Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 5

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

Historian7, it looks as though Quarkgluonsoup decided to unilaterally move many pieces of text which were in the main body of the article into the footnotes section. There's no reason for it given by either you or this editor. I think it should be reverted. Why hide important text in a footnote when we can easily present it in the main section, especially without providing an edit summary? If you can't justify this, then I think it's time to revert everything. Display name 99 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just checked this user's edit history. He/she has engaged in a pattern of making unsourced and unexplained revisions to articles, including this several just last month in which massive amounts of sourced content were removed with no edit summary. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the section before the changes was overly verbose and full of superfluous details. For example, the discussion on the recent changes to the Jefferson-Jackson day event belongs on the article on that topic, not on this section of the Andrew Jackson page. Why not discuss the history of that event instead here? Mentioning just the most recent change seems peculiar and bloggish. But discussing the history of that event here is obviously superfluous. None of it belongs here. When I look at history of the section going back much further, it looks like many of these superfluous details were added somewhat recently, and there certainly doesn't appear then to be consensus for them. Making them citations rather than deleting them completely seems to be a reasonable compromise.Historian7 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The changes were made in the process of the FA article review. Some editors requested expanding the Legacy section and this was done in accordance with their wishes. The article passed FA review with these "obviously superfluous" details. Personally, I don't see how the discussion of the Brands article, which was turned into a footnote, is any more superfluous then what was left in the Legacy section. This editor has simply decided to break up the section's significant content by putting half in the main body and half in the footnotes, making the article more difficult to navigate and the information harder to find. All the "superfluous details" are still in the article; they've simply been moved. There's no point to any of this. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, don't turn this into a revert war. I answered your question. You didn't ask another question in your last statement. If you have a new question that hasn't been asked, then ask it. All we are doing now is repeating what we have already said. It is obvious that we aren't going to come to an agreement. Not much in that section was changed in the first place, just some points that were superfluous were turned into citations. I didn't agree with the changes you made to the section, but I am not expecting any compromise to be perfect. A compromise is a compromise. Lets not try to convince each other, and just accept your modified version. Nothing is permanent anyway on wikipedia.Historian7 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a compromise. The article is worse off than if the text in question had just been deleted. This is literally the worst way to go about it. I think I'll seek a 3rd opinion on this because I do not accept the current version. Display name 99 (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You already have a 3rd opinion, the current version should stay.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that my edits were reverted again, though I don't understand why. The edits don't even remove what was there before, they just say the same thing in fewer words and add a few more words beyond that. His temperment was always his most controversial trait and the source of the criticism when he was alive and for a while after. It manifested in everything from claims he would be an American Caesar in the 1820s to his most controversial and criticized single act, the bank veto. The criticism of his Indian policy have been very recent and only a handful of authors fixate on it. Most mention it in passing. Before the last few decades it was praised when it was mentioned at all. My edits reflect the actual state of scholarship and history, and are only are changing the tiniest fraction of this article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary was entirely nonsensical. First of all, I made it abundantly clear over and over again what problems I had with your changes. So I'm not ok with "adding a bit more." Secondly, the edits did not retain everything that was in the old version. You removed slavery.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines temperament as "characteristic or habitual inclination or mode of emotional response." It has nothing to with policy. It's personal behavior, manner of speaking, emotional demeanor, etc. Jackson was known for his explosive temper. That falls under temperament. But his biographers-Remini and Meacham at least-emphasize that it was mainly manufactured, that he was actually in control of his emotions almost the entire time, and that it was politically useful.

Your discussion of Jackson's Indian removal is utterly absurd. The criticism of his Indian policy have been very recent and only a handful of authors fixate on it. Most mention it in passing. Remini devotes two entire chapters to it in his 3-volume biography. And that's just for his presidency, not even counting his dealings with the Indians before. I'm guessing you haven't read Remini's biography or you'd know. He wrote an entire book called Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. There are numerous journal articles, many cited here, which discuss it. Brands says, "By the turn of the present [21st] century, it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the one thing American school children learned about Jackson was that he was the author of the Trail of Tears." It's been the single most controversial thing about Jackson for the past 40 years. He isn't being taken off the $20 bill because he vetoed the Bank recharter bill. Most Americans don't even know what that is. He's being removed because people don't like the way he dealt with the Indians.

The Bank veto has not been heavily criticized. Not even CLOSE. Schlesinger passionately supports it. Remini and Meacham, while a bit more tempered, celebrate it for its boldness, constitutional arguments, and the effect that it had on the presidency. Where are the sources which criticize it? There are some-Hammond, for instance-but few do, and certainly not in the same way as his Indian policies. There's certainly no consensus against it as you imply. You're going to have to back yourself up with some sources. I suspect it will be hard to find a biography of Jackson which criticizes his Bank veto more than his Indian removal policies. The fact that you claim that his "most controversial and criticized single act" is the Bank veto shows that you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Andrew Jackson historiography. Your comment above exposes your gross ignorance on Jackson. Display name 99 (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have read them all, and many other hisories of the era, and I am honestly surprised that this is news to you. Citing Schlesinger, Remimi and Meacham seems odd for your point given that they are all very positive towards Jackson, and pretty much their entire discussion on the Indian topic is recounting the events, not criticizing the outcome. Actually the main constituency that has been criticizing the Indian policy is not that of historians (as your Brands quote confirms), but of certain amatures of a certain political persuasion with whom this kind of worldview is presently fashionable for whatever reason. The simple fact here is that few today care about the Indian issue, even though those who do are very loud in making sure the world knows they think what they think. No one cared, or rather no one criticized it, before very recently. I am very surprised that someone as well read as you is so reactive to the statements I have been making, especially that the bank veto was his most criticized act. No historian contests that statement. It was the most blatant act of his greatest struggle with his greatest political adversary, Henry Clay, and that struggle lasted for most of his presidency. The veto wasn't criticized because of some technical disagreement about what was best policy, but rather it was criticized because of how personal Jackson made it, and that it was the first veto where the rationale was clearly not a good faith belief on the part of the president that the bill was unconstitutional, which at the time was seen as the only legitimate reason for a presidential veto. This again had the root being his temperament, which is not the same as temper. I think some of the confusion in this is that the bank veto isn't a big deal today, but this article is about the Jackson of history, not the range of attitudes today. As such, it has to focus on the history, and the history is that the bank veto was by far his most controversial act while he was alive and for a while after. You yourself admit that the Indian issue has been criticized only going back 40 years, which proves my point. It is acceptable to mention here the range of revisionist attitudes today, but the focus of the article of course has to be in the historical events as they happened, not later reinterpretations. These, by definition, where mostly complete by the time he left office. These are obvious and uncontested historical facts.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You say that the Bank veto was "clearly not in good faith." That is clearly POV and not all sources agree. Furthermore, the veto was not his "most criticized act." It was supported even by many moderate Democrats, such as McLane and Lewis. These same Democrats objected when Adams tried to remove the funds from the Bank. It was the dispersal of deposits, not the veto, which was the most controversial act. Many moderate Democrats supported Jackson's decision to veto the recharter bill because of Biddle's foolishness and arrogance in pushing it through Congress, but later refused to support the removal of the deposits. A number of Democrats left the party. So even in the Bank war, the veto was not the most criticized action. In any case, there are a significant number of historians who do not agree that it is in bad faith. Display name 99 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally we agree! His Indian policy was not his most criticized act. One Brands quote from that article that wasn't quoted on this article was his statement that Jackson's Indian policy was no different from that of any other president from Washington to Grant. I certainly agree that you may be right, that it may have been his war against the bank that I mentioned above, in particular his dispersal of deposits, that was his most criticised act, and not the veto itself. We also have to clarify that "criticized" means criticized while Jackson was in office, with the opinion of historians referring to what they believe was most criticized while he was in office, not what whatever some person today might criticize today. Some criticize the Indian policy today, though no one did before the last couple of decades, which we both agree on. No one really criticizes his actions on the bank issue today, but we both agree that this was his most criticized topic in his own time. This is why the article has to focus on the Jackson of history, which means it highlights the criticisms he received in his own time. Whether what I was saying, that it was the veto, or what you are saying, that it was the dispersal, we both agree that it was the conflict over the bank that was his most criticized act. I will update the summary to reflect our agreement.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. I should've expressed myself more clearly, but I meant to say that the removal of the deposits was his most controversial act IN THE BANK WAR not overall. Jackson was a controversial figure prior to the 1970s. Opinion on him was strongly divided. Since that time, most historians, even ones like Remini who defend him against some of the more extreme charges of genocide and the like, believe that his treatment of the Indians prior to and during his presidency was flawed. ( I can't provide a quote because I'm not home right now with the book.) Remini largely defends him, but the fact that he goes into so much time to do so clearly shows that there was a major counterargument he was trying to defeat. You have yet to cite any historians to support your claim. True, the removal of the deposits was his most controversial policy while in office. But unless we make that clear, we risk confounding it with historiography. I'm also still not convinced my the temperament argument. Basically, the part saying that "disliked for reasons ranging from his temperament to his actions against the bank" is still POV, because just as you will find some people who criticize him for those things, you will find others who support them. It's not our job to pick a side. I also object to your deletion of the slavery sentence. This article passed FAC earlier this year. Everything in the article was carefully crafted based on consensus, good research, and thorough discussion. You are unilaterally trying to undo it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Historian7, I'd love a reason as to why you believe the edit you reverted is a good one. What's excessive is people who clearly don't know a thing about the subject (not referring to you, see above) and others with odd ideas about formatting damaging this article. Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I did go ahead and change the Bibliography section in a manner that will hopefully be fine with everyone, as I can understand Ort500's concern. But even as we disagree on the footnotes issue, I would at least hope that you would see how ridiculous and contrary to evidence the changes to the lead are. The claim on the talk page that the Bank veto is criticized more than Indian removal has to raise major alarm bells, no? Display name 99 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Historian7, I see that you're still reverting me, but I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the obviously POV, one-sided, and unsourced statement that Jackson was "disliked" for his conduct during the Bank War as well as his temperament. Display name 99 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Sourcing edits: Actually user: Display name 99, we do not disagree so much. A bibliography "is" the listing of sources used in a work. It is also commonly used on Wikipedia, first in the appendices, to denote works by the article subject (for biographies) also named "Works or publications", "Discography", or "Filmography".

Your edit, that creates a subsection of references, is not a bad choice. I would posit that in the scheme of related subjects such as "Notes" and "References" (the source and the listing providing text-source integrity; or citations) that one should be a section heading and all other source related listings as subsections. This would be a normal use of section headings right?

As a subsection I think it would have been perfectly fine to keep "Bibliography", being easily identified as source related that would be a form of indirect disambiguation, if you will. Otr500 (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no subsection called References; it's a regular section. I would posit that in the scheme of related subjects such as "Notes" and "References" (the source and the listing providing text-source integrity; or citations) that one should be a section heading and all other source related listings as subsections. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Another problem is that you have yet to show how there is a type of bibliography which does not include sources, which means that it's unnecessary to specific that a Bibliography is for sources, because that's the only kind that exists. Display name 99 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, when I was referring to disagreement, I was speaking to Historian7. And if you meant to propose making References a sub-section of Notes, I would strongly oppose that. It's far more common to do things as they are here. There's no reason to change the status quo and screw this article up and downgrade it even more than some people already are. Display name 99 (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, you say that Jackson's conduct during the Bank War was his most controversial action and that "no historian disputes this." You say in the article that he was "disliked for reasons ranging from his temperament to his actions against the bank." In order to justify portraying these attributes in a negative light, you would have to show that virtually everybody during his life and after condemns him for both his temperament, which by your definition can be taken to mean all sorts of things, perhaps everything he ever did, and the Bank. Many people celebrated his warfare against the Bank during his lifetime, and many historians still do. Therefore, the statement is totally one-sided. And you have yet to cite a single historian to support your views. I am the single largest contributor to the article. However, I do wonder what the next two largest contributors, Cmguy777 and Hoppyh, who presumably know a few things about the topic, think about inserting a false POV statement into the lead, not to mention the utter destruction of the Legacy section, most of which was carefully crafted and approved by consensus during the FAC process. Display name 99 (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You completely miss my point over the bank issue. I put it in there as a compromise with you, who has now apparently changed your mind about this. The structure of that sentence has the first part being what people have said favorably about him, and the second part being what people have said unfavorably about him. If you want to make the argument that the bank issue was not a major criticism of him when he was president, then go ahead. Let us know what issue you think of when he was president was the big criticism of him. The Indian issue certainly was not that, as we both have agreed. You already have stated that it wasn't his temperment which I find a very weird claim. All the criticisms over his supposed Caesarism, that he could make himself dictator, that he supposedly pandered to the masses, to the point that his political movement was named pejoratively the Democratic party and its emblem the donkey due to the common use of the alternate name of the donkey as an attack on him. And yet his temperment wasn't the issue. What else then could it be? If you want to instead argue that he received no real criticism in office, which seems to be the direction you are going in, then let us know. I can't think of any other issue that it could be. The secession crisis? The looming crisis with Mexico? Something else?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I never changed my mind. I said very clearly that I misspoke. I have just now realized that the sentence seems to have a massive contradiction. "Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man" is the first part. And what more could he have done to advocate for the common man than fight the "Devil's Bank?" The Bank issue was a major criticism. But it was also a major object of praise from his supports. You're ignoring that. We aren't supposed to pick a side. In any case, I have a proposed compromise. How about if we say:

Jackson was widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man. Many of his actions, such as those during the Bank War and the Nullification crisis, proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. His reputation has declined since the civil rights movement, largely due to his role in Indian removal and support for slavery.

This seems to address both sides of the issue. Display name 99 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I am very much open to finding a compromise sentence. I just did my best to find a middle of the road compromise, but certainly have no problem with changing it. My main issue with your proposed comprise is the insinuation that he used to be loved, and now is reviled. The reason for that objection is because neither arguments are factually correct. He has always been controversial, usually being given both credit and blame that he did not deserve. All that has changed is what he has been loved and hated for. This compromise sentence should reflect that. The first part is fine, other than "was" should be changed to "has been" to reflect that as Trump illustrates, is still going on. The second sentence I'm not sure about 100%, but we could fix that easily. Probably just pull out the reference to nullification and change "divisive" to "controversial". The bigger problem is the last sentence, which as I have said, is both factually untrue, and insinuating certain things. I tried to add the jist of that in my compromise version, and am ok with changing it further. First, the civil Rights movement has nothing to do with it. The criticism of the Indian policy, as we have agreed multiple times, goes back to the 1970s, so "civil Rights movement"should be changed to "1970s". Second, the reference to slavery should be removed since slavery was supported by all presidents and almost all politicians before the end of the civil way, even Abraham Lincoln. That adds nothing and insinuates that he was uniqueim that regard. Third, his reputation hasn't declined or improved, it had just done what it has always done, and changed as the positive and negative focus has changed. You can put together a modified version of the proposed compromise to reflect my points.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep "divisive." Controversial is a more loaded word that many in the media use as a synonym for "criticized." "Divisive" basically means that there were people who strongly supported and strongly opposed what he did. Just read the brilliantly-written Parton passage in the Legacy section to get an idea of the wide range of emotions this dynamic man inspired. I also don't think there's anything wrong with saying that his reputation declined after the '70s. Sure, he's always been controversial. People are no more in agreement over his conduct on the Bank War than they were 100 years ago. But the new emphasis on Indian removal gave people something new to criticize him over. His reputation suffered as a result. The Brands quote that I cited earlier amply justifies that and shows just how dramatic it was. You're going to have to find another quote from a historian to argue that his reputation has not strongly suffered since the 1970s. The replacement of "was" with "has been" helps eliminate the suggestion that he was once loved and is now hated. Here's my current version:

Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man. Many of his actions, such as those during the Bank War, proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. His reputation has declined since the 1970s, largely due to his role in Indian removal.

Display name 99 (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Though I might phrase some of that a bit differently, I am ok with most of that. The only problem I still have is with the last sentence, although it is much better. I disagree that "his reputation has declined", since he was always widely hated as well as loved. If anything, the extremes have moderated over time somewhat. The Brands quote, which is from an op-ed, not a scholarly publication (which means it is more prone to over generalizations), has to be taken with a grain of salt. He is clearly using a bit of hyperbole, as his quote pretty much admits. Most Americans have never cared about Jackson one way or the other. Of those who have cared, there is no polling data on opinions going back to the 1840s (or any time period for that matter) to see how those opinions have changed over time, so not much can be said about this (i.e. how his reputation amongst the general population has changed over time). I know some history teachers, and the criticisms they give of him in their classes, when they do criticize him, have more to do with other things. I once heard of one teacher blaming the Great Depression on him due to a long chain of cause and effect that began with the bank war. Apparently she didn't know the difference between the bank of the us and the federal reserve. I have heard others criticize him for supposedly causing the financial panic that occurred under his successor (which does have at least a bit of merit). My own history teacher, back in the day, criticized him for the quote the teacher apparently didn't know Jackson never made, that John Marshall can enforce his own decision (the criticism being that Jackson was autocratic and didn't give due respect to the other political institutions, in particular the Supreme Court). But then I had another history teacher who criticized US Grant for being drunk when he accepted Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse (a falsehood I had never heard before or since), which just illustrates that history teachers have limited understandings and what they teach, accurate or not, cannot be said to be representative of some broader historical trend. My point on this is just to illustrate the necessity of taking Brand's quote with a grain of salt, not as a statement of scientific precision. In any case, how about we keep everything in your quote, but change "His reputation as declined since the 1970s" to "His reputation has suffered among historians since the 1970s", which I think makes the same point but is more precise and thus more accurate. If you agree with my proposal, I won't object if you update the article with this modified quote.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Conclusary remarks such as this are helpful, but only if they are made by the primary biographers used in the article. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You have a valid point. But Brands isn't just some random history teacher. He's a widely recognized U.S. history scholar who wrote a major biography on Jackson. His quotes, even if they don't come from the biography itself, have some weight. I disagree that his reputation has suffered peculiarly among historians. If anything, he's done better with them. Remini largely defends him against the accusations. Brands and Meacham are a little bit more moderate but still try to help people understand where Jackson was coming from, even if they don't always want to get them to agree. I think it's suffered more with the general public than with serious historians. You have received significant concessions from me for this sentence, and I think it's best if we end this by entering in the modified version. Display name 99 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that his reputation hasn't suffered among historians. The Jackson biographies you cite make that clear. I thought that was who you were referring to, which is why I proposed having the line say "suffered among historians". It is certainly hyperbole for Brands to say that few know much of him beyond the trail of tears, which Brands admits in that statement, and which even if it were true, which I think we both agree it isn't, would only be evidence of what high school history teachers think or know on the topic. Or it could be evidence of a poor knowledge of history among high school students, which though certainly true, certainly is not true on this specific point. "Decline" also denotes a particular change in one particular direction from one point in time to another. This is to say that if you were to take this statement as objective fact, it would only demonstrate things now, so to illustrate decline, one would need a statement on how things were in this respect at at least one point in the past. My point on that is that, though the statement is hyperbole, even if one was to take it as objective fact, this could easily prove other things besides that his reputation has declined among the general population. As you note, this statement doesn't come from any biography, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. We can use a word different from "suffered" if you prefer, but I think "declined" suggests something that we can't support and I certainly don't agree with. Since we both agree that his reputation has not suffered among historians, I propose that we change "His reputation as declined since the 1970s" to "His reputation has suffered since the 1970s", and leave everything else as it was in your latest proposed version.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. Done. It took a while, but I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement. Display name 99 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Well done. Hoppyh (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Historian7, my revert accidentally got submitted before I finished my edit summary. I'm not sure what you mean by "3rd party edits." My point: you cannot revert without an explanation of the reason for doing so. The fact that you reverted my change to the lead in such a way is particularly egregious; it was done without prior discussion and so no not even the slightest argument for prior consensus by you can be made. As for the Legacy section, Quarkgluonsoup and I are currently working towards a compromise on it. This involved me shortening significant amounts of information for the sake of keeping it in the main body. We have been working towards compromise. You aren't helping a bit. Display name 99 (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you should realize that your change didn't put the text back into footnotes. It simply changed it around. Therefore, an explanation is required to show why the other version was better than mine. Snarky edit summaries without substance don't help. Display name 99 (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I just saw your edit summary. The editor had a problem with referencing the civil rights movement. As I said in the edit summary, I changed it in the interest of compromise. So it was not a "wholesale [revert]." Display name 99 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Can we discuss this here and agree on a compromise? I put edit summaries in my changes justifying what changes I was making. I saw that you made some changes as part of a compromise, so I made some more changes. I thought you would probably adjust my changes further but I am unsure why you have an objection with most of them. Could you look at my edits, see what I say in the edit summaries, and then tell me what you disagree with and what proposed compromise you have? We can agree on something here and then adjust the article for what we agree on.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup, above I was speaking to Historian7, not you. Historian7 originally reverted my changes without much of an edit summary. I put edit summaries in my recent two reverts. Please have a look and see whether you find them sufficient. Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

First I will note that most of the changes you made earlier today, I didn't touch even though I didn't necessarily agree with all of them. I just changed what I most didn't agree with. I deleted "The relocation process dispossessed the Indians and resulted in widespread death and disease" (not one of your original edits) from the summary because this is an unnecessary and suggestive detail. The sentence before, "In 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which forcibly relocated most members of the Native American tribes in the South to Indian Territory" summarizes the Indian policy at the highest level, which is all that we should have in the summary. In the legacy section, I changed "observes" to "argues" because what follows is Brands' opinion, not objective fact (hence it being an op-ed). "Since the 1960s"/"After the 1970s" should be changed to "Since the 1970s" since it corresponds with what we have already agreed to on this. "his actions towards Indians and African Americans received new attention" should be changed to "focus shifted towards a more critical view of his Indian policies" since we have already discussed the points on abolitionism, and the objections are to his Indian policies, not how he personally treated individual Indians, which is what "his actions towards Indians" is more suggestive of. It has a more personal conintation, and this article needs to stay as impersonal and objective as possible, like any good historical writing. I added "Noting shifting attitudes on different national issues" because this is what Brands is doing in the op-ed. I deleted "By the turn of the present [21st] century, it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the one thing American schoolchildren learned about Jackson was that he was the author of the Trail of Tears." I did this because I think this entire paragraph should be deleted, but instead of pushing that, I am ok with just removing the most opinionated quote of Brands. The entire paragraph is from an op-ed that Brands wrote up for a local newspaper on the anniversary of Jackson's birthday. As such, strictly speaking, wikipedia policy doesn't even allow it because it is not a primary or secondary source. The sources that are allowed are primary sources (such as Caesar's commentaries) or secondary sources (such a history book that discusses Caesar's campaigns). This op-ed is just opinion. Informed opinion, but opinion none the less, and opinion that hasn't been through any of the editorial processes of fact checking, peer review etc, of a history book that would be a secondary source. Plus we have already discussed the issues with high school history classes and education, and the impossibility of summing up the product of it like this. I could come up with a list of dubious things high school history teachers say about Jackson, and schoolchildren retain, good and bad. This of course is speculative opinion, which Brands admits. This is why it doesn't belong here. As I stated, the entire paragraph doesn't for the reasons I mentioned, but I am willing to compromise on that point and just delete this sentence rather than the whole thing.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm fine with "argues." I'm not fine with changing '60s to '70s because that goes directly against what was discussed in the article. A basic understanding of Wikipedia policy shows that we cannot do this. I understand that Jackson was not the only pro-slavery president. But Brands still mentions it, and it's not fair to totally banish it. How about:

Brands argues that Jackson's reputation suffered since the 1960s as his actions towards Indians and African Americans received new attention. He also claims that the Indian controversy overshadowed Jackson's other achievements.

Display name 99 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is a portrait used instead? AHC300 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change monies to money under Career and Controversy in the second paragraph in line 4. 50.24.17.24 (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given. Monies is a valid word choice here. NiciVampireHeart 10:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I see there have been two insertions and two reversions in the last two hours. That's a lot of disruption for a frequently viewed featured page. As opposed to having this discussion in edit summaries, I invite those editors to hash this out here on talk. BusterD (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Display name 99: and I disagree over which photographic image of Jackson should be used in the article.

• 
  Current image
• 
  Proposed image

I think we should use the best-quality image we have of Jackson in the article, and I think it's pretty obvious which one that is. The current image being used is of much poorer quality, both aesthetically and technically, than the one I propose we use. And I think the one I'm proposing was actually used as this article's lead image for a period of time, and is still being used as the lead image in Jackson's article in some other Wikipedia languages. It should definitely appear somewhere in this article even if it's not used as the lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Rreagan007, my main issue is that the one that your proposing is less realistic because it's a photographic copy of a daguerreotype rather than the daguerreotype itself. If you want to take this to WP:Third opinion, that might solve the problem. I'll abide by the opinion of any neutral uninvolved editor. Display name 99 (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Andrew Jackson's maiden name was Altuve

How did this article, with so many missing pieces of history absent from it, achieve "Featured Article" status? It is written in a biased format that seems to leave out virtually any of the egregious behaviors that Andrew Jackson was famous for during his lifetime. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Because the “mUh proud Scots-Irish heritage” brigade wrote it? Good thing they can’t whitewash all the articles for those confederates of Celtic ancestry. They’re not too keen to claim them!--2A00:23C4:3E0F:4400:2563:9D9F:DBEC:FEFF (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, I am the primary contributor of this article and the one who brought it to featured article status. I am just now reading this comment. If you believe that it's biased, please state specific examples. Broad accusations without evidence don't help anyone. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: an example of the bias is to link Andrew Jackson, the founder of the modern Democratic party, with 'republican' ideas. Perhaps you are using the term 'republican' in the other meaning: as in, 'for the common man'. But Jackson was a democrat. And he was a cruel slave owner who believed that whites were literally superior to the native Americans and black Americans. Example: having his foreman whip a slave for escaping, which led to the slaves death. He had tried to escape the whipping which led the foreman to stab him to death. There is also recorded a female slave, 'Betty', who crime was to do the washing for other people without first getting permission from Jackson's wife. jackson personally gave her 50 lashings and said that 'she could be a good servant, but had to be ruled by cowhide.' He meant, by the whip. His personal writings are disgusting. He openly advocates for the 'inevitable' extinction of the Native Americans and constantly referred to their racial, social and religious inferiority. He advocated the idea that because whites were superior, the Natives must 'naturally' give way and become extinct. His arguments are patronizing, and so self deceiving that they are hard to read. All this needs to be mentioned in a fair article about Jackson. I've seen this same bias across almost all Wiki articles. There is an orchestrated effort to diminish the crimes of past Democrats (like the fact that the KKK were all Democrats and their Nazi links via Margaret Sanger) while scoffing at Republicans. I give donations to Wiki because I like their refusal to take $$ from sponsors. BUT that doesn't mean Wiki is neutral. At this point, it is highly leftist in its reporting. My fear is that if this doesn't stop, Wiki will lose its status as a neutral library of human history. That would be tragic. PLEASE work harder to be non biased. Just stick to facts and stop interpreting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:907F:C6D0:B09D:3193:E1BF:8F0B (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Republicanism does not mean rule by the common man. See relevant article. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

All three of these complaints lack evidence or merit. The first one was a very broad complaint without any detail, and the person refused to respond when asked to give evidence about specific problems in the article. The two IP edits are quite useless. The first IP seems to associate problems in this article with Jackson's Scotch-Irish heritage. As the person who wrote much if not most of the article, I say that I have no idea what the "mUh proud Scotch-Irish heritage" brigade is. I don't know what a "confederate of Celtic ancestry is" and it has little to do with Jackson. Jackson had Scotch-Irish ancestry but was born in the British colonies and never left the continent of North America in his entire life. So what connection his ancestry would have to any alleged bias here is unknown to me.

The second IP just seems to hate Jackson, and while he says a lot of things to demonstrate that point, he cites no sources. While he seems to think that the article lacks information about Jackson's treatment of slaves, such information can be found in the article under "Planting career and controversy." Adding any more would I feel be

WP:Undue weight. He's also confused about a great number of things. He misunderstands the definition of republicanism and seems to think that the article links Jackson to the modern-day Republican Party. However, that party did not even exist during Jackson's lifetime, and so the fact that he believes this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about American history. His conception that Wikipedia's alleged whitewashing of Jackson's racist behavior makes it leftist shows that he has no idea what leftist history is. Leftist history focuses heavily on race, and so this article's alleged failure to deal adequately with the topic would actually give it a right-wing bias. Lastly, the assumption that this is all done to obscure the crimes of Democrats is disgusting and unsupported.The descendants of most of the people who voted for Jackson would not be Democrats today but Republicans, and the admiration shown to Jackson by the current president, a Republican, along with the disdain shown to him by modern-day Democrats clearly demonstrate that Jackson is more of an intellectual ancestor to modern-day Republicans than he is to modern-day Democrats. This is coming from someone who is not a Democrat. Display name 99 (talk

) 18:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2020

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the 'Bank veto and election of 1832' section the term 'seemingly' needs to be removed from "At Biddle's direction, the Bank poured thousands of dollars into a campaign to defeat Jackson, seemingly confirming Jackson's view that it interfered in the political process." 'Seemingly' obviously and intentionally attempts to cast doubt on something that is fully confirmed earlier in the same sentence. Frankly, using the term 'view' is also misleading, as 'view' implies subjective opinion instead of confirmed fact (of which it was). 47.197.1.134 (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There is a reliable source provided at the end of the sentence. I assume the use of prudent language is an accurate reflection of said source. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 03:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Bravo Andrew Jackson for annihilating those trying to control the banks.2600:1700:4000:62E0:35D8:2D6E:B4FB:7763 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The way his history is described glorifies the ownership of slaves and undermines the plight of native americans. It needs to be depicted in a less bias manner, or, a more ethical manner. 65.78.139.65 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It should be noted that the Democratic Party of the time which Jackson was a part of held a different ideaology than the current Democratic Party 209.122.195.169 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

So, reading the lead, it's rather opaque why he was so identified with championship of the "common man", and I think it's opaque because there is no mention of expanding the franchise (universal suffrage), nor could I find it in the article body. Ping Display name 99 for comment. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Alanscottwalker. This is a valid concern. The Democrats actually did little to expand suffrage. Western states established universal male suffrage in order to attract settlers, which put pressure on Eastern states to expand it as well in order not to lose too many people. By the time that Jackson first ran for the presidency in 1824, nearly all white men in America were already eligible to vote. See Howe 2007 pp. 490-491: "For the most part, property restrictions on voting declined before the rise of the Democratic Party, which benefited from, rather than fought for, the liberalization of the suffrage." But I have decided to add a mention of the expansion of suffrage ahead of the 1824 election, because it is important to understanding Jackson's political success and appeal. I added mention of Jackson's reform activities and the fact that he saw his war on the Bank as a defense of common people to the lead. Hopefully this clarifies what is meant by this language. Please check the article history and let me know whether or not you are satisfied. Display name 99 (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I am asking you to please remove what you have recently added to the article. There are numerous problems with it. For one, I would think that the goal of mentioning slavery in the top paragraph would be to give the reader a sense of what Jackson's view of the matter was. This does not say where Jackson stood on slavery. The mention of him being a Southerner implies that he supported it, but this should be stated explicitly, not simply hinted at. During Jackson's lifetime, the United States was much smaller than it is now or even than it was during the 1850s. Jackson lived for most of his life in Western Tennessee. This was considered less a part of the south and more a part of the "west." Jackson referred to himself more as a Westerner than a Southerner. Finally, slavery was not a major political issue throughout most of Jackson's life, including during his presidency. It did nto come up at all until his second term, and even then, it was hardly at the center of Jackson's policymaking. As such, slavery does not warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead section, which should be where only the most important things about him go. There are many things about Jackson more important than his view on slavery which are not discussed in the first paragraph. Jackson's stance on slavery is discussed later on in the lead, which is where it belongs. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to write this out. I have removed everything except tbe word "expansionist" to which you did not object. I was not aware that Jackson thought of himself as a westerner. I disagree with you regarding slavery; it certainly comes up in the Negro Fort incident, and in the destruction of Angola, Florida, and in Florida Territory in general. deisenbe (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Deisenbe. One can get a good sense of Jackson as a westerner from reading Robert Remini's three-volume biography, particularly the first volume. Jackson was born in the Carolinas, but he never returned to them after leaving to settle in what is now Tennessee in 1788. That was about as far west as American settlement went at the time, and from then on, while Jackson did certainly identify with the South on major political and cultural issues, including slavery, he preferred to see himself as a kind of rugged frontiersman. Slavery was an important factor in many of Jackson's military campaigns, but was a negligible factor or even a virtual non-factor in equally as many others. The military expedition that Jackson planned with Burr in 1806 and the Creek War were all about expansion. While expansion of America did mean expansion of slavery, the connection between it and Jackson's campaigns was only indirect. Slavery played no role in Jackson's decision to defend New Orleans from the British. And as I said, slavery was of a rather trivial importance during his presidency, and it did not come to have a significant impact on any major issue until his second term. It just isn't important enough to mention in the top paragraph, especially when details of his military career, Indian removal, and the specifics of his views on democracy and economics are necessarily left out. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Indians are from India. They are not indigenous to the Americas. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas. Indians were not a name that native people gave themselves, but by the Europeans, by error since they mistakenly believed they were in India. Knowing the difference would avoid confusion between Indians and Native Americans. This is in light that the Indian population has been growing fast in the past decades and to properly identify a native population after over 500 years of misconceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:4000:1650:895F:37E6:11B5:64E1 (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, completely. As a long-time Wikipedia contributor I find it hard to fathom that this historical misnomer is perpetuated in – and effectively validated by – an FA like this (and also elsewhere). My 2c, 86.186.168.128 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

just adding: The above consideration is genuinely not intended, in any way, as personal criticism of editors who have worked hard to bring the page to FA. 86.186.168.128 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of the indigenous population of the U.S. still prefer to be called "Indians" or "American Indians". It's why the official national museum dedicated to the indigenous population of the U.S. is officially called the National Museum of the American Indian and the federal government department is still called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's their identity, so who the hell are you to tell them that's not what they should want to be called? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Who the hell are you...?" That phrase is clearly

WP:CIVIL, User:Rreagan007. 86.177.202.134 (talk

) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the apparent attempt to chill reasoned discussion here based on the (undeclared) ethnic status of an anonymous user, the pov expressed above by User:Rreagan007 appears generally to contrast with currently accepted editorial practice on multiple Wikipedia pages regarding Native Americans (cf American Indians), including Native Americans in the United States.

While the word Indian seems appropriate here for historical terms such as Indian removal and Indian Removal Act, per the arguments expressed OP I believe it is not appropriate in more general phrases, including, for example, "Relations between Indians and Americans..." or "Indian-

Anglo American relations" [sic], which - apart from other editorial considerations - seem to perpetuate a false dichotomy. 86.186.168.206 (talk

) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Given the contrasting views expressed here, I feel it's appropriate to request input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (and possibly elsewhere, if other editors consider that to be appropriate). 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am a member of WP:Indigenous peoples of North America and I believe I can clarify the terminology here. First off, when possible, the entire issue can be avoided by using the names of tribal nations where appropriate. (e.g. Cherokee, Choctaw, etc...) When discussing Native people from multiple tribes or in general, “Indian” or “American Indian” is a term of law in the United States. (Indian Child Welfare Act, American Indian Movement, etc.) So that word is appropriate for legal and many historical uses. “Native American” is a term coined by academe to distinguish American Indians in the United States from the people of India. It is most suitable for use in cultural and anthropological settings, and often is used in discussions of political issues. Native people in Alaska prefer “Alaska Native”. Canadian tribes more often prefer the term “First Nations”. People who are Native American often use the word “Native” (capitalized) when referring to themselves in a colloquial or shorthand context, e.g. “Native Pride,” etc. So best practices depends a bit on the specific context. I’ll do a quick skim of the article’s stable version and see if there’s anything clunky that needs to be fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that
    Anglo"?). Given your background and extensive FA riding skills (mos hyphens aside), I think it would be really good you could take an informed editorial look. 86.186.168.230 (talk
    ) 11:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • • I did, hope all is fixed now. Montanabw^(talk) 04:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• Being a person of native ancestry in the US I can say that there is a large portion of natives here that call themselves Indians and it is still used in many official names they give themselves, like the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. I myself, do not use the Native American term to refer to myself, personally. I use the American Indian term. Many others use other terms including Native American. Am I offended if some calls me Native American? No, not initially. I usually let it go if it's a one time use or I am only dealing with them temporarily. If I plan on prolonged interaction then I make my feelings known and I expect they will at least acknowledge that out of respect. I can't change how academia terms are used and I have no issue with Native American being used where it is absolutely applicable. I do take issue when tribal name can be used but instead it is replaced with any of these terms. I also take issue when names are deliberately altered, either way, to fulfill someone's personal preference. Like it or not, Indian still refers to natives in the continental US and Canada for sure. Regardless, try calling a native of Samoa, Hawaii or Alaska a Native American and you may wind up getting a quick rebuke and a stern lecture. --
  Wolf
  15:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:JACKSON, Andrew-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 15, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-03-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American soldier and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. He has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man, but many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from different sectors of society. His reputation has suffered since the 1970s, largely due to his pivotal role in the forcible removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands; however, surveys of historians and scholars have ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents. Engraving credit: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restored by Andrew Shiva Recently featured: Pope Pius VII Sālote Tupou III Fractional currency Archive More featured pictures

• view
• talk
• edit
• history
• watch
• file page

Could someone clear up what this paragraph means? It is wholly unclear. It currently says:

The national economy following the withdrawal of the remaining funds from the Bank was booming and the federal government through duty revenues and sale of public lands was able to pay all bills. On January 1, 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. The objective had been reached in part through Jackson's reforms aimed at eliminating the misuse of funds and through his vetoes of legislation which he deemed extravagant. In December 1835, Polk defeated Bell in a rematch and was elected Speaker. Finally, on January 16, 1837, when the Jacksonians had a majority in the Senate, the censure was expunged after years of effort by Jackson supporters. The expunction movement was led, ironically, by Benton.

Who was censured? Who is Benton? Why was it ironic that Benton led the expunction of a censure? I'm assuming Polk is referring to James Polk, but could we clarify this? Could we also link whatever Bell it's talking about to his page. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but I'm making too many assumptions on what the author meant to write to be able to confidently say that I'm correcting things instead of making things up. Monkeytheboy (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My enhancement

Current image

I feel like we should change the lead image to this. It’s effectively the same painting, but I enhanced it to bring out the details more and brighten the colors. I feel like this makes it a better image to use. I’ll put the current image here for reference. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. I feel like in thumbnail form the current image looks better and the enhancement looks unnaturally doctored. In full screen I like the enhancement better because you can see many more details, as you mentioned. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The enhancements just look a little too unnatural to me, but I agree that our current lead portrait has issues. I'd prefer we use this portrait for the lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Rreagan007, that portrait is much clearer and detailed. If no one objects here, I will make the change a week from now. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually think we should change Andrew Jackson's Wikipedia picture to a photograph of him, given that Wikipedia prioritizes photographs over paintings.--68.175.156.114 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have done that, so that’s good. TomVenam2021 (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have done that, so that’s good. TomVenam2021 (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia prioritises photo over painting, so I have changed the image of Andrew Jackson to this Andrew Jackson Daguerrotype-crop.jpg TomVenam2021 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your change has been repeatedly reverted, please stop edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just because you notified people doesn't mean you can change the image scot free. We need a consensus first. Blue Jay (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How should we do a consensus? I’m new to Wikipedia, I’m not sure. TomVenam2021 (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@TomVenam2021, ask the Wikipedia Teahouse. Blue Jay (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. All I’m saying is that Jackson’s predecessors, Adams and Van Buren, both have actual images, and Jackson should probably have that as well. TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke TomVenam2021 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I’ve never commented on wiki before so I apologize in advance if this is not the correct way to proceed to point out an error. The last sentence in the last paragraph in the introductory discussion states “His reputation has suffered since the 1970s, largely due to his pivotal role in the forcible removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands; however, surveys of historians and scholars have ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents.” The word “ranked” is linked to a survey of historians and scholars that actually ranked Jackson in the bottom 10. It’s states “The bottom 10 often include ... Andrew Jackson...”

I think either an appropriate link that supports the author’s theory should be included or the statement removed.

Thanks! Ginnyhere1 (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Martin van buren term started 1827 term ended 1839 he died in 1845 47.138.36.205 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

15, I'm not sure that you fully know how to use Google books properly. Some pages of books on Google books are not included in the preview; results from these pages will not come up even in a search. I've typed "common man" into a different version of the book on Google books and come up with a result. See here: [1] You will see that the claim is supported in the book. With regard to the issue of the "corrupt aristocracy," please read my post above and check the article history which led up to it. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Both editors here have posted nothing, so I have restored the previous version of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

President Andrew Jackson was born in Waxhaw North Carolina. His birthplace can be visited. 98.21.7.159 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue appears to be use of the word “massacre“ which appears twice in this article: the so-called Waxhaws massacre and the Fort Mims massacre. In neither case does the word represent a neutral point of view. To paraphrase the previous reversion “the massacre part is what made SOME PATRIOTS angry”. “Simply calling it a battle does not adequately convey the point INTENDED BY PATRIOT PROPAGANDA.” Calling it a battle states simply what took place, in other words a neutral point of view.

This word falls in the category of “if our side wins it is a great victory. If the other guys win it’s a massacre.“ The argument can probably be applied to other words and other languages. See the Wikipedia article Massacre. It is certainly valid to include a contemporary quotation, properly sourced, saying something such as “Andrew Jackson described the battle as a massacre in his autobiography“. Such a quotation should be followed by an independent statement of the opposite point of view.

Let’s not start an edit war. I think this issue must have come up at sometime in the past, perhaps several times. (The Battle of the Little Bighorn might be an ideal example.) So I am asking experienced editors whether some consensus has been reached on use of the word massacre and whether massacre is accepted as a neutral point of view. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:Common name. If something is frequently referred to as a "massacre," it is generally acceptable on Wikipedia to use that language. Qualifiers can be added in articles in the event that some question its accuracy. But Common name generally trumps NPOV when naming a particular event. For example, a hugely controversial tariff was enacted by the United States Congress in 1828. The tariff is commonly known as the Tariff of 1828. However, it was deeply unpopular throughout much of the South. Southerners called it the Tariff of Abominations. Both names are acceptable, but our article is called the Tariff of Abominations

. Even though the title is clearly not neutral, it is the more common name. That is why we use it.

If after my revert you still had objections but did not want to start an edit war and desired to use the talk page, you should have gone to the talk page and not have undone my revert. I ask you to restore the previous version of the sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Would you agree to having Waxhaws massacre in quotes? Or perhaps put in parentheses ‘also known as the Battle of Waxhaws’? How about sidestepping the question by saying that animosity towards the British increased in the aftermath of the Battle of Waxhaws? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Humphrey Tribble, thank you for restoring the material. With respect, I would not. There's no need to have Waxhaws massacre in quotes because it is a common and accurate name for what took place, just like if we were speaking of the battle we wouldn't be putting that in quotes. Putting in parenthesis that it is also known as the Battle of Waxhaws is unnecessary. If there are two names for the events of the same day, we don't have to go through the trouble of naming both, especially when, as I said before, it was the massacre, not the battle, that is relevant in the context of the sentence. Finally, your last suggestion will not work for reasons already stated: it was not the battle that caused animosity towards the British to increase but the massacre after it took place. Display name 99 (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal of 10/16/21, p. C-5, includes an article entitled, "A Tomb Not Fit for a President," by Prof. Mary Beard, which is adapted from her book titled, "Twelve Caesars: Images of Power from the Ancient World to the Modern." The topic of the article is a discarded sarcophagus discovered in 1837 by U.S. Navy Commodore Jesse D. Elliott while serving in the Mediterraean, and thought to have once contained the remains of a Roman emperor. Elliott brought the sarcophagus to the U.S. and initially proposed its use for the remains of the founder of the Smithsonian, James Smithson. When that failed, Elliott offered the sarcophagus to Jackson near the time of his death. Jackson apparently replied by letter to Elliott, dated March 27, 1845, as follows: "I cannot consent that my mortal body shall be laid in a repository prepared for an Emperor or King–my Republican feelings and principles forbid it–the simplicity of our system of government forbids it. Every monument erected to perpetuate the memory of our heroes and statesmen ought to bear evidence of the economy and simplicity of our Republican institutions and the plainness of our Republican citizens. I cannot permit my remains to be the first in these United States to be deposited in a sarcophagus made for an Emperor or King." The sarcophagus until 1980 was placed on the Mall in D. C. near the Smithsonian, and then placed in storage.

Query, whether this information, if properly sourced, is appropriate for addition to the legacy section or later life and death section. Hoppyh (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoppyh, although this is a long article and I don't see this as incredibly important, it does tell us something interesting about Jackson. If you can keep it to no more than about 1-2 sentences properly sourced, I would have no objection to you adding it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jackson was chiefly responsible for the Trail of Tears, which is classified by the encyclopedia as an act of genocide (the page is categorized under Category:Forced migrations of Native Americans in the United States, which itself is categorized under Category:Native American genocide). Since Jackson was responsible for an act of genocide, I believe he should be categorized as a genocide perpetrator. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I looked on the article for the Trail of Tears and I did not see it classified as a genocide. No major historians on Jackson have classified the Trail of Tears as a genocide or labelled Jackson a genocide perpetrator. Hence, such a categorization would not be appropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Multiple scholarly sources characterize the Trail of Tears as genocidal in nature, and, by extension, characterize Andrew Jackson as a genocide perpetrator. In his paper Towards a Theory of Displacement Atrocities: The Cherokee Trail of Tears, The Herero Genocide, and The Pontic Greek Genocide, University of Calgary professor Andrew R. Basso wrote that "The Cherokee Trail of Tears should be understood within the context of colonial genocide in the Americas," and detailed Jackson's history of committing atrocities against Native Americans during his military service and eventual role in displacing thousands of Native Americans on the Trail of Tears. In addition, George Washington University professor Dinah L. Shelton lists the Trail of Tears as a genocide in her Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity and highlights Jackson's central role in displacing Native Americans. CJ-Moki (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Some scholars on Native American history do, yes. But I am unaware of a single Jackson biographer who does. There is far from a consensus on the matter, and so Wikipedia should not take a side. As a couple of notes, Jackson's conflicts with Native Americans during his military service took place outside of the context of the Trail of Tears, and should have no bearing here. Also, classifying the Trail of Tears as a genocide would not necessarily make Jackson a genocide perpetrator. According to Robert V. Remini, author of a massive three-volume biography of Jackson, Jackson was unaware of the bad treatment that Native Americans suffered as they awaited relocation or were being moved. The moveement of the Cherokee did not even take place until Van Buren's administration, meaning that Jackson had no role in overseeing it. Display name 99 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If multiple scholars of Native American history have characterized the Trail of Tears as genocidal, that would at least warrant a mention on the Trail of Tears page, no? CJ-Moki (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The talk page of one article is generally not the place to discuss what should be included in a different article. I will say however that it's easy to cherry pick a few scholars with a certain view and give the impression that their belief is consensus among all scholars of that particular subject even if it is not. Please keep that in mind. Display name 99 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Needs to be brought up on war crimes against native Americans. 38.18.235.208 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Thomasve.grinnell.

Above undated message substituted from

Footnote 48: Remini (2000), p. 51, cites 1820 census; mentions later figures up to 150 without noting a source. But there's no “Remini (2000)” exist.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Jarodalien, I'm not sure how that was added, but I have removed it and changed the figure in the body of the essay to match what was in the other source. Thank you for noting this problem. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved this section to the talk page. Unnecessary for the article.

=== Regrets === for the nationals On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun."^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmguy777 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Origin of name "Red Sticks"

I believe the statement attributing the Red Sticks name to the color of their war paint (i.e. body paint) is incorrect.

Page 50 of your source, Wilentz, states: "Chief Red Eagle led approximately four thousand combative Creeks known as Red Sticks, for the decorative paint they applied to their bodies and war clubs."

Please read the full sentence. The sentence is only clear with respect to the name arising from red paint. It, somewhat ambiguously, mentions both bodies and war clubs. But why would they be called the red STICKS if it had nothing to do with sticks?

Both Serme and Waselkov say very clearly that the name arises from their club, which was red. See: Jean-Marc Serme "1812 in the Americas", page 38 Gregory A. Waselkov, "Fort Mims Battle and Massacre", Encyclopedia of Alabama, 2007

Unless you have further information, 99, please restore my edit which you reverted. You could add these two references as explicit sources regarding the name. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Humphrey Tribble, a ping would have been helpful. Yes, I read the full sentence, and it emphasizes both the paint being placed on the clubs and on the bodies. However, I searched several sources and they seem to agree with you by placing the emphasis on the war clubs, which are obviously the origin of the name. I searched three sources for definitions of the name and could not find one other one which mentioned the paint being used for anything but clubs. Therefore, I have altered the language here and added a source. Display name 99 (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming all the sources agree with me. Since you didn't agree with my editing, I had to justify and document the change I had made. Shouldn't anything but personal messages be put on an article's talk page?

I didn't know how to alert you, but I reckoned you would see the information quickly because the Andrew Jackson article is important to you. I have read of "pinging" but I'm not familiar with it. I found the template Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. when I searched for "ping". Please tell me how I can use it to be more helpful in future. Is it just to send you a message saying "Hey 99 take a look at what I just did?"

There are other areas where the article could be improved. For example, it doesn't explain why the Red Sticks attacked Fort Mims. It shouldn't go into details but a short statement could be included. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Humphrey Tribble, a ping can be done in the same way that I do with you. Have two braces ({{), the letter u, |, the user name, and then two more braces going the opposiet way. Click on the "Edit" button here and see how it's done. This way, a notification is sent to someone that they have been mentioned on an article's talk page. Discussions about the editing of a user that go beyond one article should go on the user page. Discussions about one user's editing at a particular article should go on the talk page, so it is fine to start talk page discussions with pings. It's not strictly necessary but just a good courtesy if you are addressing a particular user outside of their talk page. A message on the talk page is not necessary if you have already pinged the editor. Thank you for your interest.

I believe that the article is well-constructed, but please feel free to point out any areas where the article could be improved. On this particular issue, I'm not sure that I agree. Please see

WP:TOOBIG. As this policy says, articles are generally not supposed to be above 99 kB in size. If you check by clicking on "Page size" on the left-hand side of the article, you will see that this article is already 102 kB, meaning that it is already pushing what Wikipedia standards regard as the maximum length of articles. An exception can be made for very high-profile articles like this one, but I do not think that it would be good to push it any further. The Fort Mims massacre is obviously important in the Creek War, but seeing how Jackson was home in Tennessee at the time that it happened, it had nothing directly to do with him. The basic background information about conflict between white settlers and indigenous tribes has already been set. After that, all that the reader needs to know for understanding Jackson's role is that a major massacre happened and Jackson was called in to defeat those responsible. I believe that the article explains that well. If a reader wants more background, they should consult the articles on the Fort Mims massacre and the Creek War. With these matters in mind, I do not believe that a statement concerning why that particular massacre happened is either possible or strictly necessary. Thank you.Display name 99 (talk

) 03:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99 Thanks for the tip. I'm gaining experience. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Jackson’s paternal lineage is Anglo-Irish.

There is a current contradiction in the first paragraph of the main body, which states his parents were “Scots-Irish”, yet the final line of that section admits his paternal ancestors were from Yorkshire in England. That would make him Anglo-Irish on the paternal side, not Scots-Irish.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:688D:A9B1:7382:2601 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that it might confuse some readers. But how far back were the Yorkshire roots? Perhaps a date coukd be added. But there is no question that Jackson's parents were part of the "Scotch-Irish" wave of immigrants. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If his father was of English ancestry at no point would living in what is today Northern Ireland make him Scots-Irish, unless his ancestors heavily intermarried, which is again confusing with the statement that his paternal ancestors came from England being as it currently stands in the article. It implies his paternal lineage was solely English, or near enough. The Anglo-Irish are a social class and conflating them with the Native Irish is considered inappropriate, and they were a separate identity again from the Scots-Irish. Popular history has upheld Jackson as being Scots-Irish entirely, which was spawned from the "The Celts made America" myth. Histography doesn't lie, but popular memory does.--2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:5801:90E8:721A:62A6 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out this apparent contradiction. According to Remini 1977 p. 2, Jackson's father's family was originally Scottish, and his ancestors crossed from Scotland to Ireland after the defeat of the Scottish king at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Remini's work is obviously authoritative, but after a brief search, I was unable vouch for the reliability of the source cited at the end of the sentence claiming that Jackson's paternal ancestors were English. I have therefore replaced it and added correct content with reference to Remini. That, I hope, should resolve this problem. Display name 99 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a spelling error in the last paragraph of the section "Creek campaign and treaty" under the War of 1812. The page says "the remaining British wthdrew." instead of "the remaining British withdrew." TheEntireTSA (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that Theodore

I saw Theodore mentioned in this main Jackson article and then, of course, mentioned over at

List of children of the presidents of the United States

and I got curious so I went looking for him...and, I couldn't find him. He isn't mentioned as an adopted son or a family-member by the folks at The Hermitage, he isn't mentioned as an adopted son or family-member by the Library of Congress, he doesn't appears as any kind of an adoptee in any official or scholarly sources that I could find, except, supposedly in Brands' Jackson biography and, well, there are a whole lot of problems with that....
I do want to mention that although Jackson does not have an "Official Presidential Library" as modern US Presidents do, The Hermitage is operated as a 501c nonprofit and the Foundation has been in existence since 1889. Their scholarship seems impeccable. For what they had to say about family life at The Hermitage see their webpage on "Children".

The Jackson article's sentence stating "Jackson had three adopted sons: Theodore, an Indian about whom little is known" along with the reference citing Page 198 of Brands' book was added in 2012 by a now-moribund account. I went to Brands' actual Page 198 and this is what Brands quotes as being Jackson's letter:

• "I send on a little boy for Andrew. All his family is destroyed. He is about the age of Theodore."

but Brands then goes on to comment:

• The young boy named Theodore had come to live at the Hermitage earlier, under circumstances lost to history. ... In Jackson's case, he pitied the Creek child—named Lyncoya—but he also wanted to provide Rachel another child and Andrew (and Theodore) a brother.

Frustrating Bonus! in all of this: Brands doesn't provide any sourced footnotes for this letter that he is quoting so I had to go looking for a published source and my quibble with Brands is that what he quotes isn't exactly what Jackson wrote.
In this particular letter Jackson is referring to the well-known Lyncoya Jackson, Brands mentions Theodore in passing but he does not state that Theodore is himself adopted. The actual November 4th, 1813 letter from Jackson to his wife Rachel states - as published on Page 444 of The Papers of Andrew Jackson, V. II, 1804-1813. Ed. Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984. - the letter states:

• I send on a little Indian boy[4] for Andrew to Huntsville-with a request to Colo. Pope to take care of him untill he is sent on-all his family is destroyed-he is about the age of Theodore [5]

with the editors commenting in [4] and [5] that

• 4. Lyncoya (c1813-28), a Creek infant orphaned at the Battle of Tallushatchee, reached the Hermitage in May 1814. He remained in the Jackson household until his death.
• 5. Theodore (cl813-14) was probably another Indian child at the Hermitage. Jackson and Rachel mentioned his death in their letters of March 4 and 21, 1814 (DLC).
  

So the editors of the authoritative/published Papers of Andrew Jackson do not refer to Theodore as anything but a Native American living at The Hermitage. The WP-editor who added that "3rd adopted son" information was mistaken in their assumption. I intend to adjust that particular sentence and maybe add information & references etc about the Jacksons' living situation at The Hermitage, especially regarding the various Native American boys like Theodore and Charley who lived there for at least a time as companions for the Jackson-related boys (including Andrew Jackson Jr, Andrew Jackson Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Hutchings). I wanted to post here on the talk page about my impending edits to Theodore's "adopted son" status since this article is a Featured Article and for page watchers to know that this change is not some kind of an inconsidered vandal-edit but rather a correction to a long-standing error in the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and edited that section, correcting the information about Theodore and adding references etc. Also corrected the infobox. We can discuss the changes here. Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink, I brought this article to FA status and am sort of its self-appointed guardian/custodian. I'm kind of pressed for time now and can't really do in-depth research at the moment, but I know you to be an experienced editor and the changes which you have made definitely seem good. Thank you for your improvements. I will contact you if I have any questions or suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection requires fully registered editors

Please make sure you are fully and properly registered as required by the protection established for this FA. (Your User Name should not be a dead link.) Thank you. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean users who haven't created userpages? I don't believe there is any requirement to create a one, and it's not linked to registration. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)