Battle of Backbone Mountain

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The electoral college votes for VP don't add up. Deadlock 16:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Calhoun was incorrectly listed as having 178 electoral votes, the same as Andrew Jackson. This is not correct; Calhoun only had 171 votes. The other 7 Electors who voted for Jackson for president voted for William Smith as VP.

This correction was made on February 2, 2005, but I didn't note it here on the talk page until March 5, 2005. — DLJessup 18:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The AFD debate did not get consensus to decide on what to do, and since there appear to be no other articles on elections held in 1828, I could not turn the article into a disambiguation page. I thus redirected it here. Anyone who can find other articles about elections in 1828 is highly encouraged to turn the redirect into a disambiguation page; it might also be advisable for someone to cull the page history of the article for any content that could be merged here. Johnleemk | Talk 10:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the information on the accusations deleted?

Also, the introductory sentence is a little unclear. The Presidential Electors met on 12/3/1828. The states chose the Electors between 10/31/1828 (OH, PA) and 11/13/1828 (NC). Chronicler3 00:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism you mentioned has been reverted. The date of election has been removed from the introductory sentence, and your dates for the election have been added to the “Results” section.

— DLJessup (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one thing I truly dislike about MediaWiki software, it is that the edit summaries themselves are not editable. Unlike the main text, where I can go back and fix things if I have a mental lapse, those things are permanent. Thus, I currently have the embarassment of having the following comment in the article history: “revert last edit: copyediting by a grammatically and spelling challenged individual”. It ought to read: “revert last two edits: copyediting by a grammar- and spelling-challenged individual”. Having a grammatically incorrect edit summary criticizing another user's lack of grammar skills is unfortunate, to say the least. Oh, well.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps shows incorrect votes for NY - should be 20 for Jackson, not 29 — MrMingsz (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the color bar underneath the presidential portrait should match the color on the electoral map. The early presidential election pages tried to solve this problem but I haven't figured out how to change the colors say as to the Presidential Election 1824. Some help would be much appreciated. sullivan9211 (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (CST)

The totals of the popular vote in the infobox and Results differ versus the "Results by State" table. The infobox values match National Archive summary data while the state results do not. The state results are also unreferenced and come from a Feb. 2013 edit. I'll see if I can determine the source of the difference. Red Harvest (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked against the values at http://www.countingthevotes.com/1828/ Using a spreadsheet of the unreferenced wiki values versus this other, I found quite a few errors in the wiki count. I have made corrections. Note that there were also "other" candidate votes that are reflected in some, but not all the wiki state total values. In addition, the wiki percentages have not been recalculated. Red Harvest (talk) 08:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that there are many different reported results for this election that differ by non-trivial amounts. The Library of Congress and some other sources use numbers that come from Congressional Quarterly's Guide to US Elections with numbers they first reported in a 1965 publication. I don't know where they got their numbers for this election from, but they are not reported by any other source prior to that. I think they may be wrong. I'm updating this article to use numbers reported in an 1832 publication that is much more thorough, reporting data at the county and district level, and that matches up within a few votes, with what was reported in newspapers at the time. Volcycle (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain how sentence 5 is to read, but certain it isn't to read as is:

"Jackson and allies such as Martin Van Buren and Vice President John C. Calhoun laid the foundations of the Democratic Party, while supporterure, states had recently expanded voting rights to nearly all white men in nearly all elections.^[2]"

Additionally, the referenced source (https://americanhistory.si.edu/democracy-exhibition/vote-voice/getting-vote/demanding-vote/white-manhood-suffrage) is not particularly supportive.

Ohayrt (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volcycle, I see that you recently made significant changes to the information in this article without providing any reference for the sources of your data. In fact, you actually removed a previously existing reference. I have reverted these changes because of the referencing problems. Are you able to provide a source for your new numbers?

I did cite the reference. It was included in "Williams, Edwin."The Politician's Manual Containing Returns of Votes at elections in the several United States" 1832 Politician's Manual." which was cited above it. The removed reference is wrong, which is why I removed it. That's discussed above in the talk page. Volcycle (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted. The changed vote numbers are referenced. There were some places in the table that referenced a dead website using incorrect numbers and I have removed those cites so that the error no longer shows up. For other years, there is no specific cite within a table like this, but if you'd like to make this one different than all the others, let me know where you think that cite should be. But please stop reverting the changes without talking to me about this. I'm putting a lot of work into it and you're not helping, you're just making it harder. I would be glad to get help or be collaborative, but you're undoing my work without even responding to me. 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Even in the reverted state, a substantial amount of the article isn't referenced. Is there a reason all unreferenced material shouldn't be removed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which material is unreferenced? I think the usual process is to add in-line request for cites if you feel they're needed. Volcycle (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the material you've added and changed in the last couple of days is unreferenced. I'm reverting it again because, in adding it, you deleted material that was previously referenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've again reverted these edits. Removing the existing references and changing the numbers without new references is unquestionably the wrong thing to do for the article. The added footnote that claims "This graphic includes often reported popular vote totals that are first recorded in early 20th Century reference books." is unacceptable, as it dosen't provide a verifiable reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeblas It's unclear to me what you want me to do. If you look on other presidential election pages (2000 for example) and go to the "Results by State" section, you'll see that there are no references to the table, because the citation is elsewhere in the article. In a similar fashion my citation is above in the article. As noted above (and not responded to) in this section, the citation being used is "Williams, Edwin."The Politician's Manual Containing Returns of Votes at elections in the several United States" 1832 Politician's Manual." Which is cited in my edits. This article as it currently stands has unusual in line citations to the "Counting the Votes website by G. Scott Thomas" for SOME states, but not all of them. Again, this is not how it's normally done. You seem to want to preserve those, but I can't figure out why. As for the footnote, I can try to work on that. I didn't make the graphic, but it uses questionable data that doesn't match the data elsewhere in the article - I'm trying to explain that but I can't modify the graphic itself. Please respond and give me guidance on what it is you're looking for as I can't fix this if all you do is revert. I will wait 24 hours before making any other changes. Volcycle (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not considering other articles -- just this one. We can't execuse bad content in one article just because other articles might have bad content, after all. That would require we improve the whole corpus, all at once.

But, generally there should be some consistency across similar articles, wouldn't you agree. That when deciding how to make something look, a style and standard that is used across several dozen similar pages creates a good template. If not, I assume you're going to visit all the other Presidential election pages and delete the Results By State table because they don't have explicit citations in them. The reason they don't have it is because the citation is elsewhere - meaning it's not "bad content". I wish you would take the time to understand this. It makes no sense to include citations for just five states and leave the rest uncited. Either all the others are improperly cited or the citations are unnecessary. You defending the status quo is just non-sensical. And while I'm at it, I would love it if - instead of just going straight to revert, you would discuss things here with me first. That's the usual wikipedia way, in case you aren't aware. It's why a talk page even exists.

Before your edits, this article did have some references in the "Results by State" section. You removed those, and changed the numbers. The source for your changes isn't clear. I don't think such an edit makes the article any better. If revised numbers are necessary, then let's at the very least more clearly cite them. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explicitly not answer my question. So useful to not define what "clearly cite" them means to you. I removed the citations because they were no longer valid - which is also why I changed the numbers. So you would be fine with the changes as long as I replace the inline citations for Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont with other inline citations? Or would it be OK if I place one citation somewhere else in the section? Perhaps something at the bottom of the table?

Nullification was not really an issue in 1828, and Jackson by no means was an ally of the nullifiers. He at best was quiet about the tarrif and in office was ardently anti-nullification. 2A02:8388:86C0:1700:C4E3:797A:F265:1A68 (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]