Talk:Andrew Jackson

Oh, that Theodore

I saw Theodore mentioned in this main Jackson article and then, of course, mentioned over at List of children of the presidents of the United States and I got curious so I went looking for him...and, I couldn't find him. He isn't mentioned as an adopted son or a family-member by the folks at The Hermitage, he isn't mentioned as an adopted son or family-member by the Library of Congress, he doesn't appears as any kind of an adoptee in any official or scholarly sources that I could find, except, supposedly in Brands' Jackson biography and, well, there are a whole lot of problems with that....
I do want to mention that although Jackson does not have an "Official Presidential Library" as modern US Presidents do, The Hermitage is operated as a 501c nonprofit and the Foundation has been in existence since 1889. Their scholarship seems impeccable. For what they had to say about family life at The Hermitage see their webpage on "Children".

The Jackson article's sentence stating "Jackson had three adopted sons: Theodore, an Indian about whom little is known" along with the reference citing Page 198 of Brands' book was added in 2012 by a now-moribund account. I went to Brands' actual Page 198 and this is what Brands quotes as being Jackson's letter:

• "I send on a little boy for Andrew. All his family is destroyed. He is about the age of Theodore."

but Brands then goes on to comment:

• The young boy named Theodore had come to live at the Hermitage earlier, under circumstances lost to history. ... In Jackson's case, he pitied the Creek child—named Lyncoya—but he also wanted to provide Rachel another child and Andrew (and Theodore) a brother.

Frustrating Bonus! in all of this: Brands doesn't provide any sourced footnotes for this letter that he is quoting so I had to go looking for a published source and my quibble with Brands is that what he quotes isn't exactly what Jackson wrote.
In this particular letter Jackson is referring to the well-known Lyncoya Jackson, Brands mentions Theodore in passing but he does not state that Theodore is himself adopted. The actual November 4th, 1813 letter from Jackson to his wife Rachel states - as published on Page 444 of The Papers of Andrew Jackson, V. II, 1804-1813. Ed. Harold D. Moser and Sharon Macpherson. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984. - the letter states:

• I send on a little Indian boy[4] for Andrew to Huntsville-with a request to Colo. Pope to take care of him untill he is sent on-all his family is destroyed-he is about the age of Theodore [5]

with the editors commenting in [4] and [5] that

• 4. Lyncoya (c1813-28), a Creek infant orphaned at the Battle of Tallushatchee, reached the Hermitage in May 1814. He remained in the Jackson household until his death.
• 5. Theodore (cl813-14) was probably another Indian child at the Hermitage. Jackson and Rachel mentioned his death in their letters of March 4 and 21, 1814 (DLC).
  

So the editors of the authoritative/published Papers of Andrew Jackson do not refer to Theodore as anything but a Native American living at The Hermitage. The WP-editor who added that "3rd adopted son" information was mistaken in their assumption. I intend to adjust that particular sentence and maybe add information & references etc about the Jacksons' living situation at The Hermitage, especially regarding the various Native American boys like Theodore and Charley who lived there for at least a time as companions for the Jackson-related boys (including Andrew Jackson Jr, Andrew Jackson Donelson, and Andrew Jackson Hutchings). I wanted to post here on the talk page about my impending edits to Theodore's "adopted son" status since this article is a Featured Article and for page watchers to know that this change is not some kind of an inconsidered vandal-edit but rather a correction to a long-standing error in the article. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and edited that section, correcting the information about Theodore and adding references etc. Also corrected the infobox. We can discuss the changes here. Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shearonink, I brought this article to FA status and am sort of its self-appointed guardian/custodian. I'm kind of pressed for time now and can't really do in-depth research at the moment, but I know you to be an experienced editor and the changes which you have made definitely seem good. Thank you for your improvements. I will contact you if I have any questions or suggestions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is it more "neutral" to discuss Jackson's ideals rather than his policy?

Antiok 1pie recently made an edit with the "npov" justification, but this edit seems to just create more bias. They're taking away statements about the broad and observable effects of Andrew Jackson's policies, and replacing them with propaganda about how he defended human rights and empowered the "common man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnV3 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, the sources you provided don't support your statements. The 1st source, simply describes the Indian Removal Act in detail; it doesn't say Jackson played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States and the 2nd source is not reliable. It's an 1835 letter from Jackson to Amos Kendall (see WP:PST). The text is also WP:UNDUE; he is not notable for protecting slavery or for his "major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States" Secondly, his role in ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the 3rd paragraph and his thoughts on slavery are mentioned in the body of the article. Lastly, I don't see how the sentence Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union is biased or "propaganda" as you've claimed. As a matter of fact, a historical term symbolizing the years of Jackson's presidency is "Age of the Common Man" [1]. It's a simple and adequate sentence for the introduction and it's also supported by reliable sources. There's nothing wrong with it. I would advise you to gain some sort of consensus before re-adding your edit in the article. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Antiok 1pie. As the author of the text in question, I would like to add to what was already said that the sentence about preserving the Union was added primarily with the Nullification Crisis in mind, not the issue of slavery. Adding that he sought to preserve the Union by protecting slavery completing obliterates the Nullification Crisis, which was a much more momentous issue in Jackson's presidency than the question of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've found more precise sources and integrated it better with the existing "common man" text. It seems extremely misleading to keep the "common man" text without mentioning his genocide of many of the common men he ruled over. I also added a citation that does a better job connecting the Nullification Crisis to the issue of slavery. FinnV3 (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is unacceptable. It's not necessary to specify that Jackson's reputation was among white men. Indians and blacks generally did not have public political positions. We are implicitly already speaking only about American citizens here, which Indians and blacks generally were not. It is also not necessary to say that his Manifest destiny ideology was limited to whites; anyone who clicks on the article can see that the idea of Manifest destiny was never understood to apply in any broad sense to blacks or Indians. Describing Indian removal as "ethnic cleansing" is loaded language not widely found in major sources of Jackson. Its inclusion arguably compromises NPOV. Saying that his work to preserve the Union took place through preserving the Southern slave economy is vague. It's unclear what this means. What did protecting slavery have to do with nullification? The answer is nothing, because an attack on slavery was never seriously considered by tariff advocates, and thus rarely mentioned even by the hard anti-tariff men. We encounter here the same problem as before: the text obscures and pushes aside one of the most crucial episodes of Jackson's presidency in favor of talking about nothing other than slavery.

Additionally, what you have done conflicts with MOS:OPEN. A full lead section has four paragraphs. The first paragraph of a full lead section describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics. The detail that you have added here is too great.

I will also say something to you generally that may be of course as you continue to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy, as you probably know, states that articles are to be written with a neutral point of view. Historians are people just like anyone else. They have biases and beliefs which other historians may challenge. Unless there is overwhelming consensus one way or the other, Wikipedia is required to remain neutral in these debates. To wit, you can't simply say whatever you want and slap a citation at the end of it, because even if the citation supports what you are saying and is to a reliable and trustworthy source, another reliable and trustworthy source may disagree. That is why we must be careful that, when we see one belief that a historian or a group of historians holds, not to insert it into an article as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia policy, as you probably know, states that articles are to be written with a neutral point of view." Yes, I know. My main motivation for editing this article in the first place was that the introduction was extremely biased and pro-Jackson. The current version of the article is in gross violation of WP:NPOV.
• "To wit, you can't simply say whatever you want and slap a citation at the end of it, because even if the citation supports what you are saying and is to a reliable and trustworthy source, another reliable and trustworthy source may disagree." Yeah, it seems like this is exactly what you did. The original text described Jackson as a hero of the "common man," which is plainly ridiculous. You can't just slap a citation at the end of it.
• "It's not necessary to specify that Jackson's reputation was among white men. Indians and blacks generally did not have public political positions. We are implicitly already speaking only about American citizens here, which Indians and blacks generally were not." Yes, that's the whole problem here. The article is written completely from a white American perspective. That's the bias I was trying to remove. Why is it preferable or more "neutral" to implicitly focus on white men? Not coincidentally, the white male bias is present in the sources you prefer in part because of Jackson's removal and censure of opposing views, so it really doesn't make sense to reproduce that bias here.
• "A full lead section has four paragraphs. The first paragraph of a full lead section describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics. The detail that you have added here is too great." Right, my original edit was more brief, but it was shot down for being too brief. This most recent edit was an attempt to reach consensus, as I was instructed. I agree that the earlier version was better, with less detail, but User:Antiok 1pie was adamant that the "common man" quote was necessary, so I tried to integrate the two.
• "Saying that his work to preserve the Union took place through preserving the Southern slave economy is vague." What is it? Am I too detailed or too vague? It strikes me as a lot more vague to leave it at "Jackson sought ... to preserve the Union."
• "Describing Indian removal as 'ethnic cleansing' is loaded language not widely found in major sources of Jackson." What sources are you looking at? I added several citations that use that language. What makes your sources more "major"? Describing it as ethnic cleansing is uncontroversial by any definition of the term, and it's a term that modern readers are more likely to be more familiar with, but feel free to change the language if you disagree.
• "We encounter here the same problem as before: the text obscures and pushes aside one of the most crucial episodes of Jackson's presidency in favor of talking about nothing other than slavery." Wikipedia policy is to focus on noteworthy content. What makes your text more "crucial" than mine? Slavery was a big part of the economy at the time, and the connections to the later Civil War are nontrivial.

I have made a good-faith effort to reconcile the versions and reach consensus, but none of the issues I've brought up have been addressed. You've simply reverted my edits. Wikipedia policy discourages edit warring. Please make an effort to reach consensus instead of simply reverting an edit. FinnV3 (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just passing by as yours edits are causing no target errors. Can I suggest reading WP:BRD and reverting you edit? From there the best cause of action is to try and talk put the issues here. If you can't make any headway then you can always post notices to wiki projects and notice boards to get third party opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This should not be taken as supporting either side in this discussion, in which I'm neutral. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I am also passing through - I don't have a strong opinion on how the intro should be structured here, but I do want to voice my strong opposition to the aforementioned suggestion that calling the Trail of Tears an ethnic cleansing is loaded language. It was an ethnic cleansing. The Wikipedia article on it already calls it an ethnic cleansing. I think dancing around the term is less neutral than just calling it what it was. I doubt there would be any objection if the subject was not an American president. Connor Long (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, please do not lecture me about edit warring when you are yourself reverting a change before discussing it. Here is my response to your statements.

1. There was no bias in the lead paragraph prior to your changes. It simply describes, in general terms, his major achievements and broad policy goals as president. It takes no side either way, and uses quotations around “common man” and “corrupt aristocracy” to draw a distinction between objectivity and the pro-Jackson view.

2. The text does not describe Jackson as a “hero of the common man.” You have distorted the truth here. It says that he “sought to advance the rights of the common man.’” This is true. The sense in which common man was understood was generally white man, and this is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks. Jackson did fervently support fewer constraints on the liberties of ordinary white American men. Nothing is untrue or biased about this sentence.

3. The opening paragraph of an article, as I have mentioned, generalizes in broad terms what the subject of the article is. Jackson’s expansionist policies are mentioned, and nothing more is warranted here. Mention of slavery is not warranted here because it was not important enough during his term in office. Look further down in the lead. There is more about Indians and blacks there, but it is does not belong in the top paragraph, and certainly not in the language that you have used. Of course, information about how Jackson’s policies affected non-whites should be included, but what you seem to be forgetting is that including information about Jackson’s policies towards non-whites doesn’t mean that we include nothing about his policies towards whites. Regarding this statement: Not coincidentally, the white male bias is present in the sources you prefer in part because of Jackson's removal and censure of opposing views…, it both unhelpful and not very polite to accuse an editor of using biased sources without citing evidence.

4. Your original edit was rejected for two reasons. The first was because, as Antiok 1pie pointed out, your efforts at sourcing it were atrocious. The second was that has the same core inaccuracies and biases as your newer edit. Its brevity was better, but it still had major problems.

5. I guess it’s not so much vague as inaccurate and misleading. Slavery was not under any serious threat during the Nullification Crisis. Of course, it was a crucial part of the economy, but no Northern politicians were seriously making it an issue during the Nullification Crisis. As such, Jackson didn’t need to protect it from anything, and so saying that he sought to preserve the Union through protecting the slavery distorts or triviliazes the nullification issue. There were two major instances in which the Union came under threat (or in which Jackson felt it came under threat) during Jackson’s presidency and in which Jackson sought to preserve it. The first was through nullification, in which Jackson sought to preserve the Union through a mix of threats and compromises aiming both to intimidate and to appease South Carolinians who were ardently against the tariff. The second was in the growth of abolitionism later in his presidency, which Jackson fiercely opposed in part because he felt it inflamed sectional jealousies. Both of these are important, but in the interest of brevity, neither are specifically mentioned in the lead paragraph. Because the top paragraph should be short, I am in favor of neither one being specifically mentioned, but if more detail is to be added, slavery cannot be mentioned without nullification.

6. Slave labor was a major part of the economy, of course, but mostly not a major political issue until well after Jackson’s presidency. The two major parties in Jackson’s presidency-the Democrats and Whigs-transcended sectional divides by having both Northern and Southern elements. The result was that everybody basically agreed not to talk about slavery. The biggest issue regarding slavery in Jackson’s presidency was the abolitionist tracts during his second term. Although this should not be overlooked, it did not provoke the same level of controversy as some of Jackson’s other actions. As such, it should not be mentioned in the first paragraph.

The article was better without these changes. I also removed the POV tags that you added to the top of the article. There is no consensus for adding them. In fact, as the article passed featured article review in a manner close to its current form, consensus would appear to be against them. Adding them in the middle of this dispute was clearly designed simply to inflame tensions and antagonize the opposition. I find it inappropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

To expand on User:Display name 99's 4th point, the sources still do not support the statements that FinnV3 wants to add. The current version of the opening paragraph says: His expansionist ideology included White supremacy and this is cited to Haveman 2016 p. 84 & to Anderson 2014 p. 151, 158. Yet these sources don't claim, or even imply, that His expansionist ideology included White supremacy or that (as seen in previous edits) his expansionist ideology was limited to whites; he played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Display name 99, please read the instructions in Template:Systemic bias: "Please do not remove this message until the issue is resolved." No consensus has been reached. You cannot pretend there is no dispute simply because you don't want there to be one. FinnV3 (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an interesting summary of the history and controversy. I think noting his popularity and inclusion on the $20 bill in the lead would be appropriate. It's also important to note his role in Indian Removal and as a slave holder in the opening paragraph. The Nullification Crisis set the stage for the later secession crisis and states rights v. federal power as they related to the institution of slavery. I'm surprised his Old Hickory nickname doesn't appear. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

His inclusion in the $20 bill could be mentioned at the final paragraph, where the rest of his legacy is discussed. Jackson's status as a slave-owner, however, isn't notable enough to be included in the opening paragraph (OP). 18 U.S. presidents owned slaves but their status as slave-owners is never discussed/mentioned in the OP. Also, I'm against mentioning his role in Indian Removal in the OP, because, as User:Display name 99 noted, the opening paragraph describes only the most basic details about the subject without getting too far into specifics (MOS:OPEN). It is already mentioned, in much detail, in the 3rd paragraph. Antiok 1pie (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the current version is better than the "common man" one. FinnV3 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Responding belatedly to a point made by Connorlong90 about the use of ethnic cleansing as loaded language, Jackson's role in Indian removal is still contentious. Although there isn't a single scholar on the Jackson era from the late 20th century until now that I'm aware of who does not recognize the removal of Indians as orchestrated by Jackson as a humanitarian catastrophe and an extremely sad event, there is still considerable debate as to Jackson's personal responsibility in the matter. There's evidence that he wanted the Indians to be treated well, and it's not proven that he was aware of mistreatment carried out by soldiers during the relocation process. Additionally, it has been seriously argued in recent studies that as terrible as removal was, Jackson's decision to carry it out really was the best option available. Here is how the argument usually goes. Had Jackson attempted to protect the rights of the tribes, he would have been unable to do so because he lacked popular support, and such attempts could have led to insurrection. Had he done nothing, encroaching white settlements would have led to a protracted and bloody war between whites and Native Americans which the whites eventually would have won, leading to more Native American deaths than took place during the removal. Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had. Robert V. Remini was an academic historian who wrote a massive three-volume biography of Jackson that was published in the 1970s and 1980s, among other works. His studies of Jackson have formed a foundation for all scholarship of him that has taken place since. He largely defends Jackson's removal policies as tragic but necessary. Several other historians have taken that view, two of whom are mentioned in the "Historical reputation" section of the article. Regardless of the extent to which Jackson's policies meet the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing, the term has such a negative connotation that I fear that using it without any context or further explanation obscures the very real and ongoing debate surrounding Jackson's motives and whether or not his decision, despite the suffering that resulted from it, was correct. That's in addition to the point that has been previously made regarding the opening paragraph not being suitable for discussions of specific policies.

I agree with the point made above by Antiok 1pie. I think the problem here may be that some people come to this article with a preconceived and strongly held negative position of Jackson and expect that position to be supported by the first thing that they read. Just because the article does not begin by condemning Jackson as an evil, racist, genocidal slaveholder does not mean that the impact that his actions had on Native Americans and slaves is ignored or trivialized in the article.

FinnV3 has yet to respond to the latest points made by me and Antiok 1pie. If he cannot, I think that the tags should be removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"I agree with the point made above by Antiok 1pie. I think the problem here may be that some people come to this article with a preconceived and strongly held negative position of Jackson and expect that position to be supported by the first thing that they read." That's not the problem here. The problem is that the current introduction is extremely misleading. It's written under the assumption that "common" means "white," cherry-picking minor quotes that give Jackson a semblance of egalitarianism. It's biased to focus on internal white politics and exclude Jackson's significant impact on non-white Americans, and this issue has not been resolved. FinnV3 (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I have already explained the use of "common man" in the introduction. I will do so again. Jackson's defense of the "common man" is an important part of his legacy. Common man did generally mean white men at that time, as blacks and Indians were usually not seen as American citizens. This is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks. The opening paragraph mentions Jackson's role as an expansionist president, and this implicitly refers in part to his policies on Native Americans. It also says that he sought to preserve the Union, which in part means that he largely favored protecting slaveholding interests against abolitionists, whom he viewed as a threat to the Union. Again, more specific details are not proper for the opening paragraph.

Cherry-picking minor quotes... what quotes are you talking about? There aren't any quotes in the introduction. The brief terms that are quoted are there to provide an overall sense of Jackson's political philosophy, which was dismantling what he saw as a corrupt system of government and giving more power to the people. You still have not responded to any of the arguments that have been made here against your position. Display name 99 (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson's defense of the 'common man' is an important part of his legacy." I believe you, but the article as it stands is misleading without additional qualification. I tried adding the additional qualification I was looking for, but I agree it made the introductory paragraph too bulky, so I don't think it's worth including at all.
• "Common man did generally mean white men at that time, as blacks and Indians were usually not seen as American citizens. This is acknowledged through the use of quotation marks." Why are we using the language of the time? It just makes the introduction read like white nationalist propaganda, and Wikipedia strives to be more inclusive. See WP:BIAS.
• "The lead mentions Jackson's role as an expansionist president, and this implicitly refers in part to his policies on Native Americans." How? By phrasing it as "expansionist", this is doing the exact opposite: framing the issue of genocide in terms of expansion of whites rather than contraction of non-whites.
• "Cherry-picking minor quotes... what quotes are you talking about?" The ones you described as "acknowledged through the use of quotation marks."

I've made an edit that I think addresses these issues, keeping it brief without using language too extreme or flowery. FinnV3 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledging Jackson's legacy as an advocate of ordinary Americans belongs in the article. He did, as you acknowledge, have a reputation for standing for the interests of ordinary white Americans, and the idea that it's "white nationalist propaganda" to acknowledge that strikes me as a little ridiculous. Regarding expansion, nothing about that is misleading. Although expansion of whites did usually mean the removal of non-whites, this was not always the case. Indians who agreed to accept American law were permitted to remain where they were. There is also no scholarly agreement that Indian removal was a genocide. Although some historians have gone so far to label it as such, quite a few others have disagreed. The article on Indian removal lists a few examples of that.

I removed your edit from the article. When a topic is in dispute, it is best not to make edits to the article but instead to have a discussion on the talk page. Although you said that you attempted to incorporate the objections of me and Antiok 1pie into the article, it appears to me that you made very little attempt to do that. You still described Jackson as a slaveowner despite our position that this was not appropriate in the opening paragraph. You also added the term "ethnic cleansing" despite my stated opposition to it. Your version removes any mention of his reputation as a defender of ordinary white Americans against what he viewed as abuses committed by the wealthy and powerful, which was the core of his philosophy and a major part of his legacy. In seeking to give greater attention to blacks and Native Americans, you have removed almost everything about whites. It may help if you ask yourself whether your problem isn't that the section does not mention blacks or Native Americans, but instead that it doesn't mention only blacks and Native Americans, and that it does not do so in extremely biased language. Display name 99 (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"It may help if you ask yourself whether your problem isn't that the section does not mention blacks or Native Americans, but instead that it doesn't mention only blacks and Native Americans, and that it does not do so in extremely biased language." The current version of the introductory paragraph is three sentences. The first two are solely about his role in white politics. My version changed the third sentence to talk about both white and non-white politics; you want to replace it with another whites-only sentence. Take a look at other pages for ethnic cleansers; they don't focus on how the ethnic cleanser helped their own race. FinnV3 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If the term "common man" is so controversial, I would be willing to rephrase that part of the introduction as: Jackson sought to advance the rights of ordinary white Americans against what he saw as a corrupt aristocracy. I believe that the rest is fine as is, and I don't think that I'd be willing to accept any other revisions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Jackson's position as a slaveowner is not notable for the opening paragraph. It does not distinguish him in any sense. 12 out of the first 18 presidents owned slaves. Jackson isn't unique for it in any way. Display name 99 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Therefore, removal, as terrible as it was, was simply the best option that Jackson had." It sounds like you've stopped arguing that it wasn't ethnic cleansing and started arguing that ethnic cleansing was justified. I don't want to misrepresent you. Is this what you're saying? FinnV3 (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"I fear that using it without any context or further explanation obscures the very real and ongoing debate surrounding Jackson's motives and whether or not his decision, despite the suffering that resulted from it, was correct." When I added the context and further explanation, you described it as too long. There's plenty of context and further explanation in the rest of the article. In @Antiok 1pie's words, "it's a simple and adequate sentence for the introduction and it's also supported by reliable sources." It seems like you're trying to shift the focus from "Jackson is notable for the Indian Removal Act" to "Jackson might have been egalitarian in spite of his ethnic cleansing." Why? FinnV3 (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As has been noted by others, touting Jackson as a champion of the "common man" is grotesque given his role as a slaveholder who led Indian removal efforts. Indian removal must be included in the opening paragraph because it's such an important part of his life as a general, how he rose to popularity and became president, and in his controversial legacy we are discussing. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not touting him and it isn't "grotesque." Rather, it is an honest reflection of his philosophy and legacy. There are quotes around it to demonstrate that the sense in which Jackson and his supporters understood "common man," which was generally limited to white men, may not have been the only definition. Please take a look at a compromise version that I have proposed above which replaces this language. As for mentioning Indian removal in the opening paragraph, the Bank War isn't specifically discussed, neither is the Nullification Crisis, his work dismantling corruption, paying off the national debt, foreign affairs, the Petticoat affair, or any of the specific battles that he fought as a general. All of these are very important as well, but none of these are mentioned in the opening paragraph. Nor should they be, as the opening paragraph is supposed to be extremely brief. I see no reason why Indian removal ought to be mentioned if these matters are excluded. Display name 99 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

FloridaArmy, please stop your reverts. Yes, multiple editors have objected to the content, but multiple editors have also supported it. When such a dispute occurs, the pre-existing content should remain until a consensus exists to replace it. Discuss changes on the talk page, not through reverts. You called the language in the article "bigoted and offensive." This confrontational language is unnecessary and reveals a barely-hidden partisan agenda. "The exclusion of his leadership as general and president of Indian removal efforts and slaveholding has also not been resolved" Your point? You told me to "please seek compromise." I did; you did not respond but simply inserted your own version into the article. That is unacceptable. I'm the one trying to talk. For these reasons, I have reverted your change. Display name 99 (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "This confrontational language is unnecessary and reveals a barely-hidden partisan agenda." I would say that it's "both unhelpful and not very polite to accuse an editor of using biased sources without citing evidence." Your language throughout this talk page has been far ruder in my eyes.
• "You told me to 'please seek compromise.' I did; you did not respond but simply inserted your own version into the article. That is unacceptable" You have been repeatedly inserting your own version into the article, including removing the dispute tags. Let's focus on the issues here rather than pointing fingers. FinnV3 (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this removal: FinnV if you take a look at the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States page, you'll notice that most surveys (excl. the last 2 ones which put him the middle) rank Jackson favorably, despite the plunge in recent years. There is no reason to remove the sentence, as it is present in every U.S. President's wiki article except Millard Fillmore's for some reason. I will restore it. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to remind everyone that I proposed an alternative version to part of the opening paragraph that replaces the language which the two editors in the opposition objected to most strenuously, and yet neither of them has responded to me. Are we going to keep fighting and reverting each other or are we going to try to work out a solution here? Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone cares, I just read through the initial paragraphs for the articles on the other 11 presidents who owned slaves. Not one of them mentions that they were slaveowners. I'm not sure why the Jackson article should be any different. It's mentioned further down in the lead, as it ought to be. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, I did not see the posts that you made above until very recently. I shall respond to them.

I don't know whether Jackson's policies should be considered ethnic cleansing or not. But as I said, it's strong language that should not be used without an explanation about the debate surrounding the extent to which Jackson's actions were necessary. As an editor of Wikipedia, it is not my job to take a position on the issue one way or another, but there are several notable historians who argue that Indian removal, despite its horrors and no matter if it was ethnic cleansing or not, was necessary for the survival of the people being moved. Remini is a scholar who probably knows more about Jackson than any human being who has ever lived, and he takes that view. These beliefs cannot be ignored, and that using the term "ethnic cleansing" implicitly describes the removal was unjustified, and in so doing creates a bias in favor of one side of the debate against the other, which would violate Wikipedia policy. Also, your changes were rejected not exclusively for being too long, but because they were written in a partisan and inflammatory way and were not supported by the sources which you added.

Responding to the points you made about my most recent comments, while the content is in dispute, the article should remain as it was. Both you and FloridaArmy have made a habit of not proposing changes on the talk page but instead directly editing the article as you see fit without first soliciting feedback from the other side. That naturally leads to conflict. WP:BRD is a useful guide here. If you make an edit and it is reverted, discuss it on the talk page, and don't try to change the content again until a new version is agreed upon. As far as me being rude, the language which the two of you have used in reference to the content that I wrote is likely to elicit strong responses, and your consistent failure to address attempted compromises in the article while instead moving on to new and more outlandish claims is no less frustrating.

The maintenance tags that you added to the final paragraph of the lead are not proper. All that you need to do is take a cursory look at the "Historical reputation" section in this article to see examples of how he is regarded as a champion of democracy and ordinary Americans. I don't care whether you think such praise is justified or not. What matters is that it is factual to say that he received it. The tags ought to be removed.

I keep saying that I proposed an alternate wording to the "common man" sentence, but you have not given me your thoughts. Here it is again, in full: An expansionist president, Jackson sought to advance the rights of ordinary white Americans against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the union of states. This removes the term "common man" that you find so offensive. I also feel that "union of states" is better than simply saying "union" because a non-American might not know that union is synonymous with United States. However, for reasons stated many times, I do not support adding anything else to the opening paragraph. If you accept this change, we can settle our differences regarding the opening paragraph and then work on resolving our disagreements with the final paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• "You have not given me your thoughts." I have.
• "If you accept this change..." I do not.
• "These beliefs cannot be ignored, and that using the term 'ethnic cleansing' implicitly describes the removal was unjustified." How so? I tried to use neutral language. Why does justification of ethnic cleansing matter so much to you? And why is Jackson more notable for "democracy" than ethnic cleansing?
• "They were written in a partisan and inflammatory way." The current version seems a lot more partisan and inflammatory to me.
• "The maintenance tags that you added to the final paragraph of the lead are not proper." The tags I added were to a sentence so vague that it's practically meaningless. I think something similar could be useful there, but it needs more context and/or fewer vague terms like "widely," "democracy," and "common." FinnV3 (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Ethnic cleansing" is not neutral language and was not supported by your sources, as Antiok 1pie mentioned. Ethnic cleansing or not, Indian removal was only one of several major policy initiatives undertaken during Jackson's presidency. To describe each of them would be too much detail,, but his status as an advocate for democracy and the common man describes the essence of his public image and the legacy of Jacksonian politics. That's why that is mentioned in the opening paragraph.

• Sentences in the lead are supposed to general. If people want more specific details, they need to go to the body of the article.

We're clearly getting nowhere. I suggest we take this to dispute resolution to try to get other opinions. Display name 99 (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you clarify a few points for me? I'm still struggling to understand your argument.

• "'Ethnic cleansing' is not neutral language and was not supported by your sources." What's not neutral about the language "ethnic cleansing"? If anything, it seems euphemistic to me. And what's not supported by my sources? It seems pretty unambiguous to say removal "constituted ethnic cleansing under almost any definition," as one of my sources does. Do you know of any reliable sources that reject it as ethnic cleansing? I agree that "genocide" is more contentious because it sort of implies extermination as the goal, but "ethnic cleansing" seems about as neutral as it gets.
• "His status as an advocate for democracy and the common man describes the essence of his public image and the legacy of Jacksonian politics." What makes you say this? I agree that that's the general tone in some white American resources on Jackson, but what makes you say that's his "essence"? I get the sense that deportation of indigenous peoples is the main thing people associate with Jackson, and these policies had a lasting impact on U.S. demographics. Why do you think that Jackson's efforts to protect human rights are a more important part of his legacy than his efforts to dismantle them? Why do you think that the introduction should focus solely on Jackson's impact on white politics rather than including his impact on nonwhite populations?
• "Sentences in the lead are supposed to general. If people want more specific details, they need to go to the body of the article." I agree, but I think that ethnic cleansing is fairly general. It covers his actions both as a general (when he was directing military force to encroach on land used by indigenous peoples) and as a president (when he was implementing legislation to remove indigenous people more systematically). Limiting the introduction to whites seems less general to me.

If you really don't think "slave-owning" and "Democrat" are worth the extra two words, I'll drop those for now and propose the following change to the introductory paragraph:

Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Jackson is noted for his role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States and his efforts to preserve the Union.

FinnV3 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

FinnV3, I could not find any sources that explicitly reject the argument that it was ethnic cleansing, but there are still a great many that don't use that term. As I have said before, I think that the term has such a negative connotation that including it without context creates bias against Jackson's decision, whereas the justification for his removal policies has been debated, with some historians taking the view that his actions were necessary for the protection of the Indians. Furthermore, the lead should be a reflection of the body of the article. The term "ethnic cleansing" is not mentioned in the body of the article anywhere. I would not oppose a sentence added to the body that says something like "Many scholars regard Jackson's removal policies as ethnic cleansing," followed by appropriate citations.

Nowadays, you are correct, the most basic thing that most people know about Jackson is his deportation of Indians. But this is not what people best knew him for during his time, or even after his death until very recently.

• "Jackson men insisted that a vote for Jackson was a vote for the people while a vote for Clay was a vote for the privileged. The means, then, matched the message, for both were about the aspirations of the enfranchised masses. 'The Jackson cause is the cause of democracy and the people, against a corrupt and abandoned aristocracy,' the president’s supporters wrote." (Meacham, 2008, p. 219)
• "[French statesman Michel] Chevalier compared Jackson’s torchlight parades to Catholic processions, saying that the images of Jacksonians surging through the streets 'belong to history, they partake of the grand; they are the episodes of a wondrous epic which will bequeath a lasting memory to posterity, that of the coming of democracy.'" (Meacham, 2008, p. 220)
• Jackson's supporters described him as the "champion of democracy." (Meacham, 2008, p. 436) Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• "The tumults of the mid-1830s had many causes, but to conservative Whigs, they all boiled down to one—the rise of Andrew Jackson and his demagogic Democratic Party. 'They have classified the rich and intelligent and denounced them as aristocrats,' the Richmond Whig declared, 'they have caressed, soothed, and flattered the heavy class of the poor and ignorant, because they held the power which they wanted.' In pursuit of their selfish ends, the Jacksonians had destroyed the political system designed by the Framers: 'The Republic,' the Richmond paper cried, 'has degenerated into a Democracy.' Yet to the Jacksonians, for whom democracy was the fulfillment of republicanism, the transition was far from complete, and the continuing political challenges of Jackson’s second term raised difficult questions about how it might be done." (Wilentz, 2006, p. 425)
• "Votes for Jackson were votes against corruption, votes for the principle of democracy, votes for the people by the people themselves." (Brands, 2005, p. 400)
• Jacksonian democracy "stretches the concept of democracy about as far as it can go and still remain workable. ... As such it has inspired much of the dynamic and dramatic events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in American history—Populism, Progressivism, the New and Fair Deals, and the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society." (Remini 1988 p. 307)
• "Jackson’s regard for the working classes reached the point where he invariably credited them for whatever triumphs the democracy realized. They constituted the very essence of the democracy, he said. It was their virtue and patriotism that protected the nation against the corruption of the wicked money power." (Remini, 1984, p. 428)
• "Indeed [Jackson] saw the fight as the same old contest for liberty, the same 'battle . . . between the aristocracy of the few against the democracy of numbers, etc.'" (Remini 1984, p. 440)
• "For Jefferson and Jackson, the demands of the future-whatever readjustments they may compel for our governments and for our economy-will best be met by a society in which no single group is able to sacrifice democracy and liberty to its own interests. 'It will never be possible for any length of time for any group of the American people, either by reason of wealth or learning or inheritance or economic power,' declared Roosevelt in 1936, perhaps a trifle optimistically, 'to retain any mandate, any permanent authority to arrogate to itself the political control of American public life. This heritage . . . we owe to Jacksonian democracy—the American doctrine that entrusts the general welfare to no one group or class, but dedicates itself to the end that the American people shall not be thwarted in their high purpose to remain the custodians of their own destiny." (Schlesinger, 1945, pp. 522-523)

No matter the limitations of Jacksonian democracy, and no matter your opinion about whether the praise that Jackson received for promoting democracy is justified, these examples should be sufficient to demonstrate his legacy as a defender of the "common man" and democracy, and to convince you that the tags which you added to the final paragraph of the lead were not warranted.

Your proposed opening paragraph is not acceptable to me both due to its use of the term "ethnic cleansing" and its removal of any mention of Jackson as an advocate for "the common man." The following would do: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. An expansionist president who oversaw the forced removal of thousands of Native Americans, Jackson sought to advance the rights of the "common man" against what he saw as a "corrupt aristocracy" and to preserve the Union." Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The justification for his removal policies has been debated, with some historians taking the view that his actions were necessary for the protection of the Indians." Why does justification matter here? Shouldn't the introductory paragraph focus on basic statements about what Jackson is notable for? There's plenty of room in the rest of the article for your justification of ethnic cleansing.
• "Furthermore, the lead should be a reflection of the body of the article. The term 'ethnic cleansing' is not mentioned in the body of the article anywhere." Yeah, I agree, but this seems like a separate issue. I agree with @Connorlong90 that we shouldn't be dancing around the term. I can spend some time in the next few days working on the body of the article so that it's more consistent with my proposed introduction.
• "As I have said before, I think that the term has such a negative connotation that including it without context creates bias against Jackson's decision." What is the negative connotation? Are you saying the phrase implies something that isn't true? What does it unfairly imply? It seems like a description that will be familiar to modern readers and that's not disputed by any sources.
• "Nowadays, you are correct, the most basic thing that most people know about Jackson is his deportation of Indians. But this is not what people best knew him for during his time, or even after his death until very recently." Why do you think we should focus on what people used to know about Jackson? Why should we dismiss more recent information? Wouldn't that introduce more bias? Also, again, you seem to be focusing on Jackson's public image within white politics. When you talk about what "people" knew Jackson for, you're omitting indigenous perspectives. Those on the Trail of Tears would not have had the same view as those in your quotes.

I propose the following compromise: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Sometimes described as a populist, he was known is his time for defending working-class white men, but today he is best remembered for his role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States." FinnV3 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing implies that Jackson sought to remove the Indians out of hatred for them and because he wanted to be rid of them, possibly even that he wanted to exterminate them, while several notable historians say that he sought to remove the Indians in part to protect them. I'm not omitting indigenous perspectives or recent scholarship. I simply do not want to focus almost exclusively on the Indian perspective of Jackson. Your version of the paragraph uses the term ethnic cleansing and omits mention of Jackson's work to preserve the Union. I do not accept it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing implies that Jackson sought to remove the Indians out of hatred for them." What makes you say that ethnic cleansing implies hatred? The term is used in the context of coercive child adoption, but adoptive parents generally don't hate their children. To include the bit about union preservation, I'll propose this compromise: "Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) was an American lawyer, general, and statesman who served as the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. Before being elected to the presidency, Jackson gained fame as a general in the United States Army and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. While he was championed in his time for his efforts to preserve the Union and advance the rights of working-class white men, his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act." FinnV3 (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For the example cited, the foster parents certainly wouldn't hate the children, but many people would certainly not say the same about the people who engineered such a scheme. I don't think that's a good example. I've shown myself willing to compromise by making more specific mention of Indian removal (as you can see in the last version that I proposed), but "ethnic cleansing" is a red line for me. I will not accept anything that has that language. I also don't think that we should say in the opening paragraph that some of his policies were praised while others were criticized. Jackson's economic policies and his "spoils system" received much more vigorous criticism from his political opponents during his lifetime than his Indian removal policies did, and that was the same with historians as well until only about the last 50 years. The first full scholarly biography of Jackson was by James Parton, which was released as three volumes in 1859 and 1860. Parton harshly criticizes Jackson, but not for his Indian removal policies, but for his patronage, economic policies, and temperament. Noted historians Richard Hofstadter and Bray Hammond published major studies in 1948 and 1957, respectively, which featured Jackson prominently. Both scholars excoriated Jackson for his economic policies but paid little or no attention to Indian affairs. While assessments of Jackson's economic policies have been more favorable than negative, focusing negative assessment on removal in the opening paragraph ignores the fact that this was not seen as Jackson's most controversial decision either during his lifetime or during the 100+ years after his death-only really since the 1970s. The last version that I proposed is as far as I'd be willing to go. Display name 99 (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"For the example cited, the foster parents certainly wouldn't hate the children, but many people would certainly not say the same about the people who engineered such a scheme. I don't think that's a good example." Why not? What makes you so confident that "the people who engineered such a scheme" are more hateful than Jackson? This is a bold claim, and I'd like to see the sources that led you to this conclusion. Also, I'd still like to know why you think ethnic cleansing implies hatred. FinnV3 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"'Ethnic cleansing' is a red line for me. I will not accept anything that has that language." Why not? I still don't understand your opposition. For clarity, I'll list the reasons I think the term "ethnic cleansing" is appropriate:

1. The Indian Removal Act constitutes ethnic cleansing under every definition of the term I've seen.
2. Usage of the term is supported by reliable sources.
3. Jackson's ethnic cleansing is not refuted by any known sources.
4. The supporting sources are all more recent than your preferred sources (which do not use the term).
5. The fact that your preferred sources do not use the term is easily explained by the fact that your sources were written in the 1980s, well before the term "ethnic cleansing" was widely used. The fact that Remini doesn't use the term is irrelevant.
6. The term is widely used today, and will be familiar to modern Wikipedia readers.

Again, why do you reject the term? "Ethnic cleansing is unpopular" is not a good reason. "Jackson's ethnic cleansing was justified" is not a good reason. What is your reason? FinnV3 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Jackson's economic policies and his 'spoils system' received much more vigorous criticism from his political opponents during his lifetime than his Indian removal policies did, and that was the same with historians as well until only about the last 50 years. The first full scholarly biography of Jackson was by James Parton, which was released as three volumes in 1859 and 1860." Again, your sources are outdated. Modern historians don't rely on secondary sources written that long ago. When they do, they're using them as primary sources. Over-reliance on secondary sources written back when slavery was legally enforced is a surefire way to introduce systemic bias. FinnV3 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I never said that they would be considered more hateful than Jackson. Only that people would consider them hateful. Historians can use works from whatever time period they want so long as they're helpful and reliable. Historiography takes into account the study of history through all periods of time since the events occurred. When describing Jackson's legacy, we can't only care about how he is viewed today, but also how he was viewed before the modern age. Jackson's contemporaries were much more affected by his actions than any of us. They lived with him. And for most American citizens in his time, removal was not the greatest concern. We can't ignore that just because it is the topic of Jackson's presidency most scrutinized today. What makes you think that your preferred sources have any less "systemic bias" than the ones which I have cited? I do not think that biases are any less present today than they were in the past.

Regarding "ethnic cleansing," as I have already explained many times why I object to that term, I won't answer it again. But let me flip it back to you. If ethnic cleansing does not suggest anything unique, if I am wrong in saying that it implies that Jackson hated the Indians and that the removal was unjustified, why are you so insistent on it being included? If there is really no difference between my text, which calls it "forced removal," and "ethnic cleansing," why not just settle for my version when I am so strongly opposed to yours? Display name 99 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Jackson's contemporaries were much more affected by his actions than any of us. They lived with him." See WP:PST. We should depend primarily on reliable secondary sources.
• "And for most American citizens in his time, removal was not the greatest concern." Once again, it is biased to focus on white men.
• "When describing Jackson's legacy, we can't only care about how he is viewed today, but also how he was viewed before the modern age." See WP:AGE MATTERS. We should prefer newer sources older older ones. I think that the content you're describing belongs in the Andrew Jackson#Historical reputation section.
• "Regarding 'ethnic cleansing,' as I have already explained many times why I object to that term, I won't answer it again." I still do not understand your explanation. It was unclear to me. Maybe we should try something different: I'll explain how I understand your argument, and you can fill in the gaps and correct my misunderstandings:

1. You admit that there is an "extent to which Jackson's policies meet the dictionary definition of ethnic cleansing," that reliable sources prominently use that terminology, and that no known sources reject it.
2. You use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" in quotes, indicating that you do not believe Jackson's actions constitute true ethnic cleansing.
3. You believe that the term "ethnic cleansing" is inappropriate because it implies a level of hatred that Jackson did not have.
   1. You have not provided evidence for this alternative definition of "ethnic cleansing" that implies "hatred."
   2. To justify Jackson's lack of hate, you described an "ongoing debate" about whether ethnic cleansing was the "correct" decision, but all of your sources are from the '80s or earlier.

• "Why not just settle for my version when I am so strongly opposed to yours?" Again, your opposition makes no sense to me. As a general principle, I try to avoid "settling" with those who "debate" the "correctness" of ethnic cleansing without fully understanding their rationale. I also think that "ethnic cleansing" has two advantages over "forced removal":

1. It's more descriptive for the same number of words. Ethnic cleansing implies forced removal, but it also implies another dimension to the violence, without increasing word count.
2. It's familiar terminology among modern English speakers, and while there is no one standard super-precise definition, all of the familiar definitions are more precise than simple "forced removal." FinnV3 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If both "forced removal" and "ethnic cleansing" are accurate and neutral terms that don't imply anything one way or another, you should have no problem agreeing to the one that I would rather have in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that "ethnic cleansing" is a better description that would improve the article, and I'm still trying to understand your preference. The term "ethnic cleansing" does imply things that "forced removal" does not. FinnV3 (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with using the term "ethnic cleansing" as well. There is no source which says that Jackson played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. This is improper synthesis. I think that FinnV3's rationale goes like this: Because Jackson played a major role in Indian Removal and Indian Removal was ethnic cleansing, Jackson also played a major role in the ethnic cleansing of the United States. Even if true, it's improper synthesis and against the wiki's rules. The sentence should instead be like this: Jackson played a major role in advancing the policy of Indian Removal, by signing the Indian Removal Act in 1830. Antiok 1pie (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You're using an old version of my proposal. My compromise says that Jackson "his legacy is complicated by his role overseeing the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations through the Indian Removal Act." FinnV3 (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Surveys of historians and scholars have not ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents

When I asked for a citation for the claim that Jackson was ranked favorably, the citation added showed Jackson ranked #22 out of U.S. presidents. Why is it not worth including the single word "slave-owning" in the introduction section (because "18 presidents owned slaves" so it's not notable) but it is worth including a whole sentence describing Jackson's rankings as favorable (because somehow #22 is exceptionally notable)? And how are "president rankings" even a useful concept? This whole article reads extremely biased with a pro-Jackson slant. FinnV3 (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

FinnV3, see Antiok 1pie's comment in the above section. Slaveholding is mentioned in the introduction section. See this sentence in the second paragraph: Jackson purchased a property later known as The Hermitage, and became a wealthy, slaveowning planter. We aren't trying to keep his status as a slaveholder out of the lead altogether. We simply object to it being mentioned in the first paragraph. I will point out that Antiok 1pie was mistaken in saying that 18 presidents owned slaves. 12 did. He probably became confused looking at the list of presidents on Wikipedia who owned slaves. The last one listed is Grant, who was the 18th president. But the point that he was making still stands. Jackson's slaveholding status deserves mention in the lead section, just simply not in the opening paragraph.

Regardless of how you feel about including rankings in the articles, they have become a standard part of the introductions to articles about U.S. presidents. They're in the lead section of almost every presidential article, and Jackson has usually been ranked among the upper tier of presidents. As Antiok 1pie says, it wasn't until very recently that his ratings took a plunge.

With that said, there are ways to make this part better and incorporate some of FinnV3's objections. To begin, I feel like it would probably be a good idea to have citations for that sentence in the lead. While content in the lead generally does not need citations, MOS:LEADCITE says that material in the lead that is challenged or likely to be challenged should have citations, and this sentence obviously meets that criteria. Secondly, although it's true that most rankings of Jackson do have him ranked highly, perhaps it would be appropriate to acknowledge the recent drop. Therefore, the sentence could read something like: However, surveys of historians and scholars have usually ranked Jackson favorably among U.S. presidents. I would also restore the two citations to the end of the sentence. Does that satisfy everyone? Display name 99 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

What sources would you cite for that new claim? I don't see it in the links you sent before. FinnV3 (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources that I included have him ranked in the top half in previous surveys. There is another source here that I found. It reads: "Thirteen polls of historians and political scientists taken between 1948 and 2009 have ranked Jackson always in or near the top ten presidents, among the “great” or “near great." The two original sources basically say the same thing as each other. I propose replacing one of them with this source and re-adding the sentence as I have written it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to exclude recent surveys? What makes the favorable results more "usual"? That source is a high school study guide and I don't see anything about what those polls actually were. FinnV3 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No one wants to exclude recent surveys. See this summary of historical surveys which mostly rank Jackson in the top 10 best U.S. presidents. As late as 2015 Jackson was ranked as the 9th greatest U.S. president. Also, this "high school study guide" was written by historian Daniel Feller, a reputable source on Jacksonian matters. Antiok 1pie (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As Antiok 1pie says. It would be cumbersome to include citations for every single poll, but this article written by a reputable scholar summarizing those polls is suitable. The source establishes for decades that Jackson was almost always ranked in the upper tier of presidents. Only within the past 5 to 10 years has this changed. The drop is acknowledged by saying "usual," so your accusation that I am trying to "exclude recent surveys" is utterly preposterous when I am instead attempting to reach a compromise by doing just the opposite. Display name 99 (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like a compromise to me. "Usually favorable" seems misleading when the most recent survey ranks him sixth-to-last in the "Pursued Equal Justice For All" category. It seems like something like "mixed" would be more appropriate. FinnV3 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's just one category and it's just one survey. The clear majority of surveys that have been done rank him favorably. To say otherwise is just not true. Display name 99 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Relative to this discussion, and the one above, I think there's been a lot of cherrypicking here in terms of which scholars we're hearing from and which ones we're not. There's a lot of Remini, a lot of Prucha, and a lot of Feller, and their working is doing some heavy lifting here. By my count, Remini is cited over 125 times. That's too much reliance on one historian given the multitudes of studies about Jackson, even if Remini was a known Jackson biographer. I think it would make sense to include other scholarly perspectives, especially around Indian Removal, especially given how the related pages (Indian removal and Trail of Tears) make clear note of Jackson's role in Removal, his history with Native peoples, and his responsibility in the violence of removal, and how easy it would be to add a sentence or two for some balance beyond "many historians consider the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Why? Can we have some specifics? Surely it is one of the things Jackson is most known for. As it stands, this page leans heavily on specific scholars and a couple suspect sources (see below on Bradley J. Birzer). By no means should this page outright chastise him, but it should represent the myriad scholarly perspectives on his role in removal, at the very least.

For example, underneath "Legacy--Historical Representation": We've got one sentence critical of his dealings with native peoples, followed by three sentences listing specific arguments for why Jackson was not racist and he was benevolent toward Native peoples: "Jackson's initiatives to deal with the conflicts between Native American people and European-American settlers has been a source of controversy. Howard Zinn called him 'the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history' and 'exterminator of Indians.' Conversely, in 1969, Francis Paul Prucha argued that Jackson's removal of the Five Civilized Tribes from the extremely hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence. While Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. Bradley J. Birzer argues that Jackson was not a racist and that he thought of Indians as inherently equal to whites, even if he also believed that Indian civilization 'lagged behind'. He believed that the whites frequently mistreated the Indians and that the Indian removal served the interests of both the Indians and the white settlers who would otherwise come into conflict with each other." What makes Birzer's (a Tolkien scholar) book from Regnery Publishing particularly notable that it must be a third opinion? Surely there could be a bit more scholarly critique on this topic aside from Howard Zinn. It is out there, and it's even represented on the Trail of Tears page pretty clearly, so it wouldn't be hard to migrate some of those sources over to this article's body (see also scholars listed below, for example).

In terms of Jackson's role in removal and its label as ethnic cleansing or genocide, a number of historians have discussed Jackson's role in the Trail of Tears and it being genocide (Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Jeffrey Ostler, and Dina Gilio-Whitaker), and it is included as an instance of "structural genocide" by Patrick Wolfe. Of course, other scholars have argued that it is an example of Ethnic Cleansing (Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America would probably be the most prominent example). Simply adding some information from one of these sources might be enough to illuminate the vague statement that "many historians consider [removal] the most controversial aspect of his presidency." Or, at the end of the section on removal, a statement that "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Then, of course, you could include that Prucha believed Jackson was acting benevolently. Essentially, these represent pretty clear and present conversations, and should be included.

Finally, regarding Feller's reputability on Jackson recently, I think a good number of reputable historians (note H-net's use of the word "genocide") would disagree. Does that mean Feller's wrong? Certainly not. But it does mean that there's a conversation around the way he's presented Jackson recently, which is exemplary of my entire point here: A few critical scholarly sources could be added in a few places for balance outside of Remini, Feller, Prucha, et al.. Further, given the bias around high school materials, is that really the best source to use?

TL;DR: I have to say this page requires a couple more, widely sourced scholarly opinions on Jackson's role in removal. And that Birzer source is really, really suspect.--Hobomok (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there could be more negative evaluations of Indian removal included in the "Historical reputation" section. If you want to add something to that section about some historians regarding it as a genocide or ethnic cleansing to make it more balanced, be my guest. Regarding the three favorable evaluations that are already there-Prucha, Remini, and Birzer-Prucha and Remini should both stay (Remini especially), as they are both noted Jackson scholars and their opinions lend some balance that would be absent if they were missing. I have no objection to Birzer being removed. Antiok 1pie was the editor who added him. I had never even heard of him before he was added to the article, so I have no strong opinions about him. I pinged Antiok 1pie to give him a chance to say something in Birzer's defense if they want, but based on your own evaluations, I agree that he can probably be removed.

I would not approve of this statement: "some historians have claimed removal constitutes genocide. Others have debated this, and instead charge that it should be considered ethnic cleansing." Not all historians who reject the genocide label have called it ethnic cleansing. It would be enough simply to say that Jackson has received heavy criticism for his removal policies, with some historians labelling it a genocide, while others disagree and defend certain aspects of his decisions.

Regarding changes to the section on Indian removal itself, I would think that it would make more sense organizationally to confine detailed discussions of historians' views on the matter to the "Historical reputation" section. If you have information in a source that has not yet been utilized which you think might make the removal section better, I encourage you to add it. But I think that it would be difficult to follow the article if we broke up historians' evaluations by citing some opinions in the main narrative and others at the end in the Legacy section. I would encourage you to remove Birzer and replace him with a sentence or two summarizing one or more historians' negative characterizations of removal, and limiting any edits you may make to the removal section itself to shorter observations from historians not currently cited or small bits of information that you think might be helpful.

As far as what you have said about the over-reliance on some sources, the encouragement that I just gave you to add more perspectives is all that I can really do. I am the primary author of the article. I tried to incorporate information and perspectives from a variety of authors, but there simply isn't a reliable source for Jackson that matches Remini's three volume biography in the amount of information and intricate detail that it contains. Display name 99 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, Feller isn't currently cited in the article at all. The statement that Jackson has generally been evaluated favorably in presidential rankings was challenged, and I found an article by him to support the statement. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Hobomok, I question your decision to remove citations from the opening paragraph. It was my understanding that direct quotes in the lead needed to have citations. I don't think that this being a featured article would change that. Can you please explain? Display name 99 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, I did not remove citations. That was Hoppyh, who also removed tags added by another user, stating that one needs consensus to add tags. I undid their original edit, because I’m 99% sure one does not need consensus to add tags—one only needs to have an active dispute on talk reflecting those tags, which is currently taking place. Hoppyh then undid this again, but has not engaged in any discussion here.—Hobomok (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no objections to Birzer being removed either. However, I agree with Display name 99 that Remini & Prucha should stay. Also, Remini is cited 125 times in the article because he is the most prominent scholar on matters relating to Jackson. As noted by John William Ward, "No historian knows more about Andrew Jackson than Robert V. Remini". I, personally, see no issue with Remini being cited that many times. Antiok 1pie (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I have issue with Remini cited that many times (again, he was a prominent Jackson biographer). My point (per my final two sentences) is that certain scholars are cited many, many times over, and other notable, reputable scholars of the Early American Republic, Jacksonian Age, and Indigenous history with differing thoughts are left out. There needs to be a more diverse range of scholarly thought represented here. It doesn't seem like anyone objects to that, though, so I'll see what I can do to add it and we can return here if there are issues.

On another note, previously I've tried to soften a paraphrase of Remini under that same section, which states: "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated, similar to the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett," but it was reverted because Remini makes specific mention of the Yamasee, Mahican, and Narragansett. I do understand the quote from Remini says that these peoples are no more. However, the Mohicans and the Narragansett still exist. Their wiki pages say so, their websites say so, and personally I've worked and collaborated with people who are active members of both Nations. Wouldn't it be best to simply state "Remini regards the removal of Indians as a tragedy, he also maintains that if not for Jackson's policies, the Southeastern tribes would have been annihilated."? This paraphrase gets across the same idea, and it's not harmful or ahistorical. The clarifying note can stay below for inclusion's sake, but the paraphrase as it stands is unnecessary and harmful. --Hobomok (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

OK Hobomok. My apologies. Hoppyh, can you please explain the removal of the citations? Direct quotes in the lead are supposed to have them, and I am unaware of any policy saying that featured articles are exempt. Hobomok, regarding the Remini sentence that you find problematic, what if we simply replaced annihilated with "destroyed?" It gets to the same point but is a little less strong, and doesn't imply that these tribes were completely exterminated. Display name 99 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a problem, Display name 99. Regarding the Remini paraphrase: I do think it best to remove the names of specific tribes. Such statements are false, and they contribute to ahistorical narratives around extermination and disappearance, especially for tribes in the Northeast like the Mohicans and Narragansett, who have been regular subjects of such extinction narratives (See: historian Jean O' Brien's book, Firsting and Lasting: Writing Indians Out of Existence in New England, historian Daniel H. Usner Jr.'s "Iroquois Livelihood and Jeffersonian Agrarianism: Reaching behind the Models and Metaphors" in Native Americans and the Early Republic, and historian Robert F. Berkhofer's The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian, from Columbus to the Present).

Remini's argument, that Jackson believed the five tribes would be exterminated without removal and he was doing them a favor, is just as clear without mention of Nations and people that are not extinct.--Hobomok (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. Content removed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Jackson has been widely reviled in the United States as a destroyer of democracies

The current introduction states that "Jackson has been widely revered in the United States as an advocate for democracy and the common man." Isn't he better known for his role in the dismantling of democracies? It seems misleading and biased to describe him as pro-democracy when in reality he was systematically replacing existing democracies with white nationalist versions. FinnV3 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

systematically replacing existing democracies with white nationalist versions. Um...WHAAT????? Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're not going to clarify what the heck you're even talking about here, I will remove the tags. Display name 99 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As in, rejecting the sovereignty of the other peoples living in North America, disbanding the existing social structures, and strengthening control of the U.S. government in these regions. Jackson's version of democracy was significantly more white, and depending on how you define nationalism, arguably more nationalistic. FinnV3 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Were the tribes whom he moved democracies? Did their political structures change after they were moved? The sentence is talking about his role in white America, where he has unquestionably been lauded as a champion of democracy (see my list of quotes from historians above). His actions towards non-whites are already mentioned in detail. Please don't mix them up. Display name 99 (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"The sentence is talking about his role in white America, where he has unquestionably been lauded as a champion of democracy." Right, that's why I added the "vague" tags. "Democracy" is such a vague term, and I think more context is needed here. As written, it seems to imply that Jackson supported democracy and working-class people in general, when he had a hugely detrimental effect on many of the democracies and working-class people subject to his rule. More context would ensure that readers "don't mix them up." FinnV3 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to do that. His well-established role as an advocate for democracy is already presented alongside is contentious status as an advocate for Indian removal. Additionally, Jackson did not force all Indians to move. Indians could stay if they wanted, be subject to state law, and amalgamate with the whites. (Remini, 1981, p. 270) Jackson encouraged removal ahead of this option, but the fact was that it still remained an option. Some took it. A few even owned slaves and became a part of the planter aristocracy. Describing Jackson as an advocate of democracy is therefore relevant not only for whites, but also Native Americans who lived as whites.

You have not answered my question challenging your description of Jackson as a "[dismantler] of democracies." What tribes were governed as democracies, and how were their political systems destroyed by removal? Display name 99 (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You're omitting some crucial context around that citation: Jackson made that suggestion in the context of a threat, where he was telling those who remained that they would "disappear and be forgotten" and that their "national character will be lost."

As for the democratic nature of indigenous society, there's plenty of evidence that democratic procedures go back a millennium in the groups that Jackson deported, see doi:10.1017/aaq.2022.31. European ideals of democracy were heavily influenced by their interactions with North American indigenous peoples, as described in detail in "The Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. FinnV3 (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A threat is one way of interpreting it, but Remini maintains that it Jackson simply saw it as the truth. They could try to live among the whites and maybe be treated as citizens, but their neighbors might not accept them and their culture would disappear. But if they wanted to give it a try, they could. Again, no matter how incomplete Jacksonian democracy was, and no matter what you think about the justification for the praise that Jackson received for promoting democracy, the fact is that he did receive it, and the sentence is thus a fully accurate assessment of Jackson historiography. Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Also, let's not forget about freed blacks in the North, of whom there were plenty. Although many of them were unable to vote and therefore had a small at best influence on political affairs, they still had jobs, so Jackson's policies on the working classes would have affected them as well. When describing his position as an advocate for democracy or the common man, specifying that we mean white people is both unnecessary and, in my mind, also misleading, as it seemingly erases from existence Indians who lived as whites as well as freed blacks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

There were much more enslaved than freed. Isn't it worse to "erase from existence" the common men who were enslaved and ethnically cleansed? I propose the following change to the paragraph: "In his retirement, Jackson remained active in Democratic Party politics, supporting the presidencies of Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk. Though fearful of its effects on the slavery debate, Jackson advocated the annexation of Texas, which was accomplished shortly before his death. Many of his actions proved divisive, garnering both fervent support and strong opposition from many in the country. Jackson was widely revered in the United States as an advocate the white working class and Jacksonian democracy, but his reputation has suffered in recent decades, largely due to his white supremacist views as a slaveowner and ethnic cleanser." FinnV3 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to erase the memory of slaves and Indians. Both of them are given plenty of mention in the lead already. But your version obfuscates the existence of freed blacks and Indians living like whites. Furthermore, it diminishes the basic language of Jacksonian democracy, of which terms like "common man" were a critical part. Jackson's supporters, both in his time and up through the past decades, have not described him as an advocate of the "white working class" but for the "common man" or "ordinary Americans." However flawed and inaccurate you think this is, that's what they have said, and it is not biased to use the language of Jackson's supporters when the article also notes his racial policies and mentions the criticism that he has received for them. I do not agree to your proposal. Display name 99 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The democracy for white Americans yes. Native Americans, blacks, Mexicans, and women no. There could be more clarification in the introduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• "But your version obfuscates the existence of freed blacks and Indians living like whites." Again, your version obfuscates the existence of slaves and victims of ethnic cleansing. There were a lot more of these people, and I find this obfuscation more serious.
• "Jackson's supporters, both in his time and up through the past decades, have not described him as an advocate of the 'white working class' but for the 'common man' or 'ordinary Americans.'" Isn't that true of most populists? Why are we focusing on the language of Jackson's supporters? Sure, they use the words "common" and "ordinary" to mean white, but we should be writing from a global perspective. We should prioritize clarity in writing, and we can't expect the casual Wikipedia reader to understand that "common man" means "white working class" in this context. FinnV3 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I would focus on two things in the intro. Jackson the ethnic cleanser of Indians, and he stopped the mail, possibly illegally, from northern abolisionists to the South. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I included censorship of abolitionism in my original version, but Display name 99 removed it. I agree it would be better with that included. FinnV3 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's include the Bank War, the victory at New Orleans, the fact that he once killed a man in a duel, the Nullification Crisis, the paying off of the national debt, the spoils system, the purges against political corruption, the campaign against "internal improvements," the Petticoat affair, the Creek War, the invasions of Florida, the trade agreement with Britain, the treaty with France, the recognition of Texas, the attempted assassination, and maybe a few other things when we can think of them. Starting to get a little out of hand? That's the problem. The opening paragraph should focus on broad themes, not specific policies. Display name 99 (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC) And for the record, Jackson did not directly use the government to stop abolitionist mailings from going into the South. Rather, he chose to allow Southern postmasters to stop the mail if they so decided. Display name 99 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to add a critical article on Jackson from vox.com. This article was deleted. No wonder this article has been cited for neutrality concerns. It appears nothing critical can be said of Jackson. Historiography can include web articles. The article was critical but reliable. This is 2022. There is the internet. I am not sure how anything critical can be added to the article. There was no time to let the edit settle. It was immediately removed even before the information was placed in the article. Editors don't have to agree with the article, but a critical assessment of Jackson should be allowed whether from a reliable website or book. I don't agree with everything in the article, but it was a critical assessment of Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, please explain to me how a Vox article about Jackson deserves an entire paragraph in the "Historical reputation" section. There are whole books written about Jackson or featuring him prominently by professional academic historians that receive a sentence or less of mention in this section, but you think it's appropriate to add a full paragraph about a random article on the Internet written by a non-historian? Do you have any idea how long this article would be if we added a paragraph summarizing every article that any journalist has ever written about Andrew Jackson? The author of the article is a guy named Dylan Matthews. Click on his name in the article and read what he has to say about himself: "I joined Vox as one of our first three employees in February 2014, and have been here ever since, writing about everything from furries to foreign aid. Right now I'm particularly interested in global development, anti-poverty efforts in the US and abroad, factory farming and animal welfare, and conflicts about the right way to do philanthropy." Does that sound like a professional American history scholar to you? Anyone who wants to can write an article on any website that will publish their work about any topic that they want, but that doesn't mean that we must or should address every single one. The analysis should be sourced to qualified historians. Hobomok has opined that this article would benefit from citing a wider group of scholars, and I have welcomed their efforts to find more. Assessments of all kinds are welcome, but they have to be high quality. If you want to add a critical assessment of Jackson, take the time to look one up in a book instead of just jumping to the first anti-Jackson opinion piece that comes up on Google. Display name 99 (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not protesting the removal, but it is historiography. It is just a critical view of Jackson. I don't see anything fringe from Dylan Matthews. No, Matthews is definitely not a scholar. However, historiography has to do with how the public, society, or press views Jackson, including websites. It is just an opinion of Jackson from the 21st Century. Again, I don't agree with everything in Matthew's article. I do have a scholarly source Richard B. Latner (2002) in Graff's 'The Presidents book, on the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a better example of historiography. Ken Burns is a filmmaker. He is neither a historian nor a historical scholar. He did attend Hampshire College. I remember my history professor in the 1980s made it mandatory for his class to watch Ken Burns's film on the Civil War. Although Burns is not a historian, his film works have been lauded, except maybe for his film on National Parks. That is historiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the "Historical reputation" section could do with more critical assessments, just not in the manner that you added. Popular opinions of Jackson do deserve attention, but not more than professional historians. Here is what I think would probably be best. Negative evaluations of Jackson's racial policies are largely confined to this: Jackson's initiatives to deal with the conflicts between Native American people and European-American settlers has been a source of controversy. Howard Zinn called him "the most aggressive enemy of the Indians in early American history" and "exterminator of Indians." The article would benefit from a sentence or two added on to that. I suggest either adding another general sentence about how people view Jackson today sourced to either a couple historians or multiple journalistic articles, including perhaps the Vox article, or a brief critical quote from a modern historian. Daniel Walker Howe's book What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America is a high quality source which is critical of Jackson, but there are no mentions of it in the "Historical reputation" section. There could be. I recommend that you read parts of that book if you have not already, and add a brief sentence or two to the article either quoting something that Howe says about Jackson's policies on Indian removal or slavery or briefly summarizing one or more of his arguments. Display name 99 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Also, not really on topic, but your history professor in the 1980s could not have required you to watch Ken Burns' Civil War documentary because that film was released in 1990. Display name 99 (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It was 1990. I went to the university in the 1980s and early 1990s. My point was that Burns is not a historian, but his Civil War film series was lauded by the public and my history professor. The controversy with Jackson today was the new $20 bill in 2016 and Harriet Tubman. That could be mentioned. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I added two Latner (2002) critical assessments of Jackson's Indian removal policy and Jackson's hostile view of abolitionism. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I added critical assessments of slavery and Indian removal to the introduction in the last paragraph. I hope the edits will stand and the neutrality tags will be removed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, yes, works by non-historians can be discussed, but usually only when they have a major impact on how we remember something. Burns' Civil War documentary certainly deserves a place in an article about how we remember the Civil War because of its immense popularity and influence. But a random Vox article doesn't deserve the same kind of treatment.

Thank you for your edit to the "Historical reputation" section. I have moved it from the end of "Historical reputation" to the middle, right after Zinn's critical assessment of Indian removal. It looked out of place at the end and I felt like it would be better placed after another criticism of removal. I also made a few copyedits. I think it looks pretty good. Thank you for adding it. I do however ask you to delete this last sentence: Latner said that the Jackson administration "certainly was hostile to abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South's "peculiar institution."" The reason is because it's not an assessment of how Jackson's pro-slavery beliefs affected it's legacy. It's just a fact. Yes, we know that Jackson supported slavery. The sentence doesn't add anything to a discussion of his legacy. You can replace it with an evaluation of Jackson's support for slavery, preferably from a different historian. (Again, Howe, maybe?) I didn't remove the sentence myself. It's still there. But I think that you should replace it with something different. As to the rest, I have no problem with it and I think that it makes the article better.

I am reverting your edit to the lead. To begin, the lead right now is being actively debated. When content is under dispute, it's best not to make edits directly but to propose changes on the talk page. Your edit is problematic because, by saying that Jackson's support for slavery represents a "dark side" to his movement, it makes a moral judgment about something. Now you're not wrong in saying that support for slavery is a dark side of Jackson's legacy. I completely agree with you. But it's not how Wikipedia articles are written. Consider the article about Adolf Hitler, the most infamous man who has ever lived. The article does not say "Adolf Hitler was evil." Instead, it references historians calling him evil. We have to remain neutral on moral matters, even ones in which the difference between right and wrong is very clear. I also believe that there is already enough on Indian removal and slavery in the lead. Both are mentioned in the third paragraph as part of the summary of his presidency, and their impact on his legacy in the fourth paragraph is already discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The "dark side" came from the Latner (2002) edits. Not my idea. I think it should stay in the introduction because the word "dark side" is supported by Latner (2002). You might disagree with Latner but he is an established source. I think it best to resolve the neutrality of the article as quickly as possible. Nobody said Jackson was evil. All the Latner source is really saying is there was a good and bad side to Jacksonian Democracy. And the dark side is not derogatory specifically toward Jackson. The edit said the dark side of Jacksonian democracy. The edit did not say dark side of Jackson. I think you may be misinterpreting the Latner source. In fairness, I see no good in letting a presidential article stagnate and mire in neutrality tags. Jackson deserves better. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Historians can write that way, but Wikipedia editors don't. Yes, it would be best to solve it quickly, but unfortunately things don't always work like that, and third parties making edits without consulting anyone doesn't usually make things better, in my judgement. I think that there's enough about slavery in the lead already, and even if there wasn't, that statement would still go against WP:NPOV. If you disagree, there is an active discussion about the article going on here. You are welcome to add your thoughts. I also think that that the statement in the Historical reputation section is little vague. What was the "one source" that Latner noted, and might it be best to refer to that directly rather than Latner? Display name 99 (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Ask Latner. Not me. I just put in what he says. Allowing the term "darker side" would allow the article to achieve neutrality, quickly. The endless discussion does nothing. That is why I make the edits and expect results. I have been making edits based on discussions in that I have participated. Maybe you should participate by making edits that will resolve the neutrality issues in the article instead of complain about mine. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is already neutral, and adding what you wrote to the lead makes it not neutral. Have you considered replacing the slavery sentence in Historical reputation with something else, as I suggested? Display name 99 (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the "darker side" reference. I believe there is a neutrality issue. This article has been tagged. But please don't undermine efforts to make the article neutral to remove the neutrality tags as quickly as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Cmguy777, again, I suggested that you replace this sentence: Concerning slavery, Latner said that the Jackson administration "certainly was hostile to abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South's "peculiar institution." It's not an assessment of the importance of anything. It's just a simple statement of fact that is already well-established. Thus, it doesn't add anything to the Legacy section. Can you please consider replacing it with a sentence that in some way analyzes or criticizes Jackson's support for slavery rather than simply states that he supported it, which the reader should already know by this point? Display name 99 (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Latner says Jackson was hostile to abolitionists. That is part of Jackson's legacy. I had put in an article that directly affected Jackson's legacy of being on the $20 bill. That article was removed. Jackson's ethnocenticy to Indians and his pro slavery policy was Jackson's legacy. Jackson defied the Supreme Court and forcibly removed Cherokees from their land. That is Jackson's legacy. Jackson ordered his Postmaster to sieze anti abolitionist tracts. Latner is a respected historian. His views of Jackson should be allowed in the article. You don't have to agree with them. This is not helping getting the neutrality tags removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Joshua A Lynn on JASTOR has authored an article on Jackson's legacy. The Democratic party split between anti slavery Democrats and pro slavery Democrats. For some reason some Democrats believed Jackson was anti-slavery. Not sure why since Jackson's primary wealth came from his slaves. Any way the Jacksonian Democracy era lasted for thirty years after Jackson's death until the outbreak of the Civil War. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protection requires fully registered editors

Please make sure you are fully and properly registered as required by the protection established for this FA. (Your User Name should not be a dead link.) Thank you. Hoppyh (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean users who haven't created userpages? I don't believe there is any requirement to create a one, and it's not linked to registration. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)