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
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
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
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
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
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)
"Genocide" wording
Wording was recently added implying that Jackson was responsible for genocide. This is sourced to p.35-36 in As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. This is a poor source to make such a broad, sweeping claim about the historiography of Jackson. Nor is it historically accurate. Jackson's policies on Native Americans were horrific, but did not call for their extermination, and are more complex than what the article implies. HickTheStick (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed in an RFC and subsequent discussions a year ago. Consensus was clear then and I doubt you will find its changed much since. Feel free to dig through the archives.--ARoseWolf14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the OP, As Long as Grass Grows was published in 2019 by Beacon Press, a reputed publisher of nonfiction books; the book is probably therefore a good example of current, reliable academic scholarship. The eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources (see list below). If anything, this article probably soft pedals it. The only wording in the body text is that The act has been discussed in the context of genocide, which is a rather roundabout case of citing a source to say that a source says things instead of more straightforwardly summarizing what reliable sources say.
*List of sources and quotations to support my statement that the "eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources":
Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press, 2014), 157–158: the manner in which the federal government had forced the Choctaws to leave Mississippi constituted ethnic cleansing under almost any definition (in a chapter titled "Unscabbarding the Bayonet: Andrew Jackson and the Policy of Forced Ethnic Cleansing").
Akis Kalaitzidis and Gregory W. Streich, U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011), 33: it is arguable that this era witnessed a genocide perpetrated by the U.S. government against Native Americans. Andrew Jackson himself was involved in a brutal campaign for the total destruction of the Creeks and Seminoles.
Alfred A. Cave, Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 191–192: proponents of genocide always characterized their victims as people of little use, unworthy of protection. Jackson, in his most candid moments, so characterized the American Indian and Jackson embraced genocide’s foundation belief that, because of certain perceived racial, moral, intellectual, cultural, or religious deficiencies or tendencies, a targeted group within a given territory is not only unworthy of inclusion in the community or of its protection, but on occasion must be dealt with as an existential threat to its well-being.
Jacquelyn C.A. Meshelemiah and Raven E. Lynch, "Genocide", in Encyclopedia of Social Work, ed. Cynthia Franklin, via Oxford Research Encyclopedias (National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press, pub. online August 27, 2020): Acts of genocide committed against Indigenous populations have a long history in the United States and Jackson was known as the "Indian Killer" because of his personal killings of hundreds of Natives while serving in the military. His administration as president is known for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that led to the displacement of several tribal nations, violation of standing treaties, and the confiscation of their lands.
Webster dictionary calls genocide the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. By this definition destruction does not necessarily mean death. displacement is certainly a form of cultural destruction, thus it is considered genocide. Birdacorn (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just say that I agree with you, personally, that Andrew Jackson's Indian policy constituted genocide but consensus on WP said something different so the need for compromise brought about a better article, by far not perfect and not completely what I wanted. Still, it is better. As I stated above, anyone can feel free to to look in the archives and, if so desire, anyone can start a new RFC if you disagree with that outcome. --ARoseWolf17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jackson is ranked by scholars almost always closely trailing or slightly ahead of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Reagan and Clinton's pages have them listed as "middle to upper tier" whereas Jackson's rating is currently written as "above average". I move to have Jackson's wikipedia page written more accurately to reflect where historians and scholars actually have him, which would be written as "middle to upper tier". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:DC6:6970:B357:C89A (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my source is not wikipedia, my source is the collection of scholarly rankings presented on that wikipedia page. If you look at the numbers, Andrew Jackson tends to be around #20. Reagan and Clinton both tend to be nearby (#16 to #22 range). On both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton's wikipedia pages, their historical ranking is worded exactly the same as "middle to upper tier". Andrew Jackson, going by the numbers of historians and scholars in the chart presented via the link is middle to upper tier. Quite frankly, I think "middle to upper tier" is odd wording for all 3 as all 3 presidents consistently rank above the median (the median here would be #23 considering there have been 45 US presidents). Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan should both have their bios re-written as "above average", or Andrew Jackson should have his written as "middle to upper tier" as all 3 presidents rank very similarly. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, so I did the math to get the average for each of these 3 presidents (I'm very bored).
Of the 25 surveys that include Andrew Jackson, he is ranked on average as the 12.28th best US president.
Of the 21 surveys that include Ronald Reagan, he is ranked on average as the 13.9th best US president.
Of the 19 surveys that include Bill Clinton, he is ranked on average as the 17.3rd best US president.
There have been 45 US presidents (remember, Glover Cleveland was president twice), the median is the number in the middle of a list of numbers. The median number for US presidents is 23. In other words, 22 presidents are above average, 22 presidents are below average (sort of, median and average are different but in this context it works). Any president who is consistently ranked at #22 or above should be considered an "above average" president.
Summarizing Bill Clinton as "middle to upper tier" is fine though "above average" seems more fitting. Summarizing Ronald Reagan as "middle to upper tier" is simply not accurate. He is historically ranked as clearly upper tier.
One could be symmetrical(sp?) and look at like this.. presidents ranked #1-#15 are upper tier, #16-#30 are mid tier, and #31-#45 are lower tier.
Considering Reagan and Jackson are only 1.6 ranking points apart, it would be inaccurate to state Jackson was "above average" while Reagan was "middle to upper tier" as that indicates one is viewed as clearly > than the other when I've just show that that is not the case here. 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
The redirect Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. until a consensus is reached. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)