Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 11

The article is not too long to read comfortably
There may be problems with the article but it should not have that warning on it. 165.91.13.160 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Page Links in References?
As I've been editing, I sometimes find that the citations have wandered from the text. For example, a citation to Wilentz seems to match Remini better, or details are added to the text that are not in the citation. And, in a few cases, the point made in the text come from a different context than being discussed in the citation. (e.g., "corrupt aristocracy" is a quote from an article, which is used in the source to illustrate the polarization caused by Jackson's policy, not his presidential philosophy.) Most of these mismatches have probably occured due addressing suggested changes in the editing.

For sources for which it is possible, I like to create page links in the citations to ensure tighter text-citation integrity and support article stability: allowing readers can immediately confirm whether the text matches the citation and that the context of the citation is appropropriate to the point being made.

Some people don't care for this style as the link address each short footnote a bit longer and may impact some people's ability to edit the article. It also puts responsibility on editors who maintain the article to ensure that changes to the article are properly linked. It'd be a lot of work, but I think the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.

If I made the change, I'd also modify the sources too. Books that are accessible online would be linked in the sources. Inaccessible books would have their book links removed, as a book link implies that the full book can be read. If a citation is linked to a page in Google Books, the citation would link to the Google book page, but the complete book in the bibliography would have no link, which lets the reader know the book is not accessible.

I'd also like to sparingly use the sfnm template. This allows the handful of multiple back-to-back citations (e.g., [1][2][3] to be contained in one citation number (e.g.,[1]. When they can be linked they'd still be linked. I'd only use this in the already existing multiple sources (usually combining a book/journal citation with a web citation or a primary source.) Otherwise, I'd stick to the article's single citation format established by the main editor whenever possible.

Would the editors be comfortable with these proposals? Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would not like to see the citations in this article end up like those at Joan of Arc, where you were dealing with a sock so it was more necessary. That citation method is extremely cumbersome to work around, and truth is, readers almost never check sources anyway. It was helpful at Joan of Arc to get the article through because of the socking.  Those cumbersome multiple citations in one was just too much to deal with for editors, and according to the WMF, don't benefit readers since they don't click citations anyway ... I'd be happier with three citations than one impossible-to-edit bunch of that sfnm.  Also, before making any change in citation style, this article still needs to use WP:SS (cut content to sub-article per RJensen's suggestions above), and if you change the citation style before doing that, you'll be exporting content to articles with a different style, so the changes will need to be undone when moving content.  Thx for digging in here!  Amazing work so far, but content still needs to be cut before we can think of stylistic matters ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll just keep plugging away. I tend to get focused on maintaining citation-text integrity, as well as addressing and minimizing its slippage. Wtfiv (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * During my first pass at trimming, I wanted to note that I will be using RJensen's suggestions to help me think about the sections, but not strictly adhering to the suggested cut percentages. (e. g., I reduced the Election of 1824 by about 33%, which is not quite the suggested 50%. But I think I've managed to make Jackson the center of the narrative). But what I will try to do on the first pass is integrate the existing material without sending much of it to sub-articles. Then, we can revisit the idea of sending material to sub-topics if it is still too long. Wtfiv (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, as a counterexample, see J. K. Rowling. Most of the bios were available at archive.org and linked only in the main reference listing, not pages.  Any reviewer who wanted to check content could go to archive.org and navigate to the page.  I think the preferable and less cumbersome; I would not look forward to reviewing another article where I would have to work around those extremely offputting sfnm templates, although I understood the circumstances that necessitated it at Joan of Arc per socking.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Lead structure change: overview first paragraph
Hi all, a couple of diffs ago I made a bold change to the lead in order to change the first paragraph into a brief factual summary of Jackson's main features as president. I did this with the aim of reducing redundancy with the last paragraph, as both currently cover the views of his supporters and opponents, and also because I think it's preferable to put the debate over his legacy in one location placed after a neutral factual summary. I'm uncomfortable with opening our article on with "although often praised as an advocate ... Jackson has also been criticized", which I think inherently risks false balance: his legacy will continue to change over time and summarising it in a single sentence locks us into presenting it as a debate between two equal positions, when it's not a binary debate. Relegating "praise" and "criticism" to the final paragraph lowers the stakes a bit and gives more space to summarise his legacy.

I'm not strongly set on the wording, this is intended as a possible model which can be tweaked. For ease of comparison, on the left side is the latest revision of the first lead paragraph, and on the right side is my proposed text:

Any feedback would be appreciated. Jr8825 •  Talk  13:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Display name 99 as the editor who reverted my change, and @Yopienso, as they offered their thoughts on this above. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I much prefer your version, Jr8825. IMHO, his anti-establishment thrust should be specifically noted. The "common man" should be in the lead because it has long been the term used, and resonates more than "ordinary Americans." "Expansionist" is another key word that's important to include; it should be blue-linked to Manifest Destiny or perhaps Territorial evolution of the United States. And "the forced removal" should be blue-linked to Trail of Tears, or that phrase could be reworded to include the term. I really don't see how your version could be much improved; it succinctly sums up the important aspects of Jackson's life, career, and legacy. YoPienso (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The need for "common man" and "corrupt aristocracy" to be in scare quotes is a pretty sure sign of potential POV problems (e.g., good vs. bad, respectively.) As the context of the suggested quote states, these reflect a political platorm.
 * The four mentions of common man in the main text are addressed below.
 * The first citation in the main text is Brands (2005) p. 473 who talks about it in terms of political leverage it got him by the bank veto. Brand p. 537 makes the politicization of this concept clear when the Whigs attempted to coopt the image from the Democrats during Harrison's run for office.
 * The second citation is Latner (2002) p. 112 Again, this is raised in terms of the political fighting at the time, but common man does not appear on the page. Rather, the discussion is about the impact on inequalities of wealth and opportunity that are nuanced carefully.
 * The third citation repeats the idea of the first that the bank veto gained him political reputation, but using Wilentz (2005) p. 86 as the source.
 * The fourth citation puts "common man" in scare quotes. I could only access one of the citations, Watson. The article does not mention common man. It discusses populism, and uses the term common good. It too is carefully nuanced. It discusses populism's categorization of three groups: "corrupt exploiters"; "the great body of people" who it states are often seen as "exclusively white and male"; and below them "weak dependents and dangerous freeloaders", "frequently more than poor; they are often nonwhite". Quoting Kazin, Watson states "the rising of the 'people' was an avowedly white affair; the democratic vision rarely extended across the color line."
 * Summing, only half the citations discussing common man mention common man, addressing it in terms of the bank rechartering veto. The other two could be seen as implicitly defining the term. But if so, one does so in terms of wealth inequality. The other goes further and includes the implicit racist and engendered elements that may be embedded in the term as well.
 * The quote "corrupt aristocracy" is not in the source cited the main text. It is a quote from Jackson's supporters who claim he is the cause of democracy for a "corrupt and abandoned aristocracy". The following sentence in the secondary source it comes from gives the the oppositions view: that Jackson was power-mad and implies he wants to be king. (Meacham, 2009 p. 219) The sources often talk about them as privileged interests in (Graff, (2002) p. 112, Wilentz (2005), p. 86 or moneyed interests (Brands, p. 527). But ultimately, it refers to people who had the money for major investment. Again,  terms like "corrupt" and "aristocracy" are fraught with political judgements.
 * In addition, the juxtaposition of common man and corrupt aristocracy in main text is not from a citation. It is a creative act merging approximate quotes from two different citations in the same sentence. Brands mentions common man is in the context of the reaction to the bank rechartering veto; the Meacham citation that is quoting a primary source to illustrate the political polarization during the 1832 election.
 * All this said, I'm not sure the lead is the place to begin. It seems this article needs some work in main text first.
 * But, if changes to the lead are being considered, I think it may be a good idea to rethink the proposed changes. Essentially, the first paragraph is defining Jackson in terms of a political platform for election, rather than what he did as president. Both DN99's version and the proposed edit are embedding evaluative contrast. In this case, I feel DN99's is better as it addresses the current debate in Jackson's legacy.
 * Better yet, why not delete the evaluations? The first paragraph should state what Jackson actually did that was significant, not how he was framed politically or legacy-wise. In addition to the forced removal of Native Americans, you could mention his vetoing the bill to recharter the national bank, as well as one or two of the other most important things he did as president. I think the evaluations of his legacy are best left in the last paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You've lost me a little bit here with your discussion of scare quotes and the mix-up of which of text is my proposal (the right one), but I do have a couple of responses to offer: I think the appeal to the "common man" is important, and the sources in the legacy section say Jackson's populist style and presentation was a major part of his reputation both at the time and afterwards, so it makes sense to me to state that this was his political platform (I think this is a better way of covering it, compared to saying "praised for", or "his supporters viewed him as"). I'm not strongly attached to "corrupt aristocracy", particularly if you think it isn't properly supported by sources; it happened to be already be in the lead paragraph when I worked on it. I think it could be removed and his claim to defend the rights of the "common man" would still be understandable, although equally I think it illustrates his opposition to elites in a way which helps our reader immediately understand his political project. His campaign against the bank is covered in detail in the third paragraph of the lead (which I'm not suggesting we change), which covers his presidential policies on more detail. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out again how "common man" in this first paragraph of the lead is problematic. I think DN99's edit removing it was an attempt to bring lead and main text more into alignment. Here's why:
 * This use of "common man" as an election tool is not established by the sources in the article. Mentioning common man in this context moves the lead away from the main article, which only discuss this term in the context of the veto. Information shouldn't be contained in the lead if not addressed in the article. (Last sentence in MOS:INTRO.)
 * As mentioned, Neither "common man" nor "corrupt aristocrats" are neutral political terms in this context. MOS:LEADREL state the first paragraph should open with a neutral point of view (NPOV) that defines the topic's importance.  Both of these are used in a partisan political context.
 * Further, "common man" is not a clearly defined term For example, there is no meaningful wikilink (the closest entry to common man does not work).  Further, the sources in the article read it possible definitions problematically with implicit racist and gender overtones (e.g., Watson's cited summary described above).
 * The article main text does not establish the key role of Jackson's use of this term, particularly in the election campaign. The text mentions it only four times, and only two of them are supported directly by citation. And again, its use in the election campaign is not mentioned.
 * (An aside: A new Wikipedia article discussing "common man" as a political term could be created.)
 * I think the major point of the suggested edit regarding Jackson's presidential legacy could be achieved using a NPOV. But it should be worded a way that aligns with the points in the article. For example, Jackson could be argued to be a populist president, and a sentence could explain why summarizing the article. (Populism in the United States mentions Jackson explicitly). Unfortunately, Maybe the article catches an idea similar to populism that is reflected in the article and the citations. It makes me think a bit of focus on Jackson's populism would strengthen the article and the point that's trying to be made.
 * In my view, going forward with the "common man" edit as suggested walks the lead further from the main article, and adversely impacts its featured article status. Wtfiv (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, how would you rephrase it so as to avoid evaluation in the first paragraph (something I think there's wide support for in this thread) while avoiding "common man" (which you think isn't appropriate)? Jr8825  •  Talk  18:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jr8825, you seem to have a good intuition for the underlying idea that needs to be expressed. Maybe a one-sentence condensation of the main idea in the first four paragraphs of the legacy section would be heading in the direction you see? (Up to, but not including the "common man" paragraph. This is the point where the cited source, Watson, doesn't use the word "common man", and actually critiques the underlying idea as having racist overtones.) If you could catch the gist of it, it'd keep the lead in line with main text. Wtfiv (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Will have a crack at this tomorrow. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn't get round to this and unlikely today either. Will look at it soon. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I figured you were still thinking it through. It's doable, but challenging. And it sometimes takes time to find the wording that's ideal. I'm sure something will come to mind. Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, coming back to this I see you wrote: "maybe a one-sentence condensation of the main idea in the first four paragraphs of the legacy section, whereas I envisioned the first lead paragraph avoiding assessments of Jackson's legacy (saving it for dedicated treatment in the final paragraph) and providing brief biographical summary instead (per my proposal at the top of this section). With that in mind, here's a second suggestion that avoids the wording "common man":
 * (original proposal on the left, new proposal on the right; see the top of this section for a comparison with the current text)
 * Jr8825 •  Talk  17:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider an alternative to "respond". How exactly did he "respond?" Wtfiv (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry again for the slow reply. I'm not sure how to summarise it succinctly: he introduced a compromise tariff that failed to placate SC, indicated he would take a violent response to threats of secession, then accepted accepted a compromise tariff passed by Congress (so didn't directly resolve it himself, although he appears to have taken broad contemporary credit for forcing the compromise by threatening military action). Jr8825  •  Talk  21:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at. I think what might make this easier is that he didn't cause the crisis. Adams has to take the fall for that. (Though Remini argues that Van Buren, Jackson's main political operator, created it so Jackson could win the vote. Given that, a couple of words of how he (these are meant to just provide some words as pointers "solved it, ended it, addressed it, quieted it") would work. I can feel a better phrase is close by these. By the way, you are right, if I understand you correctly, in implying he used a "carrot (Tariff reduction) and stick (Force Act)" approach. Wtfiv (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind too that much of this may change once the article is complete. As SandyGeorgia pointed out, a lead often gets written at the end. But, if you can wordsmith it now, it sets the precedent that guides any rewrites that may emerge. Wtfiv (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is an improvement. I would change "sought" to "claimed" to advance. Also, it might be useful to mention that he supported slavery. In the sentence before this one, I would sway he "gained fame for his victory at the Battle of New Orleans as a major general in the U.S. army." TFD (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose including a sentence stating that he supported slavery. Jackson never explicitly defended it. If slavery is mentioned, then I propose: Although Jackson never defended slavery, he also never questioned it and opposed the abolitionist movement or something like that. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See "Why Andrew Jackson’s Legacy Is So Controversial" (Erin Blackmore, History): "As the United States expanded, the seventh president also opposed policies that would have outlawed slavery in western territories. And when abolitionists attempted to send anti-slavery tracts to the South during Jackson’s presidency, he helped ban their delivery and called the anti-slavery advocates monsters who should “atone for this wicked attempt with their lives.”
 * The fact he did not talk about slavery does not mean he did not have a position and in fact his policies had historical consequences. And it was important for his support among southern whites.
 * I appreciate that it is wrong to evaluate historical figures by current values. If we do that, everyone who governed a country before the 21st century can be seen as a monster. There was nothing exceptional about Jackson's views of slavery, but they are significant.
 * TFD (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Claimed" is fine by me. I'm not sure that slavery is a key aspect of Jackson's significance, in the same way as his appeal to the common man or Indian policy. His relationship to slavery is touched upon in both the second and third lead paragraphs. Jr8825  •  Talk  22:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support 's version. It's great imo. Antiok 1pie (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization of Presidency Section
As I've been trimming, I've been trying to keep the article organized via a narrative timeline, but the sections following the "Petticoat Affair" make this more challenging, as Jackson's Native American Policy, the Nullification Crisis, and The Bank War all cross the re-election boundary, but each needs to be discussed as a conceptual unity. Wtfiv (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm still thinking this through. An alternative may be to keep to the timeline: Address the major elements of Indian Removal, which occured in his first term, Bank Veto, Election, Nullification Crisis- which had its major moment just after the election, Dismantling the 2nd bank, then the rest. This would allow a continuation of the narrative, where I can best attempt to keep something close to an NPOV.

Following this path, discussions of the meaning Jackson's presidency in terms of his attitude towards Native Americans, federealism, and populism, which generate the heated arguments on this page, could then be put in legacy subsections that briefly explain the different views on each topic. I'm thinking that if I can adequately trim the article, there may be room to discuss these issues and leave the article at a decent size. Please weigh in with any thoughts.Wtfiv (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Putting "discussions of the meaning Jackson's presidency in terms of his attitude towards Native Americans, federealism, and populism... in legacy subsections that briefly explain the different views on each topic..." is a capital idea. That's a great example of how I think contentious information in WP articles should be handled. Carlstak (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You both know, by now, how I feel about the subject of Jackson's attitude and actions against the Native peoples of the United States, in particular those directly affected by the results of his push for removal to be codified into law. However, we need to strike balance in the sense of not over doing any particular topic. Jackson is prominently known for the Indian Removal Act but that is not his sole contribution to humanity, whatever positive or negative can be sad about him and his policies. None of the other topics are solely responsible for his notability either. I think we can keep context and address the issues and better the article. I am certainly not here to condemn him but I do want what is due to be accurately discussed. I believe this is a phenomenal idea and it can possibly help us determine whether the lead needs to change or not and how it needs to change. -- A Rose Wolf  18:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ARoseWolf. I've finished the Native American Acts section, which wound up not being a trim but a rewrite, though I tried to keep most of the factual points in the original.  I tried to keep a reasonable balance. Hopefully, I succeeded.  I've now moved on to those other notable issues, the Bank War and the Nullification. I'm aiming to achieve the goal you mentioned: make Jackson's actions part of a narrative where one is not prioritized over the other, trying to state as many of the myriad issues as succinctly as I can, and keeping judgement to a minimum. And if I'm understanding correctly, we are coming to a consensus that evaluations can wait for the legacy section. Wtfiv (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree to that. The legacy section should be where the results of these actions, as it pertains to his legacy, should be discussed. -- A Rose Wolf  17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think we are well on the way to saving the article's FA status and also improving the language to make it more balanced. The FA status is not the most important aspect to me. Combining the trimming with streamlining and making the article less clunky thereby giving editors and readers alike a true ability to evaluate the article and the lead properly is the most important aspect to me. That's all I've ever sought. The results of a RfC aren't as important. It will come or not in due time. But what you are doing is making it where our readers can access and retain the information. I'll tell you this, I have a daughter and she reads Wikipedia a lot. If it's clunky for her then it needs to be streamlined. If we make these articles where a young girl in her late childhood and early adolescence can understand or at the very least can find the sources through Wikipedia to help her understand our articles then we are getting to where we need to be. I know you are doing that because she's reading the article and the changes you make every day and she's pointing them out and she's understanding more about the subject because of it. Thank you, Wtfiv. And thank you, Carlstak, too. -- A Rose Wolf  17:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tentatively reorganized the presidency section again. I've given up on trying to adhere to a temporal timeline for the "big three" issues: The Indian Removal Act, Nullification, and the Bank War. I think they make the most sense as unified topics.

I added a fourth level for the bank war and presidential election, since all the subsections are a conceptual whole that address the closely interrelated politico-financial issues that ran throughout the entirity of Jackson's presidency. An introductory sentence or two bringing all this together may need to be added. Of course, we can move things around again if there are concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Jackson and the "common man"
As, the large amount of discussion to "common man" in this article (or Googling Jackson 'common man') illustrates, the association between Jackson and the term "common man" is now ubiquitous in popular culture. iBut although it was used in main text four times, there was only one citation that used it: Brand p. 537. Ironically, it occurs in the context of the Jackson's opponents, the Whigs, using it to coopt the successes of the Jacksonian democrats. Though someone may be able to do the research to verify its earliest use with respect to Jackson, it seems this term wasn't used in the age of Jackson, from what I can tell, Jackson used terms like "real people". (Admittedly, "common man" could be used as a modern synonym)

Inferring from the Wikipedia article, Commoner, the specific term may have arisen from ideologies emerging in the early/mid-20th century. (Its increasing use in the 20th century may have progressivist roots.) Once we get to the legacy section, I think the association of Jackson with "common man" needs to be briefly addressed in a sentence or two.

I'd like to leave this source as a place holder for that discussion:  Like many that best address some aspect of the Jacksonian world, it is vintage; but it seems to be one of the works that marks the beginning of that association. I'll keep looking to see if there are other works that tackle this association. If anybody knows of any, please post! Wtfiv (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure how applicable this is, because it doesn't specifically show usage of "common man" in relation to Andrew Jackson, but I thought it would be interesting to compare usage of the terms in general English (as opposed to usage in American or British English particularly) here's the Google Books Ngram for "common man" and "Andrew Jackson". Nonetheless, I thought it was interesting that usage of "Andrew Jackson" seems to have peaked in 1937, when the depression was still going, and usage of "common man" peaked in 1943, in the middle of World War II. I set it to begin in 1829, the year his first term started; you can't set the year range of the viewer to show data more recent than 2019. Google says "In the... Google Books Ngram Viewer, the text to be analyzed comes from the vast number of books in the public domain that Google scanned to populate its Google Books search engine", so that would seem to limit the data set. Carlstak (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Common man" does seem to have some traction in literature during his presidency, perhaps it just wasn't associated with him as strongly as it is today (for example, perhaps the term had different contemporary connotations)? Jr8825  •  Talk  21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The years 1833 and 1835 appear to be the peaks in that range, surely that was the newspapers. He was pissing a lot of people off in those years; I mean, South Carolina was furious with him in 1833, and the guy tried to assassinate him in 1835. Carlstak (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Jr8825 and Carlstak, that's great that the references occur during his time! It seems both of you know that material and have the resources to find the citations.  Could you share a few of the sources here.  Even primary sources could be very helpful. I think getting "common man" sorted out with real sourcing would be very helpful. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This passage by Sharon Ann Murphy speaks to our discussion here:




 * Sean Patrick Adams' compilation of essays A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson has over 40 instances of the term "common man", with a good bit of discussion about it, and may have just what we're looking for. I have access to the full text on Wiley's Online Library so I'm reading the pertinent essays now. Will report on my findings. Carlstak (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sharon Ann Murphy writes: Carlstak (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds perfect. Please bring on more quotes and discussion as you read on. I think this will be worth addressing once we get to legacy. Thank you so much for the work on this! I think I may have access to Wiley via Wikipedia, so I can also take a peek at the gems you dig up. (though I do have a bias against using sources that are hard for non-academics to get. My ideal is to have as much as possible accessible to readers for verification. That's why I lean on JSTOR so heavily. It has limited free access with registration, but if the best source is behind a paywall, it's behind a paywall, and we'll have to go with it, its more important to get that apt, reliable source.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Very helpful and interesting. Jr8825  •  Talk  00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, dammit, I messed up the Google books link to Murphy's passage; I've fixed it above but here is the correct link—anyone signed into a Google account should be able to see the text with the link to the top-level Google.com domain. I get what you mean about sources behind a paywall, but I use a lot of Google books cites. I have a few simple tricks to access more pages than it appears are available, don't tell Google. I constantly get notifications when I'm doing my research telling me that they've detected unusual activity from my IP address, and demanding that I tick the recaptcha box to prove I'm not a bot.;-)
 * I wanted to mention that even de Tocqueville doesn't use the term "common man" in either of the two volumes of Democracy in America, but he does use "common people" once in volume one: Carlstak (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding Election of 1824.svg
I've added the Election of 1824.svg. I feel that having all three of these svgs, one for 1824, one for 1828, and one for 1832 illustrates the story of Jackson's and the Democrat's growth in a way words cannot. Responding to an earlier concern in the talk, I'm also hoping it makes the election section seem more relevant, as it now more clearly illustrates the growth of Jackson's popularity, making it a structural equal to the other election sections. The images then got quite cramped, since there are so many already I removed one of "General Jackson" There were four in one section, so I picked the teracotta bust, mainly because it was close to sandwiching the 1824 Tully. Also, the Jarvis painting and the teracotta seemed to catch the same sense of "General Jackson". Wtfiv (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I changed out all the maps of the election results with new ones I've made up. Here's the reasons:
 * The colors and the candidates are now consistent: Adams and Jackson are the same color in 1824 and 1828; Clay is the same color in 1824 and 1832.
 * Friendlier for the visually impaired: The colors used follow the MOS:COLOR suggestions to increase readability for people who are color blind: The color set used is the bright schema from Paul Tol's notes linked from Wikipedia's MOS:COLOR site. Wtfiv (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

OSM Map of Jackson's battles
While taking a breather during the transition from trim to legacy, I built this OSM map of Jackson's major military campaigns to give a sense of its geographical scope. If someone clicks on the interactive map, they'll see it has additional details that show the locations of many of the locations discussed in Military Career. I'm not sure there's a place for it in the article though. The infobox already lists the same battles in a tree structure, and the Military Career is already packed with Jackson images and the important map of the treaty of Fort Jackson. But I thought it be fun to share, and to consider. (But if it were used it'd take thought.) {{OSM Location map
 * coord = {{coord|33|-87}}
 * zoom = 5
 * float = right
 * nolabels = 1
 * width = 210
 * height = 200
 * title = Major Battles
 * caption = {{legend|#117733|Red Stick War}}{{legend|#882255|War of 1812}}


 * shapeD = circle
 * shape-colorD = #332288
 * shape-outlineD = white
 * label-colorD = #332288
 * label-sizeD = 12
 * label-posD = left
 * label-offset-xD = 0
 * label-offset-yD = 0


 * label1 =
 * mark-coord1 = {{coord|34.5657|-80.6617}}
 * mark-title1 = Battle of Hanging Rock (Revolutionary War}: 6 August 1780; General Thomas Sumter,commander
 * mark-description1 = Battle of Hanging Rock
 * shape-color1 = #332288
 * label-color1 = #332288


 * label2 =
 * mark-coord2 = 33.8123°N, -85.9069°W
 * mark-title2 = Battle of Tallushatchee (Red Stick War): 3 November 1813; General John Coffee, commander
 * mark-description2 = Battle of Tallushatchee
 * shape-color2 = #117733
 * label-color2 = #117733
 * mark-size2 = 0


 * label3 =Talladega
 * label-pos3 = left
 * label-offset-y3= -10
 * label-size3 = 9
 * mark-coord3 = 33.4509°N, -86.1688°W
 * mark-title3 = Battle of Talladega (Red Stick War): 9 November 1813
 * mark-description3 = Battle of Talladega
 * shape-color3 = #117733
 * label-color3 = black


 * label4 =
 * mark-coord4 = 33.01889°N, -85.70472°W
 * mark-title4 = Battle of Emuckfaw (Red Stick War): on 22 January 1814
 * mark-description4 = Emuckfaw
 * shape-color4 = #117733
 * label-color4 = #117733
 * shape-size4=0


 * label5 = Emuckfaw and
 * labela5 = Enotachopo Creek
 * labelb5 =
 * label-pos5 = right
 * label-offset-y5 = -20
 * label-offset-x5 = 0
 * label-size5= 9
 * mark-coord5 = 33.07822°N, -85.8817°W
 * mark-title5 = Battle of Enatachopo Creek (Red Stick War): 24 January 1814
 * mark-description5 = Enotachopa
 * shape-color5 = #117733
 * label-color5 = black


 * label6 = Horseshoe
 * labela6 = Bend
 * label-pos6= bottom
 * label-offset-x6 = -25
 * label-size6= 9
 * mark-coord6 = 32.98222°N, -85.73528°W
 * mark-title6 = Battle of Horseshoe Bend (Red Stick War): 27 March 1814
 * mark-description6 = Battle of Horseshoe Bend
 * shape-color6 = #117733
 * label-color6 = black


 * label7 = Pensacola
 * label-pos7=right
 * label-offset-x7= +5
 * mark-coord7 = 30.43333°N, -87.2°W
 * mark-title7 = Battle of Pensacola (Red Stick War): 7–9 November 1814
 * mark-description7 = Battle of Pensacola
 * shape-color7 = #117733
 * label-color7 = black


 * label8 =
 * mark-coord8 = 30.22806°N, -88.02306°W
 * mark-title8 = Fort Bowyer (War of 1812): October–November 1429; 15 September 1814; Major William Lawrence, commander
 * mark-description8 = Fort Bowyer
 * shape-color8 = #882255
 * label-color8 = black
 * mark-size8 = 0


 * label9 = New
 * labela9= Orleans
 * label-pos9=top
 * label-offset-x9= 0
 * mark-coord9 = 29.9425°N, -89.99083°W
 * mark-title9 = Battle of New Orleans (War of 1812): October–November 1429
 * mark-description9 = Battle of New Orleans
 * shape-color9 = #882255
 * label-color9 = black


 * label10 =
 * mark-coord10 = 29.93333°N, -85.01667°W
 * mark-title10 = Negro Fort (First Seminole War): July 1816 (First Seminole War; General Edmund Gaines, commander
 * mark-description10 = Negro Fort
 * shape-color10 = #999933
 * mark-size10 = 0


 * label11 =
 * mark-coord11 = 30.155°N, -84.211°W
 * mark-title11 = St. Marks (First Seminole War): Captured April 1818 (First Seminole War; General Edumund Gaines, commander
 * mark-description11 = St. Marks
 * shape-color11 = #999933
 * mark-size11 = 0


 * label12 =
 * mark-coord12 = 30.34784°N, -87.29756°W
 * mark-title12 = Siege of Barrancas: (First Seminole War): May 1818. The Spanish surrender Pensacola.
 * mark-description12 = Siege of Barrancas
 * shape-color12 = #999933
 * label-color12 = #999933
 * mark-size12 = 0


 * shape13 = circle
 * label13 =
 * mark-coord13 = 31.98787°N, -86.57125°W
 * mark-title13 = Fort Deposit
 * mark-description13 = Fort Deposit
 * shape-color13 = black
 * label-color13 = black
 * mark-size13 = 0


 * shape14 = circle
 * label14 =
 * mark-coord14 = 33.76361°N, -86.0475°W
 * mark-title14 = Fort Strother
 * mark-description14 = Fort Strother
 * shape-color14 = black
 * mark-size14 = 0


 * shape15 = circle
 * label15 = Mobile
 * label-pos15=top
 * mark-coord15 = 30.69444°N, -88.04306°W
 * mark-title15 = Mobile
 * mark-description15 = Mobile
 * shape-color15 = black
 * label-color15 = black


 * shape16 = circle
 * label16 = Nashville
 * label-pos16 = bottom
 * mark-coord16 = 36.16222°N, -86.77444°W
 * mark-title16 = Nashville
 * mark-description16 = Nashville
 * shape-color16 = black
 * label-color16 = black


 * shape17 = circle
 * label17 =
 * mark-coord17 = 31.1805°N, -87.838°W
 * mark-title17 = Fort Mims- 30 August, 1813: Attack on white settlers and their Muscogee allies by Red Sticks. Second incident that triggered the Red Stick War.
 * mark-description17 = Fort Mims
 * shape-color17 = black
 * mark-size17 = 0

}}
 * shape18 = circle
 * label18 =
 * mark-coord18 = 31.18957°N, -87.12587°W
 * mark-title18 = Battle of Burnt Corn- 27 July 1813: Attack on Red Sticks by U. S. forces. First incident triggering the Red Stick War.
 * mark-description18 = Battle of Burnt Corn
 * shape-color18 = black
 * mark-size18 = 0

Finding the location of Emuckfaw Creek battlefield was really difficult. It appears there's no agreement and the evidence is scanty, so I went with the GNIS information given in this article by Southern Research on behalf of the National Parks Service. Wtfiv (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I decided to add the OSM map to the presidential infobox to see what it looks like. I reverted it so it wouldn't stand without discussion. Please see what it looks like at this diff. Does the graphic add information or noise? Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not a fan of it in the infobox personally. Doesn't seem like essential-enough information. Maybe it could replace one of the three portraits of Jackson in the 'Military career' section? There are also MOS:SANDWICH issues further down the page that need to be tidied up, although it's not a crucial issue. Jr8825  •  Talk  09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see it in the infobox either, and I think the "Military career" section would be a good place for it. The article could surely dispense with the non-contemporaneous picture of him from an 1864 issue of Harper's Magazine, an image which looks nothing like him anyway, and it takes up a lot of space besides. Carlstak (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the map being added to the "Military career" section of the article and replacing one of the portraits. -- A Rose Wolf  14:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jr885, Carlstak and ARosewolf. I created an infobox for Military Career and put the portrait of General Jackson in it with the map, which has the major battles, plus details in the interactive link.
 * In the presidential Infobox, I left the wars, but deleted the battles, as they are on map. Links to battles are in the article (and in the interactive portion of OSM.)
 * In the edit, I also moved pictures around to add images to the empty areas and reduce sandwiching
 * As per ARoseWolf, the Harper's Jackson is gone. He looked quite swashbuckling, but it is fairly informal and somewhat romantic.
 * I may put in a couple of locations for the First Seminole War just to make it look more complete, but they were not so much battles as military occupations. (Jackson wasn't present at the battle of Negro Fort, he just ordered the campaign from a distance.) Wtfiv (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Images
Once I got started moving images, I started noticing more about the images. Here's the changes:
 * I've moved more, added some, created more detailed versions of some of the political cartoons
 * I added a portrait of Rachel. I think she belongs in the article as her presence plays a large role in many of Jackson's actions (e.g., duals, Eaton affair, first
 * I added Margaret Eaton in too, as well as a group portrait of Jackson's cabinet, even if in caricature. And its colorized
 * Got a cartoon of the nullification crisis. Jackson looks a bit odd, but it illustrates the crisis.
 * Found, uploaded and slightly edited clearer images of:
 * Assassination attempt
 * Colorized version of the Brave Boy of Waxhall


 * I've updated the captions to follow the featured article format as I understand it. Sometimes I follow with an explanatory sentence. I know some editors are not fond of those.  I have no problem having them deleted if they're  a problem.
 * In the new captions, I put both artists and publishers. It's really a collaboration. See  Draft:Henry R. Robinson (publisher). It also illuminates the business of political cartoons at the time of Jackson. By the way, the link to H. R. Robinson looks like a redlink. It shouldn't be for long.  I created an article, but I did it too quickly, so an admin quickly put it into drafts.  Now the stub should be sufficiently detailed and cited, but should go live when its reviewed, I hope. Wtfiv (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Redlink gone, Robinson article's been approved. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Remini as a main source for the article
Perhaps my previous comments about Remini's scholarship were intemperate, but when I read (present tense) such passages in Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 (1984) the final volume of his magnum opus, as "Andrew Jackson was one of the few genuine heroes to grace the presidency. He was courageous and strong. And he was indomitable. The American people always believed that as long as General Andrew Jackson lived, the democracy was safe.", I have little confidence that the author of those words is not an apologist for the man he calls "the Hero" (capitalized), or that he has maintained a decent scholarly detachment from his subject. Even in 1984, John A. Garraty would write in a review, "There is an old-fashioned quality in Mr. Remini's frank admiration of Jackson." James M. Banner, Jr., writes that same year in his generally favorable review, "Remini's study is a biography of the old school, governed by an old strategy and unabashed in its sympathies. Remini presents his subject in the context of the times. He does not seek after the man." When Remini writes in his old-school vein such descriptive prose as, "Everyone froze. Seeing Van Buren approach, Clay slowly rose from his seat. He stared ahead, watching in hypnotic fascination as the figure came steadily toward him.", it seems to me that he has taken excessive liberties with the poetic license of prose addressed to a popular audience, or, as Banner says, "It springs a bit free from the always too silent record and essays to offer a plausible, if not always provable characterization." For these reasons, among others, I feel that the article should not lean so heavily on his trilogy, and that it is not an appropriate main source for this WP article four decades later. Carlstak (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Historians are rarely completely neutral. That doesn't mean that they aren't good historians. Remini has always been widely regarded as a good scholar, both in his own day and since. Historians who disagree with him nevertheless respect him and utilize his work, and the two main Jackson biographers of the 20th century-Brands and Meacham-both pay homage to him. I have supplied all of the quotes above on which this statement is based. Remini's trilogy on Jackson is far from the newest work on him that is available, but it is easily the most comprehensive. No other source (except perhaps Parton, which is heavily a primary source) has anything close to the amount of information on Jackson that his trilogy does. That's mainly why he's used so much. That's not to say that certain parts of the article that are cited entirely or almost entirely to him would not benefit from citations to other historians. That's something that I can work on. But in the larger picture, Remini is still a well-respected scholar and his works offer the most detailed picture of Jackson available, so it's fine for the article to heavily utilize him.


 * Also, as someone who has read the three-volume series (many parts of it multiple times), I'd like to say something about it. Remini does clearly admire Jackson. He defends many of his actions, including giving a partial defense of his now almost universally condemned policy on Indian removal. The final analyses that he gives to each of the major issues of Jackson's life usually portray Jackson more favorably than unfavorably. However, Remini isn't too timid to criticize Jackson when he feels that he does something stupid or immoral. Occasions like this come up more often in his works than you might think. Remini rebukes Jackson for his duels and brawls, egotism and sensitivity, poor appointments as president, and handling of some aspects of the Bank War. He also criticizes his generalship, claiming repeatedly in his 1977 book that Jackson was not a strategic mastermind and actually benefited a lot from luck. On the Indian issue, Remini acknowledges atrocities committed by Jackson's troops during the Creek War. While it's true that he does ultimately say that Jackson's removal saved the Indians from extermination, he also rebukes Jackson for not preventing abuses during the relocation process, and expresses sympathy for the Indians' plight. When he feels that the whites are in the wrong, he says so. For example, he says that the Black Hawk War, which happened in 1832 during Jackson's first term as president, was "largely instigated by drunken militia troops." (Remini, 1981, p. 278) His admiration of Jackson is still strong, but not absolute, and he can be very fair-minded when describing conflict between whites and Indians in general terms.


 * For the sake of making my final point about Remini, I will repeat this quote that I cited above from Daniel Walker Howe, a historian who is by no means a friend of Jakcson, about Remini: "A forthright admirer of his subject, Remini is laudatory in his assessments of Jackson's achievements. At the same time, he is also a meticulous scholar who does not allow his prejudices to get in the way of the evidence he finds." Display name 99 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly we disagree. Let's see what the community has to say. Carlstak (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtually every point everyone made is fine. What matters most is that the article is overwhelmingly reliant on a single 30+ year-old book series (in a topic that's been continuously before and since of active interest to good historians). Obviously there's no reason to remove anything attributed to him, but there's every reason to bring in newer works, and those that cover a given section topic in more detail or with some newer context, or that may possibly be more readily accessible, or that are agreed to be more in line with modern scholarship or have a more acceptable tone, should be given priority. Surely this is common sense, and if not, there's WP:HISTRS to expand on these points. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not say that the article is "overwhelmingly reliant" on Remini's trilogy. There are easily more citations to it than there are any other work, but these still amount to fewer than half of the total citations in the article. Furthermore, newer doesn't necessarily mean better, and the Remini source is hardly less accessible than other books. It can be found easily on Amazon, at university libraries, and online at Archive.org. Again, I acknowledge that citations to other sources would help, but I think that the scope of the problem is being exaggerated here. Display name 99 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the best approach is to highlight any instances where Remini is used and it's suspected that our tone/content is consequently one-sided/neglects other views. Regardless of his flaws, Remini is an acceptable scholarly source who clearly knew the subject well, so it doesn't make sense to go through the article purging him in a systematic way -- better to point to specific parts/prose editors are concerned about and then work out from them, looking for additional sources to balance the text with. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I knew Remini well (we taught history at U of Illinois--Chicago together). He was a meticulous scholar deeply committed to research. Nobody since has done the years of work he did in the primary sources in many archives. Has anyone in recent years discovered a major new fact that he missed? Possibly but I doubt it. The test of his objectivity is how well he handled the Whig opponents of Jackson--Henry Clay, Daniel Webster--in long, very high quality biographies. Here's the review in American Historical Review Oct 1998 p 1319: "The three biographies are so massive, so comprehensive that, taken together, they provide future scholars with a storehouse of knowledge for the political history of the first half of the nineteenth century.  Remini's studies of Clay and Webster are especially valuable because he is the first scholar to produce biographies of the two based on the recently completed modern editions of their papers. For this book, he has also been able to draw on the many studies of Webster published in the past thirty years....["defender of the Union"] is the centerpiece for all three of his biographies. The review by Richard Latner in H-Net (H-Pol August, 2000) states: "for specialists, Remini's thoroughness and scope make this work an essential resource on Webster and the indispensable, standard biography." and "In the multivolume, award-winning Jackson study, subject matter and style meshed harmoniously. Indeed, it was easy to overlook the enormous erudition and scholarship behind Remini's bold interpretive assertions and dramatic presentation....The major strength of Remini's biography is certainly its thoroughness. This is a "life and times" work, and given the significance and scope of Webster's career, it is no minor accomplishment to render an engaging portrait in one volume."  -- there is criticism too--read the review at https://networks.h-net.org/node/9997/reviews/10583/latner-remini-daniel-webster-man-and-his-times  Rjensen (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the enlightening commentary, Rjensen. I've never suggested that he should be eliminated completely as a source, although my comment below might give that impression. I defer to your informed opinion. Carlstak (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * it was easy to overlook the enormous erudition and scholarship behind Remini's bold interpretive assertions and dramatic presentation -- this seems to sum up the issue well. He's a leading authority and indispensable source for the factual information he uncovered. Equally, we need to avoid presenting "bold interpretive assertions" as fact when they differ from conventional scholarship; they need to be appropriately attributed and weighted. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it's something that needs to be scrutinised carefully. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jr8825 here. In trimming, I'm trying to stick fairly close to the original prose in the text, but I'm also confirming citation/text integrity as I go.  I think that Remini makes for some of the best sourced citations, so he's invaluable. But I've found his bold interpretive assertions and dramatic presentations creates bulk in the article. I also try to weigh the various sources. Here's some examples:
 * Removing interpretive assertions. For example, Remini hypothesizes that Jackson's family landed in Philadelphia. It's a likely hypothesis, but as Remini points out there, is no evidence.  Given that the Jackson's were moving to the Waxhaws to be with Elizabeth's family, they may have taken a more direct route.
 * Disagreement of sources. At this early point in the biography Remini and Booraem disagree in interpretation and sometimes even fact and timeline (e.g., who got Andrew and Robert out of Camden; the time of year Elizabeth died ). Both have done thorough work, and seem like good sources worthy of equal consideration. So I seek a wording that balances both.  In situations like this, my preference would be to put both scources in a single citation (sfmn) and let the interested reader see the differences and weigh the evidence, but I want to respect the current citation format at this point and pick one.
 * In areas where the biographies agree, I'll try to cite a diversity of sources (recognizing that many of the later ones owe a debt to Remini and Parton), in part to show the information is consensus, and trying to pick the source that makes the consensus point most thoroughly and succinctly. But often that source is Remini.
 * Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * With all due respect for Remini's labors in producing his magnum opus, and for the input here of Rjensen, a worthy scholar in his own right, it's the "bold interpretive assertions and dramatic presentation" that make me uncomfortable with Remini. I confess that I despise Andrew Jackson, and I do not believe he was a decent human being; consequently, I don't like Remini's style at all, and think he should be used with caution (which I have faith that Wtfiv and other esteemed editors can manage). This is just my opinion of course, but I'm entitled to it. I simply want to state up front what my position is, and that I wouldn't try to impose it on the article.


 * Regarding the ongoing lengthy discussion on this page of the suitability of references in the article to the "common man", let us not forget that "Masturbation reached epidemic proportions in America at around the same time that the Second Bank was destroyed..." as Michael Zakim informs us in his essay Creating a Democracy of Common Men. I'm kidding, but seriously, the atmosphere on this talk page is more collegial now than before, and I'm pleased to see progress being made. A little levity now and then doesn't hurt. I hope I made at least some of you blink for a moment. ;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I just finally got around to reading Zakim! He did say that! Too funny. (I thought you were "just kidding" about the quote...but you weren't.)  The article is both humorous and provides some great insight into the social anxieties of the time, what a twist on the Jackson story. Wtfiv (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha. It did occur to me that people might think I was kidding about him saying that; it's kind of bizarre. I was going to explain, but every thing I could think of to say about it was a double entendre, so I thought, well, just let them see for themselves.;-)

How to trim this article
Regarding trimming this article I have suggestions: send readers to better articles when AJ is not the central figure
 * "Election of 1824" cut 50%
 * ✅ Cut about 33%. More focus on Jackson. Wtfiv (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Attack and assassination attempt" cut 90%
 * ✅ Cut about 60%. Wtfiv (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

use the Presidency article for all items in which AJ was not the main player
 * "Petticoat affair" cut 50%+ --
 * ✅ Cut almost exactly 50%. In a way, these short ones are harder to trim than the long ones! Wtfiv (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Election of 1824 section looks like it could largely fit in Jacksonian Democracy. Particularly the lines regarding the expansion of suffrage for white men, and the aspects of his candidacy popular with white men at the time that contributed to his electoral win. The article is tagged as biased towards white men and since that was largely the point of Jacksonian Democracy, such content can be migrated and rephrased accordingly with NPOV. Unlikelybunny (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the first mention of white men, I think the point here is that Jackson got a benefit from the expansion of suffrage. The preposition "among white males" is meant to qualify how the suffrage was expanded. Letting the reader know that it didn't apply to women or minorities.  But, if is seen as adding bias, it can be removed.
 * I agree that the election platform he ran on appealed mainly to white men, though it doesn't mention them otherwise. As that was his audience to get elected. but I think it may be good idea to keep it here, as that was the basis of his campaign. Wtfiv (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added map of election campaign to this section. This makes the section's role more clear, and now the section serves to illustrate why Jackson did so well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Foreign affairs" cut 50% and focus on Jackson
 * ✅ Cut about 35%. Reworked sections, particlarly French spoilations, to focus on Jackson. Wtfiv (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Administration and cabinet" cut 100%
 * ✅ Done. This is in the Presidency of Andrew Jackson; it looks clunky as a stand alone table.
 * "Judicial appointments" focus on Taney in 1835.
 * ✅ Cut 50%, removed the undistinguished; they can be accessed by the main article link. Focused solely on Taney.

"Bibliography" start a Bibliography of Andre Jackson page that includes all the titles here; then delete 75% of the items here. Rjensen (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Aspects of the bibliography addressed. I think I addressed your trimming points within the contraints of my editing style.  My editing is a bit more liberal than you'd prefer, so I left a greater percentage of content for some sections. But, I have finally been able to moved the remaining works in biography from the nineteenth century to the bibliography article. There are seven remaining biographies (five, if you count the Remini series as one).  All but the venerable—and unsurpassable in terms of detail—Remini are from the twenty-first century. The remaining sources will be cleaned up once this pass is finished, but I think given the Jackson industry, it will remain large, but I'll do my best to ensure that what remains are cited sources. I think they'll serve as great resources for interested readers. For those wanting more, there is the bibliography page. Wtfiv (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent starting point (and better than my slightly more than 50% proposed cut at ). Perhaps I was being too generous. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Featured article status is not the be-all-and-end-all, as attested by the obvious unevenness in quality among featured WP articles, this being an example of a seriously flawed FA article. I support Rjensen's suggestions, and believe they point the way forward. I also agree that the bibliography should be reduced, starting with the seriously out-of-date and tending-to-hagiography works of Remini, which are cited about 140 times, and whose writings dominate the tone of this article. Important information can be cited to better sources than those written by a Jackson fan decades ago. Carlstak (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started doing my part by plugging along from the beginning. That'll give editors a chance to see the edits to ensure it respects the strengths of this article. If I'm the one who gets to trimming the suggested sections first, I'll use the notes above for guidance. Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That trimming should be done with care and not just for the sake of reducing reliance on what otherwise appears to be a very strong source. Springee (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, Springee. A good source needs to be honored. Personally, I may change a source but that's because it lines up. (e.g., I added Reminin as the source for the birth of Hugh and Robert because he gives the years of their birth in the citation, which supports the original wiki text that included their age. Nowlan, the original source given, did not support the text because it had no information about their age.) Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see where some would say Remini is too heavily relied on and we all know he was highly favorable of Jackson and slow to criticize, even justifying actions taken in order to cast Jackson in a more favorable light. But studies will show that's how a majority of biographers are or that is the perception of them so it's not unexpected. That being said, dismissing Remini or shying away from using them as a source for non-controversial biographical information such as what was done by @Wtfiv above would be detrimental to the article. Personally, I wouldn't trust Remini at all on the controversial topics precisely because of their affinity and favorable bias for Jackson. However, adding Remini's viewpoint with inline attribution in such cases would be an acceptable improvement. Likewise, a source that is historically critical of Jackson should be attributed directly to the source. We really should stay away from anything controversial being said directly in Wikivoice except where there is overwhelming support in the sources. -- A Rose Wolf  13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Fix first sentence of third paragraph under Temperament
Change "Jackson was also self-confidence, that did not project a sense of self-importance" to "Jackson was also self-confident, but did not project a sense of self-importance" 2601:285:8200:17:DCED:9F14:728E:14E0 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thx! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Jackson's Writings
I created a separate section for Jackson's writings, as they were misattributed as primary sources. I made minor corrections in attribution, templated them, and created links to freely available material (and corrected link for "Compilation", which went to a volume other than Jackson's.) The "papers" is a bit clunky because I put every editor who worked on the series in it. I figure it was a lot of work, and they deserve the credit! And I linked to the download page for each volume. I always like to imagine that there are those infrequent readers and editors who appreciate making it easy to access the material. Wtfiv (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reference error
@Wtfiv there are currently two Warshauer (2006) sources in the bibliography (one under books and one under journals) so reference #62 needs to be disambiguated. I could figure out which source is meant from the article history but since you have been working on the article extensively I think it may be quicker and better for you to do it. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you  The article is the "Chivalric Slave Owner" one.  The Martial Law article is currently being used, so I made that one Warhauser 2006b. (I'll make "Chivalric" 2006a, if 2006b gets used.) I didn't delete it altogether, as I figure unused ones might be useful with further edits. Wtfiv (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Great – thanks for sorting this out! Wham2001 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Legacy, tigers, and bears, oh my!
I think its time for the deep dive, which is the legacy section. I'm not sure what would be the consensus for starting. I'm comfortable going forward on a first draft, but perhaps others want to jump in or have concerns?

And we need to make sure what has to be in it. Here's what I'm seeing, based on the huge discussion (e.g., RfC) and the organization of the work. From my perspective, legacy has three major sections, each of them laying out different sides of a controversy.
 * Jacksonian democracy: This would address what makes up Jacksonian democracy since the age of Jackson- this would include things like the emergence of the common man theme. It would also incorporate elements that are currently in the Philosophy section. But I can easily see the questions tumbling out of it: Is the vision democratic or it is a kind of exceptionalist populism?
 * Native American policy: This would address how Jackson's treatment of Native Americans is understood. From what I see, there'd be no controversy to resolve. The major views on the Native American policy need to be addressed. One view is the traditional view stretching back to Jackson's time, that it is essentially part of what has come to be called "Manifest Destiny, the other is that it is ethnic cleansing, or perhaps an attempt at genocide.
 * Then a wrap up on Jackson's personality. This would start from where the legacy is right now, though I would imagine it may not look the same once if is finished. I think the argument would be that even just the character of Jackson doesn't allow a simple resolution.

I'm sure it sounds like I have a plan, but I don't yet, its more a sense of direction from doing the edit and trim. I see the issues, but I'm unsure how I'd wind up working out a first draft until I surfaced. For example, in the Native American Policy section, I'd probably scrounge around to see what all those sources above have to say. Jackson has been a rough ride to date- so let me know. (And thank you watching editors for your gentle kindness and patience with my working style I appreciate it!) Wtfiv (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC),


 * Will give your comments a proper response either today or tomorrow. I did some slapdash work on the legacy section recently, but it wasn't based on extensive research - largely brief skim-reads of a few key texts - so I'm sure there's plenty of scope for major improvement. Jr8825  •  Talk  09:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * When I first glanced at the heading of this section, I read it as "Legacy, tigers, and beers". I thought, oh man, this is going to be interesting. Carlstak (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe each bullet point above should have its own section to discuss on this talk page so we can keep them separated. I think there are links between them all. Jackson acted upon his own principles in everything he did. I can appreciate that even if I vehemently disagree with many of his policies. We can't change the past but we can accurately discuss it within the limits of what reliable sources say and try to keep everything stated in Wikivoice as neutral as possible giving attribution to those aspects we feel are most controversial. -- A Rose Wolf  14:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jr8825, the legacy is complex to say the least. Carlstak, you have me laughing. ARoseWolf, I'm going to head in the direction you suggested.
 * While I was waiting, I played around with the images the images. Added a few, moved a few, and formatted the captions to be a bit more consistent with FA standards, though they may need further editing. I tried to find more topical images in addition to the portraits. Personally, I like the Celeste-al Cabinet. In addition to putting a woman in the middle of the picture, it provides a portrait (with names) of the first cabinet. But if there any issues with what I've chosen, please discuss.
 * I also moved the picture of the Jackson tomb up to the descripton of Jackson's death and adding a final sentence on the tomb to the section. Then deleted the "Depictions" subheading. "Depictions" repeats information in the Jackson memorials subarticle, and a lot of it seems arbitrary. So, I moved the "see also"s on presidential stamps and banknotes over to the memorials subarticle, and left the memorials subarticle as a "see also" in this one. Wtfiv (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I've complete the first draft of the three sections of legacy-Jacksonian Democracy, Native American Policy, and Historical Reputation. I tried to include the various voices and perspectives that were in the article and the talk. In particular, I sought to keep the viewpoints that were in the original article while including the perspectives and information in the very large RfC section. If successful, I think that the main content of the article has addressed some of the biases in the template.

Although I added text to legacy to cover the various perspectives, overall the article's length has been cut by about 3,000 words, leaving it at slightly under 13,000. I noticed someone removed the length template, stating the length is comparable to other presidential articles. I'm good with leaving it off, though I'm also open to further trimming if that's desired. From my view, there's a lot of clean-up of my trim and clean up (i.e., addressing template issues) to do: Fixing grammar errors, infelicities of phrasing, ensuring the sources are clean.

Next, I think the lead needs to be trimmed. This should be straightforward: At first glance, Paragraphs 2 and 3 should need little change as they reflect the article as written. I'll try to work on them so I don't get in the way of editors who are working with the remainder of the article. Paragraph 4 may need some work as the end of the article now reflects more discussion than before. Once done, Paragraph 1 will need to be addressed as it was one of the sources of the templates, huge amount of discussions, and the controversy that impacted this article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reworked the lead paragraphs 2, 3, 4 in light of all the changes. I think paragraph 1 of the lead is solid as it stands.  That was your work, wasn't it ? Wtfiv (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Use photo or leave the newspaper ad?
I found the following image of these two people, Aaron and Hannah Jackson, who were Jackson's slaves. I was thinking of swapping out this image with the newspaper cutting, which is already summarized and linked in the article. I see pluses and minuses. The newspaper clipping makes a good point, but I this adds a human dimension to Jackson's slave ownership that can't be put into words, and there are alot of details for someone to think about, even if the picture is 20 years after Jackson's death. But that the is 20 years after the fact is part of the problem. Either way works, but I thought this was worth considering. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the photo of Aaron and Hannah Jackson is poignant, but it would be more poignant if Aaron Jackson wasn't so pale that he looks like a white man. I think a lot of people today are unaware that many persons who lived their lives enslaved appeared to be white, although many "passed" in society, if they were able. I find the "ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred" offered by Jackson in the newspaper clipping a more eloquent testimony to the degrading and dehumanizing effects of slavery on the enslaved and even more so, much more so, on their "owners". Carlstak (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you commented! It gets me thinking. It may be the consensus will be against the picture, but while its up I'm enjoying the questions it raises. I didn't initially think about the point you made about how Aaron looks. Regarding your point about Aaron's lightness ( assuming its not all an artifact of the camera), its raises further points without saying a word. How does one come to look so white?  And why is that person on one side of the definition of "slave" and not the other?
 * And then another issue emerges as I look at the picture thinking on your commentas: Though one can lose a leg for many reasons, what are the implications of such a unfortunate event when compounded by a life as a slave? Wtfiv (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the photo of Aaron Jackson, it occurred to me that he might be Jackson's son. According to Remini, Jackson arrived in Jonesborough in 1788, when he was only 21 years old. It was there "he bought his first slave, a woman who was around his age". If he fathered a son around that time, the son would have been 77 years old in 1865 when the picture was taken, and Aaron looks like he could be that old, so it's not implausible. I find it hard to believe that a man of such passions as Andrew Jackson didn't have a sex life. It's not just Aaron's apparent lightness, either; his features look European rather than African.
 * If you will excuse me, I feel that Andrew Jackson was depraved, his inner self so twisted and distorted by the hatred he nurtured within himself that he had no fellow feeling for his black brothers and sisters in the human family. Like Nathan Bedford Forrest, his first impulse towards those who opposed him was murder, whether he acted on it or not. After all, as the article says, this is a man who on the last day of his presidency declared he had only two regrets: that he had not hanged Henry Clay or shot John C. Calhoun. Clearly he had not spiritually evolved at all during his time in office—rather, he had regressed to a more savage state of being. If he knew that he had a mixed-race son, it seems unlikely that his hardened heart would have felt any tenderness whatever toward his own flesh and blood. Carlstak (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are seeing the power of the picture, though it does take meditating on it! You have me thinking of Roland Barthes's Camera Lucida (book). Aaron's leg or skin can function as a viewer's punctum that opens up different, unexpected ways of understanding Jackson, the social world of the Hermitage, and the lived world of slavery. But it does take dwelling with the picture. Wtfiv (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, one can find a world of meaning in a single photograph. James Dean was a master of drawing the viewer into his world by the universal archetypes he portrayed in photographs, baring his soul for all to see. Thanks for pointing to the Camera Lucida article; it is new to me, although I've heard of Barthes, and read a little Sontag. Somehow I hadn't even noticed Aaron's missing leg. I can only imagine the story behind that, and his clothing looks homespun. I'm sure a social anthropologist could find much meaning in this portrait of Hannah and Aaron Jackson—consider the context: 1865, the year the American Civil War ended—I find it haunting for their grave simplicity. It is a great picture. Carlstak (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It just gets deeper doesn't it? And this is only one direction it can go in. While thinking about your latest post, I realized that I have enough information and sources to create an article on Hannah Jackson, which I could link to this picture.  She's got an interesting story to tell. Wtfiv (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, man, that is a great idea. I love it—can't wait to see the article. Really inspiring. Carlstak (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Check the article on Hannah Jackson is done (unless it gets put in drafts for some reason). Let me know what you think. Wtfiv (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wtfiv, I think it's wonderful that Hannah now has her own WP article. I've done some minor copy editing, and made a couple of minor stylistic changes, such as changing the first instance of "African American slave" to the more politically correct "African American enslaved woman", which I think gives her a little more dignity as a woman, and as an enslaved African American person.


 * I can't see any reason why this well-composed article with quite a few citations of reliable sources should be put in drafts. It's great to see, and I hope some of her descendants see it, and perhaps add to it. I was left wondering, though, what happened to her husband Aaron in 1863, when she escaped to Union forces. They either escaped together, or reunited afterward, as indicated by the Theodore Schleier photograph taken in 1865. I don't have time now to check that, do you know what happened to him? Thank you for this worthy addition to WP. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Native American policy
This section was the hardest for me to edit. I wanted to make sure to catch most of the original article's points first. (Except, there was a point in the original article about Prucha 1969 stating that Native American removal saved them by sending them to Oklahoma. I didn't see that in the article.  I saw Prucha defending Jackson's choices within his own time, but not judging them in terms of the modern political context.)

Then I went through the RfC and tried to catch the gist of concerns. I am so grateful for the references! If I could access them, I did; I used a number of the ones I looked at. I've tried to make the argument for Ethnic Cleansing in more depth than the initial article by relying on peer-reviewed sources when possible.. Though I linked "Ethnic cleansing", I still gave a summary of the original definitions used in the UN report (which are are admittedly not strict enough for legal definition, but precise enough for a reader.) I know it is also wikilinked, but the RfC convinced me that it is useful to have a working definition before the eyes of the reader. Also, I saw that "genocide" appeared in the RfC nearly 60 times, so I thought it deserved mention in the article. I hope I covered it fairly in a way that satisfies the concerned parties in the RfC.

I also invoked some of my formatting conventions. (This seemed more aesthetically pleasing and declutters the section, IMO.) One is this section uses the sfnm template. The reason for this, is this section is dense, so I wanted to catch a diversity of opinions on some points. For example, the item with the most citations is "Ethnic Cleansing" I wanted to catch some of the regularly cited articles, but catch some that are international, and then some more focused on Native American issues. Each has a slightly different take, and is worth reading for interested readers. Also, I am linking pages when the only source is a Google article. For now, I haven't linked pages from archive.org. Because archive books are fully accessible with registration, I just link them in sources with a "registration" url-access. But linking Google book pages allows me to leave the book in sources unlinked, since there's no accessible text to link to. I think sfmn is a great feature, but if the consensus is to separate out multiple citations. I'll do it. Wtfiv (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you did the best you could with the information provided. These Talk Pages aren't supposed to be a forum but I do want to make one note. The goal of the Removal Act may not have been annihilation in the sense of a physical annihilation and I think the evidence one can find would be that, though maybe as much as 25% of all Natives forced (even those that left voluntarily were forced by coercion and deception) died along the way, nations like the Cherokee have physically rebuilt and flourished despite the conditions and that is a testament to their inner strength and courage as a People. However, the act was genocide if you understand the cultural beliefs of most Native peoples. They valued a connection with the land they lived on and it was integral to their belief system. Destroy or remove that and you destroy the culture, even if the people remain. I wrote an article on Catharine Brown (Cherokee teacher) and similar to this, her story is one that has evolved over time, from an example of religious conversion destroying the Native identity to an example of the survivability and adaptability of the Cherokee people. The genocide is not necessarily in the number of Natives killed but in the degradation of the cultural significance of the land with the People's beliefs. The loss of generations of story tellers and future leaders can not be understated but neither can the significance of those stories to the land the People possessed. So, in the end, it was and still is about the projection of European values onto the view points of Natives which causes one to not be able to understand why Natives and scholars that do understand the Native viewpoint may view this action as genocide. -- A Rose Wolf  14:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the last paragraph mentions that Jackson's action are being considered in terms of genocide. It doesn't take a stand (see sources for samples from both sides of the debate), but acknowledges that the discussion, particularly in the larger context of US policy is being had. I've now split "destruction of Native American culture" to "Native Americans and their culture" a wikilink to "destruction of Native Americans". The wikilink points to a subtopic on the destruction of people. I think the subtopic could merit its own article. I also think a full-length article on the destruction of Native American culture, or Cherokee culture specifically, could be written.
 * By the way, yesterday, I added a new map and a bit of supporting text to show that the extent of lands taken from Native Americans through Jackson's actions is far greater than the Indian Removal Act. Wtfiv (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)