Talk:John Adams/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Jr

--- No 'Jr'

SNUGGUMS Look at the plethora of sources here, no one says Junior (it appears at most like a fringe pedantic exercise, perhaps anachronism) See eg.,

The single source you cite is odd in many ways but it simply does not stand up. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC) SNUGGUMS fixing ping. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It might not have been the single greatest reference, but it wasn't exactly a bad one. I should also note the following:
  1. Other sources such as the Biographical Encyclopaedia of Massachusetts of the Nineteenth Century and The Early Republic and Antebellum America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History note he was such and can be used in place
  2. Just because a reference doesn't mention a suffix doesn't always make it non-existent, especially given the next point.....
  3. The fact that the President's father was John Sr implies he was Jr when they had the exact same full name. However, son John Quincy Adams is not John III since father and grandfather didn't have the "Quincy" middle name
  4. The use of suffixes isn't at all "fringe", "pedantic", or an "anachronism". They've been used for countless years, longer than I can keep track of. You can argue that certain sources are fringe (as a general statement), but not the overall concept of generational suffixes.
I don't deny that the links you gave don't use it, but there are quality works that do, and it would by all means be accurate to use the suffix for him. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
As we are not talking about the use of all "Jr." most your points are decidedly irrelevant and non responsive. It is clearly fringe or minority or undue and oddly pedantic, probably anachronism, and unnecessary, here, in this article. (BTW: Anachronism does not mean, as you seem to argue, 'has not been around for a long time', it means, a later fashion is projected into a past time period). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
On the contrary, giving someone's full name isn't any of those things except maybe minority for not all works taking entire name into account, though even that isn't a good enough reason to ignore and leave it out. It's also not like I'm just spewing out bad refs or unsupported claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No. Noted historian, Joseph Ellis, who wrote an encyclopedia article; C. James Taylor, the director of the Adams Library, who wrote an encyclopedia article; the Mass Historical Society, etc. etc, etc., show otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, just because something isn't specifically stated doesn't always equate to not existing, especially when there are in fact credible works that mention such detail as I linked above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's not even used in the first mention in the two sources you cite - so again unneeded, undue, fringey or minority, oddly pedantic, and probably anachronism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You are highly mistaken. By that logic, Herbert Hoover's middle name "Clark" as an example shouldn't be used just because a biography on him doesn't use it in the title or opening sentence and only does so in subsequent sentences. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No, by this logic, we follow the weight of sources. The mistake is yours. When has Jr become a middle name -- it is rather a made-up appendage, to John Adams, himself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Not made up at all. Weight of sources doesn't affect legal identity. Don't confuse it with article title or what a subject is commonly known as. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Legal identity? So, now it's original legal research that's being foisted upon us. Sorry, we don't do that. 17:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
We both know it's not original research when there are works supporting my assertion of his full name (which is what I was referring to). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No. It is entirely your legal opinion no-one else's -- it is textbook original research for which you have no legal source to support you and even the very few sources you have brought don't support making such a legal claim for John Adams. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The way I see this matter is the following:

  • Is this person referred to in their lifetime as a "Junior".
  • Is this person referred to in multiple reliable sources as a "Junior".
  • Most genealogical & historical research that I have seen - when referring to persons with the same name use birth year/death year to delineate the different personages. Take a look at all the different "John Washington" Wikipedia articles. This also works for different family-members with the same name (family names, mostly of men, but also of women, get recycled between generations and sometimes within the same generation, especially in 17th-19th Century of American history).
  • The word "Junior" could be seen to only be applicable during the lifetimes of both people. Once the "Sr" dies, the "Jr" appellation is technically no longer valid, because then what is the person who was known as a "Jr" then has a child they give the same name to... The person was was a "Jr" technically becomes a "Sr" all over again.
  • The author of the AmericanHistory Central "John Adams "article is Randal Rust, the company President of R.Squared Communications (a publisher of various online encyclopedias).
  • Heh, and to now throw a big money-wrench into the works there's John Adams Sr....

I personally do not think delineating the different people as "Sr" and "Jr" is appropriate unless contemporaneous sources and historical references overwhelmingly refer to the two different persons as such, for instance Franklin Delano Roosevelt & Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr.. In the monkey-wrench example I mentioned above, the person with more notability is regarded as [Their name], while the person with less notability is given some kind of variation to show the difference [Their name Sr] or [Their name birthyear-deathyear]. Shearonink (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

PS - Perhaps Rust could be contacted to ask for his opinion as to why he refers to the US President as a Jr. Did he cite any sources for the moniker? Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
In the sources linked, John Adams father is occasionally referred as "Deacon" or "the elder". John Adams signed one of the most famous legal documents in the world as John Adams (no Jr.), and his own grandson Charles Francis Adams, in his academic biography did not call the president, Jr., He called him John Adams, as do the great weight of sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
(Shaking head in disappointment) Sr and Jr (as well as III, IV, etc.) apply to people whether dead or alive when they have the entire same full name as a parent (or other relative when namesake relative is someone like a grandfather or uncle). It would otherwise defeat the purpose of suffixes (i.e. Charles Francis Adams and his namesake son, grandson, and great-grandson wouldn't have respectively been Sr, Jr, III, and IV). I know this from personal experience since I have relatives who were named for their fathers and their suffixes remained after their fathers died. Anyway, I'm not denying that most texts just say "John Adams", but you can't just outright dismiss the quality references that do mention a suffix since leaving it out altogether would incorrectly imply he was the original of his name when in fact that was his father. It most certainly IS NOT original research to call a man Jr by any reasonable measure when I provide something saying he was such. Let's not kid ourselves. If you feel the sources aren't credible, that's one thing, though I seriously doubt you could convince anyone that either of the ones linked aren't viable. You also can't simply ignore the fact that just because a detail isn't specifically noted in a work doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, and this particularly applies when there are other credible works that do mention it. Weight isn't the issue here. The only possible issue would be verifiablility, and the suffix most certainly is verifiable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for more of your original personal experience but decidedly not relevant, and you are wrong again, according to Verifiability policy, choices for articles are not made just because a few sources exist and accord with your personal predilection - as it's not supported by the number and most excellent sources, including himself, and his grandson, and multiple modern encyclopedic biographical treatments - it is simply unneeded and does not have sufficient weight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
You very well know my comment was in accordance with verifiablility policy; falsely accusing me of making things up like that when I provide supporting materials is baseless and beyond ridiculous. The links I gave are very much encyclopedic as well. Please stop being so dismissive of my points and pretending like my refs aren't enough to back something up. I also am not doing anything based on personal predilection, only based on what I have seen in other works. It's not like I'm providing bad sources or anything. As I'm sure you know (even if you won't admit it), a person's full name very much does carry enough weight for their own article and most definitely is worth including when reliably sourced (which it is), even if only a small amount of good works mention it. Quantity doesn't undermine quality. My sources are by all means encyclopedic, and it's not like they're contradicting other works; only providing additional detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, sorry, you did make-up the legal name thing or have shown no source that says that was his legal name. I have acknowledged your few sources, and it's because they are few that they lack weight. His full-name, as he writes, himself, is John Adams, as most the sources agree, including his own grandson in his seminal 1850 biography. As for Verifiability policy, it is precisely as I said, just because there is a source or two does not mean it goes in, that's pretty much a direct quote from Verifiability policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm just wondering what the average person, who, after all, is the readership we are crafting this article for, if you walked up to them and said "Who was John Adams Jr?" what would they say? And what is the most common search term for the person this article is about? In my opinion, the only Wikipedia listing that "John Adams Jr" or "John Adams II" would qualify for is a re-direct from that name to this article.
As long as we're bringing in some personal experience, I have relatives who during their fathers' lifetimes were known as [Name] Jr and the father was known as {Name] Sr but when the father died the Jr moniker was dropped in the sons' personal common usage.
Mr. Rust publishes a phone # and I am sure he has an email as well. I would suggest he be contacted as to his source/s or reasons for referring to President Adams as "Jr". Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"II" is misleading in this case as that would imply that the original namesake of a relative was someone other than the father, such as a grandfather or an uncle. "John Adams Jr" would definitely be a valid redirect for this article. We should keep in mind though that common usage isn't always a person's full name (i.e. Jimmy Carter is most commonly used to refer to the 39th president while his full name is James Earl Carter Jr). William Howard Taft on the other hand is full name AND most common usage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

During President John Adams' lifetime he apparently referred to his grandson John as "John Adams Jr", see [1]. John Quincy Adams also referred to his son John as "John Adams Jr" see [2]. In 1829 The Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 20, Issue 2 refers to John Quincy Adam's son as "John Adams Jr" see [3]. John Quincy Adams' son John also signed his name as being "John Adams Jr", see [4].
I don't think that anyone is disputing that some sources(see Genealogies of Connecticut Families, Notable Kin: An Anthology of Columns First Published in the Nehgs Nexus, 1986-1995 use "John Adams Jr." to distinguish President John Adams from his less-famous farmer father. I think that the majority of sources refer to the farmer as "John Adams Sr" (even if they don't use "Jr" for the Presidential son). It is also true that the preponderance of sources refer to the President as "John Adams" without any additional modifications (either Jr or II) after his name, see whitehouse.gov, Biography.Com, University of Virginia's Miller Center and so on.
Snuggums, I am not sure what you want in this case, so far the consensus seems to be for the name in the lede to remain as John Adams with possibly some Name-only re-directs that would then point to this article. I would suggest you open an RfC to gain a consensus from a broader range of your fellow editors if you wish as I feel at this point the discussion isn't progressing. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm..... there actually doesn't seem to be a clear consensus for either inclusion or omission at the moment. The only person I've really seen oppose its use is Alan. RFC isn't a good idea since that'll just make things bigger than they need to be. What I cannot fathom is any good reason why someone's full name wouldn't be deemed worth including. I'm fine with having a redirect and created one myself. Thank you in any case for at least acknowledging that the President has been credibly referred to with a suffix, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I fundamentally don't agree that it is his full name, and I have stated above why that is so. John Adams did not use it (which is what I was referring to when I earlier said it appears a made-up appendage as to him - I was not suggesting that you made it up) and from a review of all the sources, it appears solely to be a historically later convention adopted after his death by some minority to in short-form, as Sheronick put it, "distinguish President John Adams from his less-famous farmer father", some even using the form "John Adams (Jr.)" with Jr in parenthesis (and even for the minority, it generally appears to be used only once, at his birth). Most others, including his grandson biographer, have entirely different ways of distinguishing, including, "Deacon" or "the elder". I think it is misleading to suggest that it was his actual name (legal, or full) but sure it's an alternative, so, if those need to be mentioned at all, which I don't think they (John Adams Jr.; John Adams (Jr.)) do, they could be mentioned as lesser-alternatives in the birth section. But I remain opposed to it in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2016


BeatItFan5 (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No change requested, so no change made. —C.Fred (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Link style

Per MOS:LINK, links should not be placed next to each other in such a way that they appear to be a single link, and the more specific link should be chosen - thus, [[List of Presidents of the United States|2nd President of the United States]] is more appropriate than [[List of Presidents of the United States|2nd]] [[President of the United States]]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Alma mater

The article says his Alma Marta was Harvard University. It was Harvard College. Harvard did not become a university until around 1900.

Leland M. Cole, Harvard 57 e-mail lcole@ceiworld.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:101:368B:A0B0:AD5B:BC20:874 (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Diplomat and statesman

Someone aiming for brevity thought "statesman" and "diplomat" were synonyms. They aren't. Unfortunately, I accidentally hit "Enter" before completing my edit summary. I think it's important to note in the lead he was a lawyer, diplomat, and statesman.
Also, I took the liberty of removing a trivial greeting (spam) from this talk page just now. YoPienso (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"statesman" for a career politician like Adams? Why do we keep using this annoying term? Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Better question would be why do sources use it [5] -- at least here, he did actually create one state (constitution) and was a major figure in creating another (the United States), etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

Since the portrait of Adams by John Trumbull appears twice in this article, I request this portrait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800#/media/File:US_Navy_031029-N-6236G-001_A_painting_of_President_John_Adams_(1735-1826),_2nd_president_of_the_United_States,_by_Asher_B._Durand_(1767-1845)-crop.jpg be substituted in place one of the Trumbull portraits. 147.126.10.21 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: The main refbox portrait is the official portrait, the one further down shows it as a Trumball painting, far more popular and noteworthy for inclusion than the one you requested. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 20:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

my nami is cokami and i wish to change this aritcle for the better so that everyone knows that he was the baby setter of thew main goodings beer in teh manyy world please anfd gracieass--Lsjfsjafl (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Lsjfsjafl (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC).

Last Words

The article does say that his last words "included" something like "Thomas Jefferson survives," and thus it is not saying they were his very last words. Point I'm trying to make is that McCullough and other biographers state that his actual final words (to a grandson or granddaughter, iirc) were something like "Help me, child, help me." Should they be mentioned in that section? Sir Rhosis (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2017

Note: The US genealogy lineage for US president John Adams is his great grandmother Ruth ALDEN BASS, daughter of John ALDEN/Priscilla MULLINS?MULLENS. Lifesscribe1 (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Nihlus (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Sections disappearing

Can somebody check out my last edits and see what's been happening to the article? I try to add content but somehow it just gets rid of other stuff. There's no record of it in the edit history, and when I click the [edit] button everything seems fine. It's very strange. Display name 99 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

scholarly book sources

http://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/objects/1493 http://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/objects/1187 http://cityreaders.nysoclib.org/Detail/objects/10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgtn44 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Records

Srich32977, I take issue with your recent revert and your explanation for it. Per the policy you invoked in your edit summary, calculations may be included in part if they are "a meaningful reflection of the sources." Well there are no sources, so that part's out. I also object to your argument that this counts as "noteworthy info." Really? Are a significant amount of being reading this article going to give the slightest darn in the world about January 10, 2000, January 8, 1853, or so on? I think not. Also, I like how the author decided to add that not only did Adams get various records, but that he won them all by surpassing George Washington. Well, before Adams, Washington was the only president to ever serve, so therefore he must have passed him in order to get the records! Wow, that is some deep stuff right there. Who knew? Plus, the entire paragraph is one gigantic run-on sentence. In short, the person who added this does not know how to write. The individual suffers from a strange addiction to obscure and precise dates that nobody cares about, compounded by an unexplained revulsion towards periods. If that weren't enough, the author could not be bothered to cite a single source. It also doesn't help that Adams does not hold a single one of these records anymore.

I could possibly find a source for the part about him having the longest lifespan until Reagan, first because it seems to be the most important out of all the things in the list and second because it lasted longer than many of the others. I could include that information somewhere else. However, the rest of it is poorly constructed and, in my firm opinion, should go. I don't intend to appear disrespectful. I just think that this whole paragraph is so terribly put together that it shouldn't be in the article, and am doing my best to convey that point. Display name 99 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is if you want sources i can add them if you want it written better that can be done too the interesting fact is that he held those records for so long, over 100 years for each of them and that hes the only one to hold all those records, even now bush senior only holds 3 of those records as he isn't the longest lived vice president yet. in cases like this take it to the talk page before deleting it as per WP:DONTREVERT. עם ישראל חי 16:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Add some reliable sources, properly formatted, and overhaul the writing style. Remove any mention of him surpassing George Washington. Saying that he held a record from his inauguration is also unnecessary because there was no vice president before him. Fix these problems, and I will have no further objections to the material's inclusion. I don't think that the fact that he used to hold the record for longest-married vice president until another guy broke it over 60 years ago is important enough to mention, but I'm willing to compromise on it so long as you can come up with a good citation. Display name 99 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Moved here:

"===Records=== John Adams held the record for longest-lived president for 198 years, 51 days from when he surpassed George Washington's lifespan on August 22, 1803 until Ronald Reagan surpassed his lifespan on October 12, 2001. He held the record for longest-lived vice president for 125 years, 273 days from his inauguration on April 21, 1789 until Levi Morton surpassed his lifespan on January 19, 1915. He held the record for longest-married president for 194 years, 99 days from when he surpassed George Washington's length of marriage on October 3, 1805 until George H.W. Bush surpassed his length of marriage on January 10, 2000. And he held the record for longest-married vice president for 163 years, 262 days from his inauguration on April 21, 1789 until Charles G. Dawes surpassed his length of marriage on January 8, 1953."

We need sources to see, if this is useful, at all. It's not interestingly written, it's given no meaning, and it's presented as trivia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Grammar error in the section "The Election of 1800"

The first sentence of the section "The Election of 1800" contains a rather apparent grammatical mistake. Currently, it reads "With the Federalist Party was deeply split over his negotiations with France, and the opposition Democratic–Republicans enraged over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the expansion of the military, Adams faced a daunting reelection campaign in 1800." The word "was" should be removed so the sentence reads "With the Federalist Party deeply split over his negotiations with France, and the opposition Democratic–Republicans enraged over the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the expansion of the military, Adams faced a daunting reelection campaign in 1800."

--ZackBPro (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry Section moved per GA review

The section below has been moved per GA review: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppyh (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My Grandfather

Did you know John Adams is my great great grandfather. In fact my grandmother researched this on https://www.ancestry.com/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Adams&action=edit&section=new#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Adams&action=edit&section=new#https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Adams&action=edit&section=new# — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.29.85.43 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

Rileyrussell72 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Place of birth

We need to use the name of the town, city, province, country etc. when the person was born. The present-day name is irrelevant. Julius Caesar was born in Rome, not Italy etc. See WP:HISTORICALNAME. GiantSnowman 13:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I see this was reverted, and that seems fine. An easter-egg link seems too confusing. (At any rate, here, it's more as if Julius was born in the Suburra, in a part of the Suburra, that later in his life became known as Forum Septemrional, while the Suburra didn't move and still exists but if you went to find his house you would go near but not the Suburra today. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
We should explain that in the prose, not the infobox. GiantSnowman 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with you for the reasons given here and in the recent edit summaries. Let's keep Quincy in parentheses in the infobox. YoPienso (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, sorry but I didn't see your post here until you left a message on my talk page. The problem with the example is that nobody would actually think that Caesar was born in Italy because everybody knows that there was no such thing as the country of Italy back then. But not everybody knows that part of what was once Braintree is now Quincy. There is still a place called Braintree and to list that as Adams's birthplace would naturally lead the uninformed reader to believe that this was where Adams was born, which is simply not true. Also, I'm not sure you clicked on the link in the Caesar article. It takes you to "Rome," the city, a place which existed then and still exists now. There can be no ambiguity on that matter. Not an effective example. Display name 99 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and, again, that kind of explanation should be present in the prose, not the infobox. GiantSnowman 07:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
But anyone who looked at the infobox before looking at the prose (as most probably do) would be likely to come away rather confused and perhaps even with the wrong impression. That's never good. Display name 99 (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Again, I agree with Display name 99 and disagree with GiantSnowman. I have just boldly made a compromise edit in the infobox. How do you like it? YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Display name 99 - I disagree. I was more confused by seeing that in the infobox!
Yopienso - not ideal for me but certainly better than it was. GiantSnowman 18:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Jefferson in the lead

I wasn't aware there was an effort to keep Jefferson out of the lead. Regarding this edit, should we remove both Abigail and TJ? It seems to me we have to include both or neither, since those were the two most famous, and I think equally famous, of Adams' correspondents. What's the reason to keep TJ out of the Adams lead and vice versa? Their friendship in their old age is legendary. Also, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, where there's a whole subsection on their correspondence. YoPienso (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Huh? You inserted Jefferson correspondence to the very first paragraph, and that was left, where you put it, but there is certainly no need to have the correspondence twice in the lead. There is also no need for Jefferson five times in this lead, twice is fine (we should also get rid of the death day trivia from the lead). Adams is only once in the lead of the Jefferson article. As for Abigail, it's hard to imagine a person more integral to John Adams' life.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry--I missed it in the last paragraph of the lead. I'd be happy to restore that sentence (He eventually resumed his friendship with Jefferson upon the latter's own retirement by initiating a correspondence which lasted 14 years.) and remove my addition to the first paragraph. YoPienso (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
That would be fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done That last paragraph isn't real smooth. I tried improving it but am not satisfied. If you don't want TJ mentioned often in the lead--though I still don't understand why not--you could leave out his death. It almost sounds like Tom and Martha established the Adams family. Could we say John and Abigail? YoPienso (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Editwar?

Displayname99 apparently has a problem with well-established history. Whatever his hero Ferling says, Adams had waged a lengthy campaign to convince the Dutch government to recognize the US as an independent state and to accept himself as its ambassador. That he was ill during part of this time is immaterial. I protest against the removal of the previously existing text and to the removal of my edit to restore this, with an additional reference. Apparently, the fact that this page is semi-protected is to no avail. What does the "guardian" do to remedy this outrage?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Ferling my "hero" is entirely derogatory and inappropriate. According to you, if you reference what a reliable source says, that makes the author your "hero." That's entirely untrue. It is simply following basic Wikipedia guidelines about verifying content. You should know better. Ferling a reputable scholar and the author of one of the most notable biographies on Adams. I shouldn't have to explain this, but we must go by what is in the most reputable and well-established sources. Ferling's 1992 biography is among the best out there. About the only way that this should be reconsidered is if you can find something in Smith 1962 or McCullough 2001 (since these are the other two most authoritative biographies) which contradicts Ferling's claim. Adams did wage a lengthy campaign, but it was unsuccessful. The Dutch refused to even meet him for more than 6 months after his arrival. After that, he was so for a time so debilitated that he could not even write a letter. I'm not sure what you mean by use of the word "guardian." Display name 99 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
OK. I consulted by copy of McCullough 2001 (the only Adams biography that I have thus far read cover to cover), and it appears that during the winter, Adams did appeal to both the Dutch Government and the people to have the U.S. recognized. I will change the article accordingly. A better strategy would have been for you to point this out to me originally instead of going on a rant. Display name 99 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
For someone who admittedly has read only one Adams biography biography cover to cover, I think you are a bit high-handed in making all these edits (the one I objected to is just one of many). In any case, you apparently don't know the first thing about Dutch history. I admit I haven't read Ferling, but I do know a bit about Dutch history and I know that Adams took an active part in the campaign of the Patriots against the regime of the stadtholder (not a friend of the American "rebels", to put it mildly), of which the struggle for American recognition was a not-insignificant part. There is a report by Adams to the then Foreign Secretary Robert Livingstone of 4 September 1782 in which he mentions most of his Dutch contacts and the contributions they made to the "good cause". But you should know that, as an "Adams expert". In any case, the paragraph you deleted (plus the reference I added to it from the book by Simon Schama) adequately gave the necessary information. No need "to change the article accordingly" as you put it; just restore the passage. And please hurry, because two days have elapsed already since you made your promise. I leave it to others to scrutinize the other edits you have made. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other objections in view of your apparently shaky grasp of the material.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

too long??

In my view the two main reasons Adams deserves a long article are his work for independence and his establishing moderate conservative policies (in opposition to Hamilton to the right & Jefferson to the left)--esp peace with France. I suggest: Cut the diplomacy instead--or spin that off into a new article on the "Diplomacy of John Adams". Also sharply cut the VP section by 2/3 Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the diplomacy section as well. The Conceptions of Constitutional Government section is essential, but I'm confused by this Adams was thought to have overlooked this evolution and revealed his continued attachment to the older version of politics. because the preceding paragraph also says Adams's Defence is described as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. - using the word republican here makes it even more confusing - I studied this in school and I would still be hard pressed to explain how it is related to federalism - I think what it is driving at may be something along these lines [6] Seraphim System (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Display name 99: your message to me in your edit summary to "go way" is bizarre, given I am a top ten editor of this article [7], and you can only be displaying WP:OWNERSHIP in your message, so I won't be going away. At any rate, OK as to removal of Fries there, yes I knew it had another section but the source I used discussed it in relation to the 'Alien and Sedition Act'.[8] As to the Lyon material, your restoring that trim still does not make sense, as it is one detail of one prosecution which Adams did not prosecute, which the reader can find all about elsewhere in the Act link. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
The sources I've encountered state that Fries's Rebellion was provoked not by the A&S Acts but by the heavy taxes enacted to fund the military buildup. The Lyon example gives more context to the energization and unification of the Republican Party over the acts. Lyon was seen as a martyr and this helped Jefferson win. It's only 96 characters-not very long. As for the bit about ownership, I was a bit irritated by your unprovoked attack on me here which began the argument on the FA review page. Of course, I can't force you off the article nor will I try any further, but it does seem odd that you would choose to stick around after instigating an ad hominem dispute with the FA nominator before giving up on the review. Display name 99 (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I did not attack you, I disagreed with what you said about the Enlightenment and your blanket statement about biographies you have not read to be less than credible. I am sorry, you felt attacked, and I'll take it that I could have said it a better way. Back to to Lyons, as I already conceded on Fries, Lyons still is tangential detail as to Adams. Yes the DemRep were furious for a whole host of reasons, but we already say that explicitly and why (including multiple prosecutions), and don't need to go into it more about it, and not as to one prosecution) The Republican papers were "martyrized", too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I accept your apology and acknowledge that my statement about you not having read any biographies either was a bit too presumptuous. I decided to shorten the discussion on Lyon by copyediting. Yes, Republican papers were martyrized. See the discussion on James Callender in the section on the 1800 election. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Great, although I still think the Lyons sentence should be dropped. I edit conflicted explaining about reviews: As to the review, I don't do a review of articles I edit significantly, it seems a conflict of interest. I do comment in response to reviews of articles I edit significantly, as I have there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

Please change the spelling relating to "de;ayed" in the following sentence... "Although his term was scheduled to start on March 4, 1789, it was de;ayed since Congress did not achieve a quorum until April 6."

to "delayed" as demonstrated in the sentence below. "Although his term was scheduled to start on March 4, 1789, it was delayed since Congress did not achieve a quorum until April 6." Joehill4331 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for catching that. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

Recommend changing "constitutional" to "unconstitutional" in the following sentence: "Jefferson, writing for Kentucky, wrote that states had the "natural right" to nullify any acts they deemed constitutional." to "Jefferson, writing for Kentucky, wrote that states had the "natural right" to nullify any acts they deemed unconstitutional." Joehill4331 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Update

Dear Wehwalt, A. Parrot, Brianboulton, Seraphim System, Rjensen, and Alanscottwalker, you have been pinged because you all are significant contributors to this article or reviewed it during its unsuccessful nomination. I am still frustrated by what I consider to be the premature closing of this review after only 5 days, but have taken the advice of Laser Brain, who said that I should contact the reviewers, improve the article with their assistance, and renominate it, perhaps as soon as a few weeks or a couple months from now.

I have taken the advice of Rjensen and Seraphin System by creating a separate article entitled "Diplomatic service of John Adams." Eventually, I plan to add more content to the separate article and bring it to GA or maybe even FA status. But that's obviously a separate issue. I have shortened the diplomacy section. Since I first nominated this for FA review, the length of the article has decreased by about 5%. I think that length was most people's primary concern, and we have clearly made major progress. I'm happy to hear from you about what else can be done to help improve this article so that it can pass fairly easily next time. The impression that got from talk page conversations is that from now on if an article isn't pretty near perfect upon nomination, it stands a good chance of getting rejected. I'm willing to take it to peer review but would prefer to hear from those already familiar with it. Maybe once we take care of any remaining major issues, we can treat this almost like an FA review so that it'll be ready for when it gets renominated. I would appreciate any assistance that any of you might choose to offer. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Separate issue but just to make sure, in creating the new article did you "move/copy" text and follow WP:CWW? If not, could you correct it. Thanks. Also, we may wish to create a notes section for some asides in this article, see Ulysses S. Grant#Notes, to improve flow, and decrease readable prose size. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't followed those guidelines. I just took care of it. Thank you for notifying me. I'll look into the possibility of creating a Notes section, although it's not anything I've done on any of my previous 3 FACs. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2018

In Section "Presidential election of 1796" the table incorrectly lists Oliver Ellsworth as a "Democratic-Republican" candidate. This is incorrect. Ellsworth ran as a "Federalist." Please see the main article on the election of 1796 for confirmation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796

Change "Democratic-Republican" to "Federalist" in the table. Treyjan (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

John Adams famously once said "Every problem is an opportunity in disguise." This line was famously referenced in the movie Oceans 11. Patrickburke1422 (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC) https://quotefancy.com/quote/1060415/John-Adams-Every-problem-is-an-opportunity-in-disguisehttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240772/

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 04:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

External links

Jay D. Easy, I saw the cleanup banner you added to the External links section. I am planning on renominating this article for FAC, so obviously this is something I want to take care of. This isn't an issue I'm especially familiar with and I'm wondering if you can help me understand what the problem is and how to fix it. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99, It basically boils down to the fact that there are (in my opinion) too many external links. I think it might be beneficial to trim theese. See WP:LINKFARM, WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL especially for a detailed explanation. Take care. Jay D'Easy (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

edit - duplicate information included presently

The following is under Diplomatic Service and is duplicate information, almost identical in wording. It should be edited for clarity and to reduce redundancy:Rhole2001 (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"By late 1777, America's finances were in tatters, and that September a British army had defeated General Washington and captured Philadelphia. More Americans came to determine that mere commercial ties between the U.S. and France would not be enough, and that military assistance would be needed in order to defeat Britain and end to the war. The defeat of the British at Saratoga was expected to help induce France to agree to an alliance.[83]

By late 1777, America's financial and military situations were dire. After a British army defeated General Washington and captured Philadelphia that September, it became more widely held that French military assistance would be needed to win the war. The defeat of the British at Saratoga was expected to help induce France to agree to an alliance.[83]"

Thanking

Thanks for you thanking me ;-). Yo know, reverting such an edit might be considered trivial and undesired! There you are. Have a nice edit :-) -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

Abraham liconln is theb est president that has evr been created — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.149.2 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Radioactive Pixie Dust (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2018

Please change Although his term was scheduled to start on March 4, 1789, Adams did not become President of the United States, until April 21, to Although his term was scheduled to start on March 4, 1789, Adams did not become Vice President of the United States, until April 21, because the word ‘Vice’ was apparently left out in this section of the entry. Janette07 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Re "Tugdual de Langlais..."

An editor who apparently only communicates in French has been editing this article over the past several days (see editing history), adding a French source but providing no context. They've also been adding this source to other articles, and their edit summaries are completely in French. I've posted on their user talk with hopes of opening a dialogue about their possibly problematic editing. Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

John Adams was just as concerned that government would plunder the rich to "help" the poor as he was that government would become controlled by a wealthy Oligarchy.

Any fair reading of the works of John Adams shows that he was just concerned that government would plunder the rich to "help" the poor as he was that government would become controlled by a wealthy Oligarchy. The article, in its section on the political and philosophical opinions of John Adams, stresses the latter danger - but totally ignores the former danger. John Adams was well aware of the works of such Classical writers as Aristotle and Cicero - the danger of Populist appeals to buy the votes of the poor at the expense of the rich were was well known to him. The article is does not even mention this - it is written as if John Adams was unaware of the dangers of such tactics as welfare schemes to try and buy votes, and Populist appeals for the "forgiveness" (default) of debts.2A02:C7D:B48D:1200:AD30:99B7:719:934F (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Source subsections

Although there's no hard rule, I try not to include Source/Further reading subsections unless the list is so long the headings don't fit on the same screen as the parent section heading. In this case they all appear, so the subsections don't have a purpose. The user who reverted only said they preferred the formatted headings because it made it easier to edit, but what really matters is making the page reader-friendly. This article already has a long table of contents and unnecessary items don't need to be included. Per MOS:BADHEAD, there's nothing wrong with using the psuedo-heading in the right context, and this is it. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree with this. I already have to scroll the window down to see the table of contents and most readers have no need for subsections of sources. Most articles have a references section and perhaps a bibliography such as Benjamin Franklin, Michael Jordan, Roger Federer, or Andrew Carnegie. Obviously this isn't covered by Wikipedia policy one way or the other, this is simply a preference and done case by case. I just don't see any real help to our readers to have hard table of content sections when something else will do nicely without additional toc clutter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
{{TOC limit|3}} would remove those from the TOC while leaving them editable subsections. That seems a good compromise until such time as the article has level-4 headings that should be in the TOC. (For anyone unfamiliar with usage of the template, its location determines the location of the TOC, so it would need to be inserted just before the first level-2 section heading, "Early life and education".) ―Mandruss ☎ 10:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm surprised I didn't think of that. Thanks! UpdateNerd (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Description of the Stamp Act.

1st time at doing this so hopefully not making any errors.

I notice on reading the article there seems to be an inaccurate factor in the section on the stamp tax. It says that the intent of the tax was to raise revenue for paying off Britain's debts from its recent war with France. Checking on the main Stamp Tax article it has what to the best of my knowledge the more accurate details that it was to raise a contribution toward the expense of a British garrison to prevent attacks by Indians or rebellion by the French in Quebec/Canada who had recently come under British rule.

Is it possible to get this changed please?

Thank you Stevep59 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Moderators,

I have noticed that the Picture of John Adams' House at Birth, is listed as being in Quincy. I believe he died in Quincy and was Born in Braintree. Perhaps the house could be re-identified and correctly labeled.

Kind regards,

Kevin Tubb (07/01/2020)

Years and accurate names of paintings in captions

Had added years of paintings in captions, and the real name in at least one. These were removed as unneeded. Artists, the names of an artwork, and the year it was painted, are standard in captions throughout Wikipedia. They add information and respect the artists who created them. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Grammar

Wikiuser100, I find it entirely untrue to say that the orginal version in the article was "grammatically opaque," and ridiculous to say that your version is any better. It is entirely obvious that the "him" means Adams, not Hamilton, for we have already established that Adams, not Hamilton, was the candidate. And if somehow it was not clear already, which it was, it is made clear that we are referring to Adams at the end of the sentence: "to be absolutely sure that Adams did not win."

Not only that, but in applying the same faulty logic that you used, I could say that your version is "grammatically opaque." When you say "had under pretext of not embarrassing Washington convinced many electors to not cast votes in his name," how do we know that his refers to Adams and not Hamilton? Did you not see the irony when you wrote this? "Washington votes" is grammatically incorrect; they are votes for Washington, not Washington votes. Finally, you're missing a comma after "embarrassing Washington" and would need to us the word "that" before Adams.

In conclusion, your own version is grammatically incorrect in more ways than one and fails the same faulty standards that you used to condemn the previous version. The original isn't "grammatically opaque," but if it is, so is your version. Not only that, but the original is more concise, whereas yours uses more text to make a point that was just as clear already.

The version currently in the article is longstanding text. In fact, it passed a featured article review. Please seek consensus or input from other editors if you still wish to change it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, User:Display name 99, just because you brought this article to feature status doesn't mean you own it; and that is what you are trying to do here, own every word of it and ward off a qualified editor's concerns about opaqueness of grammar. Take a look at yourself, and don't start throwing abattis like no-one can change a word of an article without "consensus" because it was once featured. That is nonsense and you know it, and I'm not going to abide by such a bullying dictate from you.
The grammer is in fact opaque. I began writing and editing for publication seven decades ago, and didn't just roll off a watermelon truck when I made my first edit here, closing in on my 50,000th here at Wikipedia over a dozen years. And am nowhere approaching senility.
Please see the revised edit, capturing the improvement(s) of User:Billmckern while maintaining the emphasis on Washington ending up with an overwhelming victory. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikiuser100, your recent edit obscures the fact that Hamilton did not just want to ensure that Washington win an overwhelming victory, but that he feared Adams might accidentally become president if he received too many votes. Therefore, I restored this information while keeping one of your adjustments. Both factors are essential: 1) Washington, not Adams, must win. 2) His win must be overwhelming.
Throughout your above rant, you made a number of attacks against me but never once addressed my problems with your revision. I think that this means that you have no answer for them. As for consensus, if an editor wishes to revert longstanding text (and text that can be assumed to have had consensus based on the fact that it passed FA review), and encounters opposition from another editor, whether that editor brought the article to FA status or not, the burden is on them to seek consensus for the change. It is ironic that while you falsely accuse me of claiming ownership, you take offense at being challenged based on your time at Wikipedia and number of edits as well as your alleged real-world credentials, as if this gives you the right to make whatever changes you wish here. Such as in your criticism of the original version of the sentence in the article, you fail to see that your own behavior exactly mirrors that of which you accuse me. Display name 99 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, come on User:Display name 99, you'really going to keep this up?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go revert your unnecessary obsession with overstating the case in the passage at issue. By definition if Hamilton was convincing Adams voters to vote Washington to ensure an overwhelming victory for Washington the fear of Adams somehow turning the table is not present. Simply stating that it was done to "ensure an overwhelming victory for Washington" states the case. You are really going "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" on this.

As for your ad hominem attacks and aspersions, first your first is nonsense. I don't have to defend anything I moved on from, regardless that I think the whole thing and your criticisms are a piffle. Just as I explained in my edit summary, I built upon User:Billmckern's improvements, and simplified the passage - Ockham's razor, all that - to say what it needed to and no more. Second, your contention is by your own action piffle: you didn't force McKern to seek consensus. He was just a good-faith editor making a good faith edit and trying to shortcircuit this ongoing nonsense between you and I. Third, do not throw "alleged" around referring to me. You know you can hide here in virtual reality and not suffer any consequences, and can easily ju-jitsu them back on me using any number of Wikipedia civility templates. Well, so can I. I'm not, but do not asperse me by questioning a credential I volunteered. Be a man. Last, you resort to He said/She said. OK, we're both no better than eachother. We're both bums. Fine, have it your way. But I'm not the one living under the bridge trying to fend others away. I made a simple edit. Get over it. Improve it if you can. But don't keep obsessing on the thing here as if it is life and death that it stays as you had it sanctified. Good grief. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, in order not to continue going back and forth, I'm going to refrain from directly responding to most of what you wrote except for a few things. I never said that I forced Billmckern to do anything. I'm not sure where you got that from. You also completely changed the meaning behind his edit. The original problem with Billmckern's version was that in making Hamilton's actions seem predicated entirely around avoiding a victory by Adams; it unintentionally overlooked the fact that he believed that Washington needed to have an overwhelming victory. Your own edit completely reversed it-you removed any mention of his fears that Adams would win and instead made it seem as though that was a foregone conclusion, which in his mind it wasn't. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Credentials are irrelevant. It explains very well why we don't automatically take editors more seriously simply because they claim to have certain credentials.
If you're unwilling to listen, perhaps Billmckern will be more reasonable. The reason why I made this edit is because simply stating that Hamilton engaged in the behavior that he did in order to ensure an overwhelming victory for Washington understates what he felt was at stake. Per the source in the article, Chernow 2004 p. 272: "Nevertheless Hamilton feared whether by chance or design Adams might sneak past Washington in the voting. So he approached two electors in Connecticut, two in New Jersey, and three or four in Pennsylvania and asked them to deny their votes to Adams to ensure that Washington became president." This information is covered extensively in other sources, which include Hamilton's insistence that the victory would be overwhelming. See Smith 1962 pp. 740-741: "Hamilton, if he must accept Adams as Vice-President, was determined to whittle away his electoral vote so that the New Englander's apparent popularity and thus his political strength would be diminished." Also, regarding his fear that Adams would acccidentally win, Hamilton wrote "let not our zeal for a secondary object [Adams' election to the vice-presidency] defeat or endanger a first." McCullough 2001 p. 393 also confirms both: "In the event of a tie, the decision would go to the House of Representatives, a prospect so disturbing to Alexander Hamilton that he 'deemed [it] an essential point of caution' to see that John Adams did not wind up with such a strong showing so as to embarrass Washington." Wikiuser100's version of the article obscures this central fear of Hamilton by making it seem as though the only reason that Hamilton did what he did was to ensure that Washington's victory was enormous, overlooking the fact that in his mind, Washington's victory was not a foregone conclusion. It therefore needs to be changed back. Display name 99 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, there are a few issues with your edit. While the Chernow source does say that Adams wrote his letter after he found out about an intrigue, it does not say that he knew about Hamilton's part in it. Indeed, when Adams wrote that letter, shortly after the election, he knew nothing of Hamilton's involvement. His feelings were, per McCullough p. 394: "Adams was humiliated by the news, his pride deeply hurt, but of Hamilton's part, he knew nothing." I'm also confused by you describing what Hamilton did as an "additional effort;" no previous effort was mentioned. You're welcome to join in the discussion here, but first I'd appreciate it if you would undo your edit, although you may keep the part stating that he tried to convince 7 or 8 electors not to vote for Adams rather than "many." That part was a good alteration, but I'd appreciate it if you would remove the rest. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Gee. I "may keep"? Give me permission do you...
I have adjusted my editing. Do what you will with the present text, I have no further interest in editing this article and will take it off my watchlist. Shearonink (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Here we go again....
User:Display name 99, I did not say you forced User:Billmckern to do anything; I said the exact opposite: that you didn't force him to seek or be bound by consensus, just accepted his edit and built on it, as I also did. Which of course is the reasonable and correct thing to do, not start digging foxholes and lobbing grenades and hiding behind Wikipedia templates.
Next, the "credentials" thing. Oh, come off it. You're on Planet Earth, not just Planet Wikipedia in its own artificial universe. You make claims at your user page: I read them. I accept them. I make none at mine, about anything. Just look at my edit record and it will speak for itself. I am a highly skilled drive-by editor. I don't live under any bridges; I don't ever peremptorily revert anyone's edits. I just end up at a page, and if I see an improvement I feel I can make I make it. A capable, thoughtful, helpful, proactive editor will see that - checking my edit history, and using whatever roster of other tools Wikipedia provides that will reveal my edits are like 98% to content, not slathered all over Talk pages or Wikipedia administrator harangue ones, and that I have created scores of new articles - and either accept the edit or make their best effort to improve it. Not summarily revert it, as after enough time doing that they have to know they're just going to create a dysfunctional and combative situation over and over again.
So, my credentials are all over my edits and contribution history at this encyclopedia. Offering some real world grounding in them in hopes of diffusing an absolutely absurd time-sink like this has become is first no crime against humanity and second the common strategy for diffusing conflicts on Planet Earth, your Wikipedia template decrying it notwithstanding.
So, enough ad hominum. You have convinced me! Not of any resolution of our piffle as you propose; no, something much greater and richer and better than that. By citing all the content you do above (and thank you very much for the effort) you have demonstrated that the proper solution to this matter is integrating the best of it in the article. As it absolutely swings the focus around to Hamilton as being the one who had a beef with Adams, and the depth of that beef, and how Washington was merely going to be the beneficiary of it, as it was "prevent Adams" at all cost!
So, you're the keeper of this article. Face it, you are because you are, you have made it so. Then go ahead and by all means please expand that section to lay this out more clearly, so all the ambiguity that I protest and all the implications you insist on get dissolved with properly written and well-integrated content. As it is their absence which has set this whole wingding off and kept it going so exhaustively.
I am happy not to watch over your shoulder at all. Just please make your best effort and not only will our beef go away but it will become a better article, introducing what is missing without laboring it.
Good luck! And see you down the road. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

My above post was written before the one that ended up ahead of it on the page. I'm not sure how, and there's nothing I can do about it now.

I see User:Shearonink has jumped in here and basically done what I just encouraged above. You've got the baton now! Work with User:Display name 99, but don't let him bully you.

It's obvious that expansion of the passage(s) at issue is the resolution. As I indicated above, my beef with vagueness and Diplay's insistences on beating a dead horse both exist because of stuff that is missing that needs to be there. Good luck, the both of you integrating it. Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, please try to cut down on your rants in the future so that you're focusing on content and not contributors. I don't ever peremptorily revert anyone's edits and you have demonstrated that the proper solution to this matter is integrating the best of it in the article Then why did you revert me twice when I attempted to do just that, by modifying Billmckern's edit to restore the part about Hamilton wanting to stop Adams from becoming president instead of Washington? Your "beef" with me has nothing to do with content that is missing which you think needs to exist. The "beef" is over content that you removed, that being Hamilton's concern with Adams not becoming president. You are right that this disagreement is happening because there is important content that is absent, but it is only absent because you took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Dang. Another edit conflict. Here goes....
First, User:Display name 99, don't lecture me, and drop the "rants" thing or I'm going to lay a civility template on you. Jeeze, Louise.
Second, how can you still not get this? And not see what you are doing? My beef is completely clear: the passage at issue was too vague as written; my beef with you has evolved all on its own in a completely unnecessary but persistent back and forth now probably a couple of thousand words long, with mudslinging on both sides.
As soon as a contributor - User:Shearonink - steps in to do exactly as I suggested before my post suggesting it ever appeared, you seek to thwack them down and insist they "withdraw" their edit. Criminy sakes!
As I said, you two work it out - but try, just try, it will be good for you - to not be the troll under the bridge here and actually let other editors improve this page, even if it is in fits and stops. Cooperate with them. Don't reflexively object, and bully, and natter. The essential content is missing. There never would have been an escalated conflict had it been there (and the original grammar been clearer).
Good luck the both of you. I am outta here! Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, User:Display name 99, you ran off before I could even post a response to your last broadside.

Man, you really need to take a long look in the mirror. And give this page a rest and let others edit it unfettered. It's not yours. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, Good riddance. But before you go, I'll point out that I did not "thwack [Shearonink] down and insist that they 'withdraw' their edit." I politely requested that they remove a part of their edit which was historically inaccurate and expressed approval of a separate change that they had made. And again, there is content missing, that being Hamilton's fear about Adams winning the election, but that's only missing because you took it out. And finally, please indent your edits on talk pages and please don't ping me multiple times in the same post. Display name 99 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
"politely requested"...Stating in response to my edit
You're welcome to join in the discussion here,
Um, yeah...anyone can join in any article talk page discussion, no one needs permission to post their thoughts about how to improve an article.
but first I'd appreciate it if you would undo your edit, although you may keep the part
"you may keep"... struck me as peremptory. If another editor stated to you, in response to an edit, "you may [as in "I am allowing you to keep part of your edit] how would you have responded? Perhaps this was not your intent but I understood it as if you were conferring some kind of honor, in that you were allowing that one phrase to remain.
stating that he tried to convince 7 or 8 electors not to vote for Adams rather than "many."
actually according to the cited source, he didn't try, he did persuade those 7 or 8 men to vote a certain way on the VP balloting.
Lol stepped into an apparent hornet's nest I have. Well, I made my edit, delete it/modify it/change it completely according to your predilections. I thought my edit made sense, and yes, actually the text I added did not state that Adams knew about Hamilton's involvement at all when he wrote to Rush, the changed text was "After finding out about the voting manipulation" So, Adams found out that something had happened, he just didn't know yet that Hamilton was behind it and that phrase was not historically inaccurate, it stated the bare facts. Your opinion differed and that's the great thing about Wikipedia...it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Enjoy yourself and cheers, Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, my intention in stating "you may" was to demonstrate that I had no issue with you keeping that part of the edit while asking you to undo the rest. I do not think that I would be offended if another editor said that to me, and I made a conscious effort to be polite to you in my comment. Furthermore, stating that you were welcome to join in the discussion was not an indication that you needed my permission. Rather, it was an invitation to share your thoughts on improving the article, and I think that most fair-minded people would see that. In stating in the text that Adams wrote the letter after he found out about the voter manipulation, I felt that the implication was that he found out about all of the relevant information that took place in the manipulation, including Hamilton's role in it. This feeling was influenced by seeing your edit summary which stated as much, and may have been what led to me calling the change historically inaccurate even though your edit itself did not state as much as your edit summary did. In conclusion, your edit summary was inaccurate, and your edit itself, though not entirely inaccurate, was still in my view misleading or at the very best unclear. That is why I felt it needed clarification, and as you can see, I have altered it. Display name 99 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Man, User:Display name 99, you are determined not to get anything at all. Wow.
No, nothing I took out is the culprit. It's all the stuff you introduced above, and User:Shearonink sought to integrate before I even suggested it - and that still needs to be in there, if you can ever find someone to collaborate on introducing it. And you absolutely "thwacked" him, as he left in an understandable huff and a clear "blank-you" that he was taking the page off his watch list.
And no, God forbid, I did not ping you twice in one post. They were separate posts, as indicated, following an edit conflict posting them.
"Good riddance"? What are you, in 6th grade? You think you've "won". No, you've just driven off another capable editor and valuable Wikipedia contributor. Does that make you feel good? Sleep better at night. For God's sake, get out from under that bridge and give the rest of us a break. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture Miss-labled

Dear Moderators,

I have noticed that the Picture of John Adams' House at Birth, is listed as being in Quincy. I believe he died in Quincy and was Born in Braintree. Perhaps the house could be re-identified and correctly labeled.

Kind regards,

Kevin Tubb (07/01/2020) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.88.195.234 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Adams was born in Braintree, however, that part of Braintree was later split off and is now Quincy. Calidum 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Did John Adams Really get elected under the "Federalist Party Banner"

Clarification is needed on Federalist and The Federalist Party. All Over Wikipedia it seems that these are co-mingled. The biographer Joel Richard Paul (who wrote John Marshal biography) was interviewed on CSPAN and he purports that there wasn't a Federalist Party until the election of 1800. Where Jefferson won bc the Federalist Party was divided.

I included a link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?452890-1/qa-joel-richard-paul (13:30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethanyaloha (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

There were two loosely organized political factions from around the time of the signing of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists opposed the Constitution's ratification, and the Federalists supported it. During Washington's first term, these factions reappared as the pro-administraation and anti-administration parties. The signing of the Jay Treaty in 1795 solidified partisan divisions, and most historians agree that by that point there were two political parties: the Federalists and the Republicans. The Wikipedia article on the Federalist Party states that by the early 1790s, newspaper editors had begun referring to Hamilton supporters as "Federalists." This information is cited to a reliable source. Display name 99 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I really wish the article would specific which type of Unitarian he was?

Since there tend to be three Unitarian Christology, Arianism, Socinionism and "Strict Unitarianism". The differences between them are pretty significant. Also did he support Universal Salvation like eventually most Unitarians would?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

21 April 1789

The article incorrectly stated that Adams's term of office as VP began on 21 April. That is clearly incorrect (and it doesn't say that in the source cited, which is only about inaugurations, not about terms of office). 21 April is the date he was sworn in, but the law said his term started on 4 March 1789, and that shouldn't be contentious because nobody disputes that his four-year terms of office ended on 4 March 1793 and 4 March 1797. The article also incorrectly stated that the delay was because Congress hadn't reached a quorum, but that's not the reason, because Congress reached a quorum on 6 April, and because vice presidents don't have to be sworn in by Congress. Adams and Washington were sworn in late because they arrived at the capital late. Richard75 (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I've replaced the source. The previous source was inadequate. Adams was not actually sworn in. He simply arrived in New York and began presiding over the Senate on April 21. That is the date when he began to act as vice president, and hence that is the date that we use. Display name 99 (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021 (2)

please I need to edit it is my job H4llojollasa (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Please please pleeeaaassseee it is the only thing keeping my sanity

@H4llojollasa: You can edit this and other semiprotected articles when your account becomes autoconfirmed. You also need to comply with the required disclosure at WP:PAID RudolfRed (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2021

Please remove the template "Washington cabinet", as the vice presidency wasn't yet a cabinet position. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 04:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor updates needed in initial section

Text should say, "...contributions to [the word 'the' should be removed] America's political and intellectual life..." Further down there is an extraneous space that should be removed. Text should say, "Of the first 12 U.S. presidents, Adams and his son..." Stpaulauthor3173 (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the section "Last years and death"

"His last words included an acknowledgement of his longtime friend and rival: "Thomas Jefferson survives." Adams was unaware that Jefferson had died several hours before."
As I understand, most credible sources state that this claim is an urban legend, or an exaggeration at best - the most credible things I've read state that, at best, Adams may have muttered something about Jefferson on his deathbed, but he never made any statement about Jefferson surviving him. 134340Goat (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

he was from 1799-1801 he’s son was from 1843-1848 they died adams sr died in 1826 adams he died in 1848 in John Quincy Adams Jefferson died on the Same year July four 1826 dead them 47.138.36.205 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Add Jr. beside John Adam's name at the beginning of the page, because his father was John Adams Sr. 74.12.17.127 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is unlikely to be an uncontroversial edit, and therefore should be discussed on the talk page before using the edit request template. PianoDan (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that current consensus is not to include Jr. unless the father is notable or it is part of WP:Common name. Neither is the case here, so we should not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured article lead style

Pinging User:Wehwalt.

Shouldn't it be "John Adams was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801" rather than "John Adams was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father who was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801"? Just a thought considering that aritcles such as Stanley Bruce and Gough Whitlam and John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker start with the first option. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have not involved myself with this article, I decline to express an opinion. There are, of course, always multiple ways to open an article. MOS:LEAD does not require any particular phraseology. I'm not quite sure why this discussion is being begun but see this edit and this one and this one and this one and, more generally, this history in which Ak-eater06 repeatedly reverts to get their way on this issue in the exact opposite direction that they now appear to be advocating. I AGF of course, but the cynic in me says either they have had a remarkable change of opinion or they are hoping for something by coming here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Ak-eater06, I am confused about a number of things here. Firstly, if you chose to ping an editor in your original post, I'm not sure why you would choose someone who admittedly is not involved in the article. As examples to support your position, it is extremely odd and quite unhelpful to choose articles about Australian and Canadian prime ministers when the subject is a United States president who lived in a completely different time period. Finally, in the Bruce article, you yourself made the change in order to make it look that way. [9] In my opinion, it is not entirely honest of you to change articles to suite your preferred style and then bring them up in a separate discussion as examples of some pre-existing consensus. Also, Wehwalt linking to edits in which you apparently advocated the opposite position simply makes the whole matter even stranger. Basically, what are you trying to do here? Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Add Jr. beside John Adam's name at the beginning of the page, because his father was John Adams Sr. 74.12.17.127 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is unlikely to be an uncontroversial edit, and therefore should be discussed on the talk page before using the edit request template. PianoDan (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that current consensus is not to include Jr. unless the father is notable or it is part of WP:Common name. Neither is the case here, so we should not do it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Adams/Archive_4&oldid=1079704000"