Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Jackson's adopted son(s)

This article states the Jacksons adopted two sons. This is not correct. The Jacksons did indeed adopt the infant that became Andrew Jackson Jr, but the laws of the state of TN in the early 1800s didnot allow the Jacksons to adopt Lincoya, the Creek Indian child. EABaugh (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) EABAUGH Your text Stored revision Line 109: Line 109: This article states the Jacksons adopted two sons. This is not correct. The Jacksons did indeed adopt the infant that became Andrew Jackson Jr, but the laws of the state of TN in the early 1800s didnot allow the Jacksons to adopt Lincoya, the Creek Indian child. This article states the Jacksons adopted two sons. This is not correct. The Jacksons did indeed adopt the infant that became Andrew Jackson Jr, but the laws of the state of TN in the early 1800s didnot allow the Jacksons to adopt Lincoya, the Creek Indian child.

EABaugh (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) EABAUGH  EABaugh (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC) EABAUGH 

- - == Edit request 7-20-11: Jackson's boyhood and youth == - - Section "Parents and birth" - Change "Jackson's father was born in Carrickfergus...around 1738" to "Little is known with certainty about Jackson's father." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 2] - Change "The house that Jackson's parents lived in" to "A house in which Jackson's parents are said to have lived" - Change "Jackson's parents probably landed in Pennsylvania" to "Jackson's parents probably landed in Charleston"[footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 5] - Change "Jackson's father died in an accident in February 1767 at the age of 29, three weeks before" by omitting the words between "in an accident...three weeks" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, 9] - - Section "Revolutionary War" - Omit the first sentence. - Change "His eldest brother, Hugh" to "Jackson's eldest brother, Hugh" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 47] - After "June 20, 1779," insert the following sentence: "In 1780, Jackson and his mother fled to North Carolina to escape the advancing British army; in 1781, at age fourteen, he joined the local rebel forces." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 72-88] - Change "an outbreak of cholera" to "an outbreak of 'ship fever' (typhus)" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 109] - Change "in November, 1781" to "probably in June, 1781" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 110] - - Section: "Legal and political career" - Change "Later, he taught school...in North Carolina." to "He briefly taught school in South Carolina and studied law in Martinville and Salisbury, North Carolina, under Charles Bruce, Spruce Macay, and John Stokes." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 136, 141-144] - Change "...and moved to Jonesborough" to "and in 1788 moved to the Cumberland settlement, later Nashville" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 181-183] - - Add to the "Biography" section: - Booraem, Hendrik V, Young Hickory: The Making of Andrew Jackson (2001). Jackson's life to age 21. - HBooraem (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Hendrik Booraem V, Bucks County Community College, Newtown PA

Edit request 7-23-11: Jackson's boyhood and youth

Edit requested by Hendrik Booraem V, Bucks County Community College, Newtown PA:

Section "Parents and birth" - Change "Jackson's father was born in Carrickfergus...around 1738" to "Little is known with certainty about Jackson's father." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 2] - Change "The house that Jackson's parents lived in" to "A house in which Jackson's parents are said to have lived" - Change "Jackson's parents probably landed in Pennsylvania" to "Jackson's parents probably landed in Charleston"[footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 5] - Change "Jackson's father died in an accident in February 1767 at the age of 29, three weeks before" by omitting the words between "in an accident...three weeks" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, 9]

Section "Revolutionary War" - Omit the first sentence. - Change "His eldest brother, Hugh" to "Jackson's eldest brother, Hugh" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 47] - After "June 20, 1779," insert the following sentence: "In 1780, Jackson and his mother fled to North Carolina to escape the advancing British army; in 1781, at age fourteen, he joined the local rebel forces." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 72-88] - Change "an outbreak of cholera" to "an outbreak of 'ship fever' (typhus)" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 109] - Change "in November, 1781" to "probably in June, 1781" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, p. 110]

Section: "Legal and political career" - Change "Later, he taught school...in North Carolina." to "He briefly taught school in South Carolina and studied law in Martinville and Salisbury, North Carolina, under Charles Bruce, Spruce Macay, and John Stokes." [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 136, 141-144] - Change "...and moved to Jonesborough" to "and in 1788 moved to the Cumberland settlement, later Nashville" [footnote: Booraem, Young Hickory, pp. 181-183] - - Add to the "Biography" section: - Booraem, Hendrik V, Young Hickory: The Making of Andrew Jackson (2001). Jackson's life to age 21. - HBooraem (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Hendrik Booraem V, Bucks County Community College, Newtown PA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.59.229 (talk)

Edit request 10-24-2011: Photo of Joan Didion replacing picture of Andrew Jackson

Someone today replaced the picture of Andrew Jackson with a photo of Joan Didion. Please restore the old picture. Edarrell (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I made the switch. Nice catch.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I only caught it because I was in the middle of using the article in my classroom . . . some of us really do rely on Wikipedia, you know.Edarrell (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots-Irish - NOT Scotch-Irish

Please edit all references from Scotch-Irish to Scots-Irish. I'm a Scotsman living in the USA. Scotch is a drink, not a nationality. A4qual (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article Scotch-Irish American and review the talk page and the archives. If you want to debate this issue, you will have to do it there.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Veto message

According to the book "Public relations history from the 17th to the 20th century" from Scott M. Cutlip(p.90), the banking veto message of president Jackson was written by Amos Kendall, and not by George Bancroft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.106.183 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is correct. According to Lynn Marshall, ("Authorship of Jackson's Bank Veto Message", The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 50:466-477), the primary author was Amos Kendall, and Bancroft's name is not mentioned. Perhaps this mistake came about because of confusion with Bancroft's article, "Bank of the United States", that was published in the North American Review, 32:524–563 and later reprinted as a pamphlet. That article was critical of the Bank and seen as supportive of Jackson's position.

I'm going to delete the "(written by George Bancroft)" part and not mention Kendall because the fact of who writes a presidential speech or statement is usually not important—certainly not important enough for the main article about Jackson.

Also in the section about the Bank Veto, the article says one reason that Jackson gave for the veto was "Banks have a long history of instigating wars between nations, forcing them to borrow funding to pay for them."

There's nothing like that in Jackson's Bank veto message. There is one paragraph about war:

Should the stock of the bank principally pass into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and we should unfortunately become involved in a war with that country, what would be our condition? Of the course which would be pursued by a bank almost wholly owned by the subjects of a foreign power, and managed by those whose interests, if not affections, would run in the same direction there can be no doubt. All its operations within would be in aid of the hostile fleets and armies without. Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy.

That's completely different. I'm going to delete that sentence. That was added in Decemeber 2010, along with "It was controlled by a few select families." Jackson doesn't actually say "families", but I'll leave that in for now. The other reasons are basically correct, but I think someone could come up with a better summary.

Also, the linked article "Banking in the Jacksonian Era" is redundant. It should be merged into "Bank War".

—KHirsch (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

KHirsch has good ideas for revisions. Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a ghostwriter is not important enough to be on the president page, but a little research on Amos Kendall could tell you that he is far more than that. I don't think a page about Jackson whitout the mention of Amos Kendall is valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.31.68 (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Findings vs facts (speculation as to the causes of the Panic of 1837)

Hello,

I am a new editor. I read the article on how to appropriately contribute to a talk page, and I hope that this contribution is appropriate.

In the section on Jackson's opposition to the national bank, the following is stated:

"Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[34] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression."

The last sentence is a finding, not a fact. A more factual statement would be of the form "According to so and so, this was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837.", where "so and so" is some published analysis of the Panic of 1837.

BIGBOOMBA (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonesborough (or Jonesboro)

I believe that the writer intended to state that Jonesboro is in "eastern" Tennessee, not "western" Tennessee. It was, at one time, in western North Carolina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.18.41 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true and needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.74.164 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jonesboro is in Northeast Tennessee adjacent to Johnson City. I live less than 20 miles from the town. Papawdon822 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 January 2012

In the section "Legal and Political Career", please change the phrase "Jonesborough, now western Tennessee" to "Jonesborough, now northeastern Tennessee" because western is incorrect.

192.147.142.23 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

In the second sentence of the second paragraph the word 'men' should be replaced with the word 'voters.' There were many 'men' who would not have supported a rich slave owner, and the juxtaposition of the previous sentence which specifically mentions slaves makes the distinction relevant. I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.224.161 (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

"At the time, Rachel Robards was in an unhappy marriage with Captain Lewis Robards, a man subject to irrational fits of jealous rage." The word -irrational- seems to be more of a value judgement than a statement of fact. I am not sure that everyone would agree that a fit of jealous rage upon finding your wife living with someone else as "irrational". TLCrawford 66.192.76.210 (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Foreign relations

The Siamese-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce was negotiated in 1833 on behalf of Andrew Jackson by Edmund Roberts. Following agreement of the Senate, Dr. W. S. W. Ruschenberger's return mission exchanged ratifications at Bangkok, 14th April 1836. Other than this, I know naught about Jackson's foreign relations. Does anybody? --Pawyilee (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy let his State department handle minor treaties like that one--I doubt he even read it. However he did pay attention to Texas and Mexico (and stayed out of their war). Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor it may have been, but it contains most favored nation clauses; astute of State to work those in, as it was astute of Andy to stay out of the Tex-War, as well as the Laotian Rebellion.--Pawyilee (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Roberts credits the secretary of the Navy for his commission as ambassador-at-large, not State, though the Senate has to approve and to POTUS to sign off. It really is a remarkable treaty for the time. The two treaties negotiated had little or no affect on insular America, but the journals of him and his successor reveal that not everyone had a frontier mentality back then.--Pawyilee (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Further information: Edmund Roberts (diplomat)

--Pawyilee (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

thousands of tribes?

Is "thousands of Native American tribes" correct? It's in the lede, but it seems contradicted by the body. Perhaps "thousands of tribal Native Americans" (or more) is meant. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, by Fat&Happy; thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo

Can i change the photo of this article to the official portrait that hangs in the White House reasons 1.that 1845 photo of him is all ready in use on the page 2.it does not reflect a positive light of Andrew Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the first line of the "Indian Removal" section, I propose changing the word "hostile" to "some," as the tone as it currently stands sounds somewhat biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mupermashbros (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Wiki Gods

(genuflects)

O ye mighty and ancient powers, I come in supplication:

Can someone re-word the sentence that reads ". . . a strong supporter of a strong union. . ."?

Perhaps "he vigorously supported a strong union."

35.24.56.24 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)fed_up

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Genocide

I would like to argue for the inclusion of the word 'genocide' as it is technically defined by the 'articles of genocide' removal of a population from traditional lands and ethnic cleansing are genocide. I just wanted to put it out there before doing it.(talk) 03:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's been introduced before, but (see the talk page archives) has so far been based on WP:FRINGE sources or simply WP:OR. As usual, get consensus on the talk page before introducing controversial edits TEDickey (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Jackson as Freemason

To those who monitor this page frequently: Andrew Jackson was an outspoken Freemason, though I see no mention of it within the article. He was a member of Harmony Lodge No. 1 of Tennessee, and also a Grandmaster of that lodge, also a Member of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee. The article Anti-Masonic Party also makes mention of his role in masonry. This does not appear to have come up in the archive discussion, either. I have added the List of Freemasons with further references listed there. "Masonic Presidents, Andrew Jackson". Retrieved 28-JUL-2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a mention within the text. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Duel with Dickinson

From the Family and Personal Life" section:

"In the duel, Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot; since Dickinson was considered an expert shot, Jackson and his friend, Thomas Overton, determined it would be best to let Dickinson turn and fire first, hoping that his aim might be spoiled in his quickness. Jackson would wait and take careful aim at Dickinson. Dickinson did fire first, hitting Jackson in the chest"

I suggest rewriting this piece. For one thing, it can potentially confuse readers about where he was shot.

I'm going to edit the page so that "since Dickinson" starts a new sentence but I'm not totally sure about exactly how the rest should be edited.Hbomberman (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was not born in the Waxhaws.

Drew was born in Virginia and his folks were servants. Danske Dandridge validates this in the early 1900's. Read the story and publish this. If the little girls he lived with had gotten his mother to agree to keep him imagine how the world would have been for many. On earth as it is in Heaven. Read and understand what happened before they headed to the Waxhaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.4.96 (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversy with John Adair

Can someone who is familiar with the scholarship on Jackson tell me if any of it covers his controversy with John Adair in any significant detail? Adair was commander of the Kentucky militia at the Battle of New Orleans. After the battle, Jackson implicated in his official report that some of the Kentuckians had acted in a cowardly manner. Adair and Jackson spent two years writing newspaper editorials, alternately defending and blaming the Kentuckians. This was a huge deal for Adair, since it made him popular in Kentucky and got him elected governor. Probably not so much for Jackson, I suspect. Regardless, an editor has concerns that my retelling of the events in the Adair article slants pro-Adair (and well it may). It is based on a single article from the Filson Club History Quarterly, which is published in Kentucky, so the original source might actually slant pro-Adair. Looking for something to either corroborate or contest the version of events in the Filson Club article. As this concern was raised at FAC, a timely response is appreciated, either here or on my talk page. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Born in 1755?

Some of Jackson contemporaries claimed he was "born in 1755 aboard a ship bound for America from Ireland." If that is true, Jackson would not be eligible for the president's office. Moreover, Jackson, not Ronald Reagan would be America's oldest president!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012‎ Maher27777 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 November

Yeah, I just saw a reference to that somewhere else, and came here to check into it. Eckert's book "The Frontiersmen" (ISBN 0945084919) is apparently a work of historical fiction, but I've seen it described as "meticulously documented" by someone on the internet (so it must be true j/k). It might be worth checking into and possibly adding a mention in the article, but it doesn't sound like a generally accepted theory. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Jackson's place of birth is supposed to affect his eligibility for citizenship; he was a United States citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and therefore eligible. Binabik80 (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Memorials addition: two U.S.S. Constitution figureheads

The Andrew Jackson figurehead as depicted by Harpers Weekly in 1875

I am thinking that this section of the article should include mentioning that the U.S.S. Constitution featured figureheads of Andrew Jackson on the ship from 1832 to 1876 (when the Jackson figurehead was transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy).Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

wrong date?

I was looking at the section over the National bank and I thought this might have gotten a date wrong. I thought that Biddle started the bank war in the election of 1834 not 1824. I could be wrong but thats what I notice reading this. Very helpful and insightful though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.164.78 (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you are correct in that the bank war began in 1832. I could also provide a reference from my US History textbook if that's necessary. Greengreengreenred (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't quite see where you found the mistake you mentioned. Could you provide some clarity? Greengreengreenred (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee termed only as "forced relocation"?

Andrew Jackson initated ethnic cleansing of the Cherokee. History books now acknowledge this, so why is "forced relocation" being used instead? Yes they were forcefully moved but why? The Cherokee were forcefully moved based on their ethnic background. If you disagree, please provide reasons for why ethnic cleansing is not the correct term to describe it.--R-41 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought up multiple times, and it seems that "ethnic cleansing" is a minority viewpoint, not consensus. You may get some insight by comparing the existing topics for Forced relocation and Ethnic cleansing which (like all Wikipedia topics are not authoritative) demonstrate how editor's consensus is relevant to this topic. TEDickey (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

the Cherokees had a choice--they could remain if they acknowledged the sovereign power of the state (of Georgia), and many did so. Those who wanted to be independent of Georgia laws were not allowed to stay--they were the ones moved (to Oklahoma). It was politics not ethnicity. Rjensen (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a land grab by European Americans, as squatters and GA were taking their land while the Cherokee were still supposedly protected by US treaties and boundaries. The US brokered the citizenship in exchange for individuals giving up tribal membership and supposedly keeping some landholdings; they had to become US and state citizens. It was never just a question of whether they would acknowledge GA law; GA never wanted them.Parkwells (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That last comment calls for a WP:RS, in view of your previous contributions. TEDickey (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

He was not engaged in "ethnic cleansing" because, apart from having adopted a native american child, he was not conducting campaigns to rid the country of "ethnically native" people but defending and securing white settlers from hostile native enemies such as the Creek Indians. (He had formed alliances with friendly indians during these campaigns.) The facts aren't consistent with the assertion that his goal was to "ethnically cleanse" American territories - plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikemafford (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Federal Debt

In my curiosity regarding the national debt, I doubled-checked my memory that Jackson had paid off the entire debt against wikipedia -- and was happily confirmed. However, the immediately following sentence, regarding the "tenfold" increase in the debt confused me -- clearly it intended to indicate an increased debt level, but tenfold of $0 is still $0. Following the citations confused me further, they did not claim anything of the sort. So, I launched my own investigation, and thought I would update the page with my findings. Unable to do so because of page protections, the best I can do is put my findings here in hope that someone more worthy than I updates the public page.

The section was first created by AlphaEta on 03:24, 25 November 2007, and referenced Treasury Direct and Thayer Watkins. AlphaEta used the Treasury Direct figure for January 1, 1835 of $33,733.05 (a correct usage of the citation provided, IMO). He also introduced the term "ten-fold" that interested me. The citation from Thayer Watkins doesn't claim that, but it does talk a small bit about the Depression 1837. I think AlphaEta was using the Treasury Direct figure for 1838 (3.3 million) vs 1837 (330 thousand) to make his ten-fold claim. However, he could also be referencing tenfold increase from 1836 (33 thousand) to 1837 (330 thousand) -- but that increase was prior to the first year of the depression, not within it.

The next edit of note came from Peteforsyth on 17:23, 15 April 2011, changing the January 1 debt figure into a stronger statement of paying the whole thing off; citing NPR. I agree with this edit, and found two more sources that confirmed it's validity: Bureau of the Public Debt and an article in the Nashua Telegraph newspaper.

I have been unable to find a reference as to the first date the debt was no longer zero, but the Deposit and Distribution Act of 1836 seems to have paid out $30 million during 1836 (According to Answers -- I did not follow their citations for accuracy), implying to me that the $37k debt listed on the Treasury Direct site is a temporary accounting artifact, not a true debt in excess of the nation's ability to repay (especially if you give all your surpluses to the States, the Federal government is bound to incur a debt that have no savings for). Given the sharp rise by Jan 1, 1837; I imagine the Federal government was starting to feel the depression that really took hold during 1837, leading the to multi-million dollar debt by Jan 1, 1838. This, though, is my impression gathered from intuitions and basic internet research; I have no credentials in American history.

My request, long winded as it may be, is to immediately change the text to be clearer and reflect what the citations actually say. I would drop the reference to Thayer Watkins here, and add the official US Goverment link in addition to the NPR blog. I also would like some smart history buff to fill in the real details as to when the debt was no longer "zero" -- whatever that means in federal government terms. Here's how I would put the section, if I have sufficient "wiki cred":

---

New Text

In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused the national debt to increase to over $3.3 million by January 1, 1838 and it has not be paid in full since.

Old Text

In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused a tenfold increase in national debt within its first year.

Divido (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias and propaganda

Why choose the worst possible picture of Jackson you can possibly find (well past the time he was in office)? This and the remark about how he is perceived by historians seems too biased. Let the facts speak for themselves and quit with the propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.183.198 (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about propaganda or intent, but it is a pretty bad picture for the infobox. I'll see about finding a different one. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaced. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

we are using this photograph, because it is the best choice among the extant photographs of the man. if the above user(s) had taken the time to check wikimedia commons, they would see that this is most certainly not "the worst possible picture of jackson".

for a biographical-history article about person, a photograph takes precedence over a painting as lead image; it's more accurate & more npov.

the article is about the person, not the artwork it doesn't matter if the painting is prettier; this is the real man, the way he really looked (& btw, it was taken only ~8 years after he left office). the fact that jackson looks rather different than he did in the "heroic" portraits is exactly the reason for using an actual photograph of him.

if we start using pretty, "official" portrait-paintings/artworks instead of available, more-accurate photographs here "out of respect" (or for whatever reason), for people that we "like", then where do we stop doing it? what about a political leader who is less popular? there are very many nicely-painted portraits of hitler, stalin, the leaders of north korea, etc.; should we make sure that everyone with a wiki-bio has a "nice" picture, in preference to a more-accurate, but less attractive photo, which shows their real appearance?

history isn't always pretty or convenient.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy and/or consensus that dictates that a photograph should always take precedence over a painting? Not trying to be argumentative; I really don't know, and if such a thing exists, I would like to know about it for future reference, since I do a lot of biographies for people from this era.

Also, I might suggest a couple of things about your comment. First, your unconditional declaration that "we are using this photograph" doesn't seem to have been made in the spirit of finding consensus. Right now, there are two editors in this discussion who think we should try to find another image (perhaps even one that isn't yet on Commons); if you want to suggest that we keep this one, I think your statement should be more along the lines of "I think we should keep this picture because...".

re: "two editors": with all due respect, the "other" editor you are referring to was an anonymous ip whose entire contribution list [1] (all 12 of them) is a series of reverted nnpov edits, in-article comments, & talkpage comments, all dealing with american history & all showing the same biases. i respectfully submit that, unless they become a valid contributing editor, this person's opinion can reasonably be discounted or at least qualified as having the same problems of bias as their other contributions.

Well, I didn't check out the IP's editing history, but I don't think that's necessary for me to refer to them as an "editor". You notice I acknowledged the non-neutral tone of the original comment as well. The fact still stands that, if some folks are wondering about the image and our reasons for including it, having a consensus to point to would be nice. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

i would also submit that there are a large number of other editors who have worked on this article, over the extended time that a photo has been used as lede image, without feeling the need to replace it with a "prettier" painting; & only an intermittent minority who feel the need to change it for a painting. of these few, over all the time that i've been watching the article, my impression is that the preponderance of them have been casual-occasional editors who tend to exhibit (gernally) the same type of nnpov-bias problems as the original commentor here, at least in their editing of american history articles.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

With due respect to the idea that "silence equals consent", I think an RFC that establishes consensus would be better, since it could garner input from a wider variety of editors. In fact, the only reason I saw this discussion was because I still had this talk page watchlisted in hopes of getting a response to my question about Jackson and John Adair above. Otherwise, I wouldn't even be here discussing this myself. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Second, your assumption that I changed the photo "out of respect" or because I "like" Jackson is an unfair assumption; I caution you against making such assumptions. To be fair, the OP claims that this photo was chosen by someone who dislikes Jackson specifically because it was a bad photo, but I don't think that was necessarily the case, either. The fact is, the photograph does seem like a bad one to me, regardless of who it depicts. I doubt many textbook authors would choose this particular photograph to depict Jackson, and I don't think that has anything to do with the hypothetical author's biases.

as stated above, it was the first commentor who has exhibited a problematic nnpov bias in favour of jackson; i was assuming that you had made the edit for aesthetic reasons, without giving due consideration to historical accuracy.

as regards the selection of this particular photo; as i stated above, the available stock of photographs of a. jackson is quite LIMITED. i selected the one i considered best as a clear portrait-likeness. IF you can find a better PHOTOGRAPH of jackson, by all means, use it!

(as a side-note, we are fortunate to have photographs available for every US president from jqa onwards. if you review all the biography articles of US presidents on here, you will find that photographs are used as lead image whenever possible. "official portraits" (and/or famous artworks) are included in the article, but NOT used as lede, when we have a photo.)

& again, with respect, i remind you that the first priority in our job here is historical accuracy, not making it look "nicer". this is what jackson REALLY looked like, (& it was taken only) ~7-8 years after his leaving office as president. he had big ears, he had wrinkles, & a "rugged" complexion, he was OLD & careworn. the artist who painted the image you replaced it with has very carefully "elided" jackson's less-attractive qualities (even allowing that jackson was younger when painted). that is what portrait-artists are paid to do, particularly for public figures; & that is why such painted portraits are more nnpov than photographs (barring the use of photo-editing, or extensive staging-preparation). i admit i'm strongly in the "pro-photograph" camp for history & bio articles, & my contributions reflect this, but i'm certainly not alone in this view.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Framing the debate in terms of a POV issue is an interesting and defensible position. Not sure I entirely agree with it, but I do understand it. If we had a clear consensus on it, I would certainly abide by it. Understand that I'm not arguing against using the photograph anywhere in the article. I think it belongs, and for the reasons you mention. The reason I think it might not be the best choice for the infobox is because it represents a time in his life that is well past what most people associate him with. You frame it as "~7-8 years after he was president", which may not sound all that bad, but I would characterize it as "almost a decade after he was president", which kinda sounds worse, or worse yet, "less than two months before his death from a myriad of illnesses", both of which are just as accurate. Most people are coming to this article to learn about Andrew Jackson the soldier, Andrew Jackson the politician, or most likely, Andrew Jackson the president. They are instead greeted by Andrew Jackson the infirm, retired guy. So, this is historically accurate inasmuch as it showed what Jackson looked like at some point in his life, but probably not at the point that the vast majority of readers are coming to learn about. I understand that there are unlikely to be photographs from earlier years, but that's an accident of chronology (they were before the widespread use of cameras and similar technologies). To me, that doesn't mean the photograph is automatically the best representatation of Jackson the soldier or Jackson the president. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good candidate for an RFC, but I'd like to wait for your response regarding a policy on photographs vs. portraits before I start one. Acdixon ^{(talk ·contribs)} 02:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

responding to 2 of your comments "inline" because it's easier, since they follow 2 different tangents.

if you want to start an rfc over a wiki-policy on the use of photographs vs non-photographic "artwork" as the preferred lead image on history-biography articles, by all means please do so! it's an important point, & as i said (as per nnpov) what we do for jackson (or lincoln, or kennedy, etc.), we do for hitler; once you open the genie-bottle, you don't get to make "special exceptions". there are plenty of "nice" artistic portraits of most of history's recent tyrants & dictators. there are plenty of "nice" artistic portraits of most major political & military leaders, good, evil, controversial, & indifferent. if the community decides that our chief concern is making all the history articles look pretty, with "nice" lead images, then it makes the job considerably easier. i'm sorry if my comment seems harsh, but good history is NOT about "what looks prettier".

Lx 121 (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment doesn't seem overly harsh, but you seem to assume that I would be less likely to express the same concerns if the subject were a less sympathetic figure, which I think is a bad assumption. As you can see from my reasoning above, my concern is not solely about using "nice" images so the article "looks pretty". What I had in mind was an RFC about the instant case, not one about policy in general. I think the individual cases could be too nuanced for a broad-based policy to be useful, but I thought I'd ask if there was one, just to be sure. I actually had someone remove a photo I took of a living person from their article, arguing it was so bad the article was better off with no image. I don't think that was the case with my image (and incidentally, neither did most of the community) but I can imagine cases where it might be (a person's face being mostly obscured, or unusually contorted, or something of that ilk.) No, I think a more targeted RFC is preferable. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've always preferred photos over painting, IMO I think it's better to show what the person really looked like. I also agree with the comments on the portraits above but I guess I don't feel too strongly about this one. The photo should absolutely be included in the article though nonetheless. – Connormah (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

follow-up: as regards the "attractiveness" and/or suitability of this particular portrait photo: if you take a look in jackson's category @ wmc you will find that this exact photo-portrait (i.e.: the one i selected as lede) was in fact used in several 19th century derivative works depicting jackson; none of the included examples of which could reasonably be considered "negative" in tone. Lx 121 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

And again, I don't think you selected it because it was negative, nor do I really think it's "negative" in the abstract, but I don't think it represents the Andrew Jackson that most of our readers are expecting to find here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

please change the word seventh to sixth as Andrew Jackson the sixth president, not the seventh (which of course was Martin van Buren).Source is Wikipedia list of Presidents as well as common knowledge. 198.140.189.229 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done It is a well documented fact that Jackson is the seventh US President. Wikipedia's list of US Presidents lists him as such, verified by reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Federal Debt

In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished.[29][30] However, this accomplishment was short lived. A severe depression from 1837 to 1844 caused the national debt to increase to over $3.3 million by January 1, 1838[31] and it has not be paid in full since.

MAY I SUGGEST, that the last phrase be re-worded to "... has not been..."  

Paulsiverling 16:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsiverling (talk • contribs)

 Done. Greengreengreenred 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Mixed-race "rumors"

I am not a fan of Andrew Jackson. However, I find it a bit outrageous that a completely implausible contemporary slur against him is featured in the discussion of his early life, as if it might be fact. The slur, which I am going to delete, is presented as a "rumor" (obviously spread by his contemporary opponents) that his mother was a prostitute and his father was a black man. Jackson's physical appearance alone makes this highly unlikely, and the combination of the worst slur possible against his mother (that she was a prostitute who engaged in interracial sex, one of the biggest taboos of his time) with a claim that Jackson himself was mixed race (and therefore not eligible to vote let alone hold office according to the law of his time) make the "rumor" no more than an obvious and almost certainly false slur by his opponents. It doesn't matter that there are sources for this slur. It does not belong in a discussion about his early life because it is almost certainly false. It does not belong in the article at all unless sources (other than contemporary partisan sources) demonstrate that the slur had an important impact on Jackson's life or career. Therefore, I am deleting it from its present position. I leave it to others to decide whether the sources justify its insertion elsewhere in the article. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed...I'm glad you removed it. Rjensen (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added it. I'm not proposing it be re-added but I just noticed its deletion. The impact would have been on his election, as likely costing him some votes albeit not enough to defeat him. The due weight was from how controversial being African American was for being President, even as late as the 2008 election. The falsity would have been less obvious in Jackson's time to voters on the fence, as less was known about genetics and medical testing was, I think, nonexistent or nearly so, making familial knowledge (by itself and if seemingly true) more credible than it is today. Calling it rumor means it was not presented in Wikipedia as fact, although additional clarification could have helped. However, the general topic is presented elsewhere in Wikipedia, I added the deleted information there, and I cross-referenced that article in the See Also section in this one. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

the problems is that the kids who use Wikipedia believe and copy what they read. The topic is of relevance not to Jackson but to the perpetrators of the rumor. Specifically there is no evidence (in any Jackson biography) that the rumor existed during Jackson's lifetime. -- Jackson wrote a letter to Call on August 16, 1828 that listed the nasty lies about him but mixes blood was not one of them. What we have is a 20th century hoax and does not belong with AJ's biography. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

(This topic/section has mostly come to be about the African-American heritage of United States presidents article and so was copied to and is continued at the Talk page there, for discussion there, not here, except with respect to linking from this article (Andrew Jackson) to that one. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Request

I do not know where to request this, but I was wondering if somebody could please add a section talking about his views on slavery? I am trying to write a report. Thank you!)65.24.229.166 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"His enthusiastic followers created the modern Democratic Party."

That is hilarious.

That makes no sense.

The modern Democratic Party has nothing in comparison with Andrew Jackson. Is this serious? I can't even conclude how you would possibly link the two. Go up and ask a Democrat if they would support the idea of forced Indian removal/relocation and or the ending of the Federal Reserve Bank.

I am confused on what the word "modern" means in this context. It has no definitive definition. This could be construed as subtle propaganda to link Andrew Jackson with the modern Democratic Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

short lived?

In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished.[26][27] However, this accomplishment was short lived.

I do not support the interjection of "However, this accomplishment was short live." That does not make sense. That sentence takes away from his great accomplishment. It infers that he did something wrong or something happened and he did not act. It has a negative connotation. What is the point of that sentence?

There should be an entire section devoted to his accomplishment of paying off the national debt.

Subtle propaganda

The diction does not make sense and should be changed or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 August 2013

A minor point, but given Andrew Jackson's historical importance to both the American and Scots-Irish communities, it's worth mentioning.

The section, Early Life, contains the statement to the effect that Jackson's parents' "former house is preserved as the Andrew Jackson Centre and is open to the public." In fact, the Andrew Jackson Centre at Boneybefore, Carrickfergus, Co. Antrim, although built in a similar Irish cottage style, is adjacent to the site of the Jackson homestead, which was demolished to make way for the Carrickfergus & Larne Railway, which opened in 1862. The site of the former dwelling is now marked with a blue plaque.

Details of the Andrew Jackson Centre are at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Jackson&action=submit#http://www.discovernorthernireland.com/Andrew-Jackson-Cottage-and-US-Rangers-Centre-Carrickfergus-P2801 This suggests that the demolition occurred in 1860, but there is no reliable confirmation of this, as the Northern Ireland Railways webpage confirms that the track was opened to transport in 1862. http://www.inyourpocket.com/northern-ireland/belfast/NI-by-Railway:-BELFAST-LARNE-HARBOUR_70143f

Laird Ryan (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Your discovernorthernireland.com source clearly backs up your request. I removed the text which was in error. Regards, Celestra (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rothschilds Murder Attempt on Jackson

The Article does not address the link between the assassin Richard Lawrence and the Rothschilds. May I edit the main article section about the assassination attempt on Andrew Jackson?SamLowenstein (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if that information is relevant and the source(s) is/are reliable, why not?Jeff5102 (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewording.

Should the phrase, "but criticize him on his support for slavery and for his role in Indian removal" be amended to "but criticize him on his support for slavery and on his role in Indian removal"? --219.95.10.185 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this up. I just rephrased it (in a different but simpler way) to try to fix the awkward wording. —BarrelProof (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: fix link for citation 41

The link for citation number 41 has been moved, and returns a 404 page. I believe that the source has been moved here: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3544 . If this is indeed what is referenced (which it seems to be, given its discussion of the spoils system and the presence of the 20% figure given in the article), the link should be changed. Thanks. Viruli (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Dates

The dates Jackson was senator for are off by 100 years. I believe they should be 1723 instead of 1823. Thanks.

N No; the United States, as a nation, didn't exist in 1723. SBaker43 (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation Link

Citation #57 has had the link moved. The new location is http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.29.172 (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2014

Please change the word whig to a a hyperlink to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States) I had no idea what a Whig is and had to google it. 176.251.62.66 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jackson on U.S. postage

Text implies that Benjamin Franklin was a US president, which he was not. Suggest removing reference to Franklin or else noting that these are the most-often-honored US "citizens" (not sure source cited supports this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.181.174 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Something needs to be added to Andrew Jackson and his legal career.

Young lawyer Andrew Jackson lived on or near the Guilford Courthouse battlefield in 1787-1788 and practiced law in the Guilford Court House. This is now the City of Greensboro, NC.

Source: US National Park Service

Lee Caviness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.237.237 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Presidency section

I believe the Presidency section needs work including better chronology and more focus on issues such as Indian Removal, Vetoed Internal Improvements Bill, Bank of the United States, Removal of Deposits, Slavery, and Foreign Affairs. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen and Bcorr for your edits to the article ! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA?

I see there has been a fair amount of discussion/interest on this article on the talk page recently. Anyone interested in teaming up and going for GA? Go Phightins! 15:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend the GA nomination be put on hold for now. I am all for GA nomination, however, the article needs more work, especially in the Presidential and later life sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

United States Exploring Expedition

I know this is getting ahead of the game but Jackson sponsored the United States Exploring Expedition in 1836. President John Quincy Adams had initially requested Congress to fund the expedition in 1828. This would be good for the article and give the reader understanding western exploration did not end with President Thomas Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind for the section: Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Western and Oceanic explorations

During mid 1820's and early 1830's Western exploration was mainly done by private trappers who formed fur trading companies orginating from Saint Louis. One of these trappers and explorers was Jedediah Smith, who in 1830 sent Jackson's Secretary of War Eaton a letter and map containing information of his explorations into the Rockies and Pacific Northwest. Smith request that Eaton personally give President Jackson the letter.

Andrew Jackson initially opposed any federal exploration scientific expeditions during his first term in office. Jackson's predecessor John Q. Adams attempted to launch a scientific oceanic exploration expedition in 1828, however, Congress was unwilling to fund the effort. The last scientific federally funded exploration expedition was by Stephen H. Harriman on the Red River of the North in 1823. When Jackson assumed office in 1829 he pocketed Adams expedition plans. However, wanting to establish his presidential legacy, similar to Jefferson and the Lewis & Clark expedition, Jackson finally sponsored scientific exploration during his second term. On May 18, 1836 Jackson signed into law creating and funding the oceanic United States Exploring Expedition. Jackson put in charge Secretary of Navy Mahlon Dickerson to put together suitable ships, officers , and scientific staff for the expedition with a planned launch before Jackson's term in office expired. Readying the expedition proved to be difficult and the launch of the expedition took place in 1838 under President Martin Van Buren. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently western or federally sponsored scientific explorations were sporatic after Thomas Jefferson. The last Jefferson expedition was the Pike Expedition in 1806. Eleven years later Stephen H. Harriman started his federally funded expeditions from 1817 to 1823. The next federally funded exploration would be in 1836 under President Jackson. The time period between 1823 and 1836 roughly coincides with explorations by private trappers such as Jedediah Smith, and others, into the American West. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I added sources, section "Western and oceanic exploration expeditions", and references. Please feel free to make comments or constructive changes that benefit the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The section belongs in the presidency article, not here. Rjensen (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no Presidency of Andrew Jackson article. That is why I put in the main article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Western and oceanic exploration expeditions

During 1820's and early 1830's the American West was explored by private trappers who formed fur trading companies originating from St. Louis. One of these privateer trappers and explorers was Jedediah Smith who led expeditions into the American West. On October 29, 1830 Smith sent Jackson's Secretary of War John H. Eaton a letter and map containing information that he had gathered from 1824 to 1830 of his explorations into the Rockies, the South Pass, and Pacific Northwest. Smith recommended that Jackson terminate the Treaty of 1818 that allowed the British have free reign over the Columbia River and that the Indians favored the British over Americans.

Jackson initially opposed any federal exploration scientific expeditions during his first term in office. The last scientific federally funded exploration expeditions took place from 1817 to 1823 led by Stephen H. Harriman on the Red River of the North. Jackson's predecessor John Q. Adams attempted to launch a scientific oceanic exploration expedition in 1828, but Congress was unwilling to fund the effort. When Jackson assumed office in 1829 he pocketed Adam's expedition plans. However, wanting to establish his presidential legacy, similar to Thomas Jefferson and the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Jackson finally sponsored scientific exploration during his second term. On May 18, 1836 Jackson signed into law creating and funding the oceanic United States Exploring Expedition. Jackson put in charge Secretary of Navy Mahlon Dickerson to put together suitable ships, officers , and scientific staff for the expedition with a planned launch before Jackson's term in office expired. Mahlon, however, proved to be unfit for the task and the readiment of the expedition stalled and was not launched until 1838 under President Martin Van Buren.

BEP Jackson portrait

The current BEP Jackson portrait in the Presidency section needs to be cropped. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can create a separate version. I'm fairly new using the CSS template (it is used in other articles), so I'm curious if there is/was a specific concern with its use? --Godot13 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The current thumb version in the article is acceptable and matches the other thumb format photos in this article. All that is required for now is to crop the current photo in the article so Jackson's portrait is more prevelant. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be difficult, but I'm still curious why is it not acceptable for the CSS template to exist in the article for one image? Thanks.-Godot13 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The thumb format is acceptable and easy to use. All the other photos are thumb format in the article. Different photo formats make the article difficult to edit. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cmguy777- (sigh...) I hear what you are saying. This format is different, moderately difficult, but has a fairly unique purpose. Just because this format doesn’t exist anywhere in the article does not mean that it can’t. Rather than creating multiple versions of the same work in different sizes and crops, everything is pulled from a main image. If you want it larger or smaller, it can be adjusted without touching the original (which is the goal in image restoration). I’m not sure how trying something new/different will hurt or hinder the article. If you want it altered or changed, you have an open invitation to ping me (in case it’s not coming through, I’m trying to be a little humorous, but the offer is genuine). Aside from being functional, it’s a nifty feature that will leave readers who click on the image wondering what just happened. Okay, the last part isn’t particularly persuasive or encyclopedic...--Godot13 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Placed portrait in talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Added (for comparison on the left) previously deleted CSS version. This is not worth edit warring, but I would still (as I mentioned above) be interested to know if there are any functional reasons this template can not be part of the article (perhaps from other editors). Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the Thumb format is easiest to work compared to the CSS format. Additionally the rest of the photos are in Thumb format. The article photos need to have consistancy to get to GA and FA status. There is no need to edit war. The current photo I believe is the best portrayal of Jackson as President. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BEP engraved portrait of Jackson as President.

BEP engraved portrait of Jackson as President.

citations for lede

There is a lot of information claimed in the lede, but only citations for the 3rd paragraph. I'm new here, but isn't this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureluvr68 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No it is not a problem. The rule at WP:LEADCITE is "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." The lede summarizes the main text where all the points are provided with many cites. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Physical Appearance section

Where are the citations for the "Physical Appearance" section? I tried to find a source for his weight, but only found sites of questionable quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natureluvr68 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Photos

I believe the article needs to modify or clean up photo selections in the current article. There seem to be to many "old" photos of Jackson. I recommend replacing the lede photo with the 1824 portrait. The 1844 photo can be put in the main article. Some of the "old" photos of Jackson need to be removed. Also, his Presidential portrait needs to be put in to the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Removed

These photos are acceptable but uneccessary for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A daguerreotype of Jackson.

Photograph of Jackson at age 78, 1844/45

Clipper ship Andrew Jackson

Jackson Presidential Dollar

Jackson's Scots-Irish heritage celebrated by a mural on Belfast's Shankill Road

Daguerreotype of Andrew Jackson at age 77 or 78 (1844 or 1845)

Jackson Square, New Orleans

Jackson Statue at North Carolina State Capitol in Raleigh, NC.

Jackson statue by Clark Mills in downtown Jacksonville (one of four identical statues in the U.S.)

Military governor Jackson was sworn in at Plaza Ferdinand VII in Pensacola, Florida

it bothers me that you chose to remove EVERY photograph of the man, except the lede image, which you moved & buried deep in the bottom of the article.

it bothers me more that your primary justification for doing so is that "he looks (too) old".

this is the real person & what he really looked like.

these & some of your (many!) other "adjustments" are not improving the quality of the article; it is not an improvement to make it "prettier", or to remove "controversial' material.

it is our job to be ACCURATE"

it is our job to be NPOV

some of your edits are failing these basic standards. please think moire carefully before you act, in the future.

by the way, they didn't have "official" presidential portraits until much later (than his era); so on what basis are you deciding which artwork to use?

Lx 121 (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Slavery

I believe mentioning that Jackson owned slaves in the lede would be appropriate since Jackson owned hundreds of slaves throughout his lifetime and his lifestyle depended on slavery. Also why is mentioning Jackson owned slaves tucked away in his legal and politcal career. Maybe his Hermitage plantation should have its own section. Any objections or comments? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with mentioning Jackson's slaveholding in the lede because it was not an important issue in his day. The lede appropriately mentions the Nullification Crisis (well, it alluded to it without naming it till I just fixed it), which was a major issue during his presidency.

I do agree the Hermitage plantation should have its own section, and that slavery should be mentioned in the section (but not in the section header). Yopienso (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Since Jackson relied on slavery I believe that is why mentioning slavery in the lede would be appropriate. In a sense that would be like leaving out the Benjamin Franklin, who did buy and sell slaves, was an inventor. I agree on the Hermitage plantation having own section. The article should not hide the slavery issue. The title does not have to contain the word slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I added titles but made no narration changes. Did Jackson found West Tennessee and Memphis during his military career? If so that section should be put in the Military career section. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Jackson must have been on reprieve after the First Seminole War to found West Tennessee. This should be mentioned in the article rather then moving the section his military career. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Barack Obama relies on electricity, but that is not a defining aspect of his life. Nearly all prosperous Southerners depended on slavery before the Civil War. Jackson is not to slavery as Franklin is to invention.

Adding the Hermitage title improves the article; thanks.

Jackson resigned his army commission in 1821. Yopienso (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

comment: jackson was an extremely wealthy individual who owned large numbers of slaves, & benefitted from slavery to a considerable degree, in a country & era where slave ownership was a major political issue; it affected his beliefs, actions, and policies. for one thing, his record would seem to indicate that he considered both blacks & native americans to be "inferior races", to whom he did not owe the same ethical/moral standards of treatment, as he did to his fellow whites...

if/when electricity-useage becomes a major political controversy in the united states, then obama's record & stance on electricity pro/con will be worth noting.

also, note that we generally find it worth mentioning human rights abuses by world leaders; hilter, stalin, mao, etc. all get their sins mentioned in their ledes; npov requires that we apply the same standard for american presidents.

& no, "different times, different standards" doesn't cover it: a) slavery was a controversial issue in a.j.'s lifetime. b) slavery is slavery. it is worth noting when an individual or a culture considers it to be an acceptable or desirable practice, or when a person owns slaves and/or benefits from slavery; particularly to the extent that jackson did.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that Jackson was President of the United States. Not all properous southerners were President of the United States and wealthy slave owners. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were wealthy slave owners. Slavery is mentioned in their biography ledes. Why is Jackson any different? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to mention that Jackson was a slaveowner and owned a significant number of slaves in the lede. It helps put his life, politics, and career into a social context, and it is much more significant that, say, using electricity. -- BCorr|Брайен 17:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Mentioning slavery in the lede puts Jackson in the context of his times. Contemparily Jackson was a humane slave owner although slaves were whipped to increase productivity. Jackson also demanded loyalty from slaves male or female. Expanding the Hermitage section would be good for the article, possibly giving Jackson's own personal views on slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The lede (3rd sentence) does mention that Jackson was a "country lawyer". It is much more significant that he was a planter and slaveholder.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like there is concensus to add Jackson owned hundreds of slaves in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that Jackson owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to the lede. I added more information on slave life on the the Hermitage plantation using thehermitage.com (2011) as a reference and source. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)