Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Accuracy of photos vs portraits

Nomination paragraph:

There is no reason to have an edit war over accuracy of photos on the article or the use of profanity such as "bullshit". A photo of Jackson (1845) in his elder years does not accurately portray Jackson when he was younger (1824) such as the Sully portrait of Jackson. The same is true the opposite way. The younger (1824) Sully portrait does not accurately portray Jackson in his elder years (1845). One can argue that color portraits are more accurate then black and white photos since color portraits have better lighting and skin tones. The cover image for the article should present Jackson at his physical and political prime not in retirement. The 1824 Sully portrait does this. The 1824 Sully color portrait is comparable to a modern color photo of Jackson. Modern color photography did not exist until the 1930's. Color portraits of individuals was an established art form for centuries. I recommend the 1824 Sully portrait of Jackson be reestablished as the primary lede photo. Any favors or objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

first: wp:bullshit is an established reference-point in discussions (although i note that the essay seems to have been bowdlerized; unless i'm thinking of the copy on some other wm project); & an arguement that 'a painting better captures the "spirit" of the subject' in a biographical article, as opposed to an actual photograph of the person, is wp:bullshit. our job is to report the facts, npov, not to make pretty stories or cater to anybody's haiography.

second: jackson was president from 1829-37 age 62 to 69 (days short of 70); he was not a young man, nor in particularly good health.

third: there are no earlier/better photos of jackson extant, unfortunately; if you find any, by all means, please submit them for consideration. it would be nice to have a wider range of choices, across different ages of the subject, but the pragmatic reality is that photography only became commonplace in the 1840s, & we only have a limited range of photographic images to choose from, for this person.

fourth: no a painting is not "just as good", "comparable, or "more accurate". & whether it is in colour or not is irrelevant.

a painting is an ARTWORK, created by the hand (or etc.) of an artist, as an interpretation of their subject; such works are not only fundamentally less-exact than a photograph, they are also subject to the biases, whims, & wishes of the artist, the subject, & other interested parties in the commissioning of a work.

if you closely compare the jackson photographs with the paintings you will notice, for example, that the artists have pretty consistently sought to hide the size of jackson's ears, as well as to smooth out his complexion. i would also argue that none of the major paintings under consideration here really captures jackson's facial features particularly well. he certainly seems to be a good deal more "craggy", in real life, than these paintings of him would suggest, & that cannot be simply put down to age differences; if you look @ the sculptures (busts) of jackson made in his lifetime, they seem to agree more with the photographs than the paintings.

getting back to the point: this is a biography article on wikipedia; the priorities are accuracy & npov. established policy & practice (& best practice, as a historian) favours using a photograph of the subject-person as lede image on a biographical article (as opposed to non-photographic artworks).

a photograph is a fundamentally better, more accurate, less biased likeness of a person, as compared to a painting, or drawing, or any non-photographic "artistic" representation; at least short of a direct mould of the subject's facial features, & historically these are usually posthumous & show post-mortem slackness of the facial features...

we are fortunate enough to have photographs (& decent-quality useable ones) of every president from j.q.a. up, & they take precedence as lede image. this photo has been established as lede image for some time, & the decision to do so was discussed & settled on here at least a year ago. it's a good, clear shot of his face; reasonably in focus, & the best of the photographs available. it is not a bad or "unflattering" likeness, it's just him being old, & it's what he really looked like; not some idealized, heroic "tribute".

& with all due respect, burying the one photograph of the subject 3/4 of the way down the scroll-range, & removing all the other photographs of him completely, is not "making the article better".

it is also worth noting that the photograph of jackson we have as lede was used as the basis for commemorative lithographs/etchings/printed-media-whatever & circulated among jackson's fans & followers (primarily) after his death (given the timing). you can see at least one or two examples of this in jackson's category @ wikimedia commons. so apparently the people of his time didn't have a problem with it.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Favor : I favor using the Sully (1824) portrait of Andrew Jackson in the lede section. Wikipedia editors by consensus choose the image that best fits the article. Your arguements apply to color photography, not black and white photography. The black and white photo is abscent of color. That is not accuracy. A color photo present complete accuracy. There was no standard color photography until the 1930s. Wikipedia editors do not have to choose photos on the assumption that this photo was popular during the 1840s. A color portrait presents Jackson in color and that is the most accurate depiction of Jackson since there were not black and white photos of Jackson in the 1820s. The technology did not exist then. Yes. There could be artistic bias or representation of Jackson in the Sully (1824) portrait. That does not matter. What matters is that the painting was done during 1824 when Jackson was at his political prime. Jackson is known as a hot tempered general who defeated the British at New Orleans. That is what got him elected President. The retirement photo was taken when Jackson was in retirement at the Hermitage and out of public office eight years. Most if not all the presidential article have depictions of Presidents during the prime of their lives. A retirement photo does not accurately depict Jackson when he was a younger age. Also Sully represents the fashions of the 1820's not the fashions of the 1840's. We are forgeting that clothing is part of accuracy of photography. Photography is an art form and open to interpretation and criticism. Dolly Madison risked her life to save George Washington's portrait when the British sacked and burned Washington D.C. Portraits do have value and should not be thrown out so casually. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

NO; what matters is the ACCURATE representation of the subject. when we have a photo of the person to use as lede on their biography, we use a photo in preference to any "artistic depiction". your arguement about colour is spurious; first because the artist could pick any colour they want, they are not "bound" to any greater degree of photo-accuracy in colour, than in any other aspect of their depiction. second because the colours of clothing, etc. are unimportant (as is the matter of fashion; the purpose of the image is to depict jackson with maximum accuracy, not to show "fashions of x_ era". & the colour of the person's hair, skin, & eyes of the person can be understood just as well in words, as in painting; it's STILL not substitute for a photograph. third, because MANY subject & articles do not have colour photographs available; it's perfectly commonplace to use a b&w photo. that doesn't justify choosing a less-accurate "artistic depiction". your position amounts to a matter of aesthetic preferences; you like the painting because it is in colour & it looks "prettier". & that's not a good enough reason. ACCURACY is our goal, not attractiveness.

you are also overly fixated on some mythical "frozen moment" of jackson's life in the mid 1820s (i think, mainly to justify your choice of painting); the man lived from 1767-1845, & did many things in his life. this is a biography of the man; which means it covers his whole life, not just some idealized "golden time". if we had photographs of the man from a wider time/age-range, then we could pick & choose; we don't, so we go with the best photo that we do have. as above 9repeatedly), the goal is to make an ACCURATE bio-article; not to make it look pretty.

finally, i note that you now appear to have voted twice; first you made the proposal, & now you have voted in favour of it(?). i'd have though it was not necessary to indicate your support separately; but as you choose to, i want it noted, for the record & for any third parties reviewing this discussion, that you are the nominator & thus far the ONLY supporter of your proposal (i.e.: 1 vote "for", not 2).

in the spirit of this, i also indicate my vote, to respectfully OPPOSE your proposal to replace the photograph of jackson, as lede, with a painting (i.e.: 1 vote against). for the reasons i have stated above, at length.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

'Favor' I favor using the Sully (1824) portrait. "accuracy" in a photo????: not this one. First of all it's a black and white one. Everyone here can agree that the real AJ was in full color at all times, and all color has vanished in the photo so it's certainly not "accurate". Given the very slow camera speeds, he had to pose frozen for several minutes--a highly artificial and unnatural act. The pose is therefore not "accurate" and not typical but distorted. Today photographers take hundreds of shots and discard all but the one that best captures the typical "look" of the person. that was impossible in the 1840s. Good or bad you had only one photo to use, and this is not a good photo (the lighting is bad as well). Sully was a painter famous for spending spent many hours and days with his subject to seek out his most typical facial expression and body language, and find the right angle and the right light to see all that--which is what we at Wikipedia are after. The NPOV rule, by the way, only applies to Wiki editors not to the sources we use. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I only voted once ! The first paragraph was the nomination paragraph. My vote only counts as one. Rjensen counts as the second vote. Your vote counts one. So far two favors and one negative. I agree with what Rjensen stated. Modern digital color photography did not exist then. Photography was at its infancy during Jackson's times and took over a century to advance to today's high quality digital color standards. Painting, on the other hand, during Jackson's times was the most accurate color portrayal of people that had been going on for hundreds of years since the Renaissance. Sully was an extremely talented artist. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tally: 2 Favor (Rjensen and Cmguy) 1 Oppose (Lx 121) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Without the intention to jump into your ongoing discussion, I just want to share my thoughts on this subject. I always prefer to see a photography, how someone actually looked during his/her lifetime, instead of a portrait or engraving. I don't have anything against artistic images of people, but photography certainly is the more accurate way to see how someone really looked. It is even more important, in my view, to see a photo of a person (like Jackson) who died not so long after photography was invented in the late 1830s-40s (those photos are much more rare than photos of people who lived in later decades)... I don't insist to have a photo in the lead section, put the portrait there if you really want, but I'm sure that photos of Jackson must be present in the article (maybe in the section about his last years). In the end, I urge all of you to avoid edit war or using strong language over this issue, and find a solution in a calm way. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Sundostund. If one is speaking of modern digital color photography yes then photos could be considered the most accurate. This technology did not exist in Jackson's times. The first camera photography took place in the 1820's. As far is known there are no photographs of Jackson in the 1820s. Experimental color photography took place in the 1840s. The Jackson photo in his elder years is black and white and as Rjensen stated the pose in unnatural since Jackson had to sit still during the photographic process. Also the photo does not capture Jackson's fiery color or temper as the Sully (1824) color portrait does. Modern color film photography did not exist until the 1930's. The only way to capture Jackson in the 1820's in color was through color painting by professional artists such as Sully. Other presidential articles do not depict the presidents in their elder or retirement years, but rather, more appropriatly in their physical or political prime. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So far there is one vote against (Lx 121) inclusion of Sully (1824) Jackson photo in the lede section versus two votes in favor (Rjensen & Cmguy777) of inclusion of the Sully (1824) Jackson photo. This photo would replace the current black and white photo (1845) in the lede section. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

NO "so far" there are TWO people supporting the photo as lede; you are trying to negate uaser:sundostund's comment. & by the way:

1. "unnatural since Jackson had to sit still during the photographic process" -- ALL early photographs required the sitter to remain still for extended period of time.

2. your arguement about colour is IRRELEVANT; you are argueing aesthetics, rather than ACCURACY. wikipedia has THOUSANDS of biography articles illustrated with black & white photographs. a photograph of the person TAKES PRECEDENCE over a paint. PERIOD.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH LOOKS "PRETTIER".

3."Also the photo does not capture Jackson's fiery color or temper as the Sully (1824) color portrait does." -- that statement is both NNPOV, & wp:bullshit.

you are also repeating the same, invalid arguements, over & over.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson (1845) black and white photo

Andrew Jackson Sully (1824)

I don't think the photo of Jackson shortly before his death should be at the top of the article, though I'd like to see it way further down where it belongs chronologically. I favor Sully's for two reasons: it's used at Whitehouse.gov, and an engraving based on it appears on the $20 bill.
An alternative would be to use his official presidential portrait.
I disagree with Lx 121 that since the bio is about his whole life we shouldn't use an image from his "golden time." In fact, he is best know as the 7th POTUS, and I feel strongly the lede image should be of him while president. Yopienso (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the Sully (1824) is the best reprentation of Jackson for the lede. The Presidental portrait is good, but I believe that belongs in the Administration and cabinet section. Sully as an artist also did other standing portraits of Jackson. I agree we should not use Jackson's image from his "golden time" in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CMguy777--the text depicts an active, vigorous man who people saw as a strong leader of presidential calibre, and they illustration should support the text. Rjensen (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Lx 121's "golden time" refers to Jackson in his prime, not his old age. So that means that Cm, Jensen, and I completely agree and have formed a consensus to feature Sully's portrait. Forthwith. Yopienso (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• My !vote is for the 1824 Sully portrait, it having the greater bearing on Jackson's active presidency than a photograph of him in his waning years. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I was a bit hasty there. Despite what our article claims, that's not the portrait used on the $20. It's this one, which imho is superior to the one I just restored. You can read more about it here. Yopienso (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Showing my ignorance here--the $20 bill is in fact based on Sully's 1824 portrait, p. 162 here. Yopienso (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion

WHAT PART OF THIS OS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

the article is a BIOGRAPHY of a real person.

wikipedia policy dictates ACCURACY & NPOV as the top priorities

a photographs is fundamentally more accurate than a painting.

we are NOT trying to "capture the spirit" of the person

we are NOT trying to make the article look pretty

our JOB is ACCURACY & NPOV.

this is what jackson REALLY LOOKED LIKE.

if you compare with the painting, you can see that the painting IS NOT EVEN AN ACCURATE LIKENESS; it has been "prettied up" to make the subject look more attractive & "heroic", & to hide the size of his ears.

Andrew Jackson Sully (1824)

THAT VIOLATES NPOV.

EVERY other president of whom we have a photograph, has that photograph as lede.

this is STANDARD PRACTICE in good historical biography.

if this is really such a difficult problem, then let's go through dispute resolution, ALL THE WAY through it, & let's see what decision we get?

Lx 121 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

additionally:

1.JACKSON SUPPORTERS USED THIS PHOTOGRAPH, contemporaneously; which is to say DURING HIS LIFETIME/IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH. engravings were made from it, & used to commemorate & honour him.

so it doesn't seem like they had a problem with the photograph.

2. in jackson's era there was no such thing as an "official whitehouse portrait". there were lots of portraits made of most early presidents, & some were hung in the whitehouse; not always permanently. HOWEVER "official presidential portraits" or "official whitehouse portraits" or whatever you want to call it, did not become a "thing" until MUCH later in american history.

so any "official whitehouse/presidential portrait" of andrew jackson is only "official" RETROACTIVELY, or as a "ret-con", if you prefer. there was NO SUCH DESIGNATION made during his presidency, at the end of it, or during his lifetime.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Current consensus here, established by lively discussion, appears to me to favor the presidential portrait over the photo of an elderly Jackson. Past milestones of this article (FA and GA) also used a now-deleted portrait at the top and an elderly photo down near the bottom. I think we should continue this basic style as it has been approved by scores of editors over the years. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good idea--I agree with Binksternet. Rjensen (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Lx 121 I admire your determination but you are going against editor concensus. I agree with Binksternet and Rjensen. This requires simple math 1845 subtracted by 1824 is a difference of 21 years in Jackson's lifetime. The 1845 photo and 1824 portrait of Jackson can not be compared. Your view that Jackson's ears are not shown in the portrait i.e. partially covered with hair has some validity but this is artist discretion. We can't directly assume that Sully (1824) had political motivations when partially covering Jackson's ears in the portrait. That assumption is POV rather then NPOV. We can assume that Jackson looked younger in 1824 and probably was in better health. He was able to serve two terms as president and lived 8 years after his presidency active in politics. You have to admit Jackson had pluck. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Jackson himself during his elected office political career may have kept his hair long to publically conceal his ears. That would have nothing to do with the integrity of Sully as an artist. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor Lx 121, please stop edit-warring and accept the current consensus. Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

Spelling mistake. Please change publically to publicly. Royhvaara (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done and thanks for the eye Cannolis (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

grammar errors

Philwalk (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC) grammar error: phrase "rather then" should be "rather than"

 Done Error noted, and corrected. Thanks for spotting it.--JayJasper (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Combine sections and remove repetative information

I suggest combining sections National Bank Controversy and the Election of 1832. This will remove repetative information. The Election of 1832 concerned the Jackson veto in regards to the rechartering of the National Bank. Any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing

I added a link to Ethnic cleansing to the Indian removal section...I put this in there because of the Trail of Tears that Jackson's ethnocentric Indian policy was responsible for. Due to the magnitude of Cherokee deaths do to force emigration I believe the Ethnic Cleansing link is appropriate for the article. Van Buren enforced the December 1835 Treaty of New Echota made by Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hermitage Plantation

Entry says Jackson *enslaved* blacks. This is not accurate; it makes him sound like some African chief out raiding another tribe for merchandise. He bought existing slaves, or they were born on his plantation. Suggest it be changed to something like 'Jackson held slaves'. 2600:1010:B01A:39D5:29C5:927B:2102:FCFE (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Please change title from "Indian Removal" to "American Indian Genocide"

174.21.182.231 (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope - that is your point of view and does not belong here. ' American Indian Genocide' would be a good title for an article on their habit of wiping out rival tribes to the last man, woman and child, though. 70.197.5.90 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

According to the article the forced removal took place under President Martin Van Buren...Possibly changing the title to Indian Removal Act would be more accurate...The article does state that Native Americans died during the forced removal... Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I could probably support a change to Indian Removal Act. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I added relevant links to the article for context, emphasis, and clarification...The Indian Removal Act was enforced under both Presidents Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"Narrowly Lost" Introduction Article

In the introduction, it states that Andrew Jackson "narrowly lost" to John Quincy Adams in the Election of 1824, but I think this is somewhat misleading. The 1824 election was peculiar in that nobody actually won. Andrew Jackson received a popular and electoral plurality, but failed to achieve the majority needed. So in pursuance with the 12th Amendment of the United States, the Presidency and Vice-Presidency was decided in a contingent election by the House of Representatives (to date, the only time this has ever happened.) And in part because of Henry Clay's advocacy, John Quincy Adams won decisively on the first ballot.

The statement that Andrew Jackson "narrowly lost" to John Quincy Adams doesn't reflect the exceptional nature of the election and the manner in which John Quincy Adams was elected as the 6th president of the United States. I recommend they update the introduction to reflect those important historical details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.138 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

All references to Indians should be called as their actually name, Native Americans as a slight show of respect. Kynjin (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliable secondary sources: see Remini, Robert V. The Legacy of Andrew Jackson: Essays on Democracy, Indian Removal, and Slavery (1988); Remini, Andrew Jackson and his Indian Wars (2001). Rogin, Fathers and children: Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian (1991); Wallace, The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians (1993); Spirling, "US treaty making with American Indians: Institutional change and relative power, 1784–1911." American Journal of Political Science 56.1 (2012): 84-97; Taylor, The Civil War of 1812: American Citizens, British Subjects, Irish Rebels, & Indian Allies (2012). etc etc Rjensen (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Colin G. Calloway includes "A Note on Name Usage and Geographic Focus" on p. 11 of First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History, 4th Ed., Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. It's too long to copy in its entirety, but he begins, "Neither Indian nor Native American is entirely satisfactory as a description of the indigenous peoples--the first peoples--of North America." Further on, he explains, "I use the terms interchangeably, giving preference to Indian as stylistically less problematic and because most of the Indian people I have met, especially in the West, employ the term." YoPienso (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Popular Culture: Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson

I think that the "Popular culture depictions" section should make reference to the musical Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, seeing that it is a musical depiction of the life of Jackson. Thoughts? Branman275 (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

An incorrect name in section 8.11 U.S. Exploring Expedition

In section 8.11 U.S. Exploring Expedition, an exploration expedition that took place from 1817 to 1823 on the Red River of the North is credited to have been led by Stephen H. Harriman. His name is actually Stephen Harriman Long. The link with the name "Stephen H. Harriman" redirects to the biography of Col. Stephen Harriman Long, expedition leader; topographical engineer and namesake of Longs Peak Colorado, among other things. Dhpierre (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Dhpierre

Picture

I suggest you change the picture of Andrew Jackson on the main sidebar from a painting to an actual daguerreotype photograph of him, numerous ones exist, and they are more likely to accurately represent his appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avrand6 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

political party

shouldn't that be in the first paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.131.237 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Jackson was a strong leader; his article needs a strong lead

The lead has to help readers who are taking only a short glance of the article to learn the most important things about Andrew Jackson. It does not do that now, it opens with trivia: He was born near the end of the colonial era, somewhere near the then-unmarked border between North and South Carolina, into a recently immigrated Scots-Irish farming family of relatively modest means. During the American Revolutionary War Jackson, whose family supported the revolutionary cause, acted as a courier. He was captured, at age 13, and mistreated by his British captors. What we need is an opening that will immediately tell at a glance why is important. So let's try this:

proposed: Historian Sellers says "Andrew Jackson's masterful personality was enough by itself to make him one of the most controversial figures ever to stride across the American stage."[1] His most controversial presidential actions included removal of the Indians from the southeast, the destruction of the Bank of the United States, and his threat to use military force against the state of South Carolina to make it stop nullifying federal laws. Not at all controversial was his great victory over the British at New Orleans in the last battle of the War of 1812. He was the main founder of the modern Democratic Party and its iconic hero; he was always a fierce partisan, with many friends and many enemies. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If one were to write a biography of Andrew Jackson and wanted to open with that as its introduction, that would be fine. However, saying one has a "masterful" personality, and using indistinct language like "fierce partisan, with many friends and many enemies" does not fit the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia utilizes. I am sympathetic to your argument that there is some trivia in the current lead, and it certainly could be reworked, however we cannot use hyperbole and such like historians have free rein to do -- we must simply summarize the article. Go Phightins! 02:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No hyperbole is used, just straight simple, plain, noncontroversial facts, plus a quotation from a leading scholar (Sellars). It tells what he was most noted for (removal of the Indians, destruction of the bank of the United States, nullification crisis, Battle of New Orleans, founding the Democratic Party, and his personality). Rjensen (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, well at the very least, "He was always a fierce partisan, with many friends and many enemies" -- although I will certainly stipulate that is true -- is not really the tone Wikipedia articles are to have. I am fine with the content of the controversial presidential actions section, although I am not really sure how his victory at New Orleans was uncontroversial; controversy certainly exists in regards to what he should or should not have done. We can't really call him an "iconic hero", at least not unless we attribute that point of view to a leading historian or something. Go Phightins! 03:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1) the tone is designed to capture AJ's very pugnacious personality As reflected by the RS. 2) iconic = for the last century the main annual celebration and fundraising event in the Democratic Party is called the "the Jefferson-Jackson Day" [says Nick Ragone. Presidential leadership ] 3) The Miller Center at U Virginia bio says: "Strong-willed and sharp-tempered, a fierce patriot and rabid partisan, Jackson was always controversial" 4) "But if Jackson was a terrible enemy, he was also the most faithful of friends. Many men feared and hated him; many also loved him" says William Garrott Brown, Andrew Jackson p 40. Rjensen (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing text

In the section "Movies" please include The Buccaneer (1958) with Yul Brinner as Jean Laffite and Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson.

The Amelia Island Affair and the first Seminole war are totally obviated in this article. Andrew Jackson was a man who treated Davy Crockett meanly. He played dirty tricks on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:BD02:AF00:21E:52FF:FEC5:9E8C (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Slave descendants?

In the section "Hermitage plantation," the article now contains this: "The next year he acquired the Hermitage, a 640-acre (259 ha) plantation in Davidson County, near Nashville. Jackson later added 360 acres (146 ha) to the plantation, which eventually grew to 1,050 acres (425 ha). The primary crop was cotton, grown by enslaved workers. Starting with nine slaves, Jackson held as many as 44 by 1820, and later held up to 150 slaves, making him among the planter elite. Throughout his lifetime Jackson may have owned as many as 300 slaves."

Mention is made of Jackson's children and step-children. But, since Andrew Jackson was a slave owner and sympathized with the agrarian Southern economy and way of life, the 21st-Century reader of the article might wonder if Jackson had children by any of the enslaved women. Does anyone here know this?Joel Russ (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Smith Donelson

Is he a son or a nephew? -Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

The following passage, " On July 29, a mob of 300 conservatives broke into the Post Office in Charleston, South Carolina and proceeded to seize and destroy abolitionist tracts." is unnecessarily misleading. The use of the term "conservative" is accurate only in a very narrow sense. It should be changed to "pro-slavery activists" or some similarly period-appropriate term. In the current context, the term "conservative" is too readily and inaccurately understood as a reference to present-day political sensibilities.

Askfed (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)askfed

The use of the word "conservative" is a generic word conservative meaning that South Carolina citizens did not want anti-slavery tracts mailed in thier state...The issue had to do with anti-slavery tracts not pro-slavery tracts. The article is not inferring any modern day usage for modern conservatives or any conservative movements. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The text now reads "On July 29, a pro-slavery mob of 300 people led by former governor Robert Y. Hayne broke into the Post Office..." which seems reasonable to me. "Pro-slavery" is certainly less ambiguous than "conservative", a term I think should be avoided in uses like this. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

erasing sourced edits

Historian7 has erased wholesale dozens of sourced edits added by numerous scholars. He gives no explanation either here or in the edit summary. Perhaps he can explain what he is up to? Rjensen (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I erased an edit made by you because it was commentary and resembled a personal essay.Historian7 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

nonsense. "Personal essays" is one that that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). All the material deleted were statements by experts, with multiple citations. to eleven different RS -- that is vandalism . Here are the cites RS you deleted all at once:

1. Gary Scott Smith (2015). Religion in the Oval Office: The Religious Lives of American Presidents. Oxford UP. p. 151.
2. Francis Paul Prucha, "Andrew Jackson's Indian policy: a reassessment." Journal of American History (1969) 56#3 pp 527-539. in JSTOR
3. Zinn called him "exterminator of Indians." Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980) p 130
4. See also Barbara Alice Mann (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. ABC-CLIO. p. 20.
5. Paul R. Bartrop and Steven Leonard Jacobs (2014). Modern Genocide: The Definitive Resource and Document Collection. ABC-CLIO. p. 2070.
6. Jon Meacham, American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House (2008)
7. H.W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times (2006)
8. Sean Wilentz (2006). The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. Norton. p. 324.
9. Steve Inskeep, "Jackson's Reputation has Changing Again," History Network News 7 June, 2015
10. By Abby Ohlheiser, "This group wants to banish Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill," Washington Post 3 March, 2015
11. Jillian Keenan, "Kick Andrew Jackson Off the $20 Bill! The seventh president engineered genocide. He should be vilified, not honored," SLATE 3 March, 2014. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, "personal essay" is one that states ones particular feelings about a topic. This is exactly what you have done (as well as violate NPOV), by cherry picking sources and using them to skew your narrative using weasel words and inflammatory rhetoric.Historian7 (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

No that's how Wikipedia is built. All RS views have to be represented -- as for the alternative views, it is your job to ADD any, if you can find any. You have never shown any familiarity with any of the RS and Id on't think you have tried to look, You only erase. In fact the sources include SUPPORTERS of Jackson such as Prucha, and Remini, as well as middle of the road RS such as Brands, Wilentz and Meacham. Rjensen (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the disagreement, Historian7 is involved in edit warring with multiple editors. Both Rjensen and User:JJMC89 have reverted Historian7's blanking, so it's up to Historian7 to muster consensus here on talk before removing the well-cited passage again. Put me down as one who disagrees with the blanking, so that new user has an uphill climb ahead. I also agree with Rjensen's characterization of the two blankings as vandalism. BusterD (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Historian7, it is important to have a section about how Jackson is seen by historians and others. The same is true of all major historical figures. TFD (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• The user has been warned for edit warring and for removal of sourced content and, as is pretty clear from this discussion, editing against consensus. The ball is now in their court, the court being this talk page, not article space, where continuing the same pattern will lead to a block.

  Speaking as an editor, Rjensen, I do believe the Slate article needs to go. Slate may be generally reliable, but it's not used here to cite facts, only to provide the opinion of...a Slate editor. That Slate is generally acceptable as a source doesn't mean that the opinion of an editor at Slate needs to be cited here. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Except in this case Slate is being cited to show popular opinion. Seems OK to me. Even The Guardian has the story. You may prefer citing to a British newspaper to show the movement to remove Jackson from currency is notable and reliably sourced. Just google "remove andrew jackson from 20 bill" for lots of sources. YoPienso (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

And after googling 'remove Andrew Jackson from 20 bill' try googling; 'Andrew Jackson Indians, "root them out from their dens and kill the women and their whelps" Yet another bs article which manages to turn an utter psycopath who more than any other was responsible for the genocide into a war hero with a fierce temper. We learn that instead of being largely responsible for the demise of the tribes he actually saved them. Wow. Utterly laughable --Godwhale (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Illegitimate

An editor has inserted the descriptor "illegitimate" in the first sentence. I think that's a very unwise course, considering the assertion isn't confirmed by sourcing in the body of the article. BusterD (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

a false story about birth at sea has no place here. as for: "illegitimate president" ??? not according to the US Constitution (which see). Rjensen (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Goat God has given an explanation on the user talk page. But apparently the user has since deleted it. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat God seems to hold that a single blog entry and a single work of historical fiction outweigh all the other sourcing which seems to indicate Jackson was born in the US. It appears the word press blogger upon which Goat God seems to base an assertion that Jackson was born at sea is Michael Lynch, an instructor of history at Lincoln Memorial University. A close reading of the blog entry reveals Lynch concludes the exact opposite of what Goat God contends. Lynch suggests that while "The Frontiersman" is an interesting read, the evidence Jackson was born at sea is quite thin and (as Lynch himself states) flies in the face all other evidence to the contrary. BusterD (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Please give it up, BusterD; why are you ragging on him after he's already reverted himself? YoPienso (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why User:Yopienso insists on personalizing this disagreement. I'm discussing the sources, not the editor. BusterD (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Emigrate vs. Immigrate

The second paragraph of the Early life and education section states, "When they emigrated to America in 1765..." Emigrate would be fine if it were referring where they were coming from, but as it is in reference to where they are going, the correct form is immigrate. BattleBorn89 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done YoPienso (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Do a different done. Done Never did that before. YoPienso (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I changed the image of an old, toothless Jackson for a portrait that shows the strong man he was during his presidency. That daguerrotype was removed earlier for the same reason. The head from the one that replaced it appears on the $20 bill, but is not particularly flattering or representative of the aggressive general that was our 7th president. If someone objects to the one I've chosen, please consider using this one by the same artist. It's the official White House portrait. YoPienso (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Iagree. the Wiki rule here is For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few....Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, wp:Photographs. An image of a sickly, dying man taken long after his career as soldier and poltician ended is not appropriate for the topics covered in the article. Rjensen (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: The photo you removed was painted the same year Jackson left office. Here's a web page on it, and here it is in Wiki Commons. I don't prefer the one you restored, but I don't object to it, either. Please read my note above and please engage here. Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to say that we don't know if the painting was done while Jackson was in office or not, nor why he chose in 1837 to be painted as a general. Thank you for including it later in the article. As I said on Dec. 30, I have no trouble accepting as a compromise a portrait that shows him dressed as POTUS but still vital and energetic. I personally think the BEP and Ritchie engravings are more flattering than the Sully painting the BEP engraving is based on. Happy editing, YoPienso (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The image that had just replaced the daguerreotype was painted in 1837, but depicts him as a general, not as a president. As for why he chose that year, a lot of politicians then were more proud of their military careers than political ones, and were often still addressed by their military rank despite holding political office. For example, James Monroe wanted to be known as "Colonel Monroe" during his presidency. The painting that I replaced it with was used as the lead image for a while, until it was replaced with the daguerreotype. In my opinion, it should never have been replaced at all. The image that I chose was painted in 1824, while he was running for president. I believe that it works the best out of all 3. It also seemed like a good way to solve an edit war that was going on at that moment. Display name 99 (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for yours!

Yes, all that's general knowledge; what we don't know is if, as he retired, Jackson sat for that portrait as how he wished to be remembered. But no matter--Eisenhower was arguably a greater general than president, yet his lead image has him in a business suit.

This is the best image I'm aware of, but don't know if it's in commons.

In any case, the daguerrotype is out of the lead, which was my main concern. YoPienso (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't want that picture as a lead image, though. Anyway, things seem resolved. Display name 99 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro Section & Protection

The introduction section is 600 words. That is excessive. Much of the content should be moved to the main body. Also, why is this article protected? I've identified some punctuation and capitalization errors that need correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberMurph (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't seem correct: "He was the main founder of the modern Democratic Party and remains its iconic hero". Remains? That seems false. Mb1024 (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Who among modern Democrats points to him as an icon or a hero? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.21.32 (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016

update url for citation #12 ( Ostermeier, Eric (December 4, 2013). "Bob Smith and the 12-Year Itch". Smart Politics) to http://editions.lib.umn.edu/smartpolitics/2013/12/04/bob-smith-and-the-12-year-itch/

Zakis3letters (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical error in the first line of the third paragraph: "Although [HE] got a plurality..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF9D:B90:C085:8C9B:ED03:31B2 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Old hickory

Shouldn't we redirect Old hickory to the Andrew Jackson page? The first stone (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024234731/http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20070130-richard-lawrence-andrew-jackson-assassination-warren-r-davis.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/people/articles/web/20070130-richard-lawrence-andrew-jackson-assassination-warren-r-davis.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead Image

Lx 121, there have been numerous discussions on the talk page about the current image, all of which have resulted in a consensus to keep some sort of painting in the infobox. In fact, I have noticed one dating back from 2014 in which you were criticized for edit-warring to insert your preferred image into the article. Thus, it is fair to say that you misrepresented the history of talk page discussion in your recent edit summary. For the most part, it seems to have gone against your unilateral decision to change the lead image.

The reason why paintings have been used for this article, and others like it, is that the daguerreotypes of Jackson tend to show him as old and infirm, having been taken while he was close to death, thus not portraying how he looked when he was more active. That is why I think a painting is better. Either the "official portrait" or the Sully portrait is acceptable to me.

Also, for the record, I found the comment "you lost" to be derogatory and unhelpful. Display name 99 (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I happened by and was surprised to see a non-official portrait here and changed it back. From a spot-check it appears that all presidential articles use the official White House gallery image. ValarianB (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

actually no, they don't (re: wikipedia bios of us presidents & "white house official portraits"). i don't know where you were looking, but when we have PHOTOGRAPHS of the person who is the subject of a biographical article, we use photographs of that person.

paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. are "creative-interpretive" artworks. photography provides a more accurate, more objective likeness; by comparison.

that's policy under wp: accuracy & wp:npov, as well as common practice for biographies & historical subjects; not to mention really obvious, common sense.

& "official white house portraits" have NO special status under wp:bio.

just like the "official portraits" of other heads of state & heads of government do not.

that would violate NPOV.

if you want to make a separate section for "official portraiture" of the subject, go right ahead.

BUT

"official-ness" has no standing in determining lede image for a biographical subject.

& we wouldn't even be considering 'official portrait' as a valid parameter, if the subject of the article was a "bad guy" & a "foreigner".

hence npov considerations, yet again.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

we have zero photographs of PRESIDENT Jackson. and using the old decrepit man we have is a POV ridicule of his career. Rjensen (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Footnotes for Remini's 3-volume biography

I find that no publishing information is given in the footnotes section for the 3-volume biography, or the one-volume abridged version, that Remini made of Andrew Jackson. I am in possession of the former, but don't know how to cite it without knowing if the page numbers in that correlate to those already given in the article. Can anyone please help with this? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

the three vol edition has the same page numbers in paperback and hardcover so there is no problem. the one vol abridgement is MUCH shorter [400pp versus 1800+ pages] & has very different page numbers. Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Anti-slavery tracts

It is important that we include at least some small summary of the anti-slavery tract controversy in this article. It is important because, by simply insisting that the states had no right to stop mail delivery, Jackson once more asserted Federal supremacy. But by attacking the petitions and advising that the names of subscribers be published, Jackson demonstrated the longstanding Southern opposition to Northern attacks on slavery that would eventually push the nation to war. The incident should be discussed in greater detail at the presidency article, but a few sentences about it here are not too much to ask. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Aristocracy

Jackson was the first nonaristocrat to become president. He was the first president to invite everyday folk to the inaugural reception. --87.159.115.178 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

the US did not have "aristocrats" -- there was no Earl of Boston or Duke of Albany. Jackson was a powerful politician and general. He was self-made like John Adams or James Monroe ("His father Spence Monroe (1727–1774) was a moderately prosperous planter who also practiced carpentry"). Rjensen (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Was this chap probably the last aristocrat to leave? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No it was Thomas Fairfax, 6th Lord Fairfax of Cameron. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request

Under the Legacy section, it reads "Not at all controversial was his great victory over the British at New Orleans in the last battle of the War of 1812." This does not seem neutral and I suggest it be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdog1102 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of Republic of Texas

"In 1835, the Texas Revolution began when pro-slavery American settlers in Texas fought the Mexican government for Texan independence; by May 1836, they had routed the Mexican military for the time being, establishing an independent Republic of Texas. The new Texas government legalized slavery and demanded recognition from President Jackson and annexation into the United States."

This seems to be implying that slavery was the main cause of the Texas Revolution. While it undoubtedly played a part in motivating them to revolt, few events in history are so simple.

It would be just as absurd to state " In 1835, the Texas Revolution began when Protestant American settlers in Texas fought the Mexican government for Texan independence;"

Recommendation:

A more neutral sounding beginning: "In 1835, the Texas Revolution began when American settlers in Texas fought the Mexican government for Texan independence; by May 1836, they had routed the Mexican military for the time being, establishing an independent Republic of Texas. The new Texas government reestablished the legality of slavery and demanded recognition from President Jackson and annexation into the United States."

A more detailed beginning: "In 1835, the Texas Revolution began when American settlers in Texas sought independence from the Mexican government over issues such as such as domestic instability, slavery, representation, Judicial backlogs, tariffs, and religion; by May 1836, they had routed the Mexican military for the time being, establishing an independent Republic of Texas. The new Texas government reestablished the legality of slavery and demanded recognition from President Jackson and annexation into the United States." Moderate Hero (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that the existing text is perhaps not NPOV, and unencyclopedic (e.g., "demanded")....it is nevertheless putting slavery right at the forefront where it belongs. Let's not lose that as we edit. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I support the first option given under "Recommendation," although I think we can get rid of "for the time being." Slavery played a major role, but there were other concerns as well. Centralization by the Mexican Government and its failure to protect Texans from attacks by Indians both factored into the revolt. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lede needs to be shortened

I plan on reducing the detail in the lede - per WP:LEDE it should be around four paragraphs. Hoppyh (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Image Removed

I have substituted another image for the following (I could not accomplish a timely upload to enable readability - File:Some account of the bloody deeds of General Andrew Jackson, circa 1828.png|thumb|upright=1.1. Hoppyh (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

First Section

"The relocation process resulted in widespread death and sickness amongst the Indians. This, along with his relative support for slavery, significantly damaged Jackson's reputation." These three sentences are opinionated, with no supporting evidence. What percentage of Indians died as a result of the relocation process, and what percentage would constitute "widespread" death? This seems designed to inflame emotions against the subject.

"Relative support for slavery" is ambiguous, unsupported, and also seems designed to raise ire against a controversial subject, at a time when said subject's statue is being removed from New Orleans. This sentence must be supported and must be more neutral.

Did the Indian Removal Act or its consequences actually damage Jackson's reputation, or did it enhance his reputation at the time, being popular, especially to those who wanted to participate in the gold rush in the Appalachian area of that time, and those who wanted the Indian land? Clearly this statement is not neutral, and it is unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.66.126 (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect result of 1828 election

The text says: "In the election, Jackson won a commanding 56 percent of the popular vote and 68 percent of the popular vote."

05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)ALORSPIE82 (talk)Instead, it should say "In the election, Jackson won a commanding 56 percent of the popular vote and 68 percent of the electoral vote."

@ALORSPIE82: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. Peaceray (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2017

In the section "Land speculation and founding of Memphis" please change "the 'land grab' act of 1873" into "the 'land grab' act of 1783". The year 1873 is incorrect. Adingema (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adingema: Done, thanks for spotting the error. Murph9000 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

This article states that Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democratic Party, which is incorrect. The Democratic Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1792 and officially designated as the Democratic-Republican Party. The party split in 1828 into two factions, one under Jackson, that was pro-slavery and state's rights and the other under Henry Clay as the National Republican Party, which was anti-slavery and centralist. Both parties from their inception until present day are both Republican and Democratic, given the United States is a Constitutional Republic. However, it was Jefferson and his party who insisted on the addition of the Bill of Rights which gave Democratic representation to the states (State's Rights) and formally changed our Constitutional Republic into a Democratic-Republic.

ref> Lincoln Library of Essential Information, Volume II. "American History." Page. 485. Frontier Press Company 1978. </ref>

Ann Williamson (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

See First Party System and the links there. Jefferson founded a party he always called the "Republican Party." The DR designation came later. that party vanished by 1825 and elements formed the National Republican Party (which became the Whigs) and other elements with Van Buren's lead formed the Jacksonian faction which became the (modern) Democratic Party. The Bill of Rights (1791) was not a party issue--it was consensus and the historians do NOT say that it "formally changed our Constitutional Republic into a Democratic-Republic." Rjensen (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824095525/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825105405/http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/jackson.html to http://www.pagrandlodge.org/mlam/presidents/jackson.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect phrase in the 'Temperment' section.99.253.244.18 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt. ...His close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition. Given his record—in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings—listeners had to take his vows seriously."[204]

This should read: "blood-curdling" vs "blood curling".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Some missing pieces for Good Article review

So, I think I may be a significant contributor, so I am abstaining from the Good Article review process. I do however want to note several areas that seem to be under-reported in the current article, most of which bear on the questions of Native American rights and slavery, areas that the lead tells us have been important to Jackson's reputation:

• Jackson's wealth is hardly addressed, despite its relevance for his positioning as an anti-aristocrat. His professions in the lead include General and lawyer, but not plantation owner (the subject of a section below), trader, or land speculator, all of which seem to have contributed substantially to his wealth.

I added a mention of Jackson's status as a planter to the lead. The other stuff isn't as significant. In fact, some ventures in land speculation put him in debt. See the Allison Affair, which lasted until 1824, when Jackson forgave the last of the debt that was owed to him. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with a description including the role of slavery in that wealth. Change made to lead.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• In particular, Jackson's role as a land speculator in the aftermath of the War of 1812 is not mentioned. See this article, written by the author of a recent book on Jackson, the Cherokee, and land acquisition in the South.

It's mentioned in "Land speculation and founding of Memphis." The section comes much earlier, but keeps all the land speculation stuff together. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Section does not describe post-Creek War transactions. A sentence or two could do.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The founding of Memphis, which is mentioned, took place in 1819. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Seminole war was actually a war against Spaniards, Seminoles, and Black freedman; the last of these barely appears, despite events such as the Battle of Negro Fort (which only is mentioned in the infobox). The narrative of this war treats the European power as the only claimant to territory in Florida, which is dubious.

I added information about the Negro Fort. I find your criticism that the previous account dealt too exclusively with Spain to be highly dubious. Spain possessed the territory; the Seminole occupied it and were in conflict with the U.S. The claim of Spain is what produced the international incident. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Seminole Wars has no problem addressing this, nor does much of the historical literature. This is one of several items where slavery plays a role in both the event Jackson was involved in, and the later historical evaluation of him. It should be included ere.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It mentions conflict with former slaves several times in the second paragraph. What more do you want? Some people these days get the idea that before the Civil War, everything was always slavery, slavery, slavery. Try to get that out of your head. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Jackson's treatment of the enslaved people he owned is discussed, but briefly. This despite the fact that the subject is the topic of several independent articles, such as [1] [2] [3] [4].

We have a full paragraph on it, and an image with a lengthy caption. No more is needed. There are far more consequential things that Jackson did other than treating his slaves in a certain way. We don't need a full section on this matter, to the exclusion of other aspects of Jackson's life, including matters of national or international importance. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Jackson's duels with white men are discussed in detail. His orders to beat men and women he legally owned deserve the same treatment.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Dueling was a way of establishing a reputation and gaining respect. Physically disciplining slaves was just something that happened, and was usually not looked down upon. The article also establishes, with sources, that Jackson was a relatively humane slaveowner. Further, the Duel with Dickinson-in which a man actually died-is given a full paragraph. The duel with Avery, and the brawl with the Bentons, are given two sentences each. The latter two still equal a bit less than the paragraph on his treatment of slaves, even though they were of greater importance in establishing Jackson's reputation. I suppose I could include information about Jackson being angry after hearing that his overseer did not fetch a doctor for one his slaves when the slave became ill, fearing that he was being mistreated. Would that work? Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Contra the disinterested explanations for Jackson's response to the abolitionist postal crisis, he called the abolitionist agitators "monsters" in agreement with his party. See [5]

I added that he viewed them as threatening the stability of the Union. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the referenced article and would be happy to share a copy with you.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the end about wanting Congress to band the circulation of the tracts. And I would not describe the section as "disinterested." To the contrary, it shows the delicate balance that Jackson maintained between banning the tracts and subverting free speech, as may have been his first instinct, and not condoning mob rule. Going too extreme in either direction would have damaged Van Buren's chances in the upcoming election. It was a tight rope to walk. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• The historical controversies around Jackson on slavery and Native American dispossession could be better summarized, drawing on recent histories and opinion pieces.

We have those in the "Indian removal" and "Historical reputation" sections. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Historical reputation mentions two such actions, his personal slave ownership and the [Cherokee] Trail of Tears. Hardly complete. In Indian Removal, critical evaluations are summarized into one sentence ("Starting around 1970, Jackson came under sharp attack from writers on the left, such as Howard Zinn, often on this issue. Zinn called him the 'exterminator of Indians'"). While there is a lot smoke (Jackson was "controversial"), very little fire (actual negative historical evaluations) appears on this question.--Carwil (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Give me a couple days on this one. I'll try to add one more negative evaluation and one more positive. Display name 99 (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm eager to see this article pass the threshold of Good Article, but wanted to share some areas for possible improvement.--Carwil (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Carwil, please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone was unable to properly copy the "Planting career and controversy" quote. Since the page is locked, someone else will have to fix the "I have a hope (Should their be a call) that at least," failure. 70.80.112.251 (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Source needed for quotations at end of first paragraph

A source should be cited for the terms in quotation marks in the last sentence of paragraph one. RobertLovesPi (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2017

To whom it may concern,

Towards the end of the introduction, there is a sentence that reads "... which helped affect the annexation of Florida from Spain."

Whoever last edited this did not seem to know the difference between "affect" and "effect", with the definition of effect "to bring about or to bring to fruition" clearly being the intended meaning.

Hopefully this can be resolved with no issues!

Sincerely, Wikipedia Reader 2601:98A:4000:E4D1:A9D1:BB78:E66B:665D (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done I've instead changed it to "cause," since it seemed to make more sense that way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140912055314/http://www.thehermitage.com/mansion-grounds/farm/slavery to http://www.thehermitage.com/mansion-grounds/farm/slavery

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

CHANGE: Jackson was a lean figure, standing at 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m) tall, and weighing between130 and 140 pounds (59 and 64 kg) on average. Jackson also had an unruly shock of red hair, which had completely grayed by the time he became president at age 61. He had penetrating deep blue eyes. Jackson was one of the more sickly presidents, suffering from chronic headaches, abdominal pains, and a hacking cough. Much of his trouble was caused by a musket ball in his lung that was never removed, that often brought up blood and sometimes made his whole body shake.

TO: Jackson was a lean figure, standing at 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m) tall, and weighing between 130 and 140 pounds (59 and 64 kg) on average. Jackson also had an unruly shock of red hair, which had completely grayed by the time he became president at age 61. He had penetrating deep blue eyes. Jackson was one of the more sickly presidents, suffering from chronic headaches, abdominal pains, and a hacking cough. Much of his trouble was caused by a musket ball in his lung that was never removed, that often brought up blood and sometimes made his whole body shake.

SUMMARY: SIMPLE FORMATTING - ADDED WHITESPACE AFTER "...and weighing between..." Boothgg (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

References

A couple thoughts

This article seems in pretty good shape and I hope someone gets around to doing a Good Article review soon. I had a couple quick thoughts:

1)The fact that Jackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court is notable, but if the judicial appointments section is included in the article, I think the article should contain a little more description of his judicial appointments, e.g. what was their judicial philosophy, and how long did they serve? If nothing else, the fact that he appointed Chief Justice Taney should be mentioned.

2)States admitted to the Union: these sections seem unnecessary to me in presidential bio articles. Did the admission of Arkansas and Michigan have anything in particular to do with Jackson, or did he just happen to be president when they were admitted? If it's just the latter, I would remove the section. If the former, I would add a sentence or two about how their admission was handled by Jackson and/or how their admission impacted his presidency. Orser67 (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Orser67, I didn't see your note until now. But in the intervening period I expanded on those two sections. Display name 99 (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

"leaving him with scars on his left hand and head"...so by reading this quite literally, my take away is that he has two heads, a left head and a right head? Therefore, I changed it to "head and left hand"

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

change that "t]the Congress, to that the Congress,

it's just a typo, halfway through the second paragraph of the philosophy sub section under the presidency section Joeeeeeeew (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Peaceray (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Abolitionism

The problem with this is it is both oddly placed and assumes too much, it has abolitionism seem like foreign affairs issue, as it's in a section discussing foreign affairs, and it fails to inform the reader that we are talking about slavery, you can't expect every reader to know that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of "president" and other job titles

@Display name 99: Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:JOBTITLES) has clear instructions for this, and only allows capitalization in certain circumstances. Especially note that the title is capitalized only when it "is not preceded by a modifier ...: Richard Nixon was re-elected President of the United States on November 7, 1972. But: Nixon was the 37th president of the United States." Putting the ordinal number (37th) before the title modifies it and therefore requires lower case. In Wikipedia, headings are in sentence case, so only the first word gets capitalized. Now that you know, please restore my edits. Happy editing! Chris the speller ^yack 14:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Point made. Display name 99 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson (Kinney)

Should Andrew Jackson (Kinney) be mentioned here, or in a related article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I added it to the Memorials section of this article and to the separate Memorials article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Slaves cabin size

Whole section needs cites. 20 sf is the size of a TWIN MATTRESS. Sadsaque (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Sadsaque (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the whole section is cited. Secondly, I looked at the source and this is the measurement it gives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Hermitage web site gives the dimensions as "20 feet square", not "20 square feet". This means the rooms are around 400 square feet or 37 square meters each with two rooms per cabin which seems reasonable given this photograph of one of the rooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:F400:2:9:C833:9427:6B8B:43A1 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is information on his Freemason affiliation placed under "Religious Faith"?

Ignoring the fact that Freemasonry is not a religious sect or practice and some branches of the organization include atheists, I feel like this bit of information would be able to be placed in a section of it's own. There is plenty of information on the topic of there. Pepe Oats (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If there's no objection to moving information on his affiliation with freemasonry to a new section, and expanding it to include more information on his activities within the order, I'll begin adding the information as soon as I can. It's been a while, so I assume no one objects. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd approve of that idea. The article is fairly long as it stands. His activities within the order weren't too significant. I think it's mainly in the section just because there's nowhere else to put it. Most masonic branches require people to declare belief in a deity, and I imagine this was more prevalent during Jackson's time. Jackson's involvement in Freemasonry, in my opinion, does not warrant more than a brief blurb in the article. It's not extremely important and we can afford to pass over it here with little detail. There is also a discussion on Fremasonry in the section on the election of 1832. I wouldn't object if you were to add a sentence or two onto that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well he was one of the few presidents to have held the Grand Master's chair, and it was during his political career that the Anti-Masonic Party became prominent, I think that the first of these is at least notable enough to be put into the article, as it's obviously pretty rare for someone to be a Grandmaster. Also, the requirement to believe in a deity is still in place and is a requirement for a Grand Lodge to be considered regular, regular Masonry makes up the vast majority of the Masonic demographic today. Pepe Oats (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly add that he was a Grand Master, but I'm still not convinced that we need to create an entirely new section for it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's just odd that it's placed under Religion, as Freemasonry is not a religious affiliation, and not a religious group, but whatever.Pepe Oats (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)