Talk:Andrew Jackson

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Thomasve.grinnell.

Regrets section

I moved this section to the talk page. Unnecessary for the article.

=== Regrets === for the nationals On the last day of the presidency, Jackson admitted that he had but two regrets, that he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun."

References

Better lead image

My enhancement

Current image

I feel like we should change the lead image to this. It’s effectively the same painting, but I enhanced it to bring out the details more and brighten the colors. I feel like this makes it a better image to use. I’ll put the current image here for reference. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm conflicted. I feel like in thumbnail form the current image looks better and the enhancement looks unnaturally doctored. In full screen I like the enhancement better because you can see many more details, as you mentioned. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The enhancements just look a little too unnatural to me, but I agree that our current lead portrait has issues. I'd prefer we use this portrait for the lead image. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Native Americans

Indians are from India. They are not indigenous to the Americas. Native Americans are indigenous to the Americas. Indians were not a name that native people gave themselves, but by the Europeans, by error since they mistakenly believed they were in India. Knowing the difference would avoid confusion between Indians and Native Americans. This is in light that the Indian population has been growing fast in the past decades and to properly identify a native population after over 500 years of misconceptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:180:4000:1650:895F:37E6:11B5:64E1 (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, completely. As a long-time Wikipedia contributor I find it hard to fathom that this historical misnomer is perpetuated in – and effectively validated by – an FA like this (and also elsewhere). My 2c, 86.186.168.128 (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

just adding: The above consideration is genuinely not intended, in any way, as personal criticism of editors who have worked hard to bring the page to FA. 86.186.168.128 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of the indigenous population of the U.S. still prefer to be called "Indians" or "American Indians". It's why the official national museum dedicated to the indigenous population of the U.S. is officially called the National Museum of the American Indian and the federal government department is still called the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It's their identity, so who the hell are you to tell them that's not what they should want to be called? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Who the hell are you...?" That phrase is clearly not about content. Please be WP:CIVIL, User:Rreagan007. 86.177.202.134 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the apparent attempt to chill reasoned discussion here based on the (undeclared) ethnic status of an anonymous user, the pov expressed above by User:Rreagan007 appears generally to contrast with currently accepted editorial practice on multiple Wikipedia pages regarding Native Americans (cf American Indians), including Native Americans in the United States.

While the word Indian seems appropriate here for historical terms such as Indian removal and Indian Removal Act, per the arguments expressed OP I believe it is not appropriate in more general phrases, including, for example, "Relations between Indians and Americans..." or "Indian-Anglo American relations" [sic], which - apart from other editorial considerations - seem to perpetuate a false dichotomy. 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Given the contrasting views expressed here, I feel it's appropriate to request input from WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (and possibly elsewhere, if other editors consider that to be appropriate). 86.186.168.206 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am a member of WP:Indigenous peoples of North America and I believe I can clarify the terminology here. First off, when possible, the entire issue can be avoided by using the names of tribal nations where appropriate. (e.g. Cherokee, Choctaw, etc...) When discussing Native people from multiple tribes or in general, “Indian” or “American Indian” is a term of law in the United States. (Indian Child Welfare Act, American Indian Movement, etc.) So that word is appropriate for legal and many historical uses. “Native American” is a term coined by academe to distinguish American Indians in the United States from the people of India. It is most suitable for use in cultural and anthropological settings, and often is used in discussions of political issues. Native people in Alaska prefer “Alaska Native”. Canadian tribes more often prefer the term “First Nations”. People who are Native American often use the word “Native” (capitalized) when referring to themselves in a colloquial or shorthand context, e.g. “Native Pride,” etc. So best practices depends a bit on the specific context. I’ll do a quick skim of the article’s stable version and see if there’s anything clunky that needs to be fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that User:Montanabw. Fwiw, I do recognize the sorts of (I should have added *legal* and *institutional* terms), but as soon as I started reading that section I felt something was seriously awry. Phrases like "Relations between Indians and Americans..." and "Indian-Anglo American relations" rang alarm bells (like, what... Indians are not Americans?? Americans of European descent being lumped as "Anglo"?). Given your background and extensive FA riding skills (mos hyphens aside), I think it would be really good you could take an informed editorial look. 86.186.168.230 (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

Deisenbe, I am asking you to please remove what you have recently added to the article. There are numerous problems with it. For one, I would think that the goal of mentioning slavery in the top paragraph would be to give the reader a sense of what Jackson's view of the matter was. This does not say where Jackson stood on slavery. The mention of him being a Southerner implies that he supported it, but this should be stated explicitly, not simply hinted at. During Jackson's lifetime, the United States was much smaller than it is now or even than it was during the 1850s. Jackson lived for most of his life in Western Tennessee. This was considered less a part of the south and more a part of the "west." Jackson referred to himself more as a Westerner than a Southerner. Finally, slavery was not a major political issue throughout most of Jackson's life, including during his presidency. It did nto come up at all until his second term, and even then, it was hardly at the center of Jackson's policymaking. As such, slavery does not warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead section, which should be where only the most important things about him go. There are many things about Jackson more important than his view on slavery which are not discussed in the first paragraph. Jackson's stance on slavery is discussed later on in the lead, which is where it belongs. Display name 99 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to write this out. I have removed everything except tbe word "expansionist" to which you did not object. I was not aware that Jackson thought of himself as a westerner. I disagree with you regarding slavery; it certainly comes up in the Negro Fort incident, and in the destruction of Angola, Florida, and in Florida Territory in general. deisenbe (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Deisenbe. One can get a good sense of Jackson as a westerner from reading Robert Remini's three-volume biography, particularly the first volume. Jackson was born in the Carolinas, but he never returned to them after leaving to settle in what is now Tennessee in 1788. That was about as far west as American settlement went at the time, and from then on, while Jackson did certainly identify with the South on major political and cultural issues, including slavery, he preferred to see himself as a kind of rugged frontiersman. Slavery was an important factor in many of Jackson's military campaigns, but was a negligible factor or even a virtual non-factor in equally as many others. The military expedition that Jackson planned with Burr in 1806 and the Creek War were all about expansion. While expansion of America did mean expansion of slavery, the connection between it and Jackson's campaigns was only indirect. Slavery played no role in Jackson's decision to defend New Orleans from the British. And as I said, slavery was of a rather trivial importance during his presidency, and it did not come to have a significant impact on any major issue until his second term. It just isn't important enough to mention in the top paragraph, especially when details of his military career, Indian removal, and the specifics of his views on democracy and economics are necessarily left out. Display name 99 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)