Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 7

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.

When I asked for a citation for the claim that Jackson was ranked favorably, the citation added showed Jackson ranked #22 out of U.S. presidents. Why is it not worth including the single word "slave-owning" in the introduction section (because "18 presidents owned slaves" so it's not notable) but it is worth including a whole sentence describing Jackson's rankings as favorable (because somehow #22 is exceptionally notable)? And how are "president rankings" even a useful concept? This whole article reads extremely biased with a pro-Jackson slant. FinnV3 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, see Antiok 1pie's comment in the above section. Slaveholding is mentioned in the introduction section. See this sentence in the second paragraph: Jackson purchased a property later known as The Hermitage, and became a wealthy, slaveowning planter. We aren't trying to keep his status as a slaveholder out of the lead altogether. We simply object to it being mentioned in the first paragraph. I will point out that Antiok 1pie was mistaken in saying that 18 presidents owned slaves. 12 did. He probably became confused looking at the list of presidents on Wikipedia who owned slaves. The last one listed is Grant, who was the 18th president. But the point that he was making still stands. Jackson's slaveholding status deserves mention in the lead section, just simply not in the opening paragraph.

Regardless of how you feel about including rankings in the articles, they have become a standard part of the introductions to articles about U.S. presidents. They're in the lead section of almost every presidential article, and Jackson has usually been ranked among the upper tier of presidents. As Antiok 1pie says, it wasn't until very recently that his ratings took a plunge.

With that said, there are ways to make this part better and incorporate some of FinnV3's objections. To begin, I feel like it would probably be a good idea to have citations for that sentence in the lead. While content in the lead generally does not need citations,

MOS:LEADCITE says that material in the lead that is challenged or likely to be challenged should have citations, and this sentence obviously meets that criteria. Secondly, although it's true that most rankings of Jackson do have him ranked highly, perhaps it would be appropriate to acknowledge the recent drop. Therefore, the sentence could read something like: However, surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents. I would also restore the two citations to the end of the sentence. Does that satisfy everyone? Display name 99 (talk

) 02:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources would you cite for that new claim? I don't see it in the links you sent before. FinnV3 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources that I included have him ranked in the top half in previous surveys. There is another source here that I found. It reads: "Thirteen polls of historians and political scientists taken between 1948 and 2009 have ranked Jackson always in or near the top ten presidents, among the “great” or “near great." The two original sources basically say the same thing as each other. I propose replacing one of them with this source and re-adding the sentence as I have written it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to exclude recent surveys? What makes the favorable results more "usual"? That source is a high school study guide and I don't see anything about what those polls actually were. FinnV3 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No one wants to exclude recent surveys. See this summary of historical surveys which mostly rank Jackson in the top 10 best U.S. presidents. As late as 2015 Jackson was ranked as the 9th greatest U.S. president. Also, this "high school study guide" was written by historian Daniel Feller, a reputable source on Jacksonian matters. Antiok 1pie (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As Antiok 1pie says. It would be cumbersome to include citations for every single poll, but this article written by a reputable scholar summarizing those polls is suitable. The source establishes for decades that Jackson was almost always ranked in the upper tier of presidents. Only within the past 5 to 10 years has this changed. The drop is acknowledged by saying "usual," so your accusation that I am trying to "exclude recent surveys" is utterly preposterous when I am instead attempting to reach a compromise by doing just the opposite. Display name 99 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like a compromise to me. "Usually favorable" seems misleading when the most recent survey ranks him sixth-to-last in the "Pursued Equal Justice For All" category. It seems like something like "mixed" would be more appropriate. FinnV3 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just one category and it's just one survey. The clear majority of surveys that have been done rank him favorably. To say otherwise is just not true. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Relative to this discussion, and the one above, I think there's been a lot of cherrypicking here in terms of which scholars we're hearing from and which ones we're not. There's a lot of Remini, a lot of Prucha, and a lot of Feller, and their working is doing some heavy lifting here. By my count, Remini is cited over 125 times. That's too much reliance on one historian given the multitudes of studies about Jackson, even if Remini was a known Jackson biographer. I think it would make sense to include other scholarly perspectives, especially around Indian Removal, especially given how the related pages (Indian removal and Trail of Tears) make clear note of Jackson's role in Removal, his history with Native peoples, and his responsibility in the violence of removal, and how easy it would be to add a sentence or two for some balance beyond "many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Why? Can we have some specifics? Surely it is one of the things Jackson is most known for. As it stands, this page leans heavily on specific scholars and a couple suspect sources (see below on Bradley J. Birzer). By no means should this page outright chastise him, but it should represent the myriad scholarly perspectives on his role in removal, at the very least.

For example, underneath "Legacy--Historical Representation": We've got one sentence critical of his dealings with native peoples, followed by three sentences listing specific arguments for why Jackson was not racist and he was benevolent toward Native peoples: "Jackson's initiatives to deal with the conflicts between Native American people and European-American settlers has been a source of controversy. Howard Zinn called him 'the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history' and 'exterminator of Indians.' Conversely, in 1969, Francis Paul Prucha argued that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the extremely hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence. While Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. Bradley J. Birzer argues that Jackson was not a racist and that he thought of Indians as inherently equal to whites, even if he also believed that Indian civilization 'lagged behind'. He believed that the whites frequently mistreated the Indians and that the Indian removal served the interests of both the Indians and the white settlers who would otherwise come into conflict with each other." What makes Birzer's (a Tolkien scholar) book from Regnery Publishing particularly notable that it must be a third opinion? Surely there could be a bit more scholarly critique on this topic aside from Howard Zinn. It is out there, and it's even represented on the Trail of Tears page pretty clearly, so it wouldn't be hard to migrate some of those sources over to this article's body (see also scholars listed below, for example).

In terms of Jackson's role in removal and its label as ethnic cleansing or genocide, a number of historians have discussed Jackson's role in the Trail of Tears and it being genocide (Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Jeffrey Ostler, and Dina Gilio-Whitaker), and it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by Patrick Wolfe. Of course, other scholars have argued that it is an example of Ethnic Cleansing (Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America would probably be the most prominent example). Simply adding some information from one of these sources might be enough to illuminate the vague statement that "many historians consider [removal] the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Or, at the end of the section on removal, a statement that "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Then, of course, you could include that Prucha believed Jackson was acting benevolently. Essentially, these represent pretty clear and present conversations, and should be included.

Finally, regarding Feller's reputability on Jackson recently, I think a good number of reputable historians (note H-net's use of the word "genocide") would disagree. Does that mean Feller's wrong? Certainly not. But it does mean that there's a conversation around the way he's presented Jackson recently, which is exemplary of my entire point here: A few critical scholarly sources could be added in a few places for balance outside of Remini, Feller, Prucha, et al.. Further, given the bias around high school materials, is that really the best source to use?

TL;DR: I have to say this page requires a couple more, widely sourced scholarly opinions on Jackson's role in removal. And that Birzer source is really, really suspect.--Hobomok (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there could be more negative evaluations of Indian removal included in the "Historical reputation" section. If you want to add something to that section about some historians regarding it as a genocide or ethnic cleansing to make it more balanced, be my guest. Regarding the three favorable evaluations that are already there-Prucha, Remini, and Birzer-Prucha and Remini should both stay (Remini especially), as they are both noted Jackson scholars and their opinions lend some balance that would be absent if they were missing. I have no objection to Birzer being removed. Antiok 1pie was the editor who added him. I had never even heard of him before he was added to the article, so I have no strong opinions about him. I pinged Antiok 1pie to give him a chance to say something in Birzer's defense if they want, but based on your own evaluations, I agree that he can probably be removed.

I would not approve of this statement: "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Not all historians who reject the genocide label have called it ethnic cleansing. It would be enough simply to say that Jackson has received heavy criticism for his removal policies, with some historians labelling it a genocide, while others disagree and defend certain aspects of his decisions.

Regarding changes to the section on Indian removal itself, I would think that it would make more sense organizationally to confine detailed discussions of historians' views on the matter to the "Historical reputation" section. If you have information in a source that has not yet been utilized which you think might make the removal section better, I encourage you to add it. But I think that it would be difficult to follow the article if we broke up historians' evaluations by citing some opinions in the main narrative and others at the end in the Legacy section. I would encourage you to remove Birzer and replace him with a sentence or two summarizing one or more historians' negative characterizations of removal, and limiting any edits you may make to the removal section itself to shorter observations from historians not currently cited or small bits of information that you think might be helpful.

As far as what you have said about the over-reliance on some sources, the encouragement that I just gave you to add more perspectives is all that I can really do. I am the primary author of the article. I tried to incorporate information and perspectives from a variety of authors, but there simply isn't a reliable source for Jackson that matches Remini's three volume biography in the amount of information and intricate detail that it contains. Display name 99 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Feller isn't currently cited in the article at all. The statement that Jackson has generally been evaluated favorably in presidential rankings was challenged, and I found an article by him to support the statement. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, I question your decision to remove citations from the opening paragraph. It was my understanding that direct quotes in the lead needed to have citations. I don't think that this being a featured article would change that. Can you please explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I did not remove citations. That was Hoppyh, who also removed tags added by another user, stating that one needs consensus to add tags. I undid their original edit, because I’m 99% sure one does not need consensus to add tags—one only needs to have an active dispute on talk reflecting those tags, which is currently taking place. Hoppyh then undid this again, but has not engaged in any discussion here.—Hobomok (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to Birzer being removed either. However, I agree with Display name 99 that Remini & Prucha should stay. Also, Remini is cited 125 times in the article because he is the most prominent scholar on matters relating to Jackson. As noted by John William Ward, "No historian knows more about Andrew Jackson than Robert V. Remini". I, personally, see no issue with Remini being cited that many times. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I have issue with Remini cited that many times (again, he was a prominent Jackson biographer). My point (per my final two sentences) is that certain scholars are cited many, many times over, and other notable, reputable scholars of the Early American Republic, Jacksonian Age, and Indigenous history with differing thoughts are left out. There needs to be a more diverse range of scholarly thought represented here. It doesn't seem like anyone objects to that, though, so I'll see what I can do to add it and we can return here if there are issues.

On another note, previously I've tried to soften a paraphrase of Remini under that same section, which states: "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett," but it was reverted because Remini makes specific mention of the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. I do understand the quote from Remini says that these peoples are no more. However, the Mohicans and the Narragansett still exist. Their wiki pages say so, their websites say so, and personally I've worked and collaborated with people who are active members of both Nations. Wouldn't it be best to simply state "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated."? This paraphrase gets across the same idea, and it's not harmful or ahistorical. The clarifying note can stay below for inclusion's sake, but the paraphrase as it stands is unnecessary and harmful. --Hobomok (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

OK Hobomok. My apologies. Hoppyh, can you please explain the removal of the citations? Direct quotes in the lead are supposed to have them, and I am unaware of any policy saying that featured articles are exempt. Hobomok, regarding the Remini sentence that you find problematic, what if we simply replaced annihilated with "destroyed?" It gets to the same point but is a little less strong, and doesn't imply that these tribes were completely exterminated. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, Display name 99. Regarding the Remini paraphrase: I do think it best to remove the names of specific tribes. Such statements are false, and they contribute to ahistorical narratives around extermination and disappearance, especially for tribes in the Northeast like the Mohicans and Narragansett, who have been regular subjects of such extinction narratives (See: historian Jean O' Brien's book, Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England, historian Daniel H. Usner Jr.'s "Iroquois Livelihood and Jeffersonian Agrarianism: Reaching behind the Models and Metaphors" in Native Americans and the Early Republic, and historian Robert F. Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian, from Columbus to the Present).

Remini's argument, that Jackson believed the five tribes would be exterminated without removal and he was doing them a favor, is just as clear without mention of Nations and people that are not extinct.--Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Content removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, Cmguy777 made an edit to the sentence of the article about presidential rankings. I changed it again. It now reads: "Surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents, although his ratings have recently declined." Please let me know if you think that this is an improvement. If you think it is, would you remove the tag that you added for that sentence? Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. My preference is still to remove the rankings entirely from the introduction, but I won't make a stink about it. FinnV3 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It would help to let editors edit in this article freely. There is a lot of complaining and editor control. Editors are not working together. The rankings is a number system...1,2,3...4,5,6,7...8,9,10... I am not even allowed to say Jackson is in the top ten. Of course rankings are needed for each President. There seems to be a controlling editor. This is creating conflict. I am shying away from editing on this article. Latner is a great source. Even he is questioned. Enough said. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I came because I saw this at the NPOV notice board. IMO an enclyclopedia article should inform, including covering the facts whether they be good or bad. People come here for information, not for somebody's characterization of the facts, especially value-laden characterizations. I did a fast read and in my view it does an excellent NPOV job of doing that. If there is more factual wp:due material about Jackson with direct relevance to Jackson to be added it should be added, whether it be positive or negative. IMO value-laden characterization / opinion words are not informative and are best left out. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you not see it as a "value-laden characterization" to describe the white working class as the "common man"? What makes a characterization "value-laden"? FinnV3 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't see that word as a value-laden characterization. That doesn't mean that it is always a good word to use. If you have a specific use in question, I'd be happy to look at it. North8000 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It's actually miles away from "value laden"........it's not even POV'ish. Has a pretty straightforward definition; like "the undistinguished commoner lacking class or rank distinction or special attributes" (per Webster) North8000 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nettless recently made an edit under the justification that the "Battle of Horseshoe Bend isn't a massacre." Where are you getting this information? I was trying to address the biased characterization of the Fort Mims "massacre" and the "battle" of Horseshoe Bend. Historians have criticized this dichotomy and described Jackson's attack on Horseshoe Bend as a massacre (Anderson & Cayton 2005, p. 232). Re-added with a better citation. FinnV3 (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of the term massacre is not appropriate. Hoppyh (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hoppyh:, Secondary literature published in university presses and peer reviewed venues disagrees and argues that it should be seen as a massacre.

Beyond the Anderson and Cayton citation @FinnV3: provides, see:

1. Historian Roger L. Nichols Massacring Indians: From Horseshoe Bend to Wounded Knee, 2021, U of Oklahoma Press (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Massacring_Indians/bzYGEAAAQBAJ?hl=en) and,

2. Historian Jeff Ostler, “Genocide and American Indian History”, 2015, in American History (https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3) (specifically: “This event, usually termed a battle, had some characteristics of a massacre.”).

At the very least, this view should be reflected in the article. The language FinnV3 introduced (that some historians argue this event constitutes a massacre) makes sense to me, and adding citations from four respected historians across three high-level scholarly sources should be enough to keep this information in the article. —Hobomok (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, you’ve made my point—views aren’t facts.Hoppyh (talk)

@Hoppyh: Wikipedia goes by what the reliable secondary sources say. This is what those sources say. Contrary to what you believe, YOUR view doesn’t matter. The expert scholarship, as it is written, is what does. This is what experts say. This is what an encyclopedia represents.

YOU don’t believe the term is appropriate. These historians, writing in peer-reviewed university presses do believe it is appropriate. The former are the views of a random Wikipedia editor. The latter are secondary sources that Wikipedia relies on. The latter is what is represented. —Hobomok (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are incorrect on use of these opinion pieces here. You also should familiarize yourself with the WP policy on the improper use of all caps, as above. See

WP:SHOUT Hoppyh (talk

) 00:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: A legitimate question: Since when are two books from university presses and a peer-reviewed journal article categorized as opinion pieces?—Hobomok (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, how helpful, thank you for engaging in such good-faith discussion.—Hobomok (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde, I do not believe that it is necessary to state the exact number of slaves that Jackson had in the lead. He owned 300 slaves during his entire lifetime, not all at once, and this isn't clear from your sentence. Again, the lead is already too long, and this isn't important. Also, I request that you remove your statement that Jackson banned the distribution of anti-slavery tracts. It is factually incorrect. As the article states, he allowed local postmasters to choose not to send them, and later encouraged Congress to outlaw their circulation in the South. But he did not ban them himself. Display name 99 (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99 he was a slave owner who exploited over 300 innocent lives. This behaviour should be clearly described in the lede and is important to understanding what kind of man he was. Just writing slaveowner in passing doesn't give an adequate understanding. I have changed the statement to "Later in 1835 he supported restrictions on distribution of anti-slavery tracts."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 01:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you L'Origine du monde. I still don't think that it's necessary to give the number of slaves in the lead, but I'm willing to overlook it. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Display name 99!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the number of slaves, but that Jackson's wealth depended entirely on slaves outside of military service or public office. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning that he owned 300 slaves improves the lede. I think it would be further improved by changing "slaves" to "enslaved black persons", at least in the lede as first instance. Carlstak (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

How about this? Jackson owned hundreds of enslaved black persons throughout his lifetime and profited from the sale of his farm crops. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

No. "Enslaved black persons" is unnecessarily wordy. There's no reason to use three words when using one word "slaves" will do it. It's also totally superfluous to say that he profited from farm crops when we already refer to him as a "wealthy planter." Display name 99 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Display name 99. "Enslaved black persons" is just verbose, unnecessary, superfluous redundant verbosity. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I likewise agree that "Enslaved black persons" is too verbose. One word would do in this instance. The details of his slave owning are already in the body of the article. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow: "verbose, unnecessary, superfluous redundant verbosity". Surprised to see that from you, BrownHairedGirl. Most of my black friends prefer "enslaved black persons" to plain "slave", and consider plain "slave" a bit dehumanizing, like white people just take it for granted that "slave" means "black". Huh. Carlstak (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Also, I find it disturbing that abolition and abolitionists are mentioned a few times in the article, but "blacks" don't get a mention, except as "slaves". Even "Negro" occurs only as a wikilink to " Battle of Negro Fort" and in a quote of Jackson in reference to "the negro, or slavery question". Hmm, it's almost as if black people don't rate. Carlstak (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

PPS: A lot of white people seem not to believe that black people can internalize white attitudes. I know black people in Jamaica who still refer to older, respected white people as "Marster". I nearly fell on the floor the first time I heard it. Carlstak (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: I am simply preferring concise language. Pre-abolition slavery in the United States consisted overwhelmingly of the enslavement of black people, so the extra words add no extra meaning.

However, I do note your observation about the use of language which may be dehumanising, and which does not acknowledge the central fact that this form of slavery was based on racial selection. Personally, I think that those are persuasive arguments; but I also reckon that it is not an issue which should be decided in the context of any one article. It seems to me that this is a

manual style issue, which should be resolved at a central venue and applied to all relevant articles. If you do start such a discussion, I would welcome a notification. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 16:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk

) 15:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I've read it. My comments are in reference to improving the article, which you don't own. Black kids, or adults, for that matter, shouldn't have a version of history imposed on them, as in this article, that effectively vanishes them as actors in this history. When I write "Enslaved black persons", which I believe should be in the lede, I consider it a mere courtesy to the feelings of my black friends, and to their enslaved ancestors, aside from any political implications. Carlstak (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Your last comment just seemed like you talking about your own personal thoughts and experiences for no reason. The connection to the article wasn't clear. Are you sure that I'm the one trying to own the article? I'm making my arguments based on sources. You're making yours based on your personal experience and preferences. I haven't done a thorough check, but I'm sure that "slaves" is mentioned in many more sources than "enslaved black persons." That's what we go by, not the latest trendy SJW language. Display name 99 (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@

Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please do not use battleground terminology to describe other editors's proposals. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

) 17:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, man. This idea that "enslaved person" or "enslaved African" is just a liberal trend is based on the false premise that it's new, when in reality, Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote in Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1853: "It is with the oppressed, enslaved African race that I cast in my lot...". The article is deficient in its coverage of black people as a group whose lives Jackson affected, especially for a featured article. It could be improved by acknowledging that they existed as human beings, apart from their identity as slaves, starting in the lede. We have all these mentions of blacks as "slaves" in the article, but none representing them as actual people with agency. For instance, black people could be humanized as actual actors in the history by mentioning an African-American woman named Hannah, who was one of Jackson's slaves. Mark R. Cheathem has written a nuanced essay about her. He writes:

This anecdote is particularly intriguing in light of the suggestion by Hannah's descendants that she and Jackson had, at the very least, a sexual, if not a romantic, relationship that produced children. In her “novel based on fact, Unholiest Patrimony: Great Is the Truth and It Must Prevail by Dorothy Price-Haskins, one of Hannah’s descendants, argues that Jackson had a sexual relationship with her ancestor, resulting in the birth of their daughter, Charlotte. She claims that Charlotte documented this relationship in her journal, which, along with other evidence of Jackson’s paternity, has remained in family hands because of harassment and threats. Carlstak (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of "enslaved African" in a book in 1853 does not establish a preference in academic works for "enslaved black persons." Does this help any? Display name 99 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say it "establish[es]" a preference. I used that cite of Stowe to establish that it's not a new "trend". So what do you think about giving these "slaves" some human agency, as in a mention of Hannah? Carlstak (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit proposal 2: "Throughout his lifetime, Jackson owned hundreds of black slaves." It is a simple sentence. Nothing contoversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added the term

African American to the introduction and article. Trying to do minimal article change, but increase article neutrality. Cmguy777 (talk

) 19:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Cmguy, those are helpful. I find it instructive that even the *Hermitage* website uses the humanizing term "enslaved". (I had to laugh, though, that they call it the "Home of the People's President".) I haven't researched yet, but I think I can find other scholarly acknowledgements, more developed than simply using the word, of the humanity and agency of black people enslaved by Jackson and enslaved black people generally in Jacksonian times, and in his sphere of influence over their lives. They had personal identity beyond mere "slave", which, to its credit, the Hermitage website shows, unlike our article. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor above has derisively criticized a source based on nothing more than their own personal opinions. The same editor, when voting in the RfC, said they hate Jackson and "curse his name." But I'm the one with the partisan agenda? Really? Display name 99 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC) As for Hannah, Cheathem is a reliable historian. I would be fine with a single sentence cited to him saying that there is an unconfirmed story that Jackson fathered a child by one of his slaves. I want to add that Jackson had no biological children with his wife, Rachel, and it is thought that the smallpox he had as a child may have made him sterile. So this is very much an unconfirmed story, and I have not encountered mention of it in any other source. But like I said, Cheathem is a reputable scholar, so I would not object to a brief mention with him as the source. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be responding emotionally, Display name 99. What you say above implies that I have said you have a "partisan agenda". I've never said that, but you said to user FloridaArmy above "This confrontational language is unnecessary and reveals a barely-hidden partisan agenda." So what if I let my personal feelings be fully known on this talk page, per full disclosure—I haven't tried to impose a non-neutral point of view on the article. I'm glad you don't object to including info on Hannah, and will add a bit about her with sources at some point; right now I'm copyediting the article, which I'm sure you've noticed. Actually, I'm all for using the "Hermitage" website as as a source for the info on Hannah as well, if that's what you're talking about when you say an " editor above has derisively criticized a source". I think it's actually pretty good, but as a descendant of someone who suffered at Jackson's hands, I find a grim humor in calling the Hermitage the "Home of the People's President"; he's certainly not that to the Cherokee people. Carlstak (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am considering bringing this featured article for FAR. This article is tagged at the top and the lead is kind of a mess. If these issues are not fixed, then I think it is time to delist the article. Interstellarity (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstellarity, concerns were raised about the neutrality of the lead a few weeks ago and maintenance tags were added. The issues are being discussed one at a time. If you look above on this page, you will see that there is ongoing discussion and an open RfC. I encourage you to give the editors here a chance to come to an agreement before taking such a step. Display name 99 (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest editors make some sort of compromise before any delisting. There has been ample talk. Time to make the changes. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

At least the RfC should be closed and enacted since the scope of the changes proposed are small in scope. Springee (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, I agree. I proposed a compromise solution which would mention ethnic cleansing in the final paragraph but not the opening paragraph. That seemed like a fair middle ground, especially seeing as the results are split almost exactly evenly between "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing," and leaving the RfC open for additional time has thus far not led to a major tilt one way or the other. However, not all editors were on board with it. If you and Springee will get behind it, we may have broad enough consensus to close the RfC and enact it. I agree; the discussion has run its course, there is no consensus either way, so we should meet in the middle. Display name 99 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am for your compromise of using ethnic cleansing in the last paragraph. It should be mentioned the talk page time to wrap things up and discussions can continue after changes are made. But changes should be made to keep the article listed. The whole idea is remove Indians from farm land and use slaves to grow crops to make money. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't really like that solution but I can see the wisdom in implementing a compromise, consensus supported solution vs punting to NOCON and restoring the previous lead. When a true consensus can be found we should prefer it over a NOCON reversion. While I would endorse the compromise solution, I think letting the existing RfC run it's course as well as ping participants to see if they are comfortable with this compromise solution is required here. A consensus among four editors shouldn't have precedent over the voices of the other 18 RfC participants. Springee (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Rather than restoring a previous introduction, a compromise should be put in the introduction to avoid delisting. A continued discussion can be made in the talk. But the compromise should be basic. White supremacy was not the sole factor in Indian removal. It was getting the profits from farming on Indian land by slave labor that motivated Indian removal. That is all that should be said now. Here is a sample sentence: "Although ethnocentrism (ethnic cleansing) was a part of Jackson's Indian removal policy, the profits gained from farming by white settlers using slaves, caused a land rush into the South." Jackson himself profited from slavery and crops. That is a general idea. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee: I am definitely not comfortable with any "compromise" which removes from the lead either of the two terms. Both are widely used in the reliable sources, and since this is a key part of Jackson's legacy, both the major terms should be used. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the compromise that I proposed does not seek to remove either from the lead entirely. The results of the RfC are split almost evenly between votes for forced removal and votes for ethnic cleansing/both. The solution that I proposed here would use the term "forced removal" in the opening paragraph and "ethnic cleansing" in the final paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99: by final paragraph, do you mean "final paragraph of the article" or "final paragraph of the lead"? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, final paragraph of the lead. A brief discussion of the term would be added to the Legacy section at the end of the article as well, as mentioned in the above discussion. Display name 99 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC) I proposed changing this sentence in the final paragraph-His reputation, however, has suffered since the 1960s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of Indian removal.-to His reputation, however, has suffered since the 1960s, largely due to his policy of Indian removal, which has been described as ethnic cleansing by many historians,[citations] and anti-abolitionist views. This would be the only time in the lead where the term is mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, @Display name 99.

However, I am troubled by the substance of that proposal. It seems to me that in this proposal, the stronger and more modern term

WP:UNDUE

weight to developments in white scholarship whilst downplaying long-standing native American critiques.

It seems to me that this proposal is more of an attempt to compromise with objecting editors than to uphold

WP:WEIGHT

. That is understandable and collegial, and I am sure it was done in good faith, but I think that it is mistaken.

The bottom line for me here is that I cannot imagine a similar approach being taken to the lead of an article on a leader from outside of the Anglosphere who was responsible for crimes against humanity such as slavery and ethnic cleansing. In those cases, the term ethnic cleansing would get much higher billing.

So I think that this proposal would not resolve the {{POV lead}} and {{Systemic bias}} problems rightly identified in the banners added[1] on 31 July by @FinnV3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The use of "ethnic cleansing" is a recent term and not universally accepted (see the sources arguing that the events should be seen as ethnic cleansing). Longstanding native American critiques aren't bolstered or downplayed by changing the name for the same events. The tags added by FinnV3 are arguably POV pushing by a new editor. I would prefer reverting back to the long standing lead but I agree that a consensus compromise is better than declaring NOCON and following the revert to last stable version. Springee (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not for delisting the article despite the issues with the lead that I feel the "compromise" will not address. I agree with @BrownHairedGirl that the proposed "compromise" is a relegation of "ethnic cleansing" to a location in the article that is overlooked by the general reader. Whether that is by intent or not is irrelevant. By giving one term unequal prevalence it creates a false neutrality within the article and pushes the use of one term over another rather than follow the sources which almost equally discuss so the tags are accurate for this article regardless of how other editors feel about the actions of the one that added them. Despite what @Springee states, "ethnic cleansing" is a preferred term for modern historians and is gaining more traction as we get further from the event itself even being extended as far as being called genocide in many sources now. By claiming that ethnic cleansing is not universally accepted we can also make the deduction that simply using forced removal to describe the death marches for thousands of human beings is no longer adequate as depicted in the sources and those wanting to stick with its usage seemingly are those that are somewhat to very much pro-Jackson. Forced removal is no longer universally accepted. --ARoseWolf 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with User:ARoseWolf, User:BrownHairedGirl and others here. Placing "ethnic cleansing" at the end of the lead is not acceptable, and the RFC should either run its course, or else a better compromise is needed.

The question in the RFC is "Should Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policies be described as "ethnic cleansing" or "forced removal" in the lead?" and as User:Display name 99 has said, it seems that the split is roughly 50/50 on that. But actually almost as many people have argued both. That is the compromise position and the most likely route to an emerging consensus. Both terms need to appear together in the same paragraph. If we have half of editors thinking one, half thinking the other, and more than half agreeing that both would be acceptable then the consensus position is both.

It was not an option in the RFC but that, I expect, will have to be the outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem there is a number of editors don't agree with outcome. Both sides have made, reasoned, policy based arguments and the net result appears to be a NOCON result. That would mean restoring the long standing intro that doesn't use the term ethnic cleansing at all. This is why the compromise makes sense. An opening paragraph that says, "...criticized for alleged demagoguery and for his racial policies, particularly his authorization of the Indian Removal Act." The final paragraph can then discuss "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing". Springee (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't know they don't agree, because the RFC is still young and all you asked is should it be one or the other? The question we now need to test is whether both with equal weight is an acceptable compromise. [Edit conflict - adding] you added that both could be in the final paragraph. Which paragraph is also a matter for discussion, but the first principle is that they appear together with equal weight. That is the first compromise position. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Springee, this is the first mention of using "Indian Removal Act" in the opening paragraph and later describing it as "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing" in the same paragraph. While I believe this does not address the neutrality concerns of the article that is a true compromise as it would not give one term more prominence in the article's lead over the other. However, that is not the proposed compromise. The proposal is to keep "forced removal" in the first paragraph only describing it as ethnic cleansing in the last sentence of the last paragraph with the caveat that it is some modern historians interpretation of the events. There is a huge difference between what you are describing as the compromise and what actually is @Display name 99's proposal. --ARoseWolf 14:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In the proposal I just made we sidestep the issue of what label to apply by referring to the government law/act which legislated the removal. This is part of the first paragraph of the lead. That this was historically called forced removal and some modern scholars are arguing that it was ethnic cleansing can be part of the third paragraph. This appears to be a reasonable compromise if the objective is to impartially describe the terms used. Springee (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I've said we should let the RfC run it's course and I wasn't the one who set it up in the first place. As for equal weight, I think it would be important to note that describing the events as ethnic cleansing is a modern thing and a number of the modern sources are arguing that is how it should be viewed even as they call it a forced removal. A source that was highly critical of the actions from say 1980 wouldn't use the cleansing term. That doesn't mean they were using "forced removal" as some sort of euphemism. Springee (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not a single scholarly biography of Jackson, including the four that were published in the 21st century, uses the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe Indian removal. Several other major reliable sources from the 21st century also don't use it, a small sampling of which is provided in my response to the RfC. At least one recent and reliable source has argued that ethnic cleansing is not a suitable term to describe Jackson's actions. As such, it would be UNDUE to describe Jackson's removal policies as ethnic cleansing in the opening paragraph. It gives more weight to sources that deal specifically with Indian removal than it does sources that deal with the whole of Jackson's life and presidency, which in my mind should be preferred when writing the lead, particularly the opening paragraph. Using both terms in the opening paragraph is not a compromise. It fails to settle the issue that ethnic cleansing is somewhat of a vague term with multiple definitions, and the use of two terms to describe Indian removal gives that issue undue weight compared to other important subjects in Jackson's life and presidency. Indian removal is already the only policy of Jackson's administration that is specifically addressed in the opening paragraph. Adding the extra term to describe it simply makes the undue weight issue worse. While using the term "ethnic cleansing" makes Jackson's policies seem nastier and more distasteful, it fails to clearly convey any concrete information not already addressed in the first and third paragraphs of the lead. Even though the term is used by many reliable sources, I have not yet encountered a convincing argument from anyone in this discussion as to why it is a superior term to forced removal.

About half of the respondents to the RfC have preferred the use of "forced removal" over "ethnic cleansing." Sirfurboy, in assessing the results of the RfC, I have included the editors who voted "Both" with those who voted "Ethnic cleansing," especially because several have voted for "Ethnic cleansing or both." The total of number of both/ethnic cleansing votes is roughly equal to the number of votes for only "forced removal." Jr8825, who voted "ethnic cleansing" in the RfC, has said that the fact that reliable sources were eventually found arguing against the use of the term "ethnic cleansing" suggests that the term should not be used in the first paragraph. Using the term in the fourth paragraph is thus an adequate way of addressing both the issue of weight in the article and the results of the RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

including the four [biographies] that were published in the 21st century -- 2001, 2002, 2005 & 2008. The reason why these don't use ethnic cleansing is very likely because, as pointed out in the above discussion, the term ethnic cleansing was only beginning to be accepted at the end of that time period (I estimated 2007-2009 as the start of frequent usage in the 'possible solution' thread, based on my source review; by 2016 ethnic cleansing is used ubiquitously by professional historians). In the source review above, there are historians who specialise in American presidents/military history who now use the term, e.g.

common sense needs to be applied when determining how much weight we give to (less modern) biographies compared to a large body of more critical scholarship. Jr8825 • Talk

15:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The biographies that I am referring to were written by Brands, Wilentz, Meacham, and Brown. The dates are 2005 for the first two and then 2008 and 2022. Biographies can often be sympathetic towards their subjects. I wrote the Remini article that you're referring to, so I'm well aware of that. Many of Jackson's biographers, Remini included, criticize him when they find it justified. James Parton, the first man to write a biography of Jackson after his death, actually strongly disliked Jackson's policies and was highly critical of him. As a counter-argument, specialized studies that deal only with one issue are generally not ideal guides when determining how to weigh the different issues of Jackson's life when presenting them in the opening paragraph. It's obvious that studies of Indian removal will emphasize that issue most heavily in assessing Jackson, so when trying to decide how to succinctly summarize Jackson's achievements in the opening paragraph, we should look more towards sources that assess the whole of his life and deeds, and then rely on non-biographical sources when suitable later in the article. And again, there are many modern sources that aren't biographies which don't use the term. Most of the sources that have been cited that do are scholarly articles arguing that it was ethic cleansing, which shows that it is not a universally accepted term. Display name 99 (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I also note that this is forking the RFC discussion. Discussion of the sources should be in the RFC section, where it has been looked at extensively, but may be discussed further if there is more to say. This talk section is about a compromise to avoid delisting of the article. The RFC discussion is not a vote, of course, which is why we have to wait for a non involved closer to evaluate the arguments to determine consensus, and why you should keep the arguments in the RFC section. But in a situation where people are split between option A and option B, there is a lot to be said for a compromise that says we can do both A and B equally. If you want a compromise that the majority of editors can get on board with, it is perhaps within grasping distance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Somebody better start making changes to the lead. Please stop arguing amongst yourselves. The above editor mentioned delisting the article unless the neutrality tags can be removed. Latner (2002) p. 109 uses the terms "ethnocentrism" and "paternalism" in describing Indian removal. Basically, Jackson devalued Indian culture. It is not an insult to Jackson to put those words in his article. I don't understand the controversy. Just put these words in the last paragraph. I don't want Jackson to be delisted. There was a land rush for growing crops in the South. Pushing the Indians off their lands so white settlers could use slaves to make money off of farming. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, this is a serious question and not meant to insult you. Have you read any scholarly works about Jackson other than the incredibly brief 20-page summary of his presidency by Richard Latner? Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated

featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FinnV3 (talk

) 21:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

First I got two thanks for my last edit. Second I am only here to get Jackson out of neutrality trouble. I have used the Hermitage web sight. I have read Encyclopedia Britanica online about Jacksonian Democracy. I have watched an online Biography of Jackson on slavery with historical commentary. I have watched a video with historical commentary. I have the Latner 2002 source. I am only trying to add enough information that will remove the tags. I am not here for major edits or rewrites. That would require more sourcing. Historians have a more critical view of Jackson than before. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Andrew Jackson: From Common Man to President | Full Documentary | Biography Cmguy777 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Andrew Jackson - The Slave Master Cmguy777 (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization p. 276 Book "Similarly Andrew Jackson, another prominent American egalitarian, was a major practitioner of ethnic cleansing, with respect to Native Americans, who simply stood outside the horizons of his egalitarian perspective."Cmguy777 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, is not possible for me to care less how many thanks you got for your last edit. Wikipedia requires no credentials. Editors can edit generally wherever they want. However, responsible editors exercise prudence in where they make edits and how they contribute to discussions on the talk page. An editor who is not widely read on a subject would be wise not to make too many bold edits to an article about that subject. For someone whose only knowledge of Jackson comes from a 20-page summary by a historian and a few Internet articles and videos, I think that your edits to the article and your posts to the talk page have been a bit presumptuous. What is worse is that it appears to me that you have not made any effort to broaden your sources. Your edits to the article have only been cited to popular Internet articles and Latner. The changes that you have suggested on the talk page have only been sourced to Latner. Unless I am mistaken, you have never tried to broaden your horizon and cite someone other than this one historian who wrote a measly 20-page piece on Jackson's presidency. If you don't change that, your perspective will always be limited. I really encourage you to consult some other historians. Read a biography of Jackson written by a professional historian, or a good non-biographical source by a historian that deals closely with Jackson. You can leave a message on my talk page and I'll recommend some to you. I am sure that you will have an expanded perspective. Display name 99 (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since you have all the essential sources on Jackson, then please, by all means, use them to make the article neutral and get rid of the neutrality tags. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying. I've been exhausting myself on this for a month. I want it over too. Display name 99 (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your valued editing. The main mess to be worked on is this: "Jackson has been widely revered^{[by whom? – Discuss]} in the United States as an advocate for democracy^[vague] and the common man.^[vague] Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country." Democracy for Jackson was white male suffrage. That was the "common man" in Jackson's democracy. But Jackson had a conservative streak. He owned slaves. He was against the National Bank. He also stopped relief funding to people who suffered under the Panic. So in my opinion those things should be added. My sourcing for this edit was the Encylopedia Britanica online. In other words something critical should be said of Jacksonian Democracy to make the introduction neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We're focusing on one issue at a time. Once the ethnic cleansing part is finally figured out, then we will work on the other parts identified as problematic. Display name 99 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The section about the Creek war seems like it was written from a very white American perspective, and I think it would benefit from more recent sources. For example, compare presentation of the Fort Mims "massacre" and the "battle" of Horseshoe Bend. It's biased in favor of Jackson and against the Red Creeks. FinnV3 (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, can you please explain? Just saying "It's biased!" and not adding anything to clarify why you believe it to be so does not help anyone. It's not the duty of other editors to investigate your claims of bias. If you think that the text is biased, present the evidence yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, updated FinnV3 (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Though I'm not FinnV3, I do understand their view. Fort Mims is simply described as a massacre, whereas what happened at the Horseshoe Bend is called a "battle". I do acknowledge that some nuance is given to the topic where the article reads "Over 800 Red Sticks were killed. Most were combatants, however, some Creeks trying to flee and women and children were also killed. As such, some historians have described this attack as having characteristics of a massacre." but this reads as an afterthought and, to me, minimizes the number of civilians killed vs the "hundreds of civilians" killed at Fort Mims. The source referenced here reads "Though most of the Red Sticks killed were combatants, between two and three hundred were shot down while trying to escape by swimming across the Tallapoosa River. Official reports fail to identify them, observing only that “the river ran red with blood,” but undoubtedly many were women and children" Does that not give the civilians killed in the conflict more weight than what wiki's article reads?

And there is more to it than just this, for example the area that the Red Sticks were occupying is referred to in the article as a "fortress they had constructed at a bend in the Tallapoosa River". Compare the battlefields.org's article on Horseshoe Bend that states "The Red Sticks, under direction of Chief Menawa, had fortified their village, Tehopeka, located on the peninsula created by the bend." Simply calling it a fortress in a river bend vs a village that had been fortified changes the picture it paints in my opinion. "Fortress" reads to me as a military outpost, "Fortified village" is simply a village that has put up defenses against would be attackers.

I personally agree that the presentation of the Creek War is somewhat biased in this article. 23.115.71.230 (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)