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)
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]
Jackson ranks higher than I suspected. Recency-bias effected my perception as his regard has been sliding in recent years.
In light of this information, I move to instead keep Andrew Jackson's wording as "above average", to change Ronald Reagan's from "middle to upper tier" to "above average", and to change Bill Clinton's from "middle to upper tier" to "above average". 2603:6011:5905:28A7:BC:1A74:674B:865F (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, Jackson is generally ranked above average. The Jackson wording in the lead, which summarizes the article, states this. The section of the article that the lead summarizes, which is near the end of the article, gives more detail, in particular that Jackson's rating are historically high but have recently been dropping.
What I'm less sure of is whether it should be in the lead. Though Jackson was engaged in treating enslaved people as commodities, including buying and selling, which was part of his being a plantation slave owner, he says he gave up his role of being involved in the business of trading in slaves before 1800 he became involved in national politics. So while there's no doubt he was involved in the business of trading early in his life and it should be mentioned, it doesn't seem like it wasn't part of his professional identity, like it was for someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest.
So, my own thought is that it should go in the article, maybe early in the Legal career and marriage section, but not necessarily in the lead. I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well as gather the consensus of those who watch this page. Wtfiv (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, based on the sources presented, that it should be placed in the article. The lead should be for specific events and those things which he is most notable for. I'm not sure this would qualify. There is so much material on this very controversial former president and soldier. I doubt the article could contain every aspect of his life in great detail without risk of becoming so verbose again. I would include it as Wtfiv mentions and proceed from there. --ARoseWolf11:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv@ARoseWolf legal career and marriage section sounds great and Cheathem's article would be a good source to cite. I'll wait a day or so in case anyone else wants to weigh in. Anyone else who wants to edit between now and then, please go to town--I don't feel particularly comfortable editing this article! That said, my gut (and a close reading of the fragmentary detail we have) suggests to me he was trading to some extent for the better part of 20 years (~1790–~1810). Perhaps eventually scholars will be able to shed more light on this huge question for which there are few clear answers. jengod (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could also just edit/add a clause in the slavery section:
Jackson also participated in the local slave trade.
>>
Jackson was also an [[Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States|early speculator]] in the [[slave trade in the United States|North American slave trade]], trafficking people between Nashville and the [[Natchez District]] of [[Spanish West Florida]] via the [[Natchez Trace]]. jengod (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The couple spent time together in the lower Mississippi River valley, where Jackson owned a trading post and racetrack, and was an [[Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States|early speculator]] in the [[slave trade in the United States|North American slave trade]], trafficking people between Nashville and the [[Natchez District]] of [[Spanish West Florida]] via the [[Natchez Trace]].
After the separation, Jackson and Rachel became romantically involved, living together as husband and wife. The couple spent time together in the lower Mississippi River valley, where Jackson owned a trading post and racetrack, and where he worked as a "negro speculator", trafficking people between Nashville and the Natchez District of Spanish West Florida via the Natchez Trace. Robards petitioned for divorce in 1790 [?], which was granted on the basis of Rachel's infidelity.jengod (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. I put it at the end of the paragraph preceding the one describing Jackson and Rachel, as it looks like he was already into the trade in 1788, before he became involved with Rachel. Changed the language to stay close the language of the sources. "trafficking" changed to "transporting" as the trade wasn't illegal. (Though as Remini's article points out, as well as the Wikipedia article on Jackson and the slave trade, he most likely participated in activities that were at least in the gray zone if not further. I put Cheathem as the reference for the first half. Used Remini's journal article on Jackson and the Natchez trace as a source on the second half. Also added the date of the divorce and used Remini's vol 1 as a source for it. Wtfiv (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jengod, You recently added text about Jackson's recruitment of slaves and his promise to free them, which was taken from a primary source, James Roberts narrative of the battle and his role in it. Roberts claim is plausible: possibly Jackson did promise freedom to slave soldiers who fought with him during the battle. However, I think using Roberts, a primary source, may not be sufficient. There are many things that may be biasing his version of the story, in part the point to demonstrate the importance of his personal role in the battle (see pg. 15, for example) and publicizing the injustice of Buchanan not giving him a pension for his service. Issues like this make the reliability of the source unclear. If Jackson made the promise Roberts mentions, perhaps we can find it in one or two reliable secondary sources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IDK if this rises to the level of validation of Robinson's narrative but two secondary and one primary seem to be in the ballpark:
"Planters sent slaves under military watch to dig trenches, shovel earthen mounds into shape, clear timber, and boost fortications"
p. 109
"Many of the slaves who fought in the Battle of New Orleans did not receive the freedom they expected." p. 113
10.5149/northcarolina/9781469647142.003.0006
“Instead, Andrew Jackson guaranteed “a full and entire pardon” to slaves who helped defend New Orleans, and he promised a monetary and land bounty to those free blacks, or “sons of freedom,” who supported the American cause. ...In the end, Jackson’s proclamations and promises denied to Cochrane an important source of much-needed manpower for British operations while maintaining the social status quo within the region. Ultimately, Jackson never fulfilled his promises to the slaves and only slowly fulfilled his obligations to the free blacks, further diminishing the status of both groups as the South moved toward a southern slave society based on cotton plantation agriculture.”
— The Slaves' Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith pp 245–246
"But the reader must know that general Jackson had obtained from the masters of the slaves their word of honour, that they would grant them a full and entire pardon; and that the known honour of those planters leaving him no room to doubt of the strict performance of their promise, he had pledged himself to general Lambert that the slaves should suf-
I asked him if he did not promise me my freedom, if that battle was fought and victory gained? He replied, "I did, but I took your master's word, as he told me. You are not my property, and I cannot take another man's property and set it free." My answer was, You can use your influence with our master, and have us set free. He replied thus: "If I were to hire you my horse, could you sell it without my leave? You are another man's property, and I have not money sufficient to buy all of you..."
As I looked things up on my side, a number of sources bring up the free black militia that fought for Jackson, But sources also point out that New Orleans was against arming slaves. Particularly because of their fear of another slave revolt in Louisiana like the recent 1811 German Coast uprising in Louisiana, which was one of the largest slave revolts Unites States History.
I'm not sure about the secondary sources, the section in Smith's The Slave's Gamble (2013) seems questionable. To describe Jackson's action, p. 164 relies almost exclusively on Robert's narrative. It uses Latour's mention "full and entire pardon" as support. But Latour's context for "full and entire pardon" is about a different issue than Robert's claim that he was promised freedom after being enlisted for fighting.
As Smith alludes on p. 172 of Slaves' Gamble the "full and entire pardon" is for slaves who had run away to join the British, who had promised freedom. This is what is described in Latour pp. 221-221 The pardon is in the context of the subsequent peace treaty with the British, not promises to volunteers in American forces. The British had released the formerly enslaved African-Americans and the treaty stipulated they should remain free. But Latour states that Lambert, with the assent of Jackson, treated the formerly enslaved people either as deserters or property: The African-Americans had been labeled criminals, but Jackson had "had obtained from the masters of the slaves their word of honour" that they would give their slaves a "full and entire pardon" (e.g., allow them to return to enslavement without further punishment).
The other source, Chapter 6 of Jason Berry's (2018) book City of a Million Dreams : A History of New Orleans at Year 300. isn't really an independent of Smith. Berry's brief statement on the topic on p. 172 relies on Slaves' Gamble as its source: the same pages of Smith discussed above(see Berry's note 113 at back of book). More thoughts? Anybody else have thoughts on this? Wtfiv (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found an 1863 pamphlet that selectively (IMHO) quotes Jackson leading up to the battle of New Orleans as evidence for why arming what came to be known as "colored troops" during the ACW was in the tradition of military forebears Geo. Washington and A. Jackson. (The British had a pesky habit of freeing American slaves and not giving them back which reduced American military staffing levels--it gave the Patriots fits in both wars.)
One document is J's proclamation to the "free colored inhabitants" of New Orleans. And the other is an address from Jackson by way of Edward Livingston: "...To THE MEN OF COLOR.—Soldiers! From the shores of Mobile I collected you to arms,—I invited you to share in the perils and to divide the glory of your white countrymen. I expected much from you; for I was not uninformed of those qualities which must render you so formida- ble to an invading foe. I knew that you could endure hunger and thirst and all the hardships of war. I knew that you loved the land of your nativity, and that, like ourselves, you had to defend all that is most dear to man. But you surpass my hopes. I have found in you, united to
these qualities, that noble enthusiasm which impels to great deeds. Soldiers! The President of the United States shall be informed of your conduct on the present occasion; and the voice of the Representatives of the American Nation shall applaud your valor, as your general
now praises your ardor. The enemy is near. His sails cover the lakes. But the brave are united; and if he finds us contending among ourselves, it will be for the prize of valor, and fame, its noblest reward."
I look forward to the day when someone finds Jackson's contemporaneous notes from the battle: "Had to use my friends' slaves that I sold them back in 1798 to win this and they were great. Have returned them all to bondage. Done and dusted. Yay me." Until then, we have the usual echoing void of white documentation of the conditions of American slavery. :( not anyone living's fault, just makes me sad generally jengod (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second address, given to the militia on 18 Dec 1814 is in Vol 7, issue 178, pp. 345-346 from January 1815. It's interesting because two speeches are given. The appeal to the white Americans is about defending their freedom and city. In contrast, the address to the "men of color", given by aid-de-camp Thomas L. Butler, an appeal to glory and the promise of the president and congress being informed of their valor. Also notable is that unlike the September address, no mention of a tangible award is given, although the battle is now only two weeks away.
As you mentioned, it remains unclear is whether Jackson actually promised freedom to enslaved Americans to get them to fight as Roberts attests. As mentioned its possible, but I also think that the fear of the whites in the area after the 1811 French-revolution and Haiti inspired slave revolt would have stepped in and prohibited enslaved people from having fire arms or having the opportunity to kill whites, even British ones. It's just a possible that Jackson wouldn't have made such a promise: he would've been in further trouble with the white population of the city if it had been even rumored he did so, whether or not he intended to honor it.
I also wonder whether Jackson tried to follow up on his promise of reward to the free militia. Even if the intention was there, would Louisiana or the US government had allowed it? It seems to me that that issue and the related one of the role of African-Americans in the battle and its aftermath a good subtopic- or even spinoff article- for the Battle of New Orleans article. At this point, the role of Blacks in the battle gets only a parenthetical mention. Wtfiv (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will work on a Battle of New Orleans section! A couple interesting details from Robinson that are more appropriate for an actual historian to address but...Robinson was property of Calvin Smith. Smith's brother Philander Smith (Mississippi) was involved with Peter Bryan Bruin on a couple of key things: (1) they co-signed a document asking Congress to pls adopt Spanish Mississippi and also let them keep slavery, (2) Bruin was the co-judge and P. Smith was the grand jury foreman on Aaron Burr's treason indictment hearing in 1807. And Bruin's settlement of Bruinsburg is where Jackson had his slave-trading kiosk and racetrack or whatever it was. Also, Robinson mentions someone saying they should get more slaves from Springfield Plantation (Fayette, Mississippi). Springfield is allegedly Jackson married Rachel, and while that may be a retcon/lie, the Greens and the Donelsons definitely intermarried a lot and Jackson sold slaves to them. So Colonel-General Jackson wasnt just recruiting randos. if Robinson is telling the truth, Jackson was going around to specific planters with whom he had personal ties to collect slave laborers to contribute to the defense of New Orleans. Anyway, I'll work on more research for a future section for the BoNO article! jengod (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell how reliable Roberts is. For example, when discussing his role at New Orleans on p. 15 he states "At this point I lost the fore finger of my left hand, and received a deep wound on my head from a British sword. After that I took the fellow's head off, and five more of his fellow soldiers." If Roberts is stating what happened, it sounds like he received the same kind of wound Jackson says he received when he was a youth in the revolutionary war (though Roberts lost his fore finger, Jackson didn't). But truth can be far stranger than fiction. And almost any narrative is a bit of a mix of both. Some of the connections you see in Robert's narrative make sense. His narrative seems to reflect the network of connections on that end of the Natchez trace.
On a different topic, the connections you have unearthed are fascinating and definitely get me thinking. I'm inclined to think your intuition about there being a network is probably correct. I wonder if there's enough of a paper trail for a researcher to see if the dots connect more clearly. If a historian is searching the obscurity talk page for an idea for a doctoral dissertation, and is willing to do a lot of work finding documentation in a culture where many of the actors moved outside of writing... Wtfiv (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"For the only time in U.S. history, two women acted simultaneously as unofficial first lady for the widower Jackson."
Just wanted to surface Martha Johnson Patterson and Mary Johnson Stover, daughters of Andrew Johnson. Martha was definitely the lead but Mary co-hosted quite a lot. The mom was still alive but never left her room etc. Acting First Lady is not an official job and it's really hard to quantify who did what etc but not sure this was the *only* such case. No big deal just wanted to mention it in case there are any acting First Lady hobbyists who want to delve further. Cheers. jengod (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
_01.jpg){kind=link}
