Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Drastic trim needed: sample and methodology

I present below one sample of a trim of one section, with a methodology that can be used to accomplish the work on talk. By working through the article like this, starting with the less controversial sections, editors may develop a slower pace and an ease of working with each other, that can then model how to work on the more difficult sections. Fine tuning (prose polishing) can be done after the content is trimmed.

The sample shows the page is at least twice the size it need be. ( Word count error fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC) )

Working on talk allows other editors to agree or disagree with a trim before it's made, and allows one person (Display name 99) to make sure the right citations are attached to the right bits upon installing it in the article. This kind of drastic trimming needs to occur throughout: FAC did not serve its purpose with this article, which could be defeatured on prose alone (and others indicate sourcing as well); developing a working methodology will make it more likely that POV (if it exists) will be dealt with. Slow and steady wins the race. Drastically trimming is needed before sourcing can even be looked at in depth. There is a blank template at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5#Draft proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed trim: Family section

Current 276 words

Trimmed 210 words

Different children were taken care of and lived with the Jackson family at one time or another. These included the two Creek children the Jacksons called Charly or Charley and Theodore, The Jacksons had two boys they considered as adopted — Andrew Jackson Jr., the son of Rachel's brother Severn Donelson, and Lyncoya, a Creek orphan adopted by Jackson after the Battle of Tallushatchee. Lyncoya died of tuberculosis on July 1, 1828, at the age of sixteen. The Jacksons also acted as guardians for eight other children. John Samuel Donelson, Daniel Smith Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Donelson were the sons of Rachel's brother Samuel Donelson, who died in 1804. Andrew Jackson Hutchings was Rachel's orphaned grand nephew. Caroline Butler, Eliza Butler, Edward Butler, and Anthony Butler were the orphaned children of Edward Butler, a family friend. They came to live with the Jacksons after the death of their father. The widower Jackson invited Rachel's niece Emily Donelson to serve as hostess at the White House. Emily was married to Andrew Jackson Donelson, who acted as Jackson's private secretary and in 1856 ran for vice president on the American Party ticket. The relationship between the president and Emily became strained during the Petticoat affair, and the two became estranged for over a year. They eventually reconciled and she resumed her duties as White House hostess. Sarah Yorke Jackson, the wife of Andrew Jackson Jr., became co-hostess of the White House in 1834. It was the only time in history when two women simultaneously acted as unofficial First Lady. Sarah took over all hostess duties after Emily died from tuberculosis in 1836. Jackson used Rip Raps as a retreat.

Jackson and Rachel had no children together but considered two boys as adopted. Lyncoya was a Creek orphan Jackson adopted after the Battle of Tallushatchee who died of tuberculosis at sixteen. Andrew Jackson Jr. was the son of Rachel's brother Severn Donelson, who died in 1804. The Jacksons acted as guardians for Donelson's other children: John Samuel, Daniel Smith, and Andrew Jackson. They were also guardians for Andrew Jackson Hutchings, Rachel's orphaned grand nephew, and the orphaned children of a friend, Edward Butler – Caroline, Eliza, Edward, and Anthony – who lived with the Jacksons after their father died. Two Creek boys they called Charly (or Charley) and Theodore also lived with them. For the only time in history, two women acted simultaneously as unofficial First Lady for the widower Jackson. Rachel's niece Emily Donelson was married to Andrew Jackson Donelson (who acted as Jackson's private secretary) and served as hostess at the White House. The president and Emily became estranged for over a year during the Petticoat affair, but they eventually reconciled and she resumed her duties as White House hostess. Sarah Yorke Jackson, the wife of Andrew Jackson Jr., became co-hostess of the White House in 1834, and took over all hostess duties after Emily died from tuberculosis in 1836.

Sources
References

Discussion of proposed trim: Family section

This methodology makes it easier to see content issues like:

• Why is it never mentioned in the article that they had no children of their own (is that even true? Citation needed.) That's a more logical place to begin a family section.
• Why are there two Andrew Jacksons who are sons of Donelson?
• Why is Rip Raps even mentioned, what has it do with family, and don't force the reader to click on a link to know what it even is. It doesn't appear to have any function in the article, and if it does, why is it stuck on to a para about who served as First Lady?
• Along with general excess detail.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, I am dashing out now, and have just noticed that my word counts above are wrong. If someone else has time to adjust, please feel free to edit my table to insert the correct word counts. At any rate, we can still trim this article to less than half of what it is now by using WP:SS and cutting excess verbosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC) (Now fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC))

SandyGeorgia, I agree that the article needs to be trimmed. However, I think that it would be best to wait until the other issues are resolved first before doing that. That is something that you previously told me, and I think that it was good advice. There's a lot of other stuff going on right now, and I'd rather wait for that to end before worrying about this. Additionally, while I know that the article needs trimming. It was 98 kb, or less than 16,000 words, at the time of its promotion, and has grown in size to just over 17,000 words, or 105 kb. However, I think that we disagree on how drastic the cuts need to be. WP:SIZERULE says that anything over 100 kb should "almost certainly" be split, but that the scope of a topic can sometimes justify an article between 60 kb and 99 kb. I think that the importance of this article justifies it having an increased length. I like the shortened version of the text about Jackson's family that you have proposed. However, I imagine that I would be more resistant to similarly drastic cuts in sections about Jackson's public service. Display name 99 (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not going to end via the approach taken so far. When the article comes back to FAR, I am now at a delist based on verbosity and failure to use SS. And so will be pretty much everyone else. I've given you a way forward. Ignore as you wish. An article delisted on prose will still have unresolved POV issues, and you won't have FAR regulars to help you sort it. You are adopting a track that will end just like the British Empire. But as you wish; it seems like several editors involved here would prefer to have a legacy of destroying rather than saving a bronze star, with the end result likely to be a still (if it is) POV article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

And please don't bother citing KB size of articles at FAR; if you don't know how to calculate readable prose size in words, it's time to learn. This article would never pass FAC today. It is abusively excessive at 17,000 words of readable prose. Equally contentious topics (Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling) are 8,000. I suggest you need to move beyond your attachment to what is not an FA and should never have been awarded the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is the source-to-text integrity on the revision? This is important because the sources are listed by pagination, so major changes should be cross-checked. Normally for some deletion and consolidation this wouldn't be all too immediately critical, except, to take an example, the "excess detail" about the children you removed now makes the information about multiple Andrew Jacksons less clear, and less accurate, than before (Hermitage seems to show most clearly (if possible) that Jr., Hutchings, and Donelson are all different people, by proceeding each with lifespan).

Apart from the removal of sources and arguably making certain prose worse, the changes you describe seem uncontroversial. So make them. If other editors don't like them they should tweak them (as in this example with the children, the prose is terrible either way, so reverting a cruddy edit would be just as bad as leaving it in). Otherwise you are absolutely correct that absolutely nothing, ever, will get better. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The multiple Andrews weren't clear before. And I didn't add the sources to my sample, as it was intended as a sample, and I didn't take the time to do that. Certainly, if you all adopt this approach, citations would be added, and content would be discussed before it's installed at the article.

We shouldn't have to click on a citation to read and understand why there are various people with the same name; it should be clear in the text.

No to installing this, not the least because I haven't verified source-to-text integrity, rather because my goal is not to make changes without consensus ... my goal is to offer you all a methodology to get you all to slow down and examine less controversial bits of text, so that you can then use that method to work through the more controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

EC: To be clear, when I say "the prose is terrible either way", I am in no way implying that I can concisely explain Jackson's family tree in good prose (though the Hermitage example I do think has some decent tips). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of this example was to look explicitly at the excess verbosity. Prose polishing can be accomplished by better copyeditors than me. And there are plenty of those at FAR, who are and will be willing to help, if and only if the effort is worthwhile as evidenced by a collaborative approach to the FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Dn99, I also suggest you take a broader look at your idea of this article's somehow-unique importance. Have a look at some important articles from the point of view of our readers. Summary (in order of highest pageviews for Earth to lowest for Jackson):

• Earth: 8,300 words, Vital 1
• J. K. Rowling: 8,800 words, Vital 5
• Joan of Arc: 7,600 words, Vital 3
• Schizophrenia: 7,800 words, Vital 4
• Andrew Jackson: 17,000 words, Vital 4

You got a massive topic (Earth) at the highest Vital level rating, with three times the daily average pageviews as Jackson at half the words. What's wrong with this picture? I've worked on all of them, and I can tell you where this article is headed if you don't cut the fat. What sane editor is going to trawl through 17,000 words to ferret out source-to-text integrity or POV issues? Apparently, FAC reviewers didn't bother either. If we see the article delisted, you won't be happy (you've got four more FAs with similar), and neither will be those claiming POV, as that is not going to be fixed (if it exists) by the entrenched approach you all are taking so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with using kb. Also, as a result of some trimming that I just did, the article is now less than 17,000 words, albeit just barely. I would rather lose the bronze star than lose vital information in this article. I will protest anything that reduces the article size beyond about 15,000-16,000 words. If that means that the article will no longer be a featured article, so be it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, lose the star then, as that's where you're headed. And it's likely to be left with maintanance tags, with no one happy. Final thought: if you all agree to collaborate, history shows that the FAR Coords will be willing to grant time as needed.

I've more than said my piece, and neither "side" wasn't to heed the advice, so I'm unwatching now. Please ping me back here only if/when anyone is seriously ready to consider a collaborative approach; otherwise, see you at FAR in a month or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

What a shame, I was hoping this would be given a good shot at being successful. --ARoseWolf 16:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, family trees like these are a great candidate for a nice diagram request. The best part is that the prose to describe in painstaking detail what is happening can be compartmentalized in the alt text (for accessibility) and file description page.

As nice as this sectioning of revisions in the Talk page, I still don't understand why it's necessary for uncontroversial sections like family. (I'm not saying don't do it, or saying it's silly -- it may be the future of WP editing -- but I'm questioning the justification here, now.) Just make the revisions in the article as needed. Nothing in the four sentences of WP:FAOWN suggests that this is not allowed. Take care in edits, have civil discussion, explain the sourcing, and review the previous FAR -- that's basically it. "Significant changes" in text seems to run a spectrum of interpretation among many FA editors ranging anywhere from 0.000001 to 0.0001 of [insert any quantifier, you get the point], but in this case the consensus seems to be that something should be done. It's not like some symmetry unbreaks in the universe if Jackson's family tree becomes unelucidated for half a day in the article while editors tweak it. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is now done to 16,306 words, or 100 kB. That's progress, and I will continue to trim. I agree that the article is too long, but I heavily disagree on the size of the cuts that are required. The articles that were pointed out above notwithstanding, I have just finished checking all of the featured articles on other U.S. presidents, and most of them are in excess of 10,000 words, some of them much so. The Ulysses S. Grant article stands at 18,595 words. Now that's "abusively excessive" if I've ever seen it. Somebody should really take a look at that one. Additionally, the John Adams article (which I wrote) and the Reagan article each have over 16,000, and Polk has over 15,000. Even Garfield, who was president for only 6 months, gets almost 12,000 words, and Warren Harding, president for a little over two years, has more than 14,000. There are other presidential articles that are featured articles that top 10,000 words. This article is too long, yes, but it's not out of the ballpark when compared to other featured articles on U.S. presidents, and I think that SandyGeorgia's proposed cuts would sacrifice a lot of important information. Let's put it this way: there's no way that our article on Andrew Jackson should ever have fewer words than our article on James Garfield. Display name 99 (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving past U.S. presidents to other important featured articles, Cleopatra has 13,354 words, Emperor Augustus has 12,760 words, Jesus has 13,510 words, Middle Ages has 15,667 words, and Byzantine navy has 15,971 words. This article is still on the long side, yes, but looking at other featured articles, there is plenty to justify not making cuts as drastic as those suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As a result of me trimming content, the article is now 15,831 words, or 97 kB. It is shorter than it was at the time of its promotion to featured article, and shorter than three other featured articles on U.S. presidents. I have therefore removed the length tag from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Checking in to see if you any progress has been and the article has been trimmed, per the preliminary comments (not only mine, but Silverseren and Indy beetle as well) on the FAR. I see a) it hasn't happened, but b) Dn99 unilaterally removed the tag based on ... one opinion (their own) that amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article is filled with unnecessary verbosity. What got by FAC in 2018 is unrelated to what is acceptable today. And it's not feasible, per the five-nom limit, to bring all of the verbose articles to FAR; that other bad articles exist is no reason for this article to do same. I gave a sample of a trim that would help Family; not only has that section not been adequately trimmed, it now has a grammatical issue. I can do samples on every section if we come to that, as the verbosity is everywhere. Indy beetle and I both stated that summary style should be used. Silverseren mentioned the article should be delisted per the bloat. I shall reinstate the tag based on consensus that the article is too long; please don't remove it without addressing the issue or gaining consensus. Regarding "I would rather lose the bronze star than lose vital information in this article", please remember that it's not your article or your choice to make; that's a community decision, and one that will be made at FAR based on consensus, where there are ample skilled copyeditors and experienced FA writers. FARs are placed on hold as long as progress is occurring; if progress stalls, the FAR can be reinstated sooner rather than later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, you are incorrect in saying that the article has not been trimmed. It has been. It has trimmed by about 1,200 words. I only cited the other FAs of a greater or similar length to this to counter you showing FAs that were shorter. The articles that you showed me were selectively chosen and gave a misleading impression of what is a standard acceptable length. I chose to refer to other articles to demonstrate that this article is well within what is considered normal range for featured articles on U.S. presidents. That and the fact that this article passed FA review at the length slightly exceeding its currently length suggests that the idea that featured articles should be 10,000 words or less seems to be your opinion or that of a handful of other editors rather than an established consensus.

There is no consensus that the article, as it currently stands, needs the tag. Most of the comments at FAR were made when it was still over 17,000 words. Now it isn't. I also don't care about a comment made after the featured article review was already placed on hold.

I refer you again to WP:SIZERULE. Articles between 60 kB and 100 KB "Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)." The article is at 97 kB, within the range of what can be considered, for important articles such as this one, an acceptable length. That's a policy page, and your opinion, or that of one or two other editors, cannot override it.

I will continue trying to tighten the prose, but consensus and longstanding practice do not demand the radical reductions in length upon which you seem to insist. The length of the article is not my decision alone, true, but I will still do whatever I can within the limits of Wikipedia's rules to prevent editors from removing important information without support from consensus and common practice. Display name 99 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And the WP:OWN attitude persists. By preventing editors from removing or altering "important information" you mean important to you, as evidenced in discussion here. "I would rather lose the bronze star than lose vital information in this article" sums up the attitude from before the RfC began to now. Just like, it's only a compromise if we start from your position rather than from what reliable sources say. That way everyone gets a little of what they want. But that's not a Wikipedia policy. The when editing does occur, it's only a valid edit if it meets your defacto approval, of course, from your perspective. Because you are "going to prevent editors from removing important information". The evidence is in this discussion and the article history as well. And it's only an accurate trim if it removes sections you deem are less important while others are pointing out the real issues with the article size and verbosity which you ignore entirely. You know what, I am actually for a complete and thorough review of this article from top to bottom by other editors like @SandyGeorgia, @Indy beetle and @Silverseren now and I suspect I will probably support their recommendations based on this entire experience and because I am less confident in your ability to set aside your personal views about this article or its subject. The WP:OWN attitude has gone on long enough and it prevents us from getting to any real compromise within the article, a compromise, not from any particular editors perspective but that of sources and yes, includes modern sources, you know, from the time in which most of our readers actually live. --ARoseWolf 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, like anyone else, I have the right to protest against edits to the article that I believe damage it. There's no ownership in that. The charges of owernship were always absurd, but they are also becoming increasingly dishonest at this point. I have laid out in detail all of the ways in which I have put aside my own positions regarding the conflict in the lead to try to find a solution. You have rebuffed them. You insist on including "ethnic cleansing" in the opening paragraph even though there is no consensus for it. And when you talk about sources, you mean only sources that you prefer, not the numerous sources on Jackson in the 21st century (which includes all four biographies of him published during that period) that don't use the ethnic cleansing terminology. You don't care that there's no consensus either in the sources or in the results in the RfC to back up your position. You refuse to yield any ground whatsoever. I am trying to find a compromise while you are trying to hold out hoping that the RfC closure will end in a manner favorable to you. Take a close look in the mirror at yourself and ask if I'm really the one trying to own the article. Display name 99 (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You have no clue my personal position because, whereas I may have given glimpses into it, I have determinately stuck by the sources presented in the RfC and gave an opinion based on those sources only. All the sources, not just those I like. I haven't even remotely advocated for a position favorable to my own. I have unwatched this article and discussion. Please do not ping me back here. The RfC will be what it is and your rudeness is noted. --ARoseWolf 20:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Re The articles that you showed me were selectively chosen and gave a misleading impression of what is a standard acceptable length. Wrong. Look again. With the exception of schizophrenia, I am showing you quite relevant articles-- three of them recently passed WP:FAR, which is where this article will also be next. Do you know of an article this long that has passed FAR? Because I don't, and they won't. And they were chosen because of their importance, to give you some perspective relative to your view of this article's importance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Second example of verbosity: Attack and assassination attempt

Current (30 August 2022) 256 words

Suggestion 126 words

The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson on May 6, 1833. Jackson had ordered the dismissal of Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement. Near Alexandria, Randolph appeared and struck the President before fleeing. Jackson declined to press charges. On January 30, 1835, what is believed to be the first attempt to kill a sitting president of the United States occurred just outside the United States Capitol. When Jackson was leaving through the East Portico after the funeral of South Carolina Representative Warren R. Davis, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at Jackson, which misfired. Lawrence then pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Historians believe the humid weather contributed to the double misfiring. Jackson, infuriated, attacked Lawrence with his cane, until others present, including Davy Crockett, intervened to restrain and disarm Lawrence. Lawrence offered a variety of explanations for the attempted shooting. He blamed Jackson for the loss of his job. He claimed that with the President dead, "money would be more plenty" and that he "could not rise until the President fell." Finally, Lawrence told his interrogators that he was the deposed Richard III of England, dead since 1485—and that Jackson was his clerk. He was deemed insane and institutionalized. Many believed that Jackson had been protected by the same Providence that also protected their young nation. Jackson initially suspected that a number of his political enemies might have orchestrated the attempt on his life. His suspicions were never proven.

The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson on May 6, 1833, when Robert B. Randolph struck the President, who had ordered Randolph's dismissal from the navy for embezzlement. Jackson declined to press charges. On January 30, 1835, what is believed to be the first attempt to kill a sitting president of the United States occurred just outside the United States Capitol as Jackson was leaving the building. Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed a pistol at Jackson, which misfired. He pulled out a second pistol, which also misfired. Jackson attacked Lawrence with his cane and others intervened to restrain and disarm Lawrence. Lawrence was deemed insane and institutionalized. Many believed that Jackson had been protected by Providence.

Sources
References

Discussion of second example of verbosity: Attack and assassination attempt

I am deliberately picking examples from (hopefully) uncontroversial sections -- again, to demonstrate a methodology that can be used to build up to work on the more problematic content.

1. Most of the second paragraph is sourced to a defunct americanheritage.com website; how is, then, all the content then WP:DUE per the highest quality sources we should be using in a Featured article? If it is so significant that it can't be cited to a higher quality source, surely some of it is not needed here and can be relegated to the sub-article, Presidency of Andrew Jackson, which already exists, and reduced even further to one or two sentences here.
2. Americanheritage.com never mentions humid weather attribution as far as I can tell: fails verification.
3. "Historians believe" ?? sourced to one writer at Americanheritage.com ?
4. Whose funeral is relevant and essential, how ?? It should be in the sub-article, summarized to here.
5. Davy Crockett is trivia; theoretically it's in the sub-article, this article should be a summary.
6. Infuriated is obvious and not needed.
7. Politico as a high-quality source? Again, WP:DUE concerns, content can be summarized.
8. Lawrence was declared insane; all of that detail is not needed here, theoretically it's in the sub-article, and he has his own article.
9. "that also protected their young nation" is unnecessary, and POVish. Again, summarized-- that level of detail can be in the sub-article.
10. Others present is redundant; how could they have intervened if they weren't present ???
11. Jackson's unproven suspicions most certainly are not needed here (the guy was insane); again, sub-article material.
12. "Many believed" weasle; at least a quote in the citation, better who are these "many"? Same for "what is believed".
13. Sentences like Lawrence offered a variety of explanations for the attempted shooting provide the best example of unnecessary verbosity that should be routed out and relegated to the sub-article.

Cut in half: second sample of how to reduce the verbosity and use summary style, making the article easier to root out the kinds of problems revealed (eg failed verification on humidity). Getting this article under 10,000 words of prose is easily doable, without losing anything meaningful. FAC failed here, and such was the environment at FAC during the period this article was promoted.

Unwatching again; please feel free to ping me if/when trimming has occurred; otherwise, I'll check back as I have time, or as the RFC closes, so we can proceed to FAR, where I hope we will find a significantly trimmer and tighter article for closer examination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I have shortened the section incorporating some of your suggestions. Thank you for pointing out the failed verification on the humid weather at the time of the assassination. This sentence had been there since before I began editing the article, and I regrettably did not check the source to see whether this information could be verified. I have removed it. I am unwilling to shorten the section anymore because I regard everything that is there now as significant information. I don't need to explain who the "many" are. Jackson himself, pro-Jackson politicians, and ordinary Americans all fall under that category. That information is supported in the Remini citation.

If the standards at FAC have changed since this article was promoted in 2018, I would be interested if you could please try to explain to me how I managed to get James Longstreet passed at 15,386 words in October 2021. Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That speculation is off-topic for this page, but other than the fact that many critical reviewers have either voluntarily left or been chased out of FAC by rudeness, the fallout of that particular promotion was unpleasant, and I can guess it will eventually appear at FAR along with your other ultra-long FAs.

Please don't ping me back to this page unless the article is ready for a new look at a tighter, trimmer version or the RFC has closed so we can proceed to FAR. I was interested in helping; I have no interest in arguing. I am happy to offer you advice towards a more productive FAR when that occurs; right now, you're on track for a tranwreck, and I don't need to follow it post by post. Unwatch again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, you can't leave and then come back to post flawed and inaccurate criticisms of the article only to retreat once more and tell other editors not to ping you. That's basically saying, "I can come here whenever I want and say whatever I want, and nobody else is allowed to say anything back to me." I'm not playing that game. Display name 99 (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The article now stands at 15,336 words. It is within 100 words of the length of the Polk featured article, an article about a substantially less famous president. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

TFA query

Can anyone explain, considering the shortage of eligible articles, why this article never ran TFA in the four and a half years since it was promoted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Because I was mostly the only one editing it and I never cared about nominating it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

An FA does not have to be nominated at TFA requests to run TFA; in fact, most of them aren't. Considering the very real shortage of suitable FAs to run, it strikes me as not good for this article, and not good for TFA, that this article never ran. If it had run, we might have a broader audience opining on its neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

And the 17,000+ words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just never cared about TFA, so I've never tried with this article. I've done five FAs. At three of the other ones, another editor came along and nominated the article for TFA. That just hasn't happened here yet. Yes, length is a problem. See my post here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, if you check the article history, you'll see that I've done some trimming already. Display name 99 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I will look in periodically, but there are two things to be addressed re length. One is to consider the possibility of a radical WP:SS spinoff sub-article. But the other is a tighter copyedit, to reduce unnecessary verbosity. (That's not intended as a criticism-- it's one of my worst habits :) Fresh eyes are able to see better where trimming can happen and pick out content that isn't aiding the reader; sometimes the original author is just too close to the material, and finds it all important. Perhaps focus for now on solving (whatever is going on up there above this post) dispute resolution matters first, and if the FAR is put on hold, when it returns, you'll find competent help there. Slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help with trimming if required, hopefully it should be a bit less contentious than the issues surrounding legacy assessments. Jr8825 • Talk 13:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I, too, would be happy to get involved when the time is right in copyediting the article for verbosity. I've watchlisted this article, but please ping me when the time comes just in case I miss it. John (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Every presidential article should get FA status and be on Wikipedia's front page. But this article won't get FA because neutrality issues have to be fixed. Efforts to do so have stalled. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Democracy: the transformational context

When we think about writing concerning democracy for this article, perhaps it helps to widen context. There was much lacking, and terrible, in Jacksonian Democracy (not least for, African Americans, Native Americans, and women) and it was yet a profound shift in the world of the 19th century: "The United States’ transformation into a republic where nearly all adult white men could vote was incredibly progressive for its time. The extent of American democracy and the enthusiasm with which Americans participated in elections amazed European observers. Nowhere else in the world could such a large proportion of the population exercise the franchise."[1] Democracy (by which is meant, 'the vote') may be good or bad, but the history of it is largely transformational, barriers undermined, leading to barriers undermined. The issue of removing barriers to the vote, and the exercise of the vote largely depends on what it is compared to, what was contemplated at a point in history. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

How does this musing relate to improving our article? Jr8825 • Talk 15:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I said it at the beginning, "When we think about writing concerning democracy for this article . . . Jacksonian Democracy . . ." Contextualizing these developments of democracy gives more concrete meaning to what this article discusses. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Final paragraph of the lead

This sentence in the final paragraph of the lead has created problems: Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man. I propose removing the word "widely" but otherwise removing the tags and leaving the sentence as it is. The use of the word "widely" is probably a little too laudatory, and is also maybe not entirely accurate. The idea of Jackson as an advocate for democracy and defender of ordinary people has never been universally accepted, and has never been more widely challenged than in the modern age. But otherwise, the sentence is totally correct in saying that Jackson has been seen as a champion of the common man and democracy. Here is an incomplete sampling of sources describing this phenomenon:

• "Jackson men insisted that a vote for Jackson was a vote for the people while a vote for Clay was a vote for the privileged. The means, then, matched the message, for both were about the aspirations of the enfranchised masses. 'The Jackson cause is the cause of democracy and the people, against a corrupt and abandoned aristocracy,' the president’s supporters wrote." (Meacham, 2008, p. 219)
• "[French statesman Michel] Chevalier compared Jackson’s torchlight parades to Catholic processions, saying that the images of Jacksonians surging through the streets 'belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy.'" (Meacham, 2008, p. 220)
• Jackson's supporters described him as the "champion of democracy." (Meacham, 2008, p. 436)
• "Old Hickory [Jackson] was portrayed as a straightforward man of action, a hero the common man could trust." (Howe, 2007, p. 277)
• "The tumults of the mid-1830s had many causes, but to conservative Whigs, they all boiled down to one—the rise of Andrew Jackson and his demagogic Democratic Party. 'They have classified the rich and intelligent and denounced them as aristocrats,' the Richmond Whig declared, 'they have caressed, soothed, and flattered the heavy class of the poor and ignorant, because they held the power which they wanted.' In pursuit of their selfish ends, the Jacksonians had destroyed the political system designed by the Framers: 'The Republic,' the Richmond paper cried, 'has degenerated into a Democracy.' Yet to the Jacksonians, for whom democracy was the fulfillment of republicanism, the transition was far from complete, and the continuing political challenges of Jackson’s second term raised difficult questions about how it might be done." (Wilentz, 2006, p. 425)
• "Votes for Jackson were votes against corruption, votes for the principle of democracy, votes for the people by the people themselves." (Brands, 2005, p. 400)
• Jacksonian democracy "stretches the concept of democracy about as far as it can go and still remain workable. ... As such it has inspired much of the dynamic and dramatic events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in American history—Populism, Progressivism, the New and Fair Deals, and the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society." (Remini, 1988 p. 307)
• "Jackson’s regard for the working classes reached the point where he invariably credited them for whatever triumphs the democracy realized. They constituted the very essence of the democracy, he said. It was their virtue and patriotism that protected the nation against the corruption of the wicked money power." (Remini, 1984, p. 428)
• "Indeed [Jackson] saw the fight as the same old contest for liberty, the same 'battle . . . between the aristocracy of the few against the democracy of numbers, etc.'" (Remini 1984, p. 440)
• "The millionaires created by the so-called Jacksonian revolution of 'agrarians' against 'capitalists' — of the democracy against the money-power..." (Hammond, 1957, p. 345)
• "To the dissatisfied, whether through distress or ambition, Andrew Jackson offered a distinct and attractive change from the old school of leaders the country had had...He became the champion of the common man..." (Hammond, 1957, p. 349)
• "It is commonly recognized in American political folklore that the Jackson movement was a phase in the expansion of democracy..." (Hofstadter, 1948, p. 72)
• "For Jefferson and Jackson, the demands of the future-whatever readjustments they may compel for our governments and for our economy-will best be met by a society in which no single group is able to sacrifice democracy and liberty to its own interests. 'It will never be possible for any length of time for any group of the American people, either by reason of wealth or learning or inheritance or economic power,' declared Roosevelt in 1936, perhaps a trifle optimistically, 'to retain any mandate, any permanent authority to arrogate to itself the political control of American public life. This heritage . . . we owe to Jacksonian democracy—the American doctrine that entrusts the general welfare to no one group or class, but dedicates itself to the end that the American people shall not be thwarted in their high purpose to remain the custodians of their own destiny." (Schlesinger, 1945, pp. 522-523)
• "Jackson came to power as the standard-bearer of a new upheaval of democracy..." (Sumner, 1882, p. 176)
• "Yes, autocrat though he was, Andrew Jackson loved the people, the common people." (Parton (Volume III), 1860, p. 698

I encourage everyone to put aside their personal thoughts about Jackson for a moment. It doesn't matter how deserved or undeserved Jackson's reputation as a defender of democracy and the "common man" was. What matters is that he had that reputation, both in life and long after his death. As can be plainly seen above, every historian who has written anything notable about Jackson, whether they agreed with this idea or not (Howe, Hammond, and Hofstadter certainly didn't), has been forced to acknowledge it. It forms an important part of his legacy, and thus we must acknowledge it in the lead. It cannot be biased to do so when we also acknowledge the aspects of his life that have been seen less favorably, which we do. The article should and does address areas of Jackson's legacy that are seen as darker, but this doesn't mean that it should ignore areas in which he has been praised. Again, the word "widely" should be removed, but otherwise, the sentence should be left alone and the tags removed. I'll give people some time to respond. If there are no objections, I'll make the change. If there are objections, I won't, and the result will likely be another RfC. Display name 99 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No. Even the sources you cite, from the very first, don't make this claim. Let's stick to the facts. Reliable sources make clear he was not a champion of the common man. He was a champion of white supremacy, slaveholding, and ethnic cleansing. That these were populist or nationalist policies that drew support from the electorate and white scholars of earlier times is clear, he appears on the $20 bill. But no contemporary scholar describes him this way, it would be outrageous and inaccurate to do so. Are you suggesting common men don't include African Americans or Native Americans? Are they not men? Let's stick to the facts. People can drW their own conclusions. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. Again, my own view doesn't matter, and neither does yours, because we go by what sources say. Reliable sources make abundantly clear that Jackson has had a reputation as a champion for democracy and the common man. They don't all agree that this reputation is earned, but they acknowledge it as a major part of his legacy. That's why the sentence needs to be in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Jackson overall was a conservative. He was a wealthy slave owner. He opposed abolitionism and persons who supported Indian rights. I have read that he ordered his Postmaster to stop abolitionist tracks from being mailed to the South. That should be fact-checked. He opposed the National Bank. He did not give any public relief during the Panic. He dispersed Indians from their lands. He did support white male suffrage. Jackson claimed to be a man of the people, a good thing, but the reality is Jackson was not popularly elected by the people. He was elected to the Presidency by the electoral college. For that matter, no President has been a man of the people, because of the electoral college. My source was the online Encyclopedia Britannica. The current language needs to be tempered and clarified. The article could say Jackson believed he was a man of the people. That does not make it so. Also, there has been no editor consensus on Ethnic Cleansing mentioned in the lead. That needs to be addressed too. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I should have known that Cmguy777 would come by to leave a rambling comment with an unclear point that in no way helps move the discussion forward. Also, you say that the lack of editorial consensus on ethnic cleansing needs to be addressed. How? You can't force there to be consensus if there isn't. Stop trying to pretend like you can. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The comment above (19:46 3 September) was quite an unproductive and personalized comment-- not conducive to a collaborative effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to address one disputed area of the article and, instead of focusing your response on that, you instead try to divert the discussion to the ethnic cleansing and other unrelated issues. Cmguy777, do you consider that perhaps you are one of the reasons why this dispute has not ended? Display name 99 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, please set aside your personal animosity towards me and be civil. The idea that Jackson was a conservative most of his political career comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica. He did oppose the National Bank. He did not give relief to the poor suffering during the Panic. Those are statements of fact, not designed to create controversy. Please don't blame me for the Ethnic Cleansing dispute not being resolved. I thought we had agreed ethnic cleansing should be mentioned only once in the article's introduction, in the last paragraph. I don't think Jackson should be castigated by Wikipedia over ethnic cleansing or put on trial for crimes against humanity by Wikipedia. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This may be related to Jackson's democracy that gets overlooked. Jackson was protective of women. He strongly defended his wife from personal attack, and while President he defended Secretary Eaton's wife from personal attack by other women. In that way, Jackson seemed to be a modern President. I don't know if Jackson was for white female suffrage, but, I think his chivalry towards women deserves mention. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I will endeavor not to communicate any further with editors who use the talk page as a forum to make general statements about Jackson and have no useful suggestions for resolving disputes with the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I made two specific statements. 1. Jackson was against the national bank 2. Jackson failed to give relief to financially destitute people suffering from the panic. That shows he was a conservative. That is counter to Jacksonian Democracy. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Many of the democratic institutions attributed to Jackson, such as expanded suffrage, were already in place. Jackson was part of the conservative Tennesee faction for 30 years and opposed relief to debtors in the panic of 1819. Jackson also did not support labor. His followers who were pro-labor were afraid of Jackson's wrath if they spoke out. It was his campaign that presented Jackson as Democratic. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• "An ambiguous, controversial concept, Jacksonian Democracy in the strictest sense refers simply to the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic party after 1828. More loosely, it alludes to the entire range of democratic reforms that proceeded alongside the Jacksonians’ triumph—from expanding the suffrage to restructuring federal institutions. From another angle, however, Jacksonianism appears as a political impulse tied to slavery, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the celebration of white supremacy—so much so that some scholars have dismissed the phrase “Jacksonian Democracy” as a contradiction in terms.

Such tendentious revisionism may provide a useful corrective to older enthusiastic assessments, but it fails to capture a larger historical tragedy: Jacksonian Democracy was an authentic democratic movement, dedicated to powerful, at times radical, egalitarian ideals—but mainly for white men." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Jacksonian Democracy HISTORY.COM EDITORS UPDATED:JUN 7, 2019 ORIGINAL:APR 4, 2012 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Display name 90 is correct. He has produced a more than sufficient list of RSs that support his assertion, which, btw, is very well known. Just look at our list of memorials to him. Activists still haven't been able to get his face off the United States twenty-dollar bill. Every schoolchild knows Jackson was known as a champion of democracy and of the common man.

• There's a whole political philosophy called Jacksonian Democracy.
• Jackson's official Whitehouse.gov biography byFrank Freidel and Hugh Sidey has the header, "Andrew Jackson was the seventh President of the United States from 1829 to 1837, seeking to act as the direct representative of the common man." [My bolding.] (To answer a question posed earlier in this discussion, no, sadly, at the time, Indians and slaves (and freedmen) were not included in the broad social category of "the common man.")

Proposal: Add Jackson has been viewed as a champion for democracy and the common man in the United States. This is such a no-brainer I may just go ahead and boldly add it now. YoPienso (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I just inserted "Jackson was long viewed as a champion for democracy and the common man in the United States, yet many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition across the country." Changing "has been viewed" to "was long viewed" should put this in the terminated past. I connected to the next sentence in a way I hope will prove satisfactory to most contributors. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that my proposed version is better. Jackson isn't as widely seen in this way anymore, but there are still people today who view him that way. Robert V. Remini wrote several mostly favorable works about Jackson in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Sean Wilentz, author of a 2005 biography of Jackson and a very large 2006 book called he Rise of American democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln, also gives a mostly favorable depiction of him. One of the most recent American presidents, Donald Trump, was a noted admirer of Jackson. This view of Jackson is no longer as popular, but it hasn't gone away. I also think that it's better to separate the sentence from the one about Jackson's legacy being divisive; they're two separate ideas. Perhaps it would be better to change the order around. Put the sentence about his divisive legacy in first, followed by the sentence about democracy and the common man. That way, it will be next to the sentence about his legacy suffering because of racial issues, and there is a more clear contradiction.

Also, I apologize for reverting your edit. I didn't see that the sentence had been deleted and that you were putting a revised version back in. I thought that you just altered it directly yourself. I undid the edit by another editor removing the sentence because disputed content should not be edited until there is consensus. Display name 99 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

All good, Display name 99. I'm going to restore my version, then, and let the community make changes as they wish. I can leave them as two separate sentences; I saw them as linked because they're both about how the public has viewed him. YoPienso (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That whole paragraph needs some stylistic help. I'll work on it if I find time. YoPienso (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's a proposal:

Jackson's legacy has been controversial. His stances have garnered both fervent support and strong opposition across the country. He was long viewed as a champion for democracy and the common man in the United States, but also viewed as a villain whose actions proved divisive and harmful. In his retirement, he remained active in Democratic Party politics, supporting the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk. Though fearful of its effects on the slavery debate, Jackson advocated the annexation of Texas, which was accomplished shortly before his death. Since the 1960s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of Indian removal, his reputation has suffered. Surveys of historians and scholars have ranked Jackson highly among U.S. presidents, but his ratings continue to decline in the 21st century.

YoPienso (talk)

I feel like it's better to discuss the legacy after finishing with the biography. Finish talking about his life, and then get into his reputation. It doesn't make sense to start talking about his legacy, jump back into talking about what he did, and then get back into his legacy again. It takes focus away from the content. Saying that his rankings "continue to decline" is awkward because that implies that an already acknowledged trend continued, but we never said before that his rankings declined. Your version also does not solve my problem that the favorable image of Jackson has not vanished. I prefer this:

In his retirement, Jackson remained active in Democratic Party politics, supporting the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk. Though fearful of its effects on the slavery debate, Jackson advocated the annexation of Texas, which was accomplished shortly before his death. Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. Jackson has been viewed as a champion for democracy and the common man in the United States. His reputation has suffered since the 1960s, largely due to his anti-abolitionist views and policy of Indian removal. Surveys of historians and scholars have ranked Jackson highly among U.S. presidents, although his ratings have declined in the 21st century. Display name 99 (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think legacy is appropriately placed in the last paragraph of the lead. That's what your proposed paragraph is about, in fact--it's just missing a topic sentence.

I didn't realize you had a "problem that the favorable image of Jackson has not vanished." Does that mean you don't realize his favorable image has vanished? It pretty much has, maybe not completely (but largely) in academia, but for sure in the media and the mainstream (not conservative) public view, which is where an image is found.

Regarding Jackson's declining reputation, please "Historical reputation" in the "Legacy" section, where it's all spelled out as summarized in my proposal. Where's the awkwardness? YoPienso (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• A lot of these sources are either contemporary or dated (1940s), the two modern sources presented describe this as the attitude of his contemporary supporters. "Revered" is rather strong for a general wikivoice statement. I think an easy fix is to follow the modern sources and explicitly describe this as the view of his supporters: "supporters of Jackson portrayed/described him as an advocate for democracy and the common man". If necessary and supported by sources, this could be further expanded on, for example "Traditionally, supporters of Jackson portrayed/described him..." or "Contemporary supporters..."; revered can be kept if necessary, I don't think it matters much once the supporters qualification is added. Jr8825 • Talk 12:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've made a bold adjustment further to the changes @Yopienso has made (see the page history our successive changes). Happy to discuss further if reverted. One thing to note though is the first and last lead paragraphs now overlap considerably as they both touch on assessments. Not sure about the best way to fix this. Jr8825 • Talk 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and made further changes to try and reduce repetition between the first and last paras. Thoughts welcome. Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yopienso, being conservative doesn't make it non-mainstream. A recent U.S. president lauded Jackson and moved a portrait of him into a prominent place in the Oval office. Trumpism is a mainstream political philosophy espoused by millions of its Americans, and its leader, who occupied the White House for four years recently and may attempt to regain his position in 2024, is an admirer of Jackson. That is a major indicator that it is still within the mainstream to have a favorable view of Jackson. The awkwardness is in saying that Jackson's reputation continued to decline when we had not yet stated that it had begun to decline.

Jr8825, I think that it's important to keep references to "common man" and "democracy" in the article. That's the language that his supporters used, and as we can see, it's been used in sources written long after his death. I agree that the first and fourth paragraphs were redundant. The best way to implement that seemed to me to be the removal of the sentence about democracy and the common man from the opening paragraph. Before, the opening paragraph seemed mostly favorable to Jackson. Now, it's shorter, and the attention given to his status as a supporter of the common man and to his racial policies is completely even. Additionally, I felt that "his racial policies entailed the forced removal of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands" was not as good as saying that he had been criticized for "his racial policies, particularly his role in the forced removal of tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands." Jackson has also been criticized for his support of slavery. The sentence that I have composed acknowledges that Jackson has been criticized for other reasons on racial matters, although Indian removal is the one that has the greatest impact on his legacy. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is the most recent version of the page. Display name 99 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Trumpism is extreme, not mainstream. See Trumpism:

• "it has been called an American political variant of the far-right"
• "Trump supporters became a significant faction of the Republican Party in the United States, with the remainder often characterized as 'establishment' in contrast." I interpret "establishment" as "mainstream."

2. We did already say "His reputation has suffered since the 1960s." That's a decline.

3. I agree with you that "it's important to keep references to 'common man' and 'democracy' in the article." I further think they should be right at the top of the lead, because it's such a large part of who Jackson was. YoPienso (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I'm afraid I think this is a significant step backwards. My edits removed both criticism and praise from the first paragraph, to keep it focused on a factual summary with assessments in the final paragraph. I also felt inclusion of "anti-establishment" in the lead was beneficial as it's a key characteristic to describe in a brief overview.

Your edit restored the praise but only part of the criticism (I can see writers & academics have discussed demagoguery -- e.g. [2], [3] [4], [5] -- discussion of his populism is an important component of modern as well as contemporary criticism, I will expand the body to cover this as it's neglected); the consequence of your partial revert is the first paragraph is now unbalanced.

I strongly think that unattributed general descriptions of praise are inappropriate as they are inherently WP:WEASELy, particularly "often praised" and "has been viewed", which are suggestive not only of these views being widespread, but also of broad current acceptance. I haven't seen source weighting to indicate that strong language such as "champion for democracy and the common man" is WP:DUE (so this in an NPOV issue). As I mentioned above and in my proposed changes, a solution is to attribute this view to "Jackson's supporters", as modern historians do, and to moderate language so that it's detached and impartial in tone (we can describe fervent support without replicating it ourselves in wikivoice).

I'm not sure what Trump has to do with anything, but regardless, popularity is irrelevant to the weight of reliable sources.

I invite other editors to have a look at my proposed version and share their thoughts on removing all praise and criticism from the first paragraph to reduce redundancy with the final para. Jr8825 • Talk 15:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with your text in the first paragraph, though I would add a final sentence about his contribution of Jacksonian Democracy. That's huge, and is not in the lead.

In the last paragraph, though, I would replace Jackson's supporters praised him as an advocate for ordinary Americans and for his work in keeping the states together with Jackson's supporters viewed him as a champion of democracy and the common man. This view, btw, persisted for bout 150 years. I don't see how we can fail to include it in so many words. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Article trimming?

One of the issues with this article is that it may be too long. When it was brought for consideration at the FAR review, one of the FAR reviewers suggested that the prose in this article needs to be trimmed. Once the prose is reduced, it may help editors clarify how the article can be improved to address the other issues mentioned in the article's maintenance tags. I'd like to begin a first try at the trimming, and aim to maintain citation to text integrity along the way where I can. If I can't, I'll ask for help here. Concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's accepted a trim is needed. I'm just personally daunted at taking on the scale of the task. Please go ahead if you have ideas, you can always come back here to discuss. Jr8825 • Talk 18:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was trimmed by DN99 about 2 weeks ago. Afterwards the article stood at 15,336 words. I think that it's currently ok length-wise. If you want to trim it more go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend deleting more than 500 words. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and I think @SandyGeorgia presented an excellent pathway to streamlining the article. I don't think we should place limits on just how much can or should be trimmed. --ARoseWolf 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This blanket statement (antiok's) is not helpful when one can find unnecessary verbosity and prose that is just not tight anywhere one looks in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason this article can't be brought down to a normal size. See Elizabeth II, Joan of Arc, and J. K. Rowling as but three of many FA examples (and all under 9,000 words of readable prose, in spite of considerable scholarly sources and controversy). This can be accomplished in two ways:

1. The prose is just not tight anywhere ... I gave two two examples above of the easily addressed verbosity, and similar can be done in every paragraph. Much of the art of writing is about knowing what to leave out as much as knowing what to include, and there seemed to be no limit on what to include in the original composition here.
2. Summary style is not employed, and it well could be. There are already sub-articles that should be used (eg Presidency of ... ), and others that can be created (eg Miliary career of ... or ... Legacy).

More importantly, unless this work is undertaken in a very deliberative fashion, working methodically as I suggest above, it is highly unlikely that this article will come out of FAR with its FA status intact, and we'll be left with a mess of an article with maintenance tags, and that benefits no one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Very good point about the Summary style of writing. If there were, as you say, articles on Preidency of.. and Military career of... then each one of those pertinent sections would be similar to a lead for each article where it just summarizes the content? --ARoseWolf 15:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not strictly or necessarily a "lead" (because flow in this article has to be accounted for), but generally, yes, that's the idea. Writing in this way forces one to really focus on a) what are truly the best sources, and b) getting fluff and verbosity out of the prose. Every FA should do that, but FAC just stopped looking for tight prose somewhere along the way. And once you develop a methodology of truly focusing on what the best sources say, POV has a way of solving itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Significant omission of USMC and USN contributions at Battle of New Orleans

Failure to include US Marine and US Navy Regulars as making important contributions to the defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812. 107.214.236.190 (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)