This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Andrew Jackson is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
Text and/or other creative content from Andrew Jackson, Sr. was copied or moved into Andrew Jackson with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Andrew Jackson, Sr. was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Andrew Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Shira Klein (June 14, 2023). "The shocking truth about Wikipedia's Holocaust disinformation". The Forward. Retrieved June 16, 2023. A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia's articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence. The Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson, plagued by such manipulations, attracts thousands of readers a day.
Kyle Keeler (2023-2-23). "How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History". Slate. Retrieved 2023-12-1. A behind-the-scenes battle raged at Wikipedia last fall. The conflict stretched over three months and three separate pages, tallying more than 40,000 words. It began in August, when editor FinnV3 went to the "talk" page (where revisions are discussed by editors) for Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States. FinnV3 claimed that Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act was ethnic cleansing and that the page needed to reflect that reality, rather than calling Jackson's policy "forced removal." According to FinnV3, the phrase forced removal presented a sanitized, unrepresentative view of history that did not match scholarship. Other users disagreed. Display name 99, who has added the second most information to the page (20,085 characters—in addition to writing nearly half of U.S. President John Adams' page), argued that Jackson "wanted the Indians to be treated well" and that although his decision to remove Native peoples was "tragic," it was "necessary." After months of back and forth, "ethnic cleansing" was added to the article in October.{{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
Three images were recently added. I removed the one of York Scott, as the relationship to Jackson is incidental. I'm also not sure about the two maps. The Wilkinson survey is interesting, but it seems hard to read and I'm not sure if it provides much context for guiding readers. The one on Tennessee in 1796 seems like it could be appropriate, as it shows Tennessee when Jackson moved into it, but I'm unsure. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your judgement is good. Remove whatever feels fussy. I would never squwak about it. But also this page needs more illustrations and maps and images that aren't hagiographic fantasy portraits of the Hero of New Orleans etc. etc. Those are esswntially Tiger Beat magazine-profile photos for 1845 Democratic Party fanboys, and they don't tell the reader anything about what this man was about or what he did to or for the United States and its people. jengod (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do feel they look a bit fussy, but I realize that other eyes are may have other insights. You're not the only one to critique the images. For reference, here's an older version of the article just before it went through a grueling Featured article review process that was full of controversy. Most of the images were retained, the Jackson page is a pretty controversial one, but you can see a number disappeared, including the one with Jackson, who was feeling ill at the time, standing on the top of the parapets in the Battle of New Orleans. Also, you might find reading the sections that pique your interest worth reading to see where the article was and where it is. Wtfiv (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans by F.C. Yohn
"Those are essentially Tiger Beat magazine-profile photos for 1845 Democratic Party fanboys" is pretty funny. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with most of the images in the article. The one attributed to Thomas Sully makes him look like a resurrected corpse, so it's fine by me.;-) I believe the contemporaneous images, including the cartoons, help the modern reader understand how he was viewed by the US populace at the time; don't care for the "Battle of New Orleans by Dennis Malone Carter", though (sorry, Wtfiv). I've added a fairly high resolution image of Jackson at the battle to Wikimedia Commons that is perhaps less dramatized and more realistic (can almost smell the testosterone). What do editors think? Carlstak (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jengod, I'm hoping current map on the Native American cessions makes the point you mentioned: All or almost all the U. S. territory acquired as a result of Jackson's actions. If you take a look at the pre-FAR article linked above, it had only a map of the lands impacted by the Indian Removal Act, and it had a separate map for the treaty of Ft. Jackson. Though both were accurate, they served to understate the impact of Jackson's policies on Native Americans.
The current map, which replaced these earlier maps, put together all the cessions that Jackson was involved in one location. It includes the information in the original Treaty of Ft. Jackson map, as well as in the Tennessee map, and the Royce Map. It's intended to show how substantial Jackson's actions were, many well before the Indian Removal Act, cumulatively resulting in Native Americans being removed from the majority the Southeast, including almost all of Alabama, 3/4 of Mississippi and nearly half of Tennessee. Wtfiv (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carlstak, it works for me if you want to change the picture. The change came about because of this discussion on the FAR talk page. I tried out Malone because it was closer to its time historically and it seemed the editors were okay with it. But they seemed okay with Yohn as well. So, if you like to change it, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed that discussion at FAR, or forgot it. I personally like the near-impressionistic realism, the broad brush-strokes of the Yohn painting, with the scene more naturally represented and the canvas exuding the heat and sweatiness of battle, rather than the formal arrangement and dramatic posturing of the rather stiff figures in Malone's. I'll go ahead and move it; I get the impression the community can accept either one. Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped out the recently added Map of Tennessee circa 1798. It had the strength of showing the Natchez trace as it headed southwest, but the coloring of the 1798 map could lead readers to misunderstand how Tennessee was divided at the time, as the color coding dividing West Tennessee from East Tennessee is simply geographic; the colors did not show Native American lands or that the state of Tennessee had two discontinuous areas, the eastern counties and the Mero District.
Both maps reflect Tennessee after the Treaty of Tellico in 1798 when the Cherokee had given up some of their land adjacent to the eastern counties. The eastern counties, informally known as the Washington District, and the western counties known as the Mero District. The majority of land in the state was held by Native Americans, the Cherokee and the Chickasaw. This is now color coded in the new map.
The new map still shows a portion of the Natchez Trace, which has been highlighted. But its only the section that runs in the state. Wtfiv (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So. This is possibly messy because it involves negotiating centuries of sources about a conflict that had months of buildup but regarding this sentence:
"They had an argument over a horse race, and Dickinson allegedly uttered a slur against Rachel."
I personally recommend we cut the "slur against Rachel" bit per:
The feud with Mr. Dickinson is generally traced to the aftermath of a forfeited horse race and rumors questioning Jackson's honor, said Daniel Feller, a University of Tennessee history professor and an editor of Jackson's papers. "Some historians have written that Mr. Dickinson also insulted Mrs. Jackson, although documents from the time do not reflect that, Mr. Feller said." - https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/us/17grave.html?unlocked_article_code=1.P04.hVt3.-liypsFX_2X4&smid=url-share
"The origin of the dispute between Jackson and Dickinson remains uncertain. Jackson's first biographer, James Parton, noted that sometime between November 1805 and January 1806 Dickinson, who was prone to drunken bravado, besmirched Rachel's name in public. Nowhere in the private correspondence or public exchanges that took place during these months, however, does Rachel's name appear as a pretext for the enmity between the two men." Cheathem, AJ, Southerner 2013, p. 43
But also bc I think that the "violence in defense of genteel white femininity" is playing into a grand mythology rather than the facts of this case.
"If a man did not fight back when his life, his freedom, or his family was in jeopardy, his failure to act signified a deficiency in manliness in antebellum terms. At the same time, vengeful acts of violence, or aggression against women or children, would be read as unmanly. Real men in the antebellum period took up arms openly and confidently, and only for noble causes, like protecting white womanhood, preserving ones liberty, or defending ones country." -Gender and Race in Antebellum Popular Culture (2014) doi:
10.1017/CBO9781107338852
page 7, note 7
Im also pretty sure this duel had its roots in all their slave trading but that aside, I feel strongly that the "Jackson did it for love" defense is specious on its face and we are under no obligation to perpetuate it. jengod (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get other opinions. I have no qualms with removing it, as per Cheathem. It may not be in the documentations, but it is part of Parton's research, and has moved on from there. I don't see it as part of the mythology of Jackson "doing it for love," My thoughts are they are more a prelude of what occurred later when Jackson ran as president. As I see it, the questions around his relationship with Rachel, were probably one of the largest threats to his community reputation. Rumors of bigamy besmirched it, and he was protecting it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the entry, removing the allegations of a slur to Rachel. The best summary is in the editors of Jackson's correspondence, Moser and Macpherson (1984), p. 77-78. (There's a link to the pdf in the article). As you mention, Moser and MacPherson state that the slur against Rachel did not appear in print until 1860, when Parton put it in his biography. They state that Parton heard it from Sam Houston.
Also, looking at the correspondence is suggestive: The elements you mention may be in play too. Dickinson was involved in the Nashville-New Orleans slave trade, and had recently come back from New Orleans just before the duel. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
