Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Legacy section rewrite – concerns

Hi all. I haven't taken a look at this article since mid-September (link to previous revision I'm comparing) but I'm struck by how the overall treatment of Jackson has changed in the new legacy section, for the worse in my opinion. Among other things, it seems unfocused on Jackson's legacy and less critical (perhaps the previous text was too negative, but a number of sourced critical assessments by historians have been removed despite a large increase in overall length, which is concerning). I thought I'd share my general impressions, apologies if some of these things have been raised previously:

• The legacy section overall now seems excessively long.
• I'm not sure the dedicated subsection on the concept of "Jacksonian democracy" is suitable/due here, and if it is, it's still too long. Extended discussion/argument about what the concept means surely belongs at Jacksonian democracy, rather than Jackson's own page. Given this is the legacy section, I think argument over the nature of his political ideology should be at the very most one or two paragraphs.
  • Most of the first paragraph outlines Jackson's beliefs regarding the constitution; this belongs somewhere else in the article, if appropriate.
  • Alexis de Tocqueville's views are now presented as mixed and non-specific to Jackson (regarding the US political experiment), whereas the previous text represented Tocqueville as being strongly critical of Jackson. Which is a more accurate representation of Tocqueville's view on Jackson?
  • The paragraph on criticism of Jacksonian democracy (as racist) is focused on the concept, rather than Jackson's specific legacy. Some of the sentences are about racism in the US generally during the era, which isn't especially relevant to a summary of Jackson's legacy.
• Modern criticisms of Jackson's alleged demagoguery are gone, and the criticism is now presented as a solely 19th century Whig one.
• Also gone is the brief sentence on 20th century criticism of Jackson in relation to later laissez-faire policies. That criticism seemed tenuous to me and its removal may be a positive, although it was sourced to a modern work on Jackson.
• The sourced sentences describing the movements in Jacksonian historiography since the 1960s have been removed, which I think is a serious loss. They disussed re-evaluations following the civil rights movement and the shift away from celebrations of Jackson as defender of "common man" to more critical evaluations of his exclusionary attitudes.
• The "Native American policy" section is poor and, like the section on Jacksonian democracy, overly repetitious (of the dedicated section further up the article)
  • The first paragraph summarises covers Jackson's pre-presidency actions in excessive detail. Everything after "cede their lands." doesn't belong in the section on his legacy.
  • The second paragraph outlines Jackson's position on removal and his justification for it. This is all irrelevant. Jackson's own assessment of himself/his policy does not belong in the legacy section, which should focus primarily on what experts say. It belongs in the section on the Indian Removal Act further up the page, if anywhere.
  • The third paragraph is dedicated to potential positive benefits of removal, which I suspect is undue. It consists of contemporary arguments about economic improvements (again, this is the legacy section, not the historical narrative), Jackson's own argument about it improving wellbeing and a sentence which misleadingly says "some contemporary historians have agreed with Jackson". I thought previous discussions on this talk page had shown this is now a fringe view among modern historians, and the two sources for this sentence are Prucha (1969) and Remini (1984). The previous revision I'm comparing (link above) includes Prucha and Remini's argument but attributes them in the text so it's clear who is making this claim, and that it's dated.
• The "Historical reputation" repeats some of the content covered in the "Jacksonian democracy" subsection, especially the paragraph beginning "These apparent contradictions..."
• The final paragraph is overly editorial/conversational in tone, rather than encylopedic. A suitable assessment for a historian to make, but not for WP:wikivoice. It's also clearly written for an American audience (see {{Globalize}}).

I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts and see if any of these concerns are shared. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 03:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Wtfiv, as from looking at the talk archive it appears they made most of these changes. Apologies for the long (largely negative) list, I have appreciated your hard work across this article. Jr8825 • Talk 03:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825 Thank you for the ping. Your points are well taken. Would you be interested reworking it? If not, I could do so in light of your concerns, but it seems you have an idea of where it should go. It would also further reduce the length, which was voiced as a concern.

Here's my thoughts:

• Jackson Democracy: The first paragraph could be reduced to a statement or two with the rest of it shifted to the Jacksonian democracy page. Or, it could be moved back into a presidential philosophy section as it was originally.

• The second paragraph could be reduced. Its goal was to give his early legacy. The sections about de Toqueville is here the accessbile archive.org pp. 377-378. De Tocqueville was cited directly in the original, but he's so close to events he seems like a primary source. And he's not talking so much about Jackson, but how Jackson is being driven by the larger forces of American democracy. What are your thoughts?
• The third paragraph gives Jackson's legacy in the 20th century, and the citations describe were the "common man" ideology associated with Jackson arose.
• The critical fourth and fifth can be combined and reduced. To some extent, the race issue should be acknowledged. Even Remini, who strives to defend Jackson from charges of racism, acknowledges that Jackson saw abolition as a devisive issue e.g., Remini vol. II, pp343-344. The Watson and Knott points about exclusionary attitudes and demogogery could be included. And, the points from Hammond and Hofstadter could be brought in, but by citing them directly and not mentioning them in text.

• Native American policy I think the pre-president treaties need mention. They all point to a larger Native American policy, of which the Indian Removal Act is just a small part. But, each of the three other treaties could put in context in the preceding narrative description. The consensus that Remini and Pruha's arguments are fringe works for me: they can just be removed. I think the last paragraph should stay though.
• Historical reputation If the Jacksonian democracy section is reduced much of the repitition should disappear, though some integration may be needed. I'm not sure the last paragraph is just to an American audience. It is a cited comment of fluctuating reputation that closed the legacy, but it can easily be removed.

How would you like to proceed? I'll ping Carlstak, ARoseWolf as they oversaw much of the editing and may have insights. Wtfiv (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Wtfiv; I'll take a look this evening when I have a chance. Carlstak (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping. I didn't keep track of the edits to the article itself as much as the lead paragraphs but I will most definitely look at the article content, primarily the Legacy section and respond with some thoughts. In principle, I agree with @Jr8825 about the purpose of the Legacy section and also about being careful what we say in wiki-voice. That has been my concern from the beginning. I would go a step further though. The entire article should not have one sentence depicting Jackson's thoughts on himself or his presidency. One of the very prominent responses to unknowing editors that ask if they can create an article about a loved one, themselves or some organization they belong to on Wikipedia is that an article here is about what reliable sources say about you, them or it, not what you think or say. Likewise, an article on Jackson should not contain anything he said or any view he may have had about himself, even if it is attributable to a credible reliable source relaying what Jackson thought. --ARoseWolf 14:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have the mental energy to assess these points now, it's too close to bedtime, but I have implicit faith in Jr8825's competence. I'm sure you guys will work something out, with consideration for ARoseWolf's viewpoint, of course. I'll look whenever I get a chance. Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I do believe Jacksonian democracy belongs in the legacy section but any content stating what Jackson himself thought of it should be removed. I would like to see a trimmed down version of what that subsection would look like. Anywhere we can hit brief highpoints and then direct all deeper dives into content to a specific article on that subject would be better for the article.

The Native-American policy subsection does need some rework. I don't have a problem with mentioning pre-presidential treaties so long as it is a brief mention and the focus is in showing how it relates to Jackson's legacy. The issue I have with Remini is that it appears to be a quasi primary/non-independent secondary source. Remini does interject his own thoughts on Jackson but is clearly a Jackson apologist. The lengths he goes to try and defend Jackson's removal policies as beneficial to Native Americans because at least some of them survived (my paraphrasing) is troubling and problematic to use as some kind of authority on the affects of Jackson's policies on minorities in the US through the successive decades.

I think a crucial component of the Historical reputation subsection is the waxing and waning of support Jackson has gotten from generations of Americans that came after his presidency and especially over the past four or five decades since the Civil Rights Movement and American Indian Movement began, respectively. Including the positions of Jackson apologist and critics is appropriate for this section.

There is no doubt the article is in better shape than it was before these discussions occurred and I am very enthused and excited to see the changes that will occur going forward. I appreciate all of you for being the example of what this community should be through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 15:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your collaborative and thorough reply @Wtfiv. I'm happy to look at reworking the legacy section in my sandbox and then return here to discuss what I come up with. I'll likely end up with a section roughly similar in length to the earlier version I linked above, which leads to the question of whether the rest of the new content can be cut (considering article length) or whether it's important enough that it needs to be moved somewhere else in the article. I do think restoring a separate "presidential philosophy"/"political philosophy" section ahead of the legacy section is a decent option, if others think it's necessary (it does appear to be an important aspect of how RS treat his life/influence). Otherwise it might be possible to integrate parts into the main Presidency section. Unfortunately I won't be able to prepare an alternative section this week, though, as I have a major (real life) work deadline on 18th Jan. Jr8825 • Talk 06:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jr8825, I like your solution. I think you drafting the legacy to reflect your vision of what it should look like, while accomodating ARoseWolf's comments is the way to go. (And when you are done, I can try to integrate the information on the other treaties in context.) and if you feel they have merit, perhaps accomodating my concerns. but I would prefer you do it so it reflects the vision of a legacy as you see it. I do request that we leave contemporary scholars names out of the main text.

Three requests on my side:

• Let's avoid as much as possible things like: "Historian X says...." If an academic's opinion is mainstream, the opinion should reflect a consensus, and the representative source of the opinion should be clear from the citation. I think Schlesinger may be an exception, as a review of the literature points toward the idea that his work is one that almost every contemporary author responds to. And if the position is more fringe, like Remini and Prucha's, it can be stated as such (or if names are mentioned, stated in a footnote). If you are okay with it, I'll comment or perhaps even edit what you create. I don't think there is a hurry by the way.
• If possible, please try to keep the information about the origin of the "common man" in legacy.
• Include the acknowledgement that Jackson's displacement of Native American populations was larger than just the Indian Removal Act. If you are comfortable with this, I'll go back after you are done and integrate the other treaties into the narrative text.

I'm looking forward to see what you draft! I don't think there is any hurry. I'll keep watching, but please ping me when you have the draft in place and ready for comment. In the meantime, good luck with your work deadlines, I hope they go well! Wtfiv (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1 has been on hold now since 25 August 2022-- ample time for the requirement to notice and the dispute to subside and the article's FA status to be calmly reviewed at FAR. In addition to concerns raised by others above, we still have page size issues (over 12,000 words of readable prose), while all of my and Rjensen's suggestions for trimming have not yet been addressed. Is it time to reinstate the FAR? Also, might it be useful to move the old FAR commentary to the talk page of the FAR, leaving behind a link, in the interest of starting anew? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, Though good faith efforts were made to shorten the article according to suggestions, including Rjensen's, I'm sure more can be done. I'm finished with direct involvment in shortening it; reducing those 3000 words was hard enough. But, I'd encourage editors who see opportunities to go in and do it directly. I'll help with the gnoming, and my raise questions or concerns that arise. Alternatively, if editors don't want to disrupt the source-citation integrity, the prose can be presented on talk, I'll transfer to it to main page and do the source/text checks.

The issues in the legacy section should be addressed in the next few weeks. Jr8825 will be taking the lead on reworking the legacy in the next few week, and I'm sure the editors here- and anybody new who wants to jump in- will probably work together to strengthen the section. After its done, it will probably need a clean up sweep.

The overall article up to legacy could also use a sweep. Carlstak did a great job of copy editing, cleaning up prose, and correcting factual concerns in the earlier passes. It'd be great if another collaborative editor would directly jump in to look these over again, change style as they see fit, and do any other improvements. I know that I've gotten too close to the prose to be effective. Wtfiv (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Wtfiv. Your labors on the article are greatly appreciated, and the fact that things have gone so smoothly with the changes is a testament to your editorial and diplomatic skills. Well done. It's been a pleasure working with you. I'm consumed with other concerns for the time being, but I'll try to check in if I get a chance. Best, Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wtfiv, now that the FAR is re-instated, could you and all active here be sure to keep it updated on progress (about once weekly)? I'm not keeping up as well as I used to ... thx for the effort here! After you are settled with Jr8825's edits, and update there would be grand ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I'll put in a brief summary of changes in FAR with updates as requested. Similarly, if you post specifics that you'd like addressed in the FAR page or here, I'll do what I can to address them. In the case of your concerns, specifics regarding length would be much appreciated. As you can see, I try to take into account all editor's opinions and do what I can when specifics are given. (It be great if a fresh, collaborative editor could jump in, but I know there are lots of pages out there that need TLC.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Jr8825 and ARoseWolf, I've removed the Native American Policysection in legacy. Jr8825 pointed out that much of this was redundant, and conversation at the FAR seems to suggest the same. Both of you also made the point that previous discussion suggested that Remini's and Prucha's views on the Indian Removal Act are problematic, so I removed them. I took the last paragraph discussing ethnic cleansing and moved it down into the Historical Reputation section for now. I think this is important to keep and gets to the nub of the large debate here. As Jr8825 gets time to rework the legacy, it can be better integrated. I think that part will have to remain, as this is a more current aspect of his legacy. I moved mention of the treaties directly into the narratives. Wtfiv (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wtfiv, That's fine by me. The majority of the information regarding Jackson's, and by larger extent the US, Native American policy is covered in the Indian Removal Act subsection and anything related to Jackson's legacy can be covered under the Historical reputation subsection of the Legacy section if it has not already. I'm interested in seeing Jr8825's rework of the Legacy section when that occurs. You have done a remarkable job of striking a neutral tone throughout this discussion. I'm very appreciative of your hard work. I know it has been difficult at times. --ARoseWolf 14:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

While waiting for Jr8825's edit, I removed many of the items discussed by Jr8825 and ARoseWolf. References to Jacksonian democracy are gone, descriptions of Jackson's beliefs are gone. (I'm assuming the actions in the article make them clear. They can be replaced if editors think they should be.) I made a few elements mentionging Jacksonian democracy more about Jackson, if the citation supported it. As to de Toqueville. I rewrote it as I understood it. In much of it de Toqueville discusses how Jackson is seen in Europe or Jackson as symbol for America, but here's the link to the source in the version cited by Jr8825 to guide other edits or takes on de Toqueville's point: Toqueville, 1969 (1840) pp. 392–394.

@Wtfiv: thanks for continuing to work on this. I hope to sit down and have a proper go at the section over the weekend. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825! This is just a friendly ping. Do you think you'll have time to rework the legacy in the next week or two? Wtfiv (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just another ping Jr8825 about whether you'll be able to work on the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping -- it's appreciated -- and sorry for going missing in action. It's been a busy time in real life and I'm bad at giving time estimates, but I do hope to look at this soon, hopefully the next couple of days. Jr8825 • Talk 00:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Reputation decline

@The Night Watch - I reverted your edit to the lead only because statistics show his reputation began sliding in the 1980's which was the 20th century. His sharpest declines have been in the 21st century and I'm not opposed to rewording but making it exclusively a 21st century decline isn't telling the whole story. Perhaps if we say the late 20th and early 21st century it will present a more accurate statement? --ARoseWolf 14:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf That's fair; it is more accurate that way. The Night Watch (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

I reinstated the recently removed legacy in the first paragraph of lead, as this appears in other Presidential pages. (George Washington as Founding Father and "Father of his country" or James Madison as [[James Madison as Father of the Constitution|"Father of the Constitution".

Removed "African American" from last sentence first paragraph of lead, which addresses his legacy as president. Jackson was supportive of slavery, being a slave owner and and against abolition. These are mentioned in the article and his ownership of slaves is mentioned in the lead. But, he did not enact major policy that changed the treatment or status of African Americans. Wtfiv (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

While that’s fair, as keeping articles consistent within one another makes sense, this should probably change for both Madison and Washington, as the legacy stuff should be saved for the end of the lead. As far as I’m concerned, I’m pretty sure that the opening sentences should purely focus on important information, such as their date of birth, name, what they’re known for, etc. Aardwolf68 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Typo?

Article refers to the "five tribes" as "Southwest" tribes ...as opposed to Southeast tribes. 65.129.81.50 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Not a typo. That area actually used to be referred to as the "southwest" because at the time it was the Southwest. Take a look at the Old Southwest article the term links to. Shearonink (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

boot polishing incident

I have been unable to find a source associating a Major Coffin with the “boot polishing incident“. If one exists it should be included.

For that matter, the sources I have checked seem to describe the incident without corroboration. There seem to be variations of the story. What about the witnesses? Is there a reliable secondary source which not only repeats the story but explains the origin? Something better than “tall tales of the revolution“ by Currier and Ives. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted mention of Major Coffin. Page 20–21 of Vol 1. of Remini's comprehensive biography specifically mentions Major Coffin in the incident, but neither Meacham, who is the cited source in the text, nor Wilentz does. Mention of Coffin is not in the illustration either. Wtfiv (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are still some remaining problems with how the article describes this incident.

Page 20-21 of Remini's 1977 book says on Page 20 that Lord Rawdon "dispatched a small company of dragoons under Major Coffin", on Page 21 then mentions "an officer in command of the dragoons" and "the officer" but never specifically states that officer's name in specific connection with the boot-polishing. Then, Remini quotes one "early historian" as stating "afterwards occasioned his death" as if Remini is quoting the source but those exact words do not appear in the footnoted source, which is Eaton's 1817 "The Life of Andrew Jackson:...". Eaton - the source - states "Coffin's dragoons" but then says "..ordered, in a very imperious tone, by a British officer..." and never refers to the officer by name. Now, the problem is that this Wikipedia article states as its source Meacham's "Lion" biography but Meacham does not say anything close to "the British officer in charge", he only describes this orderer of boot polishing as "an imperious officer" which, after all, is closer to what Eaton - Remini's source - actually wrote (keeping in mind that "imperious tone"). So, yes...no Coffin and, actually, no "officer in charge" either. Shearonink (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

So I just now changed that sentence. Shearonink (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Change looks good to me! Wtfiv (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

He was also a SLAVE OWNER!!!!They didnt want to publish that huh.. 2600:1004:B167:9F4C:88B3:F10D:AF4C:B591 (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you bother to read the article? His status as a slave owner has an entire section devoted to it. :"Like most planters in the Southern United States, Jackson used slave labor. In 1804, Jackson had nine African American slaves; by 1820, he had over 100; and by his death in 1845, he had over 150." Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a good bet that the IP didn't read past the first paragraph of the lede, if they even bothered to read that. The very second paragraph of the lede says, "Jackson purchased a property later known as the Hermitage, becoming a wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves." Time waster. Carlstak (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hundreds? But he owned less than 200 slaves at any point during his career. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more clear if it said, "A wealthy planter who owned hundreds of African American slaves over time", or alternatively, during his life. What does the community think? Carlstak (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with this change. --ARoseWolf 14:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The main article states Over his lifetime, he owned a total of 300 slaves. But if it seems helpful to add the qualifier to the lead, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Made the bold edit to add "during his lifetime" as I felt this most closely resembled what was stated in greater detail within the article but also was slightly different wording that closely resembled the best fitting suggestion by @Carlstak. As noted, because this is a bold edit, I am not against any addition to, altering or reversion of this edit should someone oppose the edit or suggest something different. --ARoseWolf 16:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think ARoseWolf's bold edit is just fine, and I can't see why anyone would oppose it, since per the sources, it's pretty much incontrovertible. Thanks to Dimadick for bringing this up. Carlstak (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo or a porter

judging by your logic we should change Quincy Adams images too. I think that Andrew Jackson's portrait is misleading readers of Wiki. The photo reveals the personality of the US president and the controversy surrounding his figure, portraits can also be left, but only in the article itself ArmenAir (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the portrait should be left as is. The photo is depicted later in the article when discussing his retirement and legacy. I see no policy issue. I would also like to remind @ArmenAir that consensus is generally decided locally on each article and this article is not necessarily bound by what another article, even of a US president, looks like or what consensus is decided on those articles. If someone can convince me that there is a policy issue with the portrait or that there is a logical reason to exchange it for another image, other than personal preference, then that could change so further discussion is always welcome. --ARoseWolf 15:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ARoseWolf. The daguerreotype reflects Jackson at the year of his death, which was a different time of his life. I think the painted portrait by Earl, who was Jackson's preferred painter while Jackson was president, represents Jackson how he was seen in the prime of his public career. The daguerreotype is already in the article where it illustrates what he looked like in his final year of life. Let's see if there is any consensus in favor of the daguerreotype going in the infobox. Wtfiv (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

War of 1812

No mention of Filipino soldiers fighting for us army. Under. Andrew Jackson command 108.6.19.124 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you add a link when you click on succeeded by Martin van Buren

ggs 2601:247:C100:7E10:E8D9:9645:1BBA:BDB1 (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Y Done Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified officer, not Coffin

There is no evidence that it was Major CoffinDabberoni15 (talk · contribs). The source describes an unnamed officer. Just another case of embellished AWI history. The talk topic containing a thorough search has apparently been archived. I’ll leave it for you to dig and fix. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Y Coffin's name removed. Wtfiv (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is the archived discussion on the boot polishing incidence. Wtfiv (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Article size

SandyGeorgia —For an article that's very involved with several aspects of American history and other matters it is not very long. Basing the deletion of a very small section on this idea alone isn't warranted and still leaves the article at almost the same length..

The guideline for an article just over 60K of readable prose reads:
WP:SIZERULE: Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

This is a FA about a very famous war hero, and US President, and a controversial figure because of slave ownership. Many FA and GA articles even exceed 100k of readable prose and have no issues because they merit the text. All past presidents are commemorated on US postage, and some on currency, as is Jackson in both cases. Presidential articles routinely display such commemorations in proportion to their fame. Nothing unusual or inappropriate was done here. There's a sub-article for many things involved with this article, and displaying all 12 Jackson postage stamps, along with all the currency, in this article would of course be overkill, but a few are called for here. If this is a pressing issue for you please get a consensus before making another revert. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

And you have WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN backwards; you made a bold addition, I removed it, and you re-instated it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy, for the link to the other discussion. (It doesn't seem reasonable to have expected Gwillhickers or anyone else to have found it there.) I support your revert, for the reasons you gave there. However, I think the link to Army and Navy stamp issues of 1936-1937 should be replaced with a link to Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps. And, should we fail to reach a consensus, I don't see why there would be three old stamps when there was a 1967 and a 1986 issue.

My edit summary: Brief mention and link to stamps, but no gallery, please. YoPienso (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The link to the current Featured article review is given at the top of this page-- the very first thing. The article is undergoing a review to determine if it still meets WP:WIAFA; WP:FAOWN is good reading, and more eyes are on the article via that review. So ... the discussion should be over there, where other editors are trying to preserve the featured status. Thanks for popping in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

All's good, but just on a practical level, I for one would never imagine comments were being made somewhere other than on the article talk page. The review discussion is specifically about the article's status, which doesn't cross the mind of the average non-reviewing editor. I'm glad you commented there, and glad you gave us the link. YoPienso (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia — Thanks for the feedback. The stamps in question were already in the article since 2010 and remained there for many years, and as such already had standing consensus, but somewhere along the line they were (boldly) removed. In any case, if this one small section by itself is going to make the article unstable, and if it is deemed necessary that it be removed, of course I'll go along with consensus. In any case, thanks for not reverting, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

We'll wait and see what the consensus is at FAR; just please work with the editors there so as not to introduce instability during the review. Those who deleted the text did so for a reason, and Yopienso seems to agree with me and them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you knew about first deletion of long standing content. Of course I'll work with other editors, but accusing me of ownership, esp since I have not edited the article for years until recently, is not helping stability. Again, 60+k of readable prose is nothing alarming for a famous figure like Jackson, and is sometimes justified, as explained. Again, many GA and FA articles exceed even 100k of readable prose, and rightly so, without any issues, invented, or otherwise. Please don't rest the entire issue of stability on this one small paragraph, the likes of which were, again, already in the article since 2010. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There was no accusation of ownership; FAOWN is about the importance of discussing your edits first on a featured article (and that asking you to do is the opposite of ownership). But ... since you missed the Featured article review banner at the top of the page, and didn't know that other editors were working together on a review page when you reverted, all is understandable, and hopefully everyone is on the same page now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Stamp information

The stamp information seems interesting, but doesn't seem to fit for a final statement. And, there is an article dedicated to how Jackson has been memorialized. I moved the information and the gallery regarding the stamps to of memorials to Andrew Jackson and merged it and gallery with the information that was already there.Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Wtfiv; so I hope that's settled, and now everyone here knows there's a review underway, conducted on another page, so all can work together. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the sub-article is the best place for this information, although it might make sense to summarize the sub-article with a sentence along the lines of "Numerous places and institutions have been named for Jackson, and he has been honored on postage stamps and currency" or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Wtfiv, I find the stamp information interesting but if there is a sub-article that is where the content belongs so as to not increase the size of this article further. We do not need to have everything associated with Andrew Jackson mentioned in this article. I might be willing to support the idea of one sentence mentioning the stamps, as proposed by EW, located in the Legacy section but we don't need more than that.--ARoseWolf 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

One (brief) sentence along those lines would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, Wtfiv, SandyGeorgia, and Extraordinary Writ: — Okay I can live with one brief sentence and perhaps a single image of the first Jackson stamp. I'll wait for further comment before adding the content. As far as article length is concerned, once again, the content in question was very small, so its inclusion should not even be a factor concerning excessive article length. In any case, thanks for not being absolutely rigid about the issue. This is my proposed entry.

The first Jackson stamp, Issue of 1863

Andrew Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times, appearing on twelve stamps as of 2023.

Hope this sits well with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that putting most of the detail into the memorials article seems to make sense. There's a bit of interesting bits that focus on ways Jackson has been memorialized, and stamps are part of that memorialization. It seems there's a consensus for a sentence in the main article. The hardest part is finding where to put it in the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty of room at the bottom of the section. As mentioned, I'll acquiesce in confining the text to one sentence and one small image, but it seems we could say a bit more, perhaps with another sentence,. about this national honor. A president appearing on the nation's postage and currency isn't some minor piece of trivia. In any case, I'll go ahead and add the one sentence and image, hoping that it will be a welcomed addition to this biography after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

A quick search shows that 38 of 46 presidents have received this honor proving that it might be significant when compared to the total population of the US but not among presidents. When I look at George Washington's article I see that it mentioned him being included on postage stamps, most of any president, in a short sentence in a paragraph included with his image being on the dollar bill and quarter. Other articles of presidents like William Henry Harrison, who was only in office for one month before he died but somehow was given the honor, doesn't even mention being on a stamp but does have an image included. I stand by my belief its being more of a deal than it should be though it is indeed an honor but mostly as a product of them being elected president than anything else. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It could also be said that every President took the oath of office, and as such, is no big deal. National honors, however common, should not be understated or trivialized. In any case, as said, I can live with the one sentence and single image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry one might have the view that our consensus and discussion processes might be trivializing such a high honor. There might be a slight bit of sarcasm in my words considering just a few months ago one could say that the topic of certain of his policies was trivialized but I doubt one solitary life was extinguished as a result of his receiving the honor of his image on a postage stamp. Though I have heard that the adhesive they used for years might have had cancer causing agents. We even rectified the issues with describing his policies in the article. Glory be, our processes work. My point in this discussion is that one brief sentence is not "understated" or "trivialized". While we do not compare article to article it seems it is about on par with that of his peers that attained the same honor. And you provided a link to the standalone article (thank you) should the reader want more information. I agreed that a sentence well placed and accurately presented would suffice so in the end we agree. Happy times and cheers! --ARoseWolf 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I was just coming over to add to this. Gwillhickers, WP:CITEVAR matters in WP:WIAFA, where a consistent citation style is part of the criteria. It might have been much easier if you had waited for either Wtfiv or EW to add this content, keeping the style consistent. There's no hurry, and it's one little sentence; we can wait to get it right.

The bigger problem now is that the way the citation is written,

Scotts United States Specialized Stamp Catalog of U.S. stamps. Scott Publishing Company, New York. 2023. pp. 22, 30–33, 49–51, 59–60, 103, 107–108, 163, 172–173.

relative to the wording, makes it appear the entire thing might be original research. Do you actually have a source that says "Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times", or are you drawing that conclusion from counting the images yourself in that book from the multiple pages? If there's one source citing that content, one expects to see it on one page-- not spread out over pages. If that is what was done, the statement is not only OR, it's probably WP:UNDUE as well. What are the exact words from the source supporting the statement that Jackson "is one of few ..." etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• OR is usually an issue when someone draws a different conclusion entirely different or severely aside from the stated facts than what the sources indicate. We don't need a verbatim statement that says "Jackson is one of the few...", as this idea is supported in any US stamp catalogue, as well as other philatelic texts. In any case, I modified the statement until such time where a more suitable source can be found for the previous statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not necessarily; OR is you going through a book and counting to come up with a conclusion no secondary source has published. And since that was OR, it's also WP:UNDUE in the article. It may well be worth mentioning, but you need to find a source that says it is. Jackson is not aspiring to DYK or GA; it's an FA, and what we write should reflect the same balance as sources do. What high-quality secondary source represents postage stamps in his legacy, and what proportion of writing about Jackson is dedicated to that? If you don't have a satisfactory secondary source, the content belongs not here, but in the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Citation style. I noticed in this article that there are at least 160 inline citations that use a cite book or cite web template, so I went along with that approach. You are correct however. There are several types of citation conventions employed in the article, including the SFN, straight line refs, as well as inline cite book and cite web templates. As I'm sure you're aware, FA criteria says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"... How would you propose to remedy the overall situation?  If you're ready to move all the cite book and cite web templates from the body of text to the Bibliography, and link up to them via a SFN citation, you're we're going to have quite a job in front of you us. This is not to say it needn't be done, just pointing out the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC).

  The article is still undergoing finishing polishes; my recommendation is that you not put UNDUE content into the article, in a messed up citation format, until you have consensus or have given the main editors the opportunity to explain the citation style. That's the part of WP:FAOWN I was asking you to read.

  Mixing different styles is fine (sfns with cite templates), as long as there is a consistent method to how the choices are made and how the citations are rendered on output. For example, many FA writers use sfns for books and journals, but cite web or news for those for websites and news sources. Different choices are made, and are fine as long as they are employed consistently.

  At any rate, this is a minor concern, as it doesn't appear that content should be there, per DUE anyway. And we've now spent 2,500 words on talk, plus more on the FAR, to talk about a dozen words that, without a better source, may not even belong in an FA (will wait to see if others can find mention of postage stamps in sources specifically about Jackson); please take greater care when editing a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• For reference, I refer you to the strictly scholarly sourcing of the Legacy content at J. K. Rowling#Legacy; a gazillion things could have been said about one of the most successful authors ever, but every web-sourced trivia one can come up with was omitted, and the section was restricted to what scholarly sources said, and given weight according to scholarly sources. We have sub-articles where other content can be placed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Good lord, the editor making such a fuss over something so trivial and inconsequential to the article. It doesn't need to be here; it interrupts the logical flow of the legacy section, sticking out like a sore thumb. It's mere trivia, and the sub-article is a much better place for it. Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• As was already discussed, a president appearing on the nation's postage and currency are national honors. Such images are common place in presidential articles, and are not "trivial", anymore than the existing and rather large picture of the statue is, with its lengthy caption. The sub article to which you refer is dedicated to displaying an abundance of images of postage, statues, paintings, etc, but this doesn't mean we can't show a couple of the more significant items here, as is done with the stature and the item of postage.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Sandy, IMO the citations are not consistently formatted, as there are at least two styles used. If a cite book template can be accommodated with a SF citation, there's no reason why cite news or cite web templates can't. Perhaps we should seek an outside opinion about WP:FA: "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes" at Wikipedia:Noticeboards#Other administrator assistance just to be sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Now that the addition is in the article, I find myself agreeing with Carlstak and Sandy. The issue of the stamps is really about the memorialization of Jackson, which is addressed in the appropriate article. The addition of the stamp in the main article seems out of place and breaks the narrative flow. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Memorialization

Is it also proposed that we remove the image of the statue? The statue doesn't tie in with any of the paragraphs in the Legacy section, also, and is no more out of place than the image of postage. If there is a concern for "flow", we can simply move it to the very end of the section, or add a Commemorations subsection after Legacy, where we can place the images of the statue and postage. In any case, having a dedicated article does not mean we are obligated to not cover a given topic or idea here, at all.   In this article there at least seventeen Main article links, yet there is a section for each topic with a number of good sized paragraphs for each. I tried pointing out a major problem with FA criteria, the same problem, i.e. different citation styles, that has existed in other FA reviews, which was dealt with promptly, and even suggested that we get administrative opinion. This apparently is being ignored while this reoccurring fixation on a stamp image continues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Since this is creating more concern than is really warranted I went ahead and removed the stamp image for the sake of article stability, until such time, hopefully, we can agree on how to deal with images involving memorials and commemorations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Additional battles

Hello, Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). Thanks for contributing. The first battle of fort bowyer was in mid-september of 1812. But Jackson didn’t arrive in the area until December. He wasn’t at the Negro fort either. Have you checked your other additions? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I found these battles listed in the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson map on Jackson’s Wikipedia Page. Although I’ve studied Jackson and his life for years, I can’t memorize every battle he’s been a part of. My other additions are correct to the best of my knowledge. However, I’d like verification for the years that he served in the military, especially when he left the Tennessee Militia, and when he entered the U.S. Army. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No one expects you to remember everything Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). That’s why we dig for information and often check the sources. I knew Jackson wasn’t at the battle of negro fort. I wasn’t sure about fort bowyer so I had to look up the dates. The other battles aren’t familiar to me at all.

One of the rules we have to live by is that Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source. So, you had a good idea noting the battles which were on the map but not in the list. Just take the next step of investigating why. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I updated the lists to remove the battles where he was not commander, except for Hanging Rock where he was present. In the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson, some of the battles listed were not fought with Jackson present but were part of the overall campaign he directed and mentioned in the article. These battles will give the name of the commanding officer. For example, John Coffee fought the Battle of Tallushatchee. He was under Jackson's command, but Jackson was not at the battle. Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, should we add info on his authorization of the first major reform to copyright law, as well as the law he signed reforming the patent system? Henry Berghoff (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a featured article review under way, so I suggest holding off on new material. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't suggest "holding off on new material", rather discussing additions now so that the article doesn't bludgeon in size again after the Featured article review ends. Suggesting additions of material is normally accompanied by providing sources, and evaluating due weight. Featured articles must be comprehensive; if an addition is worthy, it should be discussed now, not later. WHy is this "first major reform to copyright law" worthy of mention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I’d like to address the deletion of my edits regarding trade and the judiciary. I think we should keep the edit describing the deal with Siam as the first with an Asiatic country, since that is a major milestone in the history of American trade. Second, I think we should keep the edits I made about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn’t change size often, and Jackson signing the law expanding it to its current size should be worthy of mention. Now onto the copyright laws: I think this could be mentioned, although I don’t know where it would fit in the article. The copyright law was considered to be the first major change to this sort of law in American history, while the patent law instituted added some rigor to attaining a patent, including a review system. A good start would be to go to the list of federal legislation on Wikipedia, and find these listed under the congresses during which Jackson was president. Henry Berghoff (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the Judicial Act of 1837 (I couldn't find a source that called it the Eighth and Nine Circuits Act.) I backed it up with two sources, one is a vintage journal article from 1920. I used it because it gives the most detailed background on the political aspects, the facts stated in it haven't changed, and its free. I also added the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court (1992). I figured that's authoritative, explains the act, and justifies the name "Judicial Act", but it really doesn't address Jackson's role in detail. Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks good. Thanks. Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Added point about Siam. It's already in Latner, so no additional citations were needed. As you mentioned, copyright law doesn't fit well into this article. I think a discussion of the Jackson administration's role in copyright law would be best in an article on the U. S. history of copyright law. Wtfiv (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Judge Jackson

Updated description of Jackson as judge in inbox and lead to be consistent with text. The article correctly points out that he served on the Tennessee Superior Court. A new in-depth source has replaced the old ones. Also mentioned that Jackson was appointed by the governor to replace a vacancy, he was not elected. The Superior Court was a high court of early Tennessee, but unlike a supreme court, it was not an independent branch of the judiciary and it also served as a trial court as well as an appellate court. Tennessee did not get a Supreme Court as an independent Judiciary until it revised its constitution in1835.

To support this article, I added a brief history section to the Tennessee Supreme Court article, so that link helps explain the difference. Otherwise, it would've confused the reader by mentioning the supreme court was not established until 1835, 31 years after Jackson had served. I also updated the List of justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court to briefly explain the difference and note which judges served on which court. Wtfiv (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Service In Rev War

Jackson commenced service in the South Carolina Militia in 1779, not 1780 as the article suggests. I found a record on family search providing this evidence. He also held the rank of Private in the South Carolina Militia. In the info box, I am going to add this information, however, I am unsure how to reflect this in the actual body paragraphs of the article. Also, should we provide a short anecdote of his service in the Rev War in the introductory paragraphs?

Here is the link to new info: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99WB-HC1Z?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQ2DG-7GWM&action=view

Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Henry Berghoff,

I'm not sure about using familysource as a reliable source, see WP:RSP where familysource.org is listed as a "generally unreliable" source. (I didn't look at the site because I don't have an account.) Maybe others who are more knowledgeable about these sources can weigh in.

I don't think should extend Jackson's Revolutionary War background into the lead. Though it impacted his view of the British, his revolutionary war history is one not of the central aspects of his story and historical role. (And a suggestion at the featured article review is currently looking to shorten the lead to about 500 words.) Wtfiv (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things that weigh against relying the information you found on familysearch. Reliable sources state that Jackson was involved after the Battle of Waxhaws, which was 1780. The other issue is that in 1779, Jackson was only 12. I think it is unlikely that a 12 year-old (or 13 year-old) would be enlisted as a private in the militia. Wtfiv (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

He could have faked his age you know. Or, militia records often kept track of who joined throughout the course of a year. So, maybe the record tracks if anyone joined from the beginning of when people normally enlisted at that time (Nov 1779) until the end of the usual enlistment period of one year (Nov 1780). So, because Jackson joined in between that time, his name was still written down. And look, I don’t think Andrew Jackson was a common name in South Carolina at the time, so the Andrew Jackson listed must’ve been the future President. That’s just my theory. I’ll leave what you have on here already.

Also: what rank did Jackson hold in the South Carolina militia? If he was a Private, he still could have served as a courier. Henry Berghoff (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That may be true, however at this point we have an unreliable source along with editor original research and supposition versus a reliable independent source. Policy would determine we go with the reliable source. --ARoseWolf 12:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)