This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
Text and/or other creative content from Andrew Jackson, Sr. was copied or moved into Andrew Jackson with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Andrew Jackson, Sr. was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Andrew Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Shira Klein (June 14, 2023). "The shocking truth about Wikipedia's Holocaust disinformation". The Forward. Retrieved June 16, 2023. A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia's articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence. The Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson, plagued by such manipulations, attracts thousands of readers a day.
Kyle Keeler (2023-2-23). "How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History". Slate. Retrieved 2023-12-1. A behind-the-scenes battle raged at Wikipedia last fall. The conflict stretched over three months and three separate pages, tallying more than 40,000 words. It began in August, when editor FinnV3 went to the "talk" page (where revisions are discussed by editors) for Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States. FinnV3 claimed that Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act was ethnic cleansing and that the page needed to reflect that reality, rather than calling Jackson's policy "forced removal." According to FinnV3, the phrase forced removal presented a sanitized, unrepresentative view of history that did not match scholarship. Other users disagreed. Display name 99, who has added the second most information to the page (20,085 characters—in addition to writing nearly half of U.S. President John Adams' page), argued that Jackson "wanted the Indians to be treated well" and that although his decision to remove Native peoples was "tragic," it was "necessary." After months of back and forth, "ethnic cleansing" was added to the article in October.{{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
The hatnote "not to be confused with Andrew Johnson" has been added, removed, re-added etc. several times. There was a (now archived) matching discussion on Talk:Andrew Johnson which didn't reach a consensus. My opinion is such a hatnote is desirable: they're both US presidents in the 1800s, both named Andrew J***son, so they could be easily confused by people who aren't familiar with US presidents (that is, many of our readers, especially those outside the US). If a consensus is reached on this, we should consider adding an invisible comment "do not add/remove hatnote" to the source page to discourage any further reversions. 🦬 Beefaloe 🦬 07:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think it should be included. The confusion is *extremely* common amongst students and English language learners, witness:
At one point Donald Trump said something about Andrew Jackson that was so weird that when absolutely bewildered professional historians were asked to explain it they thought possibly he confused Jackson and Johnson although that didn't really make sense either. Gunter, Joel (2017-05-01). "Civil War historians take on Trump". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-11-30.
Wikipedia is globalpedia not Americapedia and this is a service business non-profit organization. IMHO, we gotta imagine everyone is an 8th grader trying to write a report on a president they've barely ever heard of before and/or some nice lady in Ankara, Turkey who is just trying to figure out what that news story was referring to. jengod (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some unsolicited amateur art criticism (free of charge!):
EARL: Ralph E. W. Earl is a goddamn terrible artist. It's not just that he's primitive-vernacular-rustic, it's that he created anti-art such as is found in 1982 motel rooms and is produced in oil-painting sweatshops for resale through Temu and Alibaba. The Nathan Wheeler is also primitive-vernacular-rustic, and it is patently ridiculous and it has thus often been the basis for Jackson caricature, and most scholars commenting are like "Uh...maybe he was trying to show Jackson was gaunt because of riding around a lot during the war?...?" but the Wheeler is by far a superior oil painting (and painted portrait specifically!) to any image of Jackson that Earl ever made. Earl's portraits of the "Old Hero" are vapid, dead-eyed voids actually sucking meaning out of the universe. I personally think we should avoid all of them because they are propagandistic (he was Jackson's nephew by marriage among other things), and because they are trash. That said (to my eye at least), the least horrifying of the batch are:
the Jockey Club portrait
the equestrian portrait because at least the horse, Sam Patch, has something to say
Tennessee Gentleman
Farmer Jackson
SULLY: Of the three extant Sullys, the 1845 that is the basis for the USD$20 is by far the best; they say it's unfinished bc Sully just never got back to it but I personally suspect an intentional homage to Stuart's Athenaeum Portrait of Washington
LONGACRE: Longacre's engraving work is all very good—and flattering of Jackson, if you're into that kind of thing! If there was an oil painting version of the 1829 "from life" engraving, I imagine it would be the portrait of Jackson
WHAT DID ANDREW JACKSON LOOK LIKE? The truest non-photographic likenesses, IMHO, never having met Mr. Jackson myself:
Colonizer era
Rembrandt Peale
Waldo, especially the first one (notice the subtle smoothing in the face over the series)
Jouett contemplative side profile
Presidential era
Longacre engraving, 1829
Post-presidential era
Kellogg
Marchant
DAGUERREOTYPES
The first daguerreotype is an absolutely legendary photographic portrait. ART.
The second set are notable for being made roughly two months before AJ's death.
HONORABLE MENTION: The 1830s Hubard has a bizarre but compelling haunted-house-Miss-Havisham vibe that I suspect is quite authentic; this painting is weird AF but also warrants our attention.
Collecting these was a very interesting tour through American art! The list was intended to be of use to future Jackson-content creators so I wanted to let you all know it was there.
Actually, there are a lot of categories there, and probably several of them don't meet the description in WP:CATDEF. But that's not an excuse for adding more. Many editors add categories to biographical articles without paying the slightest attention to WP:CATDEF, alas. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce leverett - Jackson had a long and multifaceted journey through American history. Hard to cover it all in one article.
Evidence that he can be categorized as a notable American gambler is here: Kupfer, B. S. (1970). A Presidential Patron of the Sport of Kings: Andrew Jackson. Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 29(3), 243–255. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42623730
Jackson is described as an Indian agent and info about his appointment as an Indian commissioner serving in the 1810s and 1820s is here: Ray, Jonathan (2014) Andrew Jackson and the Indians, 1767–1815, University of Alabama thesis, pp. 235–246 https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/2002
Others are more qualified than me to render judgment on what is defining but his lifelong involvement with thoroughbred racing (with accompanying high-stakes wagers) is included in a number of biographies, and his role in the displacement of the Native Americans of southeastern North America began long before his presidential-era Indian removal efforts. jengod (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is not to add "teaser" categories that are unconnected to what's in the article. The reader who sees "American gamblers" has no idea where to look for more information. If your assessment of his racing activity (and its notability) is accurate, you should be able to add a paragraph about it, or a couple of sentences, with the usual citations of sources. Then the category would belong there.
As for "United States indian agents", we actually have an article Indian agent, which includes a list of "Notable indian agents", and Jackson isn't in the list. Could you read the article and determine if Jackson fits our definition of "indian agent"? If he does, then (1) add him to that list, and (2) mention his tenure as an indian agent in this (Andrew Jackson) article. Then the problem would be solved. If he doesn't fit our definition, then it's a different problem, which might be solved some other way. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Jackson and several of his friends and a number of others whose names turned up in the sources to expand the list of notable Indian agents. I think there's a connotation of "the Indian agent" being someone who was sent from the government to help and/or to live with the tribes, ultimately becoming an ally, but from what I can tell, like most things, people who had that job were people, and thus ran the gamut morally and otherwise. The title Indian agent or Indian commissioner seems to have a lot of flexibility, at least per the Library of Congress which calls them "so-called Indian agents" who were "acting on behalf of the federal government...sometimes in conjunction with U.S. military presence and state and territorial officials and politicians". I also added Jackson's title as originally appointed "commissioner plenipotentiary" and cited to Remini and added the link to another treaty.
I reworked the updated addition to Democratic Party. The latest version of this addition aligns with the main article better as per WP:Lead. Clause describing democratic party as oldest was deleted, the relevance of the democratic party is not a focus of this article, but readers can quickly access it by clicking the link. The lead still ends with with a statement of Jackson's policies toward Native Americans, as this is one of the bigger issues in his 21st century legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the early life of Andrew Jackson, there seems to be a wrong punctuation in this sentence during talking about Andrew Jackson's father, "Jackson's father is unclear. His father died at 29" something like that. What I mean is, the . should be replaced by a Semicolon, not a . Because the two independent clauses are connected, It emphasizes the unclear connection between Andrew Jackson's unclear Father and Early death. Correct if I'm wrong since I'm new to editing. HistorianofWorldHistory (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's terrible revisionism. It fails to distinguish one who inherited slaves, one who purchased or otherwise received someone who was already a slave, and actually enslaving someone by capture or by force.
The key distinction is not how one came to enslave but whether or not one enslaved or manumitted. Also, there is the moral question of defining any human as a slave—if I say you were born a slave does that make it so? (If aliens came here today and declared we were slaves of the empire of Luminos Prime would we accept our reclassification?) Thus "legally enslaved" is language that expresses that this was an imposed status not a choice or an inevitability.
As for the origin of the people Jackson enslaved, why does it matter if he bought them in Baltimore, if they were born to people who had first been enslaved by his father-in-law, or if he personally sailed them in from the Bight of Biafra? jengod (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Andrew Jackson] ... enslaved seems like it conveys an incorrect idea. Andrew Jackson didn't sail somewhere, change them from being free to non-free, then bring them back. For this reason I think the previous wording is better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Historians who use the term "enslaved" and "enslaver" don't exclusively mean those who raided continental Africa to kidnap people into slavery. The verb is also used to refer to people who claimed ownership over people even without being the originary cause of their status of bondage. It's not even anachronistic language, as Frederick Douglass used the term: The more I read, the more I was led to abhor and detest slavery, and my enslavers. Douglass was not kidnapped from Africa; he was born in the United States, under the law a slave from birth. His "enslavers" referred not to some kidnappers in Africa but to U. S. Americans who inherited, bought, and sold him. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the text "who enslaved hundreds of African Americans during his lifetime" to "who profited off the forced labor of hundreds of enslaved African Americans during his lifetime." for clarity; note: "enslaved Africans" is not a neologism—Harriet Beecher Stow used the phrase in Uncle Tom's Cabin, first published in 1852. Carlstak (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv the page is biased when it says "he was criticized for his racist policies, because you're only citing one side. so I added how people who like him view him. And if his racist policies led to thousands of deaths, that should be mentioned in lede. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 Everything you added is covered by Sometimes praised as an advocate for working Americans and for preserving the union of states, his political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party.
His presidency saw the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands.
Jackson had been working on divesting Native people of their land since 1813. How else are you going to "establish" Memphis and get cheap plantations for all your friends around Huntsville and Florence Alabama? This push, sometimes in the form of war, and sometimes in the form of "treaty-making for peace" goes on continuously until 1819, including the First Seminole War (which I'm pretty sure is really the third time he jumped into Pensacola; they made him give it back the first two times.) He says "haha just kidding" about the "land for peace" or "be my ally now and I'll only mess with that other tribe" part when he becomes President. The walls start closing in quickly; scholars speculate about the feds withholding annuity payments in the last few years before removal, so the tribes are literally desperate for food. In the early 1830s, Alabama newspapers start reporting starving Chickasaw lingering on their borders and actually sound kinda alarmed. It's a massive 25-year project in which Jackson is a leading if not the leading figure. Whether not Indian Removal was "inevitable" (as some scholars have argued as recently as the 1980s), Jackson's part in the story starts long before his Presidency.
Some of his supporters argue that he was a "populist hero" who challenged the political establishment, and a defender of democracy and the U.S. Constitution.
John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay and JQ Adams also liked democracy and the U.S. Constitution just fine. These are non-specific terms not rooted in a specific scholarship that flatter Jackson without contextualizing him in the politics of his time or the history of the United States. Meanwhile there is plenty of scholarship ("Pessen thesis," for one) that Jackson was in fact the vanguard of an American aristocracy that flourished from his time until the Civil War so his anti-establishment credentials are dubious at best. Being a chaos agent who couldn't organize a functioning cabinet is not the same as being a political iconoclast.
Everything I added is not covered by "Sometimes praised as an advocate for working Americans and for preserving the union of states, his political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party." What I just quoted says nothing about the political establishment or the Constitution. Also if the Indian Removal was "inevitable", why didn't you just remove "racist policies about native Americans" from the first paragraph. Instead you get mad I give more detail on the situation. And with the "populist hero" thing I was just quoting his supporters DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DisneyGuy744 I didnt say it was inevitable, I said the 1980s were the last time people were pushing that argument. Scholarship over the last 30 years has been moving toward the conclusion that it was genocide, etc. As for what "his supporters say," we are under no obligation to republish Democratic Party campaign materials from 1846, our job is synthesize high-quality secondary sources, of which there are many for Jackson, into an encyclopedia article. jengod (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We list what his haters say. It says "he got criticized for being racist" in the lede. So why not mention both what the haters and also his supporters say. If not it's biased and remove Native American and racist from the first paragraph DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using this site as a fan site. I am neutral editing. As I do not have an opinion on Andrew Jackson. Also lots of things are mentioned more than once in this article, like racism against Native Americans. Why can't I go into more detail in the first paragraph. Most of the early presidents were racist and slave owners. Andrew Jackson is the only president where racism is mentioned in the first paragraph. I'm going into detail on why it's mentioned in the first paragraph and why he's more controversial, as well as going into detail what his supporters say since it'll be biased content or at least look like that to only cite his haters who accuse him of being racist in the first paragraph and not the supporters too. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyGuy744, this first paragraph of the lead was a source of contention that brought the article under Featured Article Review. The conversation on this topic got extremely contentious and this version of the lead was the compromise that balanced supporters and critics. It starts with the positive claims of his legacy-advocate for working Americans and for preserving the union of states, his political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party- ends with his negative claims.
Jackson seems to bring on strong opinions about both. Take a look at the conversation at the beginning of this archive talk page. It has additional links to conversation during the Featured Article Review, which tried to clean up some of the parts.
Here's a summary of where these issues were discussed in detail:
To get a sense of the different voices involved crafting the lead, please take a look at the following.
Here's a concern raised during the FAR review about concerns of coverage regarding Native Americans. Scroll to the section that says "The shocking truth about Wikipedia’s Holocaust disinformation". This also references a discussion about a Slate article on this article's biases. The discussion is archived here.
The discussion of Jackson's attitude towards Native American was clearly the most controversial. As Jengod points out, The "Trail of Tears" was only a small part of Jackson's Indian Removal Policy, and the Indian Removal Policy is only a small part of his Native American displacement. If you read the article, and look at the map, you'll see that Jackson's policies starting from the Treaty of Fort Jackson wound up displacing Native Americans from over 3/5ths of Alabama, 2/3 of Mississippi, more than 1/4 of Tennessee, and significant parts of Georgia and Florida. The specific treaties are all referenced in the main article. Wtfiv (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Wtfiv (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please arrive at consensus before adding contents that have been discussed before. Please see the links above for context. Until we agree to the changes, it's best to keep the original wording of the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The content I added has been discussed before? I don't think so. The content I added was in my own words and I didn't change the wording of the lead. I just added additions content that hasn't been discussed before that I honestly have no idea why we're discussing since my edit doesn't violate any rules DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is getting closer. It looks like the main change is the order has been changed. At this point, I removed one of the sentence referencing native Americans, as the previous addresses it. I also returned the sentences at the end of the fourth paragraph of the lead. If you take a look, this summarizes the material in the lead. I also fixed an ambiguous link and replaced one that had been lost. Wtfiv (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or is this lead section different from other president lead sections in a startling way? The first paragraph contains a sentence starting with "He is often criticized ...", and another sentence starting with "He is also sometimes praised ...". Most other prez lead sections leave that stuff about how history views the guy until the last paragraph.
As we all know, many readers won't get past the first paragraph. I would think we should tell what he did in that paragraph, rather than telling how history sees him. Readers can't appreciate the historical evaluation anyway until they have read what he did.
This unorthodox organization of the lead dates back to at least December, so I don't know who to blame it on.
We have other presidents who are as controversial as Jackson, but we don't have endless arguments about them, or am I missing something?
Would one of you Jackson experts like to put together a two- or three-sentence description of what things Jackson did that are most famous, that would be suitable for the first paragraph? It should, of course, be supported by what's in the main body of the article. Having put that there, then we could move the historical evaluation stuff to where it would normally belong, at the end of the last paragraph. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you Bruce. 11 out of the 45 U.S. Presidents have been documented as slave owners. The early presidents since slavery was abolished early on but that's besides the point. George Washington inherited his first slaves at age 11 and owned hundreds over his lifetime. Do we call him racist in the first paragraph? No. I either go into more detail on the first paragraph on what his policies on native Americans are to explain why Wikipedia editors don't like him or we just remove"racist" from the first paragraph and place it somewhere else. Public opinion on u.s. presidents shouldn't be in the first paragraph. It makes the page biased and no other page is like this DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv please add back "His presidency saw the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands". And remove "Jackson's legacy is controversial. He is often criticized for his racist policies" as the first paragraph of any U.S. president is supposed to describe the president and not what random people think of him. You're literally starting an edit war for no reason when I asked you multiple times can you please wait. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to weigh in on the specifics here yet, but speaking generally, Jackson appears to have been a demagogue, so more negative statements than normal doesn't set off my alarm bells. Demagogues often do negative things.
The WP:BRD principle suggests that any bold edits that are objected to should be reverted until consensus is achieved for them on this talk page. The onus is on the person making the recent edits to convince others to keep their changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in cahoots with DisneyGuy744 nor endorsing his recommendations, whatever their merits may be. I am sure that it would be easier to evaluate the effect of different suggestions on neutrality, if the lead were organized as I have suggested (and as it is organized in other president articles). Bruce leverett (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyGuy744, Please take a look at the discussions I linked above for why the editors landed on this "He is often criticized..." His policy towards native Americans does not just include during his presidency, but started before then. For example, the Treaty of Fort Jackson before his presidency also forced Native Americans-mainly Creek, but including both Red Sticks and his own allies- off 22 million acres of their their land involuntarily. This is nearly as large as the Indian Removal Act, which displaced the Five Civilized Tribes. (See this description from the National Park service). The critique of Jackson's overall Native American policy is addressed in the legacy of the article-where Jackson's actions have been argued to be either ethnic cleansing and some even saying it was genocide, that's where the sentence in the lead comes from. We agreed to avoid that language in the lead though.
But was the policy racist? Meacham points out in American Lion (2008) pp. 95-98 that the removal of Native Americans was pragmatic and based on the desires and goals of White Americans. The critics in the secondary sources cited in the third paragraph of the legacy argue it is racist. Here's the kind of evidence they use from primary sources: this one taken from Jackson's 1833 State of the Union Speech justifying Indian removal.
It is to be hoped that those portions of two of the Southern tribes, which in that event will present the only remaining difficulties, will realize the necessity of emigration, and will speedily resort to it. My original convictions upon this subject have been confirmed by the course of events for several years, and experience is every day adding to their strength. That those tribes can not exist surrounded by our settlements and in continual contact with our citizens is certain. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.
As Rjensen notes that in this conversation such attitudes were pervasive throughout the country. but it also shows that even if such views were considered common in 1833, it was acceptable for a president to publicly justify a policy on the grounds of racial inferiority.
What makes Jackson more unique as a president is that he is so polarizing, people either think he's great or he was terrible. I think the first paragraph captures how controversial he was, even in his time, and remains. The man and his legacy is complex. Wtfiv (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyGuy744, I once more reverted your latest change again, which was done without addressing the points in talk. Before reverting the first paragraph again, please continue discussing the change here. The existing first paragraph was worked out as a compromise to a very long notice board discussion and passed a difficult FAR, Changing it without a consensus would appear to undermine the effort of the FAR. If you feel the need to revert the page again without all of us participating in talk achieving a consensus for the change, I think it would be best to take this to WP:ANI. Wtfiv (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't have to discuss removing "racist" because this talk page discussion is supposed to be about adding "His presidency saw the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands." And "His supporters view him as a defender of democracy and the U.S. Constitution". I'm never going to reach consensus because you're gonna disagree with me no matter what I say or how I say it because you got your beliefs and I got mine. So I decided to end this discussion and make another edit and you won't stop reverting. Calling a politician hundreds or thousands of years ago "racist" is crazy. Times were different back then. And most early presidents were slave owners and America was like almost 90% white, it was kind of like a white ethnostate, like Israel is a Jewish ethnostate. Btw do we call Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahou racist for bombing Palestinian civilians? No, because even if true, that's biased editing, and public opinion of a politician shouldn't be on the very first paragraph. Instead of removing "racist" I'm thinking about just removing everything from criticisms of him being racist to his supporters supporting him in the very first paragraph. It's unacceptable. And that's why everyone says Wikipedia is biased now. Can't put your biases away to provide free and accurate information to millions people. Sad . DisneyGuy744 (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, one of the archives of this talk page is entirely devoted solely the topic of how to discuss Jackson's Native American policy in the lead. It's huge. I'm linking it here in case anyone once to take a look at its extent: RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead. This led to the Noticeboard and played a role in triggering the featured article review. Like so many of Jackson's life, it is a truly contentious issue. Balancing the views was difficult. Wtfiv (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the material in the lead should not be changed without consensus. The lead summarizes the secondary sources in the main text describing how Jackson's legacy is understood, and illustrating how he is such a controversial figure. This lead, which was approved by as part of the Featured Article Review. It was constructed as a compromise of the debates in the lengthy notice board and RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead. I'd suggest looking at the linked material here. If you look at these or go through the talk archives, you will see that Jackson is an endless source for such debates. Here's the process for starting an WP:RfC, if you'd like to head in that direction. Jackson seems an endless source for these kinds of debates. Wtfiv (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give me an example of another Wikipedia article about a racist U.S. president who has public opinion of them in the first paragraph and then "he was racist" can stay even though the context was it was hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Otherwise it's just weird and not normal. Doesn't matter how controversial someone is. Stalin in controversial. Netanyahou is controversial. Mussolini was controversial. Trump and Biden are both controversial. Why is there no public opinion of them on the first paragraph of their article? Because it's biased editing, and it doesn't matter how Wikipedia editors or historians or "experts" with a political bias view a political figure. Their opinion isn't fact, and it has little to do with the person it self and more about what people think and that's a problem. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a propaganda tool. It's supposed to provide actual accurate information, and you're not letting it happen. Saying "we need consensus" is crazy because no matter what I say you're not going to agree, because you got your own political opinion. which makes the point of talk pages 99% useless most of the time but whatever. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here. One is changing major changes to the first paragraph of the lead without consensus. That's the one I'm focused on. That's the point that Novem Linguae made as well: the people making the change have to make a convincing argument.
The other is getting consensus to see if the changes are warranted. Consensus is not just about two editors, its about the community. So far, only two other editors have weighed in on the content: Jengod and Bruce leverett. So using an RfC may be a good way to get a wider sampling. An RfC that is properly set up could get folk who were involved in the original debates, those who watch this page, and people interested in the general topic. As Hydrangeans stated on a different aspect of Jackson's legacy, consensus can change. Wtfiv (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting some WP:1AM vibes here. Not sure how successful your RFC will be. But if you insist on going through with it, I'd suggest something like...
In the lead of the Andrew Jackson article, there is a sentence about [insert topic here]. What wording should be used?
Option A - Sentence sentence sentence 1. (Status quo).
Option B - Sentence sentence sentence 2.
This RFC format would offer a specific, actionable solution, and also has room for more actionable solutions (C, D, etc.) to be added as the RFC progresses. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you already believe that talk pages are "99% useless" then I'm not sure we can make any progress. There is a considerable academic scholarship on how controversial Andrew Jackson was and is, how he was criticized both in his day (Whigs dubbed him "King Andrew" and criticized his anti-Indigenous and anti-abolitonist politics) and all the way to the present. Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought, one of the most respected syntheses of Antebellum American history, says a lot about this, a non-exhaustive selection of quotations following:
The Jacksonian movement, although it took the name of the Democratic Party, fought so hard in favor of slavery and white supremacy (4)
the critics of Andrew Jackson [...] could read with grim satisfaction Tocqueville's characterization of him as "a man of violent temper and very moderate talents" (307) (which is to say that a resort to 'it was of his time' doesn't hold; he had contemporary critics as well)
Although he invoked a democratic ideology, the new president had profoundly authoritarian instincts (328)
Indian Removal constitued the major substantive issue the Jackson administration addressed in a first year othewrise largely preoccupied with patronage [...] his strong stand in favor of rapid Removal was well known (342)
The president's Indian Removal Bill provoked a fierce debate, producing alignments that proved remarkably durable in defining support and opposition to the Jackson administration (348–349) (which is to say that one of the major things he was criticized for, in his own time, was his racist policies against American Indians)
I can only provide a handful of quotations since we aren't in the business of piracy, but I'd encourage anyone unconvinced that Jackson was controversial in his day as much as ours, or that his controversies—including racism and Indigenous dispossession—came to define him, to read Howe's magnus opus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of Jackson's controversies, but I also think that our current first paragraph, is a sappy, unhelpful mess, as I have hinted above. However, I have not been contributing to the discussion since then, because it seems like DisneyGuy744 wants to carry the ball, and I am hoping that perhaps the constraints of the RfC mechanism will enable him to clarify his thoughts. OK with me if it takes him more than a day to think through what the RfC will look like. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Wikipedia tradition of choosing unflattering pictures of people for their articles is still strong. lol. The previous one wasn't great either. Seems like the artist wasn't great at getting the proportions of the body and clothing correct. Searching Commons, I think C and D are better than A and B. I propose Option D. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I recommended in my edit summary that you should "start a discussion on the talk page", but now I see that you had already done so. Thanks.
I agree with a previous poster that A is "unflattering". Perhaps it is the result of primitive daguerrotype technology or, perhaps, just a photograph that somebody never got around to retouching. I'm not happy with B either, it looks as though someone wanted Jackson to look god-like. C and D are OK, at least by comparison. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading MOS:LEADIMAGE, I am reminded that familiarity or recognizability is a good thing in this context. We should if possible use "a representative image ... what our readers will expect to see.' So I reached into my wallet and pulled out a picture of Jackson. Looks a lot like C or D. Bruce leverett (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BarfChimp445's choice was discussed in March 2024, see Talk Archive. The 1835 Earl (B) was used many years back by the original editor who got the article through the Featured Article process. I had nothing to do with the choice, but I personally think the Earl (B), which was painted in 1835 when Jackson was president and at the peak of his power, is ideal. Earl was Jackson's painter, becoming known as his "court painter". Jackson clearly approved of Earl's work and style. Ironically, the "weaknesses" of Earl's style that Jengod points out above may be part of the work's strength. Jackson chose Earl, who lived with Jackson between 1829-1838 and was friends with him, to paint most of his legacy throughout the years (and even had him paint Rachel). Wtfiv (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know that my image seems a little unflattering, but I think that a photograph is ABSOLUTELY BETTER THAN A PAINTING 24 HOURS A DAY AND 7 DAYS A WEEK! But Image D looks kinda nice. And the red cape adds some flare in the status quo image. And also, IMAGE C LOOKS ABSOLUTELY GARBAGE! DON'T EVER THINK OF USING IT! BarfChimp445 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think all the photographs we have of 19th C notables are fascinating. There are photographs of Dolley Madison, Albert Gallatin. John Quincy Adams...people who personally knew George Washington and other "Founding Fathers". There are photographs of Napoleon's brother & Queen Victoria! It's amazing to me that we in 2025 can see these somewhat clearer representations, these photographs of all these people. They lived during a time when the telegraph hadn't been invented, when steam trains didn't exist...it's like reaching back through time. I think photographs of 19th Century notable are preferable, if they are available, because it shows our readers, our worldwide customers, that all these people weren't stock figures in some stage play but they were real people, with wrinkles and bad eyesight and all the cares and worries anyone might have. These people aren't just a painting on a wall in some museum...they lived fascinating and historic lives. I might be the outlier on this but my first choice would be A/the daguerrotype, 2nd choice D, because it shows the man more than the ideal. - Shearonink (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed your argument. I agree that these early photographs are fascinating. But they can be included in the article, without being put in the infobox in the lead. The infobox photo should be chosen as described in MOS:LEADIMAGE, so that when a reader clicks his way to this article, he instantly recognizes that he's come to the right place. Actually image B, the status quo, is OK for that purpose, but D has a more human, "realistic" appearance. A is good mainly for shock value. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another way to look at it. If we had only two representations of Jimmy Carter, paintings of him as a president (like this one from the National Picture Gallery) or a photograph of him at the very end of his life (like this one), which would better give people a sense of who he was during the years of his notability? Wtfiv (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't disagree with your assessment of Carter's career. I guess I should've been more specific in my point: If you look at the photograph taken of him in very old age- analogous to Jackson's dagguerotypes when he was near death and in ill health- we'd see that they are not particularly reflective of him during his influential times, I think most people would argue that between the two, the painting is the better representation. Hence, could this generalize to Jackson? Wtfiv (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who would favor a photograph (but not that one; this one is better as Jackson in glasses isn't as recognizable as Jackson without) over a portrait on the grounds that a photograph is, in almost every case, a more natural representation of a topic, I don't think there's energy to re-debate the lead image and hope that this doesn't go to an RFC at this time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photograph you propose is highly unflattering, inasmuch as Jackson's upper lip is sunken due to his having lost some number of teeth. I don't know if this is written policy, but we should try to avoid using unflattering photographs in lead infoboxes. My guess is that this is why editors have not, until now, tried to use any of Jackson's photographs in the lead infobox. By the time photography was available, he was just too old. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I love the photo of Jackson that Hydrangeans linked to above. I don't think it is unflattering at all! I'm actually shocked, I hadn't seen it before and it seems to me that it shows his utter humanity and clearly shows the man, the subject. And now, having seen it, Choice A? Agree...dark image, hard to actually even see the subject. I think it is appropriate to include this other photo here - . - Shearonink (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your comments align in spirit with my point, Bruce leverett. As per my Jimmy Carter comparisons, a photograph of someone in the last year of life who is in very ill health does not provide a good semblance of someone who was navigating the complex social world of American politics in their prime. Wtfiv (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a good semblance of someone who was navigating the complex social world of American politics in their prime: This is an understandable sentiment but an inaccurate description of Jackson's life. He wasn't at the height of his influence in his prime; he was born in 1767 and was ~62 years old when he became president in 1829 and ~70 when he stepped down in 1837, only 8 years before the 1845 photograph. As president, he was an old man, so it isn't surprising that he looks old in the photographs. This suggests not that the photos are unrepresentative but that the paintings are unrepresentative, putting a lot of gloss on Jackson. I think it would be more educational for readers to get to see that American presidents have ranged considerably in age and have sometimes been quite influential when quite elderly. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on censorship (or rather, non-censorship) isn't limitless, but it still goes to show that flattery isn't our first goal in illustrating the biographies of non-living people. The Manual of Style recommends that we prioritize images that look like what they are meant to illustrate, and the photographs look like the real-life Andrew Jackson, rather than like a painter's idealized version of him.But in any case, looks like perspectives are about as they were just last year. Consensus can change, but about this aspect of the page, probably not that quickly. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "unflattering" as a customary euphemism. I agree that actual flattery is not desirable, which is part of my gripe against B. Photo A does not show any particular defect, such as the dental problems, but when people first see it, they are shocked, and that's not an effect that is appropriate for a biography infobox image to produce. Not even if you don't like the guy; and not even if he is deceased, so you don't have to worry about BLP issues.
I think that the shock is due to something about the lighting and the camera angle, not so much to the ravages of age. You can hardly see his eyes, for example. I would not claim that A "looks like what it is meant to illustrate." Even though Jackson was old by the time he was president, it's highly unlikely that what his colleagues and friends (and enemies) saw looked much like that photograph. The photographs from that era that we have been using in infoboxes, such as Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, have, one must assume, been retouched to a fare-thee-well; that's what the subjects would have expected (and paid for). They are not necessarily any more natural or realistic than paintings. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim in this thread that A looks like what it is meant to illustrate; I criticized it for not looking enough like Jackson (because he wasn't known for wearing glasses) and deliberately recommended a different photograph, as you well know (because you criticized that suggestion too).The photographs from that era that we have been using in infoboxes, such as Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, have, one must assume, been retouched to a fare-thee-well; that's what the subjects would have expected (and paid for): If we must assume this about any photo from the era, then we may as well assume it for photographs of Andrew Jackson as well, taken in the same era. Or are we going to invent an imaginary tabloid press somehow sneaking these photographs of Jackson without his consent, using the extremely slow photographic technology of the day? Photographs of the era are at the same level as each other. The mere and unproven possibility of retouches doesn't put photographs and paintings on the same level. We already discussed this at Talk:Martin Van Buren, A retouched photo is still closer to life than the wholesale construction of a portrait. Of course a good portrait artist tries to not only flatter but also recognizably depict the subject. But it remains the case that every brush stroke must be a consciously made choice, a creation of the artist; even a skilled photographer who might have wanted the subject to look good didn't directly control each photon reflected into the camera or the chemical process of development the way a painter would have controlled [e]very stroke of his brush.Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose using the "old age" daguerreotypes because in these images he is (a) post-Presidency, his presidency being the single most important reason he is notable, (b) in these images he is a toothless (literally, and he often refused to wear his dentures per Remini) and sick old man. The daguerreotype you included as A was probably taken on his 1840 trip to New Orleans for the anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans. He was physically quite ill on that trip and looks it. My objection is that the use of this image subtly woobifies a man who was by all accounts a terror in his youth and a continuing rage case throughout his presidency. The implication is that this frail old man was the figure that people were encountering throughout his life, and IMHO that is not the right message to send.
I agree with your view of the Earls, but that's why I think they are so apt. They have an aesthetic rusticity to them that Jackson embraced given his relationship with Earl, so in that way, they reflect how Jackson's Nashville world saw him and perhaps how Jackson saw himself. And they have the bonus that they really don't serve well as grand political images. Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think the Earl is more apt in terms of time, place and "style". I see the strengths of the unfinished Sully: it reflects the best-known image of him. And, it's unfinished state seems to reflect the unfinished state of his legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph of an old man isn't an act of woobification; it's just literally how he looked. He may have wanted to look like a terror, and maybe his painters could tell that and so visually clothed him in the glorious power he longed for, but a man's physical reality doesn't always correlate with his character or historical influence. Wanting to make a man look as unjust as he acted isn't, I think, a compelling case against the photographs. It's not as if we should add glowing red eyes to Alexander H. Stephens on the grounds that his photo doesn't look evil enough for the man who delivered the repugnant Cornerstone Speech. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK well it's up to us to contextualize the painters who painted him. Remini and other historians and biographers comment on the various paintings.
The Waldo is the first one considered a realistic presentation of his appearance.
The Jarvis is deemed "a romantic portrait."
Ralph E. W. Earl, of course, had married a niece of Jackson but moved into the Hermitage after her death in childbirth a year into the marriage.
Per Remini, the hat in Tennessee Gentleman was the one he usually wore; it was lined with raccoon fur and Jackson used it as a filing cabinet, stashing letters and papers and receipts in the lining. As an aside, the HNOC holds a print showing Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans wearing such a hat that is captioned "Major General Andrew Jackson in the precise costum [sic] which he wore at the battle of New Orleans...historically correct." He's almost always depicted wearing a bicorne at the battle so it's an interesting nuance/footnote.
There are five separate paintings of him from 1840 (when he took the New Orleans trip) that are so similar to his appearance in this daguerreotype that one might suspect the painters all worked off the photograph, or each other! jengod (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also to be clear, I'm totally fine with photos of Jackson being used widely, just not as the lede/main image. The known portraits of Andrew Jackson start in 1815. We don't have any images of him painted "from life" (or any images at all actually) from before he was almost 50 years old. jengod (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
This article's first paragraph currently says "Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and criticized for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans." Should it say this? Should public opinion be on the first paragraph? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. As I demonstrated in the earlier thread through citations of the respected synthesis of Antebellum history What Hath God Wrought, Andrew Jackson's racist policies toward American Indians, and the controversy these policies incurred, were a defining element of Jackson's life and legacy. Jackson's contemporaries criticized him for his anti-Indigenous policies and attitudes, and people in the present—laypeople and historians alike—do likewise. To remove this from the first paragraph would be whitewashing and disinformative. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By way of aside, while this RfC isn't as overtly partisan, I'm not sure it's well-formed either. Are we just giving our opinions? What will happen if there seems to be a consensus one way or the other? The RfC doesn't make this clear. We'll just know what we each think? Why RfC at all then instead of discussing? And shouldn't the other RfC be closed first? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RfC's inquiry is clear and narrow enough to be helpful. Comments should just directly engage with the two explicit questions there and I think a workable consensus will probably emerge. As to the original RfC thread being closed, I think it would suffice for DisneyGuy to remove the tags and close the discussion with a "voluntarily withdrawn for re-drafting" style of note; alternatively, we can all just agree to treat it as procedurally closed, considering 1) no feedback was given other than to note that it is too flawed to work with, and 2) DG was specifically told to relaunch it more consistently with regard to normal RfC best practice, particularly RFCNEUTRAL--which I would say they have now adequately complied with. Then again, I wouldn't argue with anyone closing the original discussion on the basis that it will at least minimize potential for confusion or mistakenly placed feedback from other FRS respondents. SnowRise let's rap08:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.(Summoned by bot) Absolutely appropriate, considering the subject of this biographical entry. There is some validity to the "almost any president of this era and before would come off as racist, were their complete views and behaviour judged by the current day's standards", but the verity of the observation doesn't make it particularly relevant to the editorial determination here. First off, the man's views were observed to be controversially strong and a political liability even at the time. But even more to the point for our purposes here, this is simply a statement which is has long been supported by a great WP:weight of reliable sources. And I don't think that the first paragraph is necessarily too early for it. I can imagine other versions of the lead that place it a little later, that would also be appropriate, but I think the current wording is fine and within the range of a reasonable interpretation of WP:DUE in this instance. SnowRise let's rap08:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrangeans we can still add he was racist, I just want to remove "His legacy is controversial for being racist" and "he was praised" because public opinion is more about people's views on the president than the president himself. And both separate additions of this article probably count as biased editing. since the additions of these two things were made by a separate editor. that's what i said in the other Rfc but i guess you weren't paying attention because you guys were getting upset over the first message for some reason. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, committed genocidal acts against the Palestinian people during his ongoing invasion and Bombing of the Gaza Strip. Saddam Hussein's regime was responsible for the mass killings of the Kurdish people during the late 1980s. Joseph Stalin's policies and purges led to the deaths of millions of people, including ethnic Ukrainians during the Holodomor. Wikipedia never has public opinion of them being racist on the first paragraphs of their articles. I bet if Andrew Jackson was brown, public opinion of him wouldn't be on the first paragraph. another good reason why public opinion on the first paragraph should be removed is inconsistencies. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To your first contention, other articles will always exist on Wikipedia, and while they can be relevant, it isn't necessarily the case that they are. I'm inclined to agree that in secondary sources, genocidal leaders generally end up strongly defined by having perpetrated those genocides. However, if you think there's a problem in a Wikipedia article other than Andrew Jackson, the place to resolve that isn't this talk page, but the talk pages for those other articles.Your second contention amounts to claiming that Jackson is somehow a victim of reverse racism, and that's unconvincing on its face. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a problem with a Wikipedia article about another genocidal leader other than Andrew Jackson, I'm simply pointing out what other articles don't have but what this one has. Your last message doesn't make any sense. I have a problem with "his legacy is controversial because of his racist policies", so why would I have a problem with other world leaders not having that on their article when i literally have a problem with what it says on his article. Also yes I believe this article is a victim of reverse racism, if not why isn't Stalin's crimes against humanity mentioned in the first paragraph of his article? He killed millions, more than Hitler. Or Saddam Hussein. Why doesn't his article say he was racist against kurdish people? Not convincing? Explain then. Something I can't wrap my head around. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an accurate summary of the Legacy section. For an important historical figure it is reasonable for the lead to summarize later judgements on him. The relative weight given to each aspect could be tweaked, but overall the structure is appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah but notice how the legacy section on all the other presidents and other world leaders isn't in the first paragraph. Why doesn't it say on Netanyahou's article "He's controversial, he killed Palestinians"? Because everyone knows it's biased. We can still have he was racist, just not "his legacy is controversial because he's racist" and "he was praised". Also saying "he was praised" when his nickname is the Indian killer is crazy. Yeah let me just add Hitler was praised too by Neo-Nazis as a good leader. Lol you know how bad that looks? DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be the first paragraph "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. He is known as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans. His political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party." I just wanna remove "his legacy is controversial" "he was criticized" "he was praised" DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I think this goes beyond a yes-or-no !vote, but I needed something to start with.
The present first pargraph is the result of a compromise that has turned out to be unworkable. I found what I assume to be the origins of the compromise at the beginning of Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 10#Possible solution, where an editor says, I propose adding ethnic cleansing to the third or fourth paragraph of the lead as well as to the body and keeping it out of the opening paragraph. Correct me if I am wrong in supposing that something like this proposal was adopted.
As a result of the compromise, neither "ethnic cleansing" nor "forced removal" was mentioned in the first paragraph, but that paragraph instead refers to "racist policies". While adopting this wording may have kept the barbarians out of the gate, readers are left out in the cold. The word "racist" does not appear anywhere else in the article, so readers can only guess what policies are referred to and why they are racist. (The word "racist" does not have just one accepted meaning, so in order to use it, we really are obliged to cite a reliable source that uses it.) Using this tired euphemism instead of "forced removal" or "ethnic cleansing" removes any useful meaning from that clause of that sentence. We are supposed to be telling the reader what is notable about Jackson. But the reader can't figure that out from this sentence nor from anything that it links to.
The previous clause, about "advocate for working Americans" has a comparable weakness, although I do not know why it was written this way. "Advocate for working Americans" is as vague a cliché as "racist policies". Where is it supported in the rest of the article? I may have an answer for this last question. I searched for "working" and I found it in the Legacy section, in the description of Schlesinger's book. Was it the intent that this sentence in the first paragraph be supported by that text in the Legacy section? Or was it actually intended to be supported by something in one of the earlier sections, such as Presidency?
The first paragraph also mentions the nullification crisis, by means of a Wikilink. This is OK. Using just a wikilink, rather than saying the word "Nullification" out loud, seems kind of obscure, but that's not my main problem right now.
Here is a concern that is, strictly speaking, not included among those described in the statement of the RfC, but is comparable in a way. The first paragraph says that Jackson "rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army". But this doesn't tell the reader what's notable. Jackson was not notable for being a general. He was notable for winning various battles, such as the Battle of New Orleans (that's the one I read about as a kid, one or more of the other ones might be sufficiently notable too.) Why are we again leaving the reader with nothing but an empty cliché?
OK, enough about my assessment of the present version of the first paragraph. How is that related to the question posed by the RfC? The RfC proposes that we shouldn't have anything in the first paragraph that is directly supported by "public opinion". "Public opinion" is not a term I am accustomed to using in talk page discussions, but I myself have suggested that summaries of the assessment of Jackson by historians and by the public should be postponed to the end of the lead. My thinking on this has evolved, so let me instead step back for a moment.
If one of the most notable things about Jackson is forced removal/ethnic cleansing, but we aren't allowed to say those words in the first paragraph, we are utterly compromised. The only way out that I can think of is to remove everything from the first paragraph except the first sentence. I have not found any other presidential articles that do this, but I think I've seen it done elsewhere.
We are already summarizing Jackson's "legacy" and assessments of him by historians in the last paragraph of the lead. This paragraph may not be perfect, but it probably can be improved incrementally; it wouldn't make things better to move the legacy summary material from the first paragraph down to the last paragraph.
If we changed the legacy summary material in the first paragraph to just a summary, for instance by changing "He has been criticized ... for his racist policies ..." to "He advocated and organized ... forced removal ...", could we get away with it? As a non-specialist, I cannot answer this one. If we could carry out that program of editing, it would be the best thing to do, but if Jackson is still so controversial that we cannot say the plain truth about him as we do in articles about other controversial political figures, then we have come up against a limitation of the Wikipedia model of encyclopedia building, and the solution is beyond me. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce leverett, I think you are right that this archive page in 2022 is the urtext of how the current first paragraph got to where it is. That proposal was made by the editor who had gotten the article its original featured status in 2018. But the proposal was not accepted, and it eventually moved to a notice board. At some point, things got so heated that the editor who made the proposal was removed from the page, and others involved promised not to return to the topic. The current lead was then completed during the FAR, and was worked out by consensus.
The difficulty with the proposal you share is it limits description of Jackson's actions towards Native Americans the euphemistically named "Indian Removal Act". This would effectively revert the article to when he controversy started, which was not found to be adequate. It became clear in the discussions that one of the key things about Jackson is his controversy. That's why it is in the first page. And it's not just public opinion, but argued points from scholarly sources. But if you read the article and look at the relevant map, you will see that Jackson's impact is much larger than that. Jengod's description of it being "ethnic cleansing of the southeast United States". And, as the elements of Jengod's bolded post makes clear, the controversy goes deeper. The current wording keeps it simple, and readers can dig into the article for the complex details.
Ironically, The current lead is not very far from where it wound up after the discussion in the archive page you cited. The editor that made the proposal and had originally gotten the article to featured status states on his talk page that he thinks this version is the best. Wtfiv (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I suggested "He advocated and organized ... forced removal ...", I wasn't intentionally limiting it to the Indian Removal Act. Is there some reason why that wording would limit it? I am aware, from the previous discussions that I have seen, that he practically made a career of ethnic cleansing, or forced removal, or whatever it should be called.
TL;DR All this verbiage is mind-numbing. I see two editors who don't like the lede as presently constituted. Everyone else who's responded doesn't seem to have a problem with it. I don't either, so long as it includes the essential information that Jackson policies were racist.
Yes. Note: If reliable sources say he personally was racist, we should too, but I think consensus precluded that a while ago. Even Remini, Jackson's hagiographer (in three volumes), calls Jackson a racist:
... and because he was racist like most Americans of his age, Jackson did not really believe that either black or red men could ever receive equality with whites".
@Carlstak I'm just proposing to remove "his legacy is controversial" "he was praised" and "he was criticized". Even tho I do agree with @Bruce leverett. adding he was "racist" is ridiculous since many other early presidents were also and didn't have that on their page, and many world leaders who committed war crimes like Saddam Hussein aren't called racist because he's brown, still I'm not saying we should remove "racist", even though in my personal opinion it's ridiculous and biased. In case you missed it. Here's my proposal for the first paragraph Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. He is known as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans. His political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party. @Bruce leverett if you have another proposal since adding "racist" is ridiculous, let me know and type it up. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swear bro you're obsessed with me. You @ me all the time, following me on talk pages all the time, and try to get me involved in your stuff. I don't know anything about Andrew Jackson. I'm not a major historian or anything. My topics are religion, World War II, The American civil war, Fascism and communism, and that's really about it. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well ok, if I was talking about George Washington, he's a slave owner and a racist just like all the Democrat presidents from over 200 years ago. If I added "he controversial because he was racist" in the first paragraph like he was a modern figure, would that make any sense. Isn't that the clearest case of bias? I mean we can add he was racist, and what he did, like how Hitler's first paragraph says he killed six million Jews, but adding "his legacy is controversial" is bias right? And he's like the only political and historical figure with public opinion of them on the first paragraph of their article DisneyGuy744 (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you're just proposing to remove "his legacy is controversial" "he was praised" and "he was criticized", DisneyGuy744. I read that much. That's why I appended the bit about saying he was racist plainly as a note, in case someone comes along who wants to remove the rather weak "racist policies". As I said, plainly calling him "racist" (which he plainly was) never found consensus, as far as I know. Carlstak (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George Washington supported the Federalist Party, but never officially joined it. Thomas Jefferson belonged to the Jeffersonian Republican Party, also known as the Democratic–Republican Party. James Madison was first a Federalist, and then a Democratic–Republican. James Monroe was a Democratic-Republican. You should know these things. HumansRightsIsCool says he's seventeen years old. Must say I'm left wondering how old you are. Carlstak (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well they were all racist. And "their legacy is controversial" isn't on their first paragraph. Also I'm 23 years old. I turned 23 in October. Also can we like, start a vote about the paragraph I proposed. We're not making progress at all. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but John Quincy Adams is standing right there. He's representing the human cargo of the Amistad in court and donating money so they can buy Dorcas Allen's freedom. They may have all been racist but there was absolutely a continuum of "racism" ranging from social justice warrior Quakers on one end to, uh, Andrew Jackson on the other. Benjamin F. Lundy and Jesse Torrey (among others) are writing against slavery before Jackson is elected; The Liberator is founded during Jackson's second term. The claim that "everyone was racist back then" is an old canard long used to defend the indefensible. There was not a slavery miasma. To enslave people was a choice that was made again and again by specific people at specific times and places. Those people had agency. They even claimed to be a free people at liberty to choose their fates for themselves. jengod (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the lede is imperfect. I propose the following change to the lede:
Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and he has been criticized for his coercive negotiation tactics, imperialistic military actions, disregard for the rule of law, personal involvement in human trafficking, and his leadership role in the ethnic cleansing of what is now the southeastern United States.jengod (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyGuy744, now that you've opened an RfC, it should stay open for a while. If this RfC was intended in good faith, I'd suggest letting run at least a week or two to see if others will weigh in. If it becomes a dead letter, an uninvolved editor may close it. If attitudes toward the topic is genuinely split, the RfC can go on for about a month. The proposing editor should only close it by withdrawing it, seeing that the community's response is obvious. Wtfiv (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow, January 28th, We're going to do a vote, I'm going to propose the paragraph I did, or maybe add a few new ones people have never seen before, and we'll see what people think DisneyGuy744 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae yes but some people only read the first message and get confused on what I'm fully proposing. That's why I tried to add lots of detail last RfC to the first message but everyone got upset over one message and wanted to restart the whole thing lmao. And also I'm proposing new paragraphs I haven't proposed yet tomorrow DisneyGuy744 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like RfC was not posted in good faith to get the consensus of the community, but an attempt to post changes you personally want: Even though the RfC just started, it looks like you are proposing to discard it because it is not headed in the desired direction? Despite the lack of consensus for the change you propose, you now want to propose a new paragraph anyway and add more material? If this RfC is intended to get the temperature of people's attitude toward changing the article as you propose, I recommend you let the RfC run its course, respecting the editors who took their time to post and allowing others to weigh in. In the meantime, its reasonable to continue the conversation by commenting on other's vote. Otherwise, this risks looking like WP:GAME. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jengod suggests the first paragraph should be Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and he has been criticized for his coercive negotiation tactics, imperialistic military actions, disregard for the rule of law, personal involvement in human trafficking, and his leadership role in the ethnic cleansing of what is now the southeastern United States. I was going to suggest some new first paragraph ideas, but everyone vote on this first DisneyGuy744 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very eager to make nesting dolls of RfCs. I mean, personally, I think it's an accurate summation of Jackson as understood by current historical scholarship (though I would rephrase "human trafficking" as "chattel slavery" because the former implies to readers contemporaneous forms of unfree labor that don't necessarily resemble the system of Antebellum chattel slavery), but I think if you're already shifting the purpose of this thread that maybe it'd help if you poke around Wikipedia and watch a few different RfCs play out to get a better sense for how they usually go. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not shifting the purpose of this thread. My intentional goal from the start was to remove "his legacy is controversial for being racist" and "he was praised". Someone suggested a different paragraph so I'm letting people vote on it. Don't blame me, I didn't suggest that paragraph. Instead of everyone criticizing this RfC every 2 seconds and being negative, can we actually look to make progress, otherwise this would be a huge waste of time. I'm about to suggest a few paragraphs of my own in a few hours that sticks to the original reason of why this RfC exists, but right now everyone vote. If you vote yes for the paragraph Jengod suggested, and wanna remove "human trafficking", let all of us know like Hydrangeans did. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok this is option A: Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before his presidency, he rose to fame as a general in the U.S. Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. He was known as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, but also for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans.His political philosophy became the basis for the Democratic Party. Option B: Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American politician and lawyer who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Option C: Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has been praised as an advocate for working Americans and preserving the union of states, and he has been criticized for his coercive negotiation tactics, imperialistic military actions, disregard for the rule of law, personal involvement in cattel slavery, and his leadership role in the ethnic cleansing of what is now the southeastern United States. Say A, B, or C. If you want something else, type up your own paragraph, if you want to keep the article the same, just say "same" or something like that. DisneyGuy744 (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First let me clarify: I assume that Option C includes the same first sentence as Options A and B. MOS:FIRSTBIO says we have to start with a sentence that gives his name, birth and death dates, notable item, context, etc. So when you left that out of Option C, I assume it was not intentional.
In my comments above, I mentioned various incremental improvements that I would recommend, such as replacing "racist policies" with wording that more specifically describes forced removal. However, I don't want to hijack this RfC, so I will make a choice between A, B, C, and "same", as to which I would prefer to work from as a starting point.
I prefer A. I like that it does not say "he has been praised for ..." or "he has been criticized for ...". In the last paragraph of the lead, we are already doing some summarizing of historians' assessments of Jackson's legacy. That's where that summarizing is most effective, and that's where it belongs.
Reading through the narrative of how the article got to where it is, posted above by Wtfiv, I was deeply impressed by how difficult this has been. It's devastating that the guy who brought this article to FA, as well as several other highly experienced and responsible editors, are staying away from this article, in the wake of spending hundreds of hours on discussing the issue of neutrality. I do not have high hopes for a resolution of even one of the questions of how best to deal with Jackson's military and political career. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce leverett, "[T]he guy who brought this article to FA" was banned from the article for attacking other editors. He has written on talk pages about his belief that "the globalists" have been conspiring to rule the world. Carlstak (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, dude. RfC's can take a long time. It could be weeks before you hear from the person you really needed to hear from, and it might be someone you didn't even think of. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how option A addresses in any real sense the purported issue that the section is about his perception rather than the things he actually did, it just removes some of the words that highlight that that's what's being described. Option B is a non-starter imo, it would obviously be preferable to keep the section as is than remove it entirely. So of the three options C is what I'd favour, but I also think it inserts more that doesn't need to be there. In my view replace the term 'working Americans' with 'common man' (the term actually used in the legacy section and its source texts), and use the suggestions of jengod in place of the ambiguous "racist policies" section and the introduction is significantly improved. You can still ditch the terms 'praised'/'criticised' though I would still favour retaining the line about his legacy being controversial, since it kind of is the most significant thing about him today. In other words I'd suggest something like the following:
Jackson's legacy is controversial. He has become known as a defender of the common man and fought to preserve the union of states, while being personally involved in chattel slavery and having a leadership role in the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from what is now the southeastern United States.
That does work pretty well. Though I might go with "He became known as", since I think "has become" implies it was a postmortem development, but he had that reputation in life as well (at least, he had that reputation among Jacksonian partisans of the day; Whigs thought otherwise, hence "King Andrew"). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enjoying the more in-depth sharing of what makes Jackson so controversial. As a reminder, the RfC is about seeing if there is a consensus to change the article lead's first paragraph, particularly mention of how he is viewed. Interestingly, although people are discussing the wording, all but one of the editors responding to the RfC seem to favor keeping mention of his controversial legacy in the first paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the status quo/detente is being destabilized anyway, here are my criticisms of this biography of Jackson, which I think are broadly supported by current post-Remini academic scholarship, as well as a long line of Jackson haters going back to the 18th century. My basic concern is that this article is currently so paranoid about "neutrality" that it fails to actually explain Jackson. I fear we have fallen into a "false balance" trap that ultimately becomes its own form of misinformation akin to "some people say the earth is flat, while others believe it is more spherical, or perhaps a bit ovoid."
Sanewashing - AJ was not a normal person or a normal president. He was a gangster. He was the neighborhood bully. He was *fucking crazy*. We simply cannot write about him using the same template that would be applied to James Monroe or Benjamin Harrison or Gerald Ford.
Racism - Yes he was racist. So were many. But the difference is that Andrew Jackson is arguably the Founding Father of American White Supremacy, if not the godfather of the Confederacy (they put him on their money in case there was any doubt), and there is even an extremist argument to be made that his actions and his presidency resulted in the Civil War and made the successive 100 years of violence-enforced oppression an inevitability. To be clear, I don't think his actions in the nullification crisis give him any credibility in the issues of secession, disunion, or national identity. He was a treasonous racist who *loved* slavery and if the choices were slavery in Tennessee or abolition anywhere else there is no question he would have chosen Slavery every time. The Jacksonians believed and argued loudly that "white men surrendered their sovereignty in proportion to its exercise by people of color" - a man with those beliefs would die a thousand times before he would accept anything resembling liberty and justice for all.
Anti-Americanism: What? Yes. He was treason-curious from the get-go. *Of course* he and his little henchmen were in cahoots with Burr and they would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for that meddling Jefferson! The "Blount conspiracy" and the "Burr conspiracy" and the "West Florida crisis" and the Seminole Wars and the Republic of Texas are all part of a long series of freelance wars run by white southerners (often including Jackson himself, or otherwise people very closely associated with Jackson) who wanted more land, more slaves, and fewer Indians, so they could be richer and more powerful, without the interference of the feds, the British, the Spanish, the Mexicans, or those infernal abolitionists. "We want to rape and beat the shit out of people in peace. It's called liberty!!" I really don't think he should ever get the slightest credit for his allegiance to the United States when his allegiance was to the enrichment of himself and his clansmen (klansmen?) and that is it.
Propagandistic claptrap: Our inclusion of maudlin deathbed utterances or his sense that political persecution killed Rachel or that he had any serious devotion to any religion other than the Almighty Dollar or that the American Revolution was a formative experience that shaped his politics or personality is all but printing the pamphlets of his campaign committee and we should be ashamed of ourselves. He was a chaotic little 14yo and he cared about horses and cockfighting and establishing dominance in the local hierarchy of other teenagers, not the principles nor the military strategy of the revolution. Rachel died of a heart attack. Why are we quoting man's dying declaration about "maybe black people go to heaven too" instead of telling people that by his own handwritten account he personally marched a dozen chained black men and boys naked through cypress swamps in January 1812, or that he bought and sold 12-year-old black children the way the way that you would buy gum, or that the burned bodies of the dead Muscogee at the battle of Tallusahatchee were being eaten by dogs while Jackson's starving militiamen scavenged for potatoes that had been cooked in the inferno along with the bodies?
Historical context, lack of: This article fails to characterize or contextualize his relationships with Calhoun, Clay, Adams, Crawford, Marshall, Taney, Gaines, Benton, Scott, Claiborne, etc etc. We fail to teach the reader that his administration was a nest of unctuous cronies and only a scanting handful of his cabinet members were competent. We fail to examine what *really* made him such an electoral smash hit. What was it about the American people of that era that made them so horny for Jackson? I think we all know it wasn't "tariffs."
Jackson is an epochal, impossibly complex figure who did a dozen lives worth of historically important stuff. It's hard to summarize it briefly, it needs dozens of feature-quality articles to come close to explaining him and his era, but in the interim between here and there, showcasing propagandistic Currier & Ives lithographs, including pablum like "He also had a strong sense of loyalty. He considered threats to his friends as threats to himself, but he demanded unquestioning loyalty in return." and transcribing disingenuous bullshit like "Jackson stated that he had postponed officially entering the church until after his retirement to avoid accusations that he had done so for political reasons" is not it. jengod (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for specific actions:
Remove Revolutionary War subhed and just let that text be part of one "early life" section
Replace Currier & Ives with this map of the Waxhaws which, per Remini, was created with input from Jackson in his lifetime
Move painting of Rachel at age 56 from section about her marriage in her 20s down to either "personal life" or "Election of 1828 and death of Rachel Jackson" section
Remove quotes about they killed Rachel, deathbed heaven stuff, anything more than a single sentence about him joining the Presbyterian church, and cut "During Jackson's presidency, slavery remained a minor political issue," which tells the reader outright that we are determined the miss the forest for the trees.
I appreciate these concrete suggestions about images; editing the whole prose of the article is a big project, but at least doing more to illustrate more of Jackson's life and world, including more of the people he encountered, is a simple and I would hope uncontroversial change.
let that text be part of one "early life" section: "Revolutionary War" as a subsection of "Early life" would probably work, as it was also part of his early life
map of the Waxhaws: I'm inclined to also prefer the map; we can even include in the caption that Jackson helped make it!
Move painting of Rachel: Sensible.
duel section: Ooh, I quite like that handbill!
Jackson from Creek War: I wonder about using this image instead. One of them would be useful somewhere in that section.
Supplement Seminole War section: I'm less familiar with Jackson as a general and the Seminole Wars. I presume Hadjo was involved in that? Would you be able to add a cited sentence about that so it's crystal clear to readers and editors why the image is there when we add it (since, I think once a sentence is there, adding the image would be quite reasonable).
cut "During Jackson's presidency, slavery remained a minor political issue,": Jackson, and even his old foe Henry Clay, may have longed for it to be a minor issue, but as books like The Republic of Violence: The Tormented Rise of Abolition in Andrew Jackson's America go to show, quite right that it wasn't really minor at all.
this article is currently so paranoid about "neutrality" that it fails to actually explain Jackson. I fear we have fallen into a "false balance" trap that ultimately becomes its own form of misinformation akin: Yes; there's a strong overcorrection toward blandly narrating Jackson that underplays the severity of his behavior.
inclusion of maudlin deathbed utterances: The deathbed utterance is unnecessarily flowery, and it's contextless presentation suggests a notion of genuine affection rather than the possessive racist paternalism it was. I doubt the men and women Jackson enslaved appreciated the sentiment, even if they dared not express their discontent to the people who were legally allowed to beat them.
Historical context, lack of: The article mentions that Jackson's "rotation in office" ultimately functioned as political patronage and became known as the spoils system but gives the matter curiously little attention on the page. Why not let the reader know who some of those loyal Democrats were and how they managed (or didn't manage) their new postings?
That said, I think overcorrecting in the other direction isn't necessary.
Andrew Jackson is arguably the Founding Father of American White Supremacy: You give Jackson too much credit and his predecessors too little. It's true he was committed to slavocracy and was so virulent in his racist animus that his own contemporaries considered him extreme, and that this doesn't come through in the article as much as it could and probably ought, but he didn't originate anti-Blackness in the country. States had been disfrachsing Black freemen for years before his presidency. Cold calculus about slavery like Jefferson's, while not as colorful as Jackson's bombast, was key to the formation of white supremacy in the States.
I don't think his actions in the nullification crisis give him any credibility in the issues of secession, disunion, or national identity I don't think Jackson's words on the matter or his behavior bear that out. It can't be reduced to mere politics; he expressed opprobrium for the nullifiers in private letters too. Antislavery northerners regarded Jackson's response to the nullifiers positively, and I think it fair to defer to them as contemporaries (and often critics!) in interpreting him: Their cotton bags, may turn to rags, / If Eastern men don't buy them, / For all their gold, they may be sold, / Or their slaves may yet destroy them. [...] Sing Yankee doodle doodle doo, / Yankee doodle dandy, / For Jackson he is wide awake, / He says the Union is so handy. Or, more dryly, as James M. McPherson wrote, In the nullification crisis of 1832, Andrew Jackson had vowed to use force to collect duties on South Carolina and to hang the nullification leaders. "Oh, for one hour of Jackson!" exclaimed many Yankee Republicans who developed a sudden retrospective affection for this Tennessee Democrat (Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, 249). I'm no Jackson girl, but even the stopped clock is right once a day, and apparently this was when he was. Now, Jackson himself was still as pro-slavery as ever, obviously. But to say he would have ever favored disunion is saying more than the evidence does.
the Seminole Wars and the Republic of Texas: While Jackson's declaration of loyalty to the King of Spain unsettles any claim of staunch, lifelong patriotism, you mischaracterize his raids on the Seminole and the subsequent establishment of the Republic of Texas by his peers. In these matters, U. S. Americans violated the sovereignty of other nations with the expectation that the United States would eventually bail them out and annex the territory. Texans considered themselves forerunners to American expansion; they weren't trying to escape America. Jackson's raids on the Seminole should be understood in that light. Of course, the America that Jackson in Florida and that Houston in Texas believed in was a white supremacist, slavocratic America—which was, indeed, exactly why they were so confident the United States would go for annexation and expand the available territory for slavery.
transcribing disingenuous: I don't think scholarship considers Jackson's Christianity disingenuous. See, for instance, Jonathan A. Atkins, Andrew Jackson: Old Hickory in Christian America, Spiritual Lives (Oxford University Press, 2025). His belief that enslaving people was religiously compatible is morally abhorrent, certainly, but historians conclude he was, in his cantankerous, mercurial way, devout.
Even with these disagreements in mind, I do think it's the case that the article tries too hard to be 'neutral' and ends up creating a false balance that isn't actually neutral. This is, in a sense, an outdated article, one premised on the writings and sentiments of an earlier generation. The reliable sources guideline reminds us that some scholarly material may be outdated.The writings that form the citational core of the current article have their strengths but also serious shortcomings, as I think Daniel Walker Howe's very piercing critical review of the older biographies goes to show. In that review, I think it's interesting—and perhaps telling—that when Howe asked the editors of The Papers of Andrew Jackson which Jackson biography they liked best, none picked the twentieth- or early-twenty-first-century ones that form this article's backbone: All picked the same one: Life of Andrew Jackson by James Parton, published in three volumes between 1859 and 1861, a book that was critical of Jackson’s presidency, especially the "spoils system", rather than glowing the way Remini, Wilentz, and Meacham tend to be about Jackson.It's been more than a decade since Howe's critical review of the biographies, and since then scholarship that paints a fuller picture of Jackson has been published. I suggest the following as good places to start. (Howe is already cited in the article, but very lightly and infrequently compared to the older biographies).
In addition to discussing the first paragraph of the lead, there have been a slew of changes to the rest of the article. Most of them are minor additions with updated information or qualifying points made as per the conversations above. I did revert many, but not all of the image changes. I think that extreme of a change requires more discussion from the community. At this point, I removed the poem and the mansion, in part trying to keep to one image per section and to reduce image crowding. I also think some of the images would need more discussion to be changed. For example, I put the picture of Rachel back near the front. Yes, she is older, but it is next to her first mention. Other pictures created over time. I also replaced the Tennessee map because it clearly outlines the political state of Tennessee at the time Jackson moved to Nashville. The state was two enclaves surrounded by native American territory.
Because the article is currently a featured article, and I was got myself involved in the process of trying to steer the consensus, my role is more towards trying to keep ensure that changes are small and don't change the consensus built during the FAR process (and more importantly, the view of currently watching editors). But, if a major overhaul is wanted, I'd like to suggest the following. Please put in a request for a feature article review. If there is an agreement to delist the article, then it would be easier for those who want to rework the article to do so as they build it in the direction they think is best. Wtfiv (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that extreme of a change requires more discussion from the community: I'm not sure I follow how the mere addition of an image in a quite long section constitutes an "extreme change". Can you be more specific about the issues with the reverted revisions beyond preservation of the status quo?Please put in a request for a feature article review. If there is an agreement to delist the article, then it would be easier for those who want to rework the article to do so as they build it in the direction they think is best.: This seems to have the process backwards. The first goal of revising or reviewing a Feature Article isn't to delist. The first goal is to improve articles rather than to demote them, and an ideal review would address the issues raised through edits to the article and close with no change in status. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's less about the small changes, but addressing them in the context of the above conversation. Jengod states the article needs revision based on seven bullet points. And, it sounds like you may not agree with all the points, but are in general agreement: Even with these disagreements in mind, I do think it's the case that the article tries too hard to be 'neutral' and ends up creating a false balance that isn't actually neutral. This is, in a sense, an outdated article, one premised on the writings and sentiments of an earlier generation. If the article is outdated, overhauling it sounds like a reasonable solution if that is warranted. Wtfiv (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing the current romantic latter-day illustration of centering Jackson at the battle of New Orleans with this lithograph or similar, which is believed to be the most accurate illustration of the battle, as it was based on sketches made by a participant shortly after it happened. Just as it the War of 1812 was more than the Battle of New Orleans, the Battle of New Orleans was more than Jackson. jengod (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The battle was bigger than Jackson, but this article is about Jackson, so it makes sense to have an article feature him. One of the editors liked this one, and other had suggested it, so it was chosen. I'm fine with keeping that.
My preference was an 1860 era Malone Carter. It is still romantic, with Jackson on horseback, but Carter was closer to the time. It gives a good sense of how Jackson was politically constructed by the Democratic party near the time of the civil war. But other editors felt strongly about this image, so that's why it is here. Battle of New Orleans, an 1858 painting by Dennis Malone Carter now housed at The Historic New Orleans Collection
Image of Jackson rallying the troops, from Ballou's Pictorial Drawing Room Companion, 1856 (Historic New Orleans Collection)
As an alternative that both features Jackson and accurately credits him for his inclusive deployment of Choctaw, free people of color, and slaves, alongside U.S. regulars and volunteer militiamen from Tennessee and Kentucky, I would suggest this 1856 lithograph. jengod (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I rather like that 1856 lithograph and support its inclusion. It makes sense to include Jackson in the image, but this also gives readers a fuller the actual conditions of the battle. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think can do better than the current image in the early public career section, which is intended to illustrate his life from approximately 1796 to 1802. I'm open to suggestions.
Two maps that I would suggest that offer a sense of Tennessee during this pioneer era are:
Aboriginal map of Tennessee bc it shows places like the Chickamauga Cherokee towns (including Nickajack of the Nickajack Expedition) and because it includes the North Carolina Military Reserve -- Jackson's brother-in-law Stockley Donelson, his ally William Terrell Lewis and others in his family were involved in buying and selling military land warrants made in this area, which is part of why they ended up there; it also shows Hays, Donelson, and Caffrey stations (more brothers-in-law)
the Smithsonian's Indian Land cessions map of 1899, which as a historical map covers a long span of time, showing how Tennessee was "built" via a series of wars and negotiated treaties, and includes key roads, taverns, the full extent of the "Chickasaw Purchase" or "Jackson Purchase" in TN-KY etc.
My perspective is that the current map does a good job of reflecting Jackson's Tennessee. It was two geographically separated enclaves in Native American territory. It also nicely illustrates the text, giving people a sense of were Merlo County is situated. Earlier versions of this article did not make it clear that Tennessee was not a unified location at the time that Jackson made his name. At this point of the article, the narrative is focused on Jackson's career. The subtext of how Tennessee was claimed from the Native Americans through successive acquisitions would be appropriate in an article on the history of Tennessee, or the early history of Tennessee. The current map also includes the Natchez trace, which plays an important role in Jackson's early biography. Wtfiv (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that including an image of both the Hermitage mansion and the Hermitage slave quarters serves to show the contrast in wealth and status between the enslaver and the enslaved, which essential to the matter, IMHO. jengod (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel one image is sufficient for each section. The replica of the cabin for enslaved workers on Jackson's plantation serves as a contrast to the image created in the article. Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In vol 1 of his biography (p. 2 of illustration insert), Remini describes the Jarvis portrait as a "romantic" image. I agree. He is depicted as a wind-blown woods-dwelling Victorian hero, and for some reason there is a screaming horse in the background. It feels tonally inappropriate.
Agreed. The Jarvis portrait is romantic. I would think Remini would count that a plus, though.;-) His own language can be pretty florid. The Peale portrait is definitely more suitable for the article. 19:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 to the 1819 Peale portrait. I think it's more straightforwardly illustrative (no mysterious woodland background), and as another 1819 painting it was just as close to Jackson's military career as Jarvis's portrait was. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to move her image down to the family section, because it's hard to see the Rachel-at-21 of their youth in the Rachel-at-56 proto-First Lady oil painting, to the point where you can't concentrate on the text, IMHO
Regardless of image placement, I would recommend using the posthumous portrait of 1831 which is a little more smoothed out and frankly less startling to the eye.
If we need an image for their marriage, we do have their boring-but-authentic marriage bond
Original primary historical documents boring? Never! :PI think the marriage bond would be fine to illustrate their marriage. I do get the desire to show Rachel when she first gets mentioned, but we really don't have any way to show her as she would have been at the time of their marriage. Tennessee Gentleman could go in the Temperament subsection and the Rachel-at-56 painting in the Family subsection of Personal life. I'm inclined to prefer the portrait painted during her lifetime, though. Startling-to-the-eye-ness is a subjective matter, I grant, but I don't think it's so troubling as to be unusable. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Done Wtfiv (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
A - Proposed by BarfChimp445
B - Status quo image
C - Proposed by Novem
D - Proposed by Novem
E - Proposed by Jengod
F - Proposed by Jengod
.jpg)
.jpg)
_Restoration.png)
.webp){kind=link}
