Talk:Andrew Jackson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleAndrew Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 27, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]