question were already in the article since 2010 and remained there for many years, and as such already had standing consensus, but somewhere along the line they were (boldly) removed. In any case, if this one small section by itself is going to make the article unstable, and if it is deemed necessary that it be removed, of course I'll go along with consensus. In any case, thanks for not reverting, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait and see what the consensus is at FAR; just please work with the editors there so as not to introduce instability during the review. Those who deleted the text did so for a reason, and Yopienso seems to agree with me and them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you knew about first deletion of long standing content. Of course I'll work with other editors, but accusing me of ownership, esp since I have not edited the article for years until recently, is not helping stability. Again, 60+k of readable prose is nothing alarming for a famous figure like Jackson, and is sometimes justified, as explained. Again, many GA and FA articles exceed even 100k of readable prose, and rightly so, without any issues, invented, or otherwise. Please don't rest the entire issue of stability on this one small paragraph, the likes of which were, again, already in the article since 2010. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no accusation of ownership; FAOWN is about the importance of discussing your edits first on a featured article (and that asking you to do is the opposite of ownership). But ... since you missed the Featured article review banner at the top of the page, and didn't know that other editors were working together on a review page when you reverted, all is understandable, and hopefully everyone is on the same page now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Stamp information

The stamp information seems interesting, but doesn't seem to fit for a final statement. And, there is an article dedicated to how Jackson has been memorialized. I moved the information and the gallery regarding the stamps to of memorials to Andrew Jackson and merged it and gallery with the information that was already there.Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Wtfiv; so I hope that's settled, and now everyone here knows there's a review underway, conducted on another page, so all can work together. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the sub-article is the best place for this information, although it might make sense to summarize the sub-article with a sentence along the lines of "Numerous places and institutions have been named for Jackson, and he has been honored on postage stamps and currency" or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Wtfiv, I find the stamp information interesting but if there is a sub-article that is where the content belongs so as to not increase the size of this article further. We do not need to have everything associated with Andrew Jackson mentioned in this article. I might be willing to support the idea of one sentence mentioning the stamps, as proposed by EW, located in the Legacy section but we don't need more than that.--ARoseWolf 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

One (brief) sentence along those lines would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, Wtfiv, SandyGeorgia, and Extraordinary Writ: — Okay I can live with one brief sentence and perhaps a single image of the first Jackson stamp. I'll wait for further comment before adding the content. As far as article length is concerned, once again, the content in question was very small, so its inclusion should not even be a factor concerning excessive article length. In any case, thanks for not being absolutely rigid about the issue. This is my proposed entry.

The first Jackson stamp, Issue of 1863

Andrew Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times, appearing on twelve stamps as of 2023.

Hope this sits well with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that putting most of the detail into the memorials article seems to make sense. There's a bit of interesting bits that focus on ways Jackson has been memorialized, and stamps are part of that memorialization. It seems there's a consensus for a sentence in the main article. The hardest part is finding where to put it in the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty of room at the bottom of the section. As mentioned, I'll acquiesce in confining the text to one sentence and one small image, but it seems we could say a bit more, perhaps with another sentence,. about this national honor. A president appearing on the nation's postage and currency isn't some minor piece of trivia. In any case, I'll go ahead and add the one sentence and image, hoping that it will be a welcomed addition to this biography after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick search shows that 38 of 46 presidents have received this honor proving that it might be significant when compared to the total population of the US but not among presidents. When I look at George Washington's article I see that it mentioned him being included on postage stamps, most of any president, in a short sentence in a paragraph included with his image being on the dollar bill and quarter. Other articles of presidents like William Henry Harrison, who was only in office for one month before he died but somehow was given the honor, doesn't even mention being on a stamp but does have an image included. I stand by my belief its being more of a deal than it should be though it is indeed an honor but mostly as a product of them being elected president than anything else. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It could also be said that every President took the oath of office, and as such, is no big deal. National honors, however common, should not be understated or trivialized. In any case, as said, I can live with the one sentence and single image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry one might have the view that our consensus and discussion processes might be trivializing such a high honor. There might be a slight bit of sarcasm in my words considering just a few months ago one could say that the topic of certain of his policies was trivialized but I doubt one solitary life was extinguished as a result of his receiving the honor of his image on a postage stamp. Though I have heard that the adhesive they used for years might have had cancer causing agents. We even rectified the issues with describing his policies in the article. Glory be, our processes work. My point in this discussion is that one brief sentence is not "understated" or "trivialized". While we do not compare article to article it seems it is about on par with that of his peers that attained the same honor. And you provided a link to the standalone article (thank you) should the reader want more information. I agreed that a sentence well placed and accurately presented would suffice so in the end we agree. Happy times and cheers! --ARoseWolf 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming over to add to this. Gwillhickers, WP:CITEVAR matters in WP:WIAFA, where a consistent citation style is part of the criteria. It might have been much easier if you had waited for either Wtfiv or EW to add this content, keeping the style consistent. There's no hurry, and it's one little sentence; we can wait to get it right.

The bigger problem now is that the way the citation is written,

Scotts United States Specialized Stamp Catalog of U.S. stamps. Scott Publishing Company, New York. 2023. pp. 22, 30–33, 49–51, 59–60, 103, 107–108, 163, 172–173.

relative to the wording, makes it appear the entire thing might be original research. Do you actually have a source that says "Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times", or are you drawing that conclusion from counting the images yourself in that book from the multiple pages? If there's one source citing that content, one expects to see it on one page-- not spread out over pages. If that is what was done, the statement is not only OR, it's probably WP:UNDUE as well. What are the exact words from the source supporting the statement that Jackson "is one of few ..." etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• OR is usually an issue when someone draws a different conclusion entirely different or severely aside from the stated facts than what the sources indicate. We don't need a verbatim statement that says "Jackson is one of the few...", as this idea is supported in any US stamp catalogue, as well as other philatelic texts. In any case, I modified the statement until such time where a more suitable source can be found for the previous statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not necessarily; OR is you going through a book and counting to come up with a conclusion no secondary source has published. And since that was OR, it's also WP:UNDUE in the article. It may well be worth mentioning, but you need to find a source that says it is. Jackson is not aspiring to DYK or GA; it's an FA, and what we write should reflect the same balance as sources do. What high-quality secondary source represents postage stamps in his legacy, and what proportion of writing about Jackson is dedicated to that? If you don't have a satisfactory secondary source, the content belongs not here, but in the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Citation style. I noticed in this article that there are at least 160 inline citations that use a cite book or cite web template, so I went along with that approach. You are correct however. There are several types of citation conventions employed in the article, including the SFN, straight line refs, as well as inline cite book and cite web templates. As I'm sure you're aware, FA criteria says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"... How would you propose to remedy the overall situation?  If you're ready to move all the cite book and cite web templates from the body of text to the Bibliography, and link up to them via a SFN citation, you're we're going to have quite a job in front of you us. This is not to say it needn't be done, just pointing out the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC).

  The article is still undergoing finishing polishes; my recommendation is that you not put UNDUE content into the article, in a messed up citation format, until you have consensus or have given the main editors the opportunity to explain the citation style. That's the part of WP:FAOWN I was asking you to read.

  Mixing different styles is fine (sfns with cite templates), as long as there is a consistent method to how the choices are made and how the citations are rendered on output. For example, many FA writers use sfns for books and journals, but cite web or news for those for websites and news sources. Different choices are made, and are fine as long as they are employed consistently.

  At any rate, this is a minor concern, as it doesn't appear that content should be there, per DUE anyway. And we've now spent 2,500 words on talk, plus more on the FAR, to talk about a dozen words that, without a better source, may not even belong in an FA (will wait to see if others can find mention of postage stamps in sources specifically about Jackson); please take greater care when editing a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, I refer you to the strictly scholarly sourcing of the Legacy content at J. K. Rowling#Legacy; a gazillion things could have been said about one of the most successful authors ever, but every web-sourced trivia one can come up with was omitted, and the section was restricted to what scholarly sources said, and given weight according to scholarly sources. We have sub-articles where other content can be placed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good lord, the editor making such a fuss over something so trivial and inconsequential to the article. It doesn't need to be here; it interrupts the logical flow of the legacy section, sticking out like a sore thumb. It's mere trivia, and the sub-article is a much better place for it. Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• As was already discussed, a president appearing on the nation's postage and currency are national honors. Such images are common place in presidential articles, and are not "trivial", anymore than the existing and rather large picture of the statue is, with its lengthy caption. The sub article to which you refer is dedicated to displaying an abundance of images of postage, statues, paintings, etc, but this doesn't mean we can't show a couple of the more significant items here, as is done with the stature and the item of postage.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Sandy, IMO the citations are not consistently formatted, as there are at least two styles used. If a cite book template can be accommodated with a SF citation, there's no reason why cite news or cite web templates can't. Perhaps we should seek an outside opinion about WP:FA: "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes" at Wikipedia:Noticeboards#Other administrator assistance just to be sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that the addition is in the article, I find myself agreeing with Carlstak and Sandy. The issue of the stamps is really about the memorialization of Jackson, which is addressed in the appropriate article. The addition of the stamp in the main article seems out of place and breaks the narrative flow. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Memorialization

Is it also proposed that we remove the image of the statue? The statue doesn't tie in with any of the paragraphs in the Legacy section, also, and is no more out of place than the image of postage. If there is a concern for "flow", we can simply move it to the very end of the section, or add a Commemorations subsection after Legacy, where we can place the images of the statue and postage. In any case, having a dedicated article does not mean we are obligated to not cover a given topic or idea here, at all.   In this article there at least seventeen Main article links, yet there is a section for each topic with a number of good sized paragraphs for each. I tried pointing out a major problem with FA criteria, the same problem, i.e. different citation styles, that has existed in other FA reviews, which was dealt with promptly, and even suggested that we get administrative opinion. This apparently is being ignored while this reoccurring fixation on a stamp image continues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this is creating more concern than is really warranted I went ahead and removed the stamp image for the sake of article stability, until such time, hopefully, we can agree on how to deal with images involving memorials and commemorations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional battles

Hello, Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). Thanks for contributing. The first battle of fort bowyer was in mid-september of 1812. But Jackson didn’t arrive in the area until December. He wasn’t at the Negro fort either. Have you checked your other additions? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I found these battles listed in the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson map on Jackson’s Wikipedia Page. Although I’ve studied Jackson and his life for years, I can’t memorize every battle he’s been a part of. My other additions are correct to the best of my knowledge. However, I’d like verification for the years that he served in the military, especially when he left the Tennessee Militia, and when he entered the U.S. Army. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No one expects you to remember everything Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). That’s why we dig for information and often check the sources. I knew Jackson wasn’t at the battle of negro fort. I wasn’t sure about fort bowyer so I had to look up the dates. The other battles aren’t familiar to me at all.

One of the rules we have to live by is that Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source. So, you had a good idea noting the battles which were on the map but not in the list. Just take the next step of investigating why. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I updated the lists to remove the battles where he was not commander, except for Hanging Rock where he was present. In the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson, some of the battles listed were not fought with Jackson present but were part of the overall campaign he directed and mentioned in the article. These battles will give the name of the commanding officer. For example, John Coffee fought the Battle of Tallushatchee. He was under Jackson's command, but Jackson was not at the battle. Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, should we add info on his authorization of the first major reform to copyright law, as well as the law he signed reforming the patent system? Henry Berghoff (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a featured article review under way, so I suggest holding off on new material. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't suggest "holding off on new material", rather discussing additions now so that the article doesn't bludgeon in size again after the Featured article review ends. Suggesting additions of material is normally accompanied by providing sources, and evaluating due weight. Featured articles must be comprehensive; if an addition is worthy, it should be discussed now, not later. WHy is this "first major reform to copyright law" worthy of mention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I’d like to address the deletion of my edits regarding trade and the judiciary. I think we should keep the edit describing the deal with Siam as the first with an Asiatic country, since that is a major milestone in the history of American trade. Second, I think we should keep the edits I made about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn’t change size often, and Jackson signing the law expanding it to its current size should be worthy of mention. Now onto the copyright laws: I think this could be mentioned, although I don’t know where it would fit in the article. The copyright law was considered to be the first major change to this sort of law in American history, while the patent law instituted added some rigor to attaining a patent, including a review system. A good start would be to go to the list of federal legislation on Wikipedia, and find these listed under the congresses during which Jackson was president. Henry Berghoff (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the Judicial Act of 1837 (I couldn't find a source that called it the Eighth and Nine Circuits Act.) I backed it up with two sources, one is a vintage journal article from 1920. I used it because it gives the most detailed background on the political aspects, the facts stated in it haven't changed, and its free. I also added the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court (1992). I figured that's authoritative, explains the act, and justifies the name "Judicial Act", but it really doesn't address Jackson's role in detail. Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good. Thanks. Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Added point about Siam. It's already in Latner, so no additional citations were needed. As you mentioned, copyright law doesn't fit well into this article. I think a discussion of the Jackson administration's role in copyright law would be best in an article on the U. S. history of copyright law. Wtfiv (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Judge Jackson

Updated description of Jackson as judge in inbox and lead to be consistent with text. The article correctly points out that he served on the Tennessee Superior Court. A new in-depth source has replaced the old ones. Also mentioned that Jackson was appointed by the governor to replace a vacancy, he was not elected. The Superior Court was a high court of early Tennessee, but unlike a supreme court, it was not an independent branch of the judiciary and it also served as a trial court as well as an appellate court. Tennessee did not get a Supreme Court as an independent Judiciary until it revised its constitution in1835.

To support this article, I added a brief history section to the Tennessee Supreme Court article, so that link helps explain the difference. Otherwise, it would've confused the reader by mentioning the supreme court was not established until 1835, 31 years after Jackson had served. I also updated the List of justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court to briefly explain the difference and note which judges served on which court. Wtfiv (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Service In Rev War

Jackson commenced service in the South Carolina Militia in 1779, not 1780 as the article suggests. I found a record on family search providing this evidence. He also held the rank of Private in the South Carolina Militia. In the info box, I am going to add this information, however, I am unsure how to reflect this in the actual body paragraphs of the article. Also, should we provide a short anecdote of his service in the Rev War in the introductory paragraphs?

Here is the link to new info: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99WB-HC1Z?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQ2DG-7GWM&action=view

Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Henry Berghoff,

I'm not sure about using familysource as a reliable source, see WP:RSP where familysource.org is listed as a "generally unreliable" source. (I didn't look at the site because I don't have an account.) Maybe others who are more knowledgeable about these sources can weigh in.

I don't think should extend Jackson's Revolutionary War background into the lead. Though it impacted his view of the British, his revolutionary war history is one not of the central aspects of his story and historical role. (And a suggestion at the featured article review is currently looking to shorten the lead to about 500 words.) Wtfiv (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things that weigh against relying the information you found on familysearch. Reliable sources state that Jackson was involved after the Battle of Waxhaws, which was 1780. The other issue is that in 1779, Jackson was only 12. I think it is unlikely that a 12 year-old (or 13 year-old) would be enlisted as a private in the militia. Wtfiv (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

He could have faked his age you know. Or, militia records often kept track of who joined throughout the course of a year. So, maybe the record tracks if anyone joined from the beginning of when people normally enlisted at that time (Nov 1779) until the end of the usual enlistment period of one year (Nov 1780). So, because Jackson joined in between that time, his name was still written down. And look, I don’t think Andrew Jackson was a common name in South Carolina at the time, so the Andrew Jackson listed must’ve been the future President. That’s just my theory. I’ll leave what you have on here already.

Also: what rank did Jackson hold in the South Carolina militia? If he was a Private, he still could have served as a courier. Henry Berghoff (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That may be true, however at this point we have an unreliable source along with editor original research and supposition versus a reliable independent source. Policy would determine we go with the reliable source. --ARoseWolf 12:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023

Under the entry on Military Career, there is a sentence which states that 250 defenders, women and children were killed at fort Mims. This is not quite correct. Wikipedia’s own page on the Fort Mims Massacre correctly puts the number at over 500. The 250 number represents the number of defenders alone, and does not include women and children (of which the former were scalped and, if pregnant, their fetuses were removed while the mothers were still alive; additional children were taken as slaves; Black slaves were stolen or murdered; and thousands of cattle were destroyed). 199.185.175.117 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Photograph

Can we add a photo of him in the infobox? We have one for John Quincy Adams. Ccole2006 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A photograph does seem more educational than a portrait. A photograph depicts how Jackson actually looked in life. My impression was that we would use paintings in the absence of photographs, but to the extent there is a photograph on Commons of Andrew Jackson, and given the technology he surely posed for it (so he intended to be documented this way), I think we have good reason to favor a photograph as an educational image. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That photograph is a very-low quality 80 KB image of Jackson near the end of his days, taken in 1844 or 1845, the year he died. In it he looks even older than his years, certainly not a man in the prime (if I may call it that) of his career. The portrait paintings in the infobox and in the rest of the article depict him when he was most active, and still a man of vigor (to say the least), which is much more representative of a man at the height of his powers, such as they were.;-) Carlstak (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carlstak. As per (previous discussion) (and there are more in the archive) The portrait represents Jackson in his prime and during his presidency. Wtfiv (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason the painting being made "in his prime" makes its putative representation of Jackson (as it was part of the practice of portraiture to change how a subject looks to make the work more appealing to them and others) more educational than a truer-to-life photograph? Moreover, the article is about Jackson's whole life, including his post-presidential life. Pointing out the painting represents Jackson during his presidency is a good argument for preferring the painting in the presidency of Andrew Jackson article, but it's not as persuasive to me for this article about Jackson overall. It's educational to see the man as he was, less than a decade after he left office. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 01:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As Wtfiv pointed out, this has already been much discussed, and the infobox portrait is there because of the consensus already established. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. The topic was last much discussed half a year ago by three people across three comments. A user in the last discussion (which neither I nor Ccole2006 were involved in) asked for reasons other than personal preference, and I've given reasons other than personal preference, to sum up: the photograph is truer to life, and this article encompasses Jackson's life beyond his presidency. The painting should still be used at the presidency of Andrew Jackson, but the photograph has educational value for this article. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 01:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In my previous post, I just listed the most recent discussion. Here's just two more that are vintage but cover the same ground as the current discussion. Discussion 1, and Discussion 2, in particular, the latter seems very similar to the points being made here. Please search the archives for other discussions... they are smaller but scattered throughout the archives.

I agree Jackson's late-life dagguerotypes have educational value. That's why it is in the article already. It shows the effects of age after the times that made him notable. It definitely lends insight into the nature of time and age on the human condition. Wtfiv (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the image of an old, toothless Jackson for a portrait that shows the strong man he was during his presidency. (bolding added) [1] is a pretty hagiographic and POV reason for favoring a portrait over a photograph. The purpose of a Wikipedia article about Andrew Jackson is to inform the reader about Andrew Jackson; whether or not an image is flattering or makes him look "strong" is not the goal. The infoboxes on the articles for John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren feature relatively unflattering photographs, depicting them late in life, after the presidencies that made them notable, and these images still accurately and educationally present both figures. Jackson left office in 1837, only 8 years before the daguerreotype photograph was taken, so it isn't a massive gulf of time and age either. The presidential portrait can still be included later in the article, in the section about his presidency, perhaps replacing the 1860 engraving there (that engraving does seem an odd choice, since we have the presidential portrait which is much more relevant to the section).

I don't really see the resonance with the thread you linked as Discussion 2. That editor's aggression and misbehavior are their own. I'm grateful we can have this conversation civilly. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 06:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1845 daguerrotype/mezzotint. I really don't see anything wrong with it that would preclude it from being the image of Jackson in this article's infobox. I think it is fine and prefer it to the 1837 present infobox portrait that looks somewhat hagiographic to me. I was looking through the article and thought the different portraits that were painted around the same time to be fascinating. For instance, the present infobox image shows Jackson in a somewhat idealized version/persona, and in the Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl 1830-32 portrait Jackson seems plainer and older...though both were painted around the same time. I think whatever image is in the infobox comes down to a matter of personal preference. I almost always prefer a photograph of the actual person, the man or the woman for their Wikipedia biographical article. An aside, but does it amaze anyone else that we have actual photographs of people who fought in the American Revolution like Jackson, people who knew George Washington like Albert Gallatin and Dolley Madison? It sure amazes me. Shearonink (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us to go with an image that readers will recognize and that "high-quality reference works" use. Readers are much more likely to recognize the portrait (which reflects the way Jackson, for better or for worse, is commonly portrayed), and Britannica uses a painting too. The goal is "to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and the current image does a good job of doing that, I think. While the daguerrotype is cool, it's not instantly recognizable in the same way as the painting, and recognizability is what MOS:LEADIMAGE encourages us to prioritize. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The MOS:LEADIMAGE section also states "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic;". What is more natural than a photograph? Shearonink (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Recognizability is definitely an important factor, though I'm not sure the 1845 daguerrotype is less recognizable than the portrait. The daguerrotype captures Jackson's characteristically tousled hairstyle and the distinctive shape of his face. The portrait, with its smoothed features and very trim hair, isn't exactly a dead-ringer for the $20 bill that most will know Jackson's face from. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 08:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If MOS:LEADIMAGE was cut-and-dry we wouldn't be having this discussion, again. But it isn't and almost certainly because both could be said to meet criteria this does come down to personal preference. I choose the portrait as the best representation of the subject in his prime and would be the most recognizable. --ARoseWolf 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely the most recognizable image of Jackson to citizens of the US (and to persons of other nationalities, for that matter) would be the portrait of him on the US twenty-dollar bill (since 1928). It is much more similar to the painted portrait of him in the infobox than is the photograph, which I believe most people who know his face from the currency would find unrecognizable if they were to come across it out of context or without a caption. There is nothing "hagiographic" about depicting the man as he appeared in the years of his life when he was most active in the public sphere. Carlstak (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've already expressed the reasons I think the photograph is more recognizably Jackson (characteristically tousled hair and distinctly-shaped face) than the painting (smoothed-over features makes me think more of Odo than Jackson), so we probably won't persuade each other here. With us still pretty split in this talk thread—Carlstak, Wtfiv, Extraordinary Writ, and ARoseWolf favoring the painting; and Ccole2006, Shearonink, and I in favor of the photograph—it may be time to consider next steps for achieving a consensus, like seeking input from a Wikiproject. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 16:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you did, and in my opinion those points don't have merit. The photo you originally submitted for our delectation seems to be the one image that depicts Jackson in his absolute worst physical condition months before he died in 1845, suffering from "dropsy, tuberculosis and heart failure", according to the article. It's no wonder he looked so terrible, and even as much as I despise the man and his legacy, I deplore the use of images of him that effectively misrepresent the physicality of how he appeared for most of his career to the point of being grossly misleading, not to mention that he left office eight years before the photos were taken.

Doubtless he was deteriorating years before his death, but there are other photos of him taken in his last years that depict him in a less decrepit state. Even the hardly flattering daguerreotype taken by Edward Anthony between 1844 and 1845 doesn't depict him in such an enfeebled state. I will admit that the much higher quality daguerreotype added to the article by user Ccole2006's edit (reverted by me for lack of consensus) is certainly preferable to yours, and even though it also was taken in 1845, months before his death, he doesn't appear as if he's "knockin on heaven's door". Your facetious remark about the painting reminding you of Odo doesn't merit consideration. Carlstak (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

certainly preferable to yours Er, I thought that photograph passed from our conversation a while ago. Ever since Shearonink's comment, we've been talking about the 1845 daguerrotype/mezzotint, the one that appears in the Later life and death section of this very article, and that's the photo where Jackson, I think, is more recognizable than in the painting. That's the photo you say is of a higher quality, which we agree about.

I'm sorry that because of this misunderstanding you thought I was being facetious, but I'd really prefer if we can keep this conversation civil. Your last comment came across as being unexpectedly and unnecessarily defensive. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I linked the images I was talking about, and was making the point that the one you originally submitted struck me as being grossly misleading. Actually, it seems to me that you are being defensive, because there's nothing uncivil about saying a facetious remark doesn't merit consideration. Your comparison to the picture of Odo is so far off the mark I didn't think you could possibly be serious about it. Carlstak (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We agree that the one I originally linked on this talk thread (I didn't "submit" it anywhere) is not a photograph we should use. I am currently in favor of the photograph to which Shearonink linked. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 21:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

As I see it in this discussion on this talk page we have Carlstak, Wtfiv, Extraordinary Writ, and myself in favor of the portrait and only Shearonink, and yourself in favor of the daguerrotype. Ccole2006 has made no other contribution than to open the discussion with a question. To make any other inferences without them specifically commenting is the wrong approach.

Like Carlstak, I despise what this man did and his legacy impact on Native American cultures which directly affected my present and those that came before me. However, there is no doubting he was a strong man in both nature and appearance due in no small part to his upbringing and military training. I do not agree with making him look feeble and frail as the first image one may see of him on this article. There is always some type of embellishment with these paintings but since we don't have a photograph of him in his prime it only stands to reason we should treat him as we would other presidents who came before him, all this despite my abhorrence for his part in the destruction of Indigenous lives and cultures. --ARoseWolf 14:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well said, ARoseWolf. Carlstak (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Since Ccole2006 edited the page to put the photograph in the infobox, I think it's reasonable to infer Ccole2006 supports using the photograph in the infobox. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Jackson, Native Americans and smallpox

A fairly substantial paragraph was added to the section on the Indian Removal Act about a vaccinations law passed by Congress and signed by Jackson. This is an interesting topic. The topic does seem appropriate for the article on the presidency of Jackson, as he did have to address the issue. The policy of smallpox vaccination of Native Americans could be an article in its own right. However, my own feeling is this topic is not appropriate here, this section is about Jackson's active role in moving the tribes west, mainly the Southeastern tribes west of the Mississipi. Here's my concerns:

• This article is put at the end of a section on the Indian Removal Act, which was a policy that was championed by Jackson even before he was president. The paragraph does not imply this is something championed by Jackson, but something passed by Congress that he approved. It seems only tangentially related to the point of this section. Sounds appropriate for a discussion of Jackson's presidency, not the policies he actively advocated.
• The paragraph discusses issues not directly related to Jackson: Discussion of medicine men obstruction and beliefs about cures, reasons why it doesn't work, and discussion of another outbreak that killed 100,000 of Native Americans. This is all important, but does it belong in a section discussion Jackson's intention to move native tribes west of the Mississippi?
• I could only get access to two of the works cited. For both, it was difficult to determine whether they made their point, as the references don't point to particular page numbers for verification and both articles are not focused on the 1832 vaccination. Neither clearly support the points stated for them.
  • Kelton's (2004) "Avoiding the Smallpox Spirits" focuses almost entirely on the Cherokee in the 1700s and contrary to the point in the paragraph, argues that the Cherokee had strategies for managing the disease.
  • Stern and Stern (1943) "Smallpox Immunizations of the Amerindians" addresses the overall Colonial policies of vaccinating Native Americans in the Americas. It discusses Jefferson's advocacy for using vaccinations on Native American peoples, but not Jackson's. Additionally, the point cited in the article is about Jefferson's personal thoughts on the issue. (The topic of Native American smallpox vaccinations is clearly controversial. Another article makes the claim vaccinations were partly because whites feared getting Smallpox from native Americans.)
    • Sole mention in Stern and Stern (1943) of Jackson is he was in office during an appropriation: "The expenses for vaccinating the Indians was first met by an appropriation made by the twenty-second congress during the presidency of Andrew Jackson." This doesn't sound like it makes Jackson an advocate. Again, this could be an issue to discuss in the article on the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which addresses the issues he handled while president. Better yet, it could be part of an article on United States policy regarding Native Americans and smallpox.

This brief NIH NML entry states that vaccinations were partly driven by settler fears of getting the disease from Native Americans, suggesting that the motivations for this bill are more complicated than the paragraph here suggests. A balanced approach would require a detailed discussion elsewhere, perhaps an article on United States policy. Wtfiv (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that the verbatim of the added paragraph is already in the Presidency of Andrew Jackson article. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Service in Lede

Should a mention of Jackson’s Revolutionary War Service be included in the lede of this article? It’s significant. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is the lead focuses on what is notable about Jackson. The narratives describing Jackson's Revolutonary War Service should be told in main text. They are now a standard part of the "Jackson biography" in the secondary literature. But the primary sources supporting this secondary literature are very thin. The verifiable details are very few. For example, look at the discussions we've had about the lack of information in the "officer and the sword" story, or Jackson's actual status and roles in the military or militia. Wtfiv (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I’d like to note that I found a record on family search of Andrew Jackson listed in the South Carolina Militia in 1779, a year earlier than he claimed. Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Henry, See this earlier conversation on this topic. Wtfiv (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that. I'm just mentioning the fact that there is hard evidence that Jackson served in the Rev. War. Henry Berghoff (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In the previous conversation, it was mentioned that in WP:RSP familysource.org is listed as a "generally unreliable" source. Wtfiv (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I found this record on family search, however, while the host site itself could be considered unreliable, the record itself is reliable. A microfilm of it was provided. The record dates from 1779/80, and Jackson’s name is written on it as a soldier who served. Henry Berghoff (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Genocide" wording

Wording was recently added implying that Jackson was responsible for genocide. This is sourced to p.35-36 in As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. This is a poor source to make such a broad, sweeping claim about the historiography of Jackson. Nor is it historically accurate. Jackson's policies on Native Americans were horrific, but did not call for their extermination, and are more complex than what the article implies. HickTheStick (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in an RFC and subsequent discussions a year ago. Consensus was clear then and I doubt you will find its changed much since. Feel free to dig through the archives.--ARoseWolf 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Replying to the OP, As Long as Grass Grows was published in 2019 by Beacon Press, a reputed publisher of nonfiction books; the book is probably therefore a good example of current, reliable academic scholarship. The eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources (see list below). If anything, this article probably soft pedals it. The only wording in the body text is that The act has been discussed in the context of genocide, which is a rather roundabout case of citing a source to say that a source says things instead of more straightforwardly summarizing what reliable sources say.

*List of sources and quotations to support my statement that the "eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources":

• Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press, 2014), 157–158: the manner in which the federal government had forced the Choctaws to leave Mississippi constituted ethnic cleansing under almost any definition (in a chapter titled "Unscabbarding the Bayonet: Andrew Jackson and the Policy of Forced Ethnic Cleansing").
• Akis Kalaitzidis and Gregory W. Streich, U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011), 33: it is arguable that this era witnessed a genocide perpetrated by the U.S. government against Native Americans. Andrew Jackson himself was involved in a brutal campaign for the total destruction of the Creeks and Seminoles.
• Alfred A. Cave, Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 191–192: proponents of genocide always characterized their victims as people of little use, unworthy of protection. Jackson, in his most candid moments, so characterized the American Indian and Jackson embraced genocide’s foundation belief that, because of certain perceived racial, moral, intellectual, cultural, or religious deficiencies or tendencies, a targeted group within a given territory is not only unworthy of inclusion in the community or of its protection, but on occasion must be dealt with as an existential threat to its well-being.
• Sheneese Thompson and Franco Barchiesi, "Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson on the Twenty-dollar Bill: A Monstrous Intimacy", Open Cultural Studies 2 (De Gruyter, 2018): 417–429, here 425: Andrew Jackson, a quintessential keystone for the convergence of slavery, genocide, and empire.
• Jacquelyn C.A. Meshelemiah and Raven E. Lynch, "Genocide", in Encyclopedia of Social Work, ed. Cynthia Franklin, via Oxford Research Encyclopedias (National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press, pub. online August 27, 2020): Acts of genocide committed against Indigenous populations have a long history in the United States and Jackson was known as the "Indian Killer" because of his personal killings of hundreds of Natives while serving in the military. His administration as president is known for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that led to the displacement of several tribal nations, violation of standing treaties, and the confiscation of their lands.

Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 19:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Webster dictionary calls genocide the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. By this definition destruction does not necessarily mean death. displacement is certainly a form of cultural destruction, thus it is considered genocide. Birdacorn (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me just say that I agree with you, personally, that Andrew Jackson's Indian policy constituted genocide but consensus on WP said something different so the need for compromise brought about a better article, by far not perfect and not completely what I wanted. Still, it is better. As I stated above, anyone can feel free to to look in the archives and, if so desire, anyone can start a new RFC if you disagree with that outcome. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. until a consensus is reached. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Middle to upper tier

Jackson is ranked by scholars almost always closely trailing or slightly ahead of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Reagan and Clinton's pages have them listed as "middle to upper tier" whereas Jackson's rating is currently written as "above average". I move to have Jackson's wikipedia page written more accurately to reflect where historians and scholars actually have him, which would be written as "middle to upper tier". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:DC6:6970:B357:C89A (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources for your claims about historians' and scholars' ranking of Jackson. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

To be clear, my source is not wikipedia, my source is the collection of scholarly rankings presented on that wikipedia page. If you look at the numbers, Andrew Jackson tends to be around #20. Reagan and Clinton both tend to be nearby (#16 to #22 range). On both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's wikipedia pages, their historical ranking is worded exactly the same as "middle to upper tier". Andrew Jackson, going by the numbers of historians and scholars in the chart presented via the link is middle to upper tier. Quite frankly, I think "middle to upper tier" is odd wording for all 3 as all 3 presidents consistently rank above the median (the median here would be #23 considering there have been 45 US presidents). Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan should both have their bios re-written as "above average", or Andrew Jackson should have his written as "middle to upper tier" as all 3 presidents rank very similarly. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

okay, so I did the math to get the average for each of these 3 presidents (I'm very bored).

Of the 25 surveys that include Andrew Jackson, he is ranked on average as the 12.28th best US president.

Of the 21 surveys that include Ronald Reagan, he is ranked on average as the 13.9th best US president.

Of the 19 surveys that include Bill Clinton, he is ranked on average as the 17.3rd best US president.

There have been 45 US presidents (remember, Glover Cleveland was president twice), the median is the number in the middle of a list of numbers. The median number for US presidents is 23. In other words, 22 presidents are above average, 22 presidents are below average (sort of, median and average are different but in this context it works). Any president who is consistently ranked at #22 or above should be considered an "above average" president.

Summarizing Bill Clinton as "middle to upper tier" is fine though "above average" seems more fitting. Summarizing Ronald Reagan as "middle to upper tier" is simply not accurate. He is historically ranked as clearly upper tier.

One could be symmetrical(sp?) and look at like this.. presidents ranked #1-#15 are upper tier, #16-#30 are mid tier, and #31-#45 are lower tier.

Considering Reagan and Jackson are only 1.6 ranking points apart, it would be inaccurate to state Jackson was "above average" while Reagan was "middle to upper tier" as that indicates one is viewed as clearly > than the other when I've just show that that is not the case here. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Jackson ranks higher than I suspected. Recency-bias effected my perception as his regard has been sliding in recent years.

In light of this information, I move to instead keep Andrew Jackson's wording as "above average", to change Ronald Reagan's from "middle to upper tier" to "above average", and to change Bill Clinton's from "middle to upper tier" to "above average". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, Jackson is generally ranked above average. The Jackson wording in the lead, which summarizes the article, states this. The section of the article that the lead summarizes, which is near the end of the article, gives more detail, in particular that Jackson's rating are historically high but have recently been dropping.

Changes to the Clinton and Reagan pages need to be discussed on their respective talk pages. Wtfiv (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed 2603:6011:5905:28A7:250E:BFBB:A3B5:CD34 (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)