Featured articleAndrew Jackson is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 10, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 19, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 29, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 27, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Article size[edit]

SandyGeorgia —For an article that's very involved with several aspects of American history and other matters it is not very long. Basing the deletion of a very small section on this idea alone isn't warranted and still leaves the article at almost the same length..

The guideline for an article just over 60K of readable prose reads:
WP:SIZERULE: Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

This is a FA about a very famous war hero, and US President, and a controversial figure because of slave ownership. Many FA and GA articles even exceed 100k of readable prose and have no issues because they merit the text. All past presidents are commemorated on US postage, and some on currency, as is Jackson in both cases. Presidential articles routinely display such commemorations in proportion to their fame. Nothing unusual or inappropriate was done here. There's a sub-article for many things involved with this article, and displaying all 12 Jackson postage stamps, along with all the currency, in this article would of course be overkill, but a few are called for here. If this is a pressing issue for you please get a consensus before making another revert. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Andrew Jackson/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And you have WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN backwards; you made a bold addition, I removed it, and you re-instated it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Sandy, for the link to the other discussion. (It doesn't seem reasonable to have expected Gwillhickers or anyone else to have found it there.) I support your revert, for the reasons you gave there. However, I think the link to Army and Navy stamp issues of 1936-1937 should be replaced with a link to Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps. And, should we fail to reach a consensus, I don't see why there would be three old stamps when there was a 1967 and a 1986 issue.
My edit summary: Brief mention and link to stamps, but no gallery, please. YoPienso (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to the current Featured article review is given at the top of this page-- the very first thing. The article is undergoing a review to determine if it still meets WP:WIAFA; WP:FAOWN is good reading, and more eyes are on the article via that review. So ... the discussion should be over there, where other editors are trying to preserve the featured status. Thanks for popping in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All's good, but just on a practical level, I for one would never imagine comments were being made somewhere other than on the article talk page. The review discussion is specifically about the article's status, which doesn't cross the mind of the average non-reviewing editor. I'm glad you commented there, and glad you gave us the link. YoPienso (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SandyGeorgia — Thanks for the feedback. The stamps in question were already in the article since 2010 and remained there for many years, and as such already had standing consensus, but somewhere along the line they were (boldly) removed. In any case, if this one small section by itself is going to make the article unstable, and if it is deemed necessary that it be removed, of course I'll go along with consensus. In any case, thanks for not reverting, and thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll wait and see what the consensus is at FAR; just please work with the editors there so as not to introduce instability during the review. Those who deleted the text did so for a reason, and Yopienso seems to agree with me and them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of you knew about first deletion of long standing content. Of course I'll work with other editors, but accusing me of ownership, esp since I have not edited the article for years until recently, is not helping stability. Again, 60+k of readable prose is nothing alarming for a famous figure like Jackson, and is sometimes justified, as explained. Again, many GA and FA articles exceed even 100k of readable prose, and rightly so, without any issues, invented, or otherwise. Please don't rest the entire issue of stability on this one small paragraph, the likes of which were, again, already in the article since 2010. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was no accusation of ownership; FAOWN is about the importance of discussing your edits first on a featured article (and that asking you to do is the opposite of ownership). But ... since you missed the Featured article review banner at the top of the page, and didn't know that other editors were working together on a review page when you reverted, all is understandable, and hopefully everyone is on the same page now. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stamp information

The stamp information seems interesting, but doesn't seem to fit for a final statement. And, there is an article dedicated to how Jackson has been memorialized. I moved the information and the gallery regarding the stamps to of memorials to Andrew Jackson and merged it and gallery with the information that was already there.Wtfiv (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Wtfiv; so I hope that's settled, and now everyone here knows there's a review underway, conducted on another page, so all can work together. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree that the sub-article is the best place for this information, although it might make sense to summarize the sub-article with a sentence along the lines of "Numerous places and institutions have been named for Jackson, and he has been honored on postage stamps and currency" or something like that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like Wtfiv, I find the stamp information interesting but if there is a sub-article that is where the content belongs so as to not increase the size of this article further. We do not need to have everything associated with Andrew Jackson mentioned in this article. I might be willing to support the idea of one sentence mentioning the stamps, as proposed by EW, located in the Legacy section but we don't need more than that.--ARoseWolf 12:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One (brief) sentence along those lines would be good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ARoseWolf, Wtfiv, SandyGeorgia, and Extraordinary Writ: — Okay I can live with one brief sentence and perhaps a single image of the first Jackson stamp. I'll wait for further comment before adding the content. As far as article length is concerned, once again, the content in question was very small, so its inclusion should not even be a factor concerning excessive article length. In any case, thanks for not being absolutely rigid about the issue. This is my proposed entry.

The first Jackson stamp, Issue of 1863
Andrew Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times, appearing on twelve stamps as of 2023.

Hope this sits well with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm glad that putting most of the detail into the memorials article seems to make sense. There's a bit of interesting bits that focus on ways Jackson has been memorialized, and stamps are part of that memorialization. It seems there's a consensus for a sentence in the main article. The hardest part is finding where to put it in the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's plenty of room at the bottom of the section. As mentioned, I'll acquiesce in confining the text to one sentence and one small image, but it seems we could say a bit more, perhaps with another sentence,. about this national honor. A president appearing on the nation's postage and currency isn't some minor piece of trivia. In any case, I'll go ahead and add the one sentence and image, hoping that it will be a welcomed addition to this biography after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A quick search shows that 38 of 46 presidents have received this honor proving that it might be significant when compared to the total population of the US but not among presidents. When I look at George Washington's article I see that it mentioned him being included on postage stamps, most of any president, in a short sentence in a paragraph included with his image being on the dollar bill and quarter. Other articles of presidents like William Henry Harrison, who was only in office for one month before he died but somehow was given the honor, doesn't even mention being on a stamp but does have an image included. I stand by my belief its being more of a deal than it should be though it is indeed an honor but mostly as a product of them being elected president than anything else. --ARoseWolf 20:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could also be said that every President took the oath of office, and as such, is no big deal. National honors, however common, should not be understated or trivialized. In any case, as said, I can live with the one sentence and single image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry one might have the view that our consensus and discussion processes might be trivializing such a high honor. There might be a slight bit of sarcasm in my words considering just a few months ago one could say that the topic of certain of his policies was trivialized but I doubt one solitary life was extinguished as a result of his receiving the honor of his image on a postage stamp. Though I have heard that the adhesive they used for years might have had cancer causing agents. We even rectified the issues with describing his policies in the article. Glory be, our processes work. My point in this discussion is that one brief sentence is not "understated" or "trivialized". While we do not compare article to article it seems it is about on par with that of his peers that attained the same honor. And you provided a link to the standalone article (thank you) should the reader want more information. I agreed that a sentence well placed and accurately presented would suffice so in the end we agree. Happy times and cheers! --ARoseWolf 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just coming over to add to this. Gwillhickers, WP:CITEVAR matters in WP:WIAFA, where a consistent citation style is part of the criteria. It might have been much easier if you had waited for either Wtfiv or EW to add this content, keeping the style consistent. There's no hurry, and it's one little sentence; we can wait to get it right.
The bigger problem now is that the way the citation is written,

Scotts United States Specialized Stamp Catalog of U.S. stamps. Scott Publishing Company, New York. 2023. pp. 22, 30–33, 49–51, 59–60, 103, 107–108, 163, 172–173.

relative to the wording, makes it appear the entire thing might be original research. Do you actually have a source that says "Jackson is one of the few American presidents to appear on U.S. Postage more than the usual two or three times", or are you drawing that conclusion from counting the images yourself in that book from the multiple pages? If there's one source citing that content, one expects to see it on one page-- not spread out over pages. If that is what was done, the statement is not only OR, it's probably WP:UNDUE as well. What are the exact words from the source supporting the statement that Jackson "is one of few ..." etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OR is usually an issue when someone draws a different conclusion entirely different or severely aside from the stated facts than what the sources indicate. We don't need a verbatim statement that says "Jackson is one of the few...", as this idea is supported in any US stamp catalogue, as well as other philatelic texts. In any case, I modified the statement until such time where a more suitable source can be found for the previous statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not necessarily; OR is you going through a book and counting to come up with a conclusion no secondary source has published. And since that was OR, it's also WP:UNDUE in the article. It may well be worth mentioning, but you need to find a source that says it is. Jackson is not aspiring to DYK or GA; it's an FA, and what we write should reflect the same balance as sources do. What high-quality secondary source represents postage stamps in his legacy, and what proportion of writing about Jackson is dedicated to that? If you don't have a satisfactory secondary source, the content belongs not here, but in the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Citation style. I noticed in this article that there are at least 160 inline citations that use a cite book or cite web template, so I went along with that approach. You are correct however. There are several types of citation conventions employed in the article, including the SFN, straight line refs, as well as inline cite book and cite web templates. As I'm sure you're aware, FA criteria says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes"... How would you propose to remedy the overall situation?  If you're ready to move all the cite book and cite web templates from the body of text to the Bibliography, and link up to them via a SFN citation, you're we're going to have quite a job in front of you us. This is not to say it needn't be done, just pointing out the situation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
    The article is still undergoing finishing polishes; my recommendation is that you not put UNDUE content into the article, in a messed up citation format, until you have consensus or have given the main editors the opportunity to explain the citation style. That's the part of WP:FAOWN I was asking you to read.
    Mixing different styles is fine (sfns with cite templates), as long as there is a consistent method to how the choices are made and how the citations are rendered on output. For example, many FA writers use sfns for books and journals, but cite web or news for those for websites and news sources. Different choices are made, and are fine as long as they are employed consistently.
    At any rate, this is a minor concern, as it doesn't appear that content should be there, per DUE anyway. And we've now spent 2,500 words on talk, plus more on the FAR, to talk about a dozen words that, without a better source, may not even belong in an FA (will wait to see if others can find mention of postage stamps in sources specifically about Jackson); please take greater care when editing a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For reference, I refer you to the strictly scholarly sourcing of the Legacy content at J. K. Rowling#Legacy; a gazillion things could have been said about one of the most successful authors ever, but every web-sourced trivia one can come up with was omitted, and the section was restricted to what scholarly sources said, and given weight according to scholarly sources. We have sub-articles where other content can be placed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good lord, the editor making such a fuss over something so trivial and inconsequential to the article. It doesn't need to be here; it interrupts the logical flow of the legacy section, sticking out like a sore thumb. It's mere trivia, and the sub-article is a much better place for it. Carlstak (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As was already discussed, a president appearing on the nation's postage and currency are national honors. Such images are common place in presidential articles, and are not "trivial", anymore than the existing and rather large picture of the statue is, with its lengthy caption. The sub article to which you refer is dedicated to displaying an abundance of images of postage, statues, paintings, etc, but this doesn't mean we can't show a couple of the more significant items here, as is done with the stature and the item of postage.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sandy, IMO the citations are not consistently formatted, as there are at least two styles used. If a cite book template can be accommodated with a SF citation, there's no reason why cite news or cite web templates can't. Perhaps we should seek an outside opinion about WP:FA: "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes" at Wikipedia:Noticeboards#Other administrator assistance just to be sure. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that the addition is in the article, I find myself agreeing with Carlstak and Sandy. The issue of the stamps is really about the memorialization of Jackson, which is addressed in the appropriate article. The addition of the stamp in the main article seems out of place and breaks the narrative flow. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Memorialization

Is it also proposed that we remove the image of the statue? The statue doesn't tie in with any of the paragraphs in the Legacy section, also, and is no more out of place than the image of postage. If there is a concern for "flow", we can simply move it to the very end of the section, or add a Commemorations subsection after Legacy, where we can place the images of the statue and postage. In any case, having a dedicated article does not mean we are obligated to not cover a given topic or idea here, at all.   In this article there at least seventeen Main article links, yet there is a section for each topic with a number of good sized paragraphs for each. I tried pointing out a major problem with FA criteria, the same problem, i.e. different citation styles, that has existed in other FA reviews, which was dealt with promptly, and even suggested that we get administrative opinion. This apparently is being ignored while this reoccurring fixation on a stamp image continues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this is creating more concern than is really warranted I went ahead and removed the stamp image for the sake of article stability, until such time, hopefully, we can agree on how to deal with images involving memorials and commemorations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional battles[edit]

Hello, Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). Thanks for contributing. The first battle of fort bowyer was in mid-september of 1812. But Jackson didn’t arrive in the area until December. He wasn’t at the Negro fort either. Have you checked your other additions? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found these battles listed in the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson map on Jackson’s Wikipedia Page. Although I’ve studied Jackson and his life for years, I can’t memorize every battle he’s been a part of. My other additions are correct to the best of my knowledge. However, I’d like verification for the years that he served in the military, especially when he left the Tennessee Militia, and when he entered the U.S. Army. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one expects you to remember everything Henry Berghoff (talk · contribs). That’s why we dig for information and often check the sources. I knew Jackson wasn’t at the battle of negro fort. I wasn’t sure about fort bowyer so I had to look up the dates. The other battles aren’t familiar to me at all.
One of the rules we have to live by is that Wikipedia itself is NOT a reliable source. So, you had a good idea noting the battles which were on the map but not in the list. Just take the next step of investigating why. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I updated the lists to remove the battles where he was not commander, except for Hanging Rock where he was present. In the Military Campaigns of Andrew Jackson, some of the battles listed were not fought with Jackson present but were part of the overall campaign he directed and mentioned in the article. These battles will give the name of the commanding officer. For example, John Coffee fought the Battle of Tallushatchee. He was under Jackson's command, but Jackson was not at the battle. Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, should we add info on his authorization of the first major reform to copyright law, as well as the law he signed reforming the patent system? Henry Berghoff (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a featured article review under way, so I suggest holding off on new material. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't suggest "holding off on new material", rather discussing additions now so that the article doesn't bludgeon in size again after the Featured article review ends. Suggesting additions of material is normally accompanied by providing sources, and evaluating due weight. Featured articles must be comprehensive; if an addition is worthy, it should be discussed now, not later. WHy is this "first major reform to copyright law" worthy of mention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I’d like to address the deletion of my edits regarding trade and the judiciary. I think we should keep the edit describing the deal with Siam as the first with an Asiatic country, since that is a major milestone in the history of American trade. Second, I think we should keep the edits I made about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn’t change size often, and Jackson signing the law expanding it to its current size should be worthy of mention. Now onto the copyright laws: I think this could be mentioned, although I don’t know where it would fit in the article. The copyright law was considered to be the first major change to this sort of law in American history, while the patent law instituted added some rigor to attaining a patent, including a review system. A good start would be to go to the list of federal legislation on Wikipedia, and find these listed under the congresses during which Jackson was president. Henry Berghoff (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added a sentence about the Judicial Act of 1837 (I couldn't find a source that called it the Eighth and Nine Circuits Act.) I backed it up with two sources, one is a vintage journal article from 1920. I used it because it gives the most detailed background on the political aspects, the facts stated in it haven't changed, and its free. I also added the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court (1992). I figured that's authoritative, explains the act, and justifies the name "Judicial Act", but it really doesn't address Jackson's role in detail. Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it looks good. Thanks. Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added point about Siam. It's already in Latner, so no additional citations were needed. As you mentioned, copyright law doesn't fit well into this article. I think a discussion of the Jackson administration's role in copyright law would be best in an article on the U. S. history of copyright law. Wtfiv (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judge Jackson[edit]

Updated description of Jackson as judge in inbox and lead to be consistent with text. The article correctly points out that he served on the Tennessee Superior Court. A new in-depth source has replaced the old ones. Also mentioned that Jackson was appointed by the governor to replace a vacancy, he was not elected. The Superior Court was a high court of early Tennessee, but unlike a supreme court, it was not an independent branch of the judiciary and it also served as a trial court as well as an appellate court. Tennessee did not get a Supreme Court as an independent Judiciary until it revised its constitution in1835.

To support this article, I added a brief history section to the Tennessee Supreme Court article, so that link helps explain the difference. Otherwise, it would've confused the reader by mentioning the supreme court was not established until 1835, 31 years after Jackson had served. I also updated the List of justices of the Tennessee Supreme Court to briefly explain the difference and note which judges served on which court. Wtfiv (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Service In Rev War[edit]

Jackson commenced service in the South Carolina Militia in 1779, not 1780 as the article suggests. I found a record on family search providing this evidence. He also held the rank of Private in the South Carolina Militia. In the info box, I am going to add this information, however, I am unsure how to reflect this in the actual body paragraphs of the article. Also, should we provide a short anecdote of his service in the Rev War in the introductory paragraphs?

Here is the link to new info: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-99WB-HC1Z?view=index&personArk=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AQ2DG-7GWM&action=view

Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Henry Berghoff,
I'm not sure about using familysource as a reliable source, see WP:RSP where familysource.org is listed as a "generally unreliable" source. (I didn't look at the site because I don't have an account.) Maybe others who are more knowledgeable about these sources can weigh in.
I don't think should extend Jackson's Revolutionary War background into the lead. Though it impacted his view of the British, his revolutionary war history is one not of the central aspects of his story and historical role. (And a suggestion at the featured article review is currently looking to shorten the lead to about 500 words.) Wtfiv (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of things that weigh against relying the information you found on familysearch. Reliable sources state that Jackson was involved after the Battle of Waxhaws, which was 1780. The other issue is that in 1779, Jackson was only 12. I think it is unlikely that a 12 year-old (or 13 year-old) would be enlisted as a private in the militia. Wtfiv (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He could have faked his age you know. Or, militia records often kept track of who joined throughout the course of a year. So, maybe the record tracks if anyone joined from the beginning of when people normally enlisted at that time (Nov 1779) until the end of the usual enlistment period of one year (Nov 1780). So, because Jackson joined in between that time, his name was still written down. And look, I don’t think Andrew Jackson was a common name in South Carolina at the time, so the Andrew Jackson listed must’ve been the future President. That’s just my theory. I’ll leave what you have on here already.
Also: what rank did Jackson hold in the South Carolina militia? If he was a Private, he still could have served as a courier. Henry Berghoff (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That may be true, however at this point we have an unreliable source along with editor original research and supposition versus a reliable independent source. Policy would determine we go with the reliable source. --ARoseWolf 12:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023[edit]

Under the entry on Military Career, there is a sentence which states that 250 defenders, women and children were killed at fort Mims. This is not quite correct. Wikipedia’s own page on the Fort Mims Massacre correctly puts the number at over 500. The 250 number represents the number of defenders alone, and does not include women and children (of which the former were scalped and, if pregnant, their fetuses were removed while the mothers were still alive; additional children were taken as slaves; Black slaves were stolen or murdered; and thousands of cattle were destroyed). 199.185.175.117 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories