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

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

Slaves cabin size

Whole section needs cites. 20 sf is the size of a TWIN MATTRESS. Sadsaque (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Sadsaque (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the whole section is cited. Secondly, I looked at the source and this is the measurement it gives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The Hermitage web site gives the dimensions as "20 feet square", not "20 square feet". This means the rooms are around 400 square feet or 37 square meters each with two rooms per cabin which seems reasonable given this photograph of one of the rooms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:F400:2:9:C833:9427:6B8B:43A1 (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson (Kinney)

Should Andrew Jackson (Kinney) be mentioned here, or in a related article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I added it to the Memorials section of this article and to the separate Memorials article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is information on his Freemason affiliation placed under "Religious Faith"?

Ignoring the fact that Freemasonry is not a religious sect or practice and some branches of the organization include atheists, I feel like this bit of information would be able to be placed in a section of it's own. There is plenty of information on the topic of there. Pepe Oats (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If there's no objection to moving information on his affiliation with freemasonry to a new section, and expanding it to include more information on his activities within the order, I'll begin adding the information as soon as I can. It's been a while, so I assume no one objects. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd approve of that idea. The article is fairly long as it stands. His activities within the order weren't too significant. I think it's mainly in the section just because there's nowhere else to put it. Most masonic branches require people to declare belief in a deity, and I imagine this was more prevalent during Jackson's time. Jackson's involvement in Freemasonry, in my opinion, does not warrant more than a brief blurb in the article. It's not extremely important and we can afford to pass over it here with little detail. There is also a discussion on Fremasonry in the section on the election of 1832. I wouldn't object if you were to add a sentence or two onto that. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well he was one of the few presidents to have held the Grand Master's chair, and it was during his political career that the Anti-Masonic Party became prominent, I think that the first of these is at least notable enough to be put into the article, as it's obviously pretty rare for someone to be a Grandmaster. Also, the requirement to believe in a deity is still in place and is a requirement for a Grand Lodge to be considered regular, regular Masonry makes up the vast majority of the Masonic demographic today. Pepe Oats (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You can certainly add that he was a Grand Master, but I'm still not convinced that we need to create an entirely new section for it. Display name 99 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Historian7, it looks as though Quarkgluonsoup decided to unilaterally move many pieces of text which were in the main body of the article into the footnotes section. There's no reason for it given by either you or this editor. I think it should be reverted. Why hide important text in a footnote when we can easily present it in the main section, especially without providing an edit summary? If you can't justify this, then I think it's time to revert everything. Display name 99 (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just checked this user's edit history. He/she has engaged in a pattern of making unsourced and unexplained revisions to articles, including this several just last month in which massive amounts of sourced content were removed with no edit summary. Display name 99 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the section before the changes was overly verbose and full of superfluous details. For example, the discussion on the recent changes to the Jefferson-Jackson day event belongs on the article on that topic, not on this section of the Andrew Jackson page. Why not discuss the history of that event instead here? Mentioning just the most recent change seems peculiar and bloggish. But discussing the history of that event here is obviously superfluous. None of it belongs here. When I look at history of the section going back much further, it looks like many of these superfluous details were added somewhat recently, and there certainly doesn't appear then to be consensus for them. Making them citations rather than deleting them completely seems to be a reasonable compromise.Historian7 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The changes were made in the process of the FA article review. Some editors requested expanding the Legacy section and this was done in accordance with their wishes. The article passed FA review with these "obviously superfluous" details. Personally, I don't see how the discussion of the Brands article, which was turned into a footnote, is any more superfluous then what was left in the Legacy section. This editor has simply decided to break up the section's significant content by putting half in the main body and half in the footnotes, making the article more difficult to navigate and the information harder to find. All the "superfluous details" are still in the article; they've simply been moved. There's no point to any of this. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, don't turn this into a revert war. I answered your question. You didn't ask another question in your last statement. All we are doing now is repeating what we have already said. If you have a new question that hasn't been asked, then ask it. It is obvious that we aren't going to come to an agreement. I didn't agree with the changes you made to the section, but I am not expecting any compromise to be perfect. A compromise is a compromise. Lets not try to convince each other, and just accept your modified version. Nothing is permanent anyway on wikipedia.Historian7 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)