Talk:John Adams

"John Atoms" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect John Atoms has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § John Atoms until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Envoy to France

In the section Diplomatic service, in the subsection Commissioner to France, we say that Adams was the first Minister Plenipotentiary, appointed September 1778, but he quit and left for the United States on March 8, 1779. We cite the biography by McCullough. List of ambassadors of the United States to France, on the other hand, doesn't mention Adams, and says that Franklin was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary in September 1778. Benjamin Franklin#Ambassador to France (1776–1785) says that Franklin was appointed Commissioner in 1776, and "remained in France until 1785", including "securing a critical military alliance in 1778" while the infobox for Benjamin Franklin gives his starting date as United States Minister to France as March 23, 1779. Meanwhile in the infobox of John Adams, his starting date as United States Envoy to France is given as November 28, 1777. A couple of primary sources are cited. United States Envoy to France and United States Minister to France are both redirects to List of ambassadors of the United States to France. The primary sources state that Adams's title was to be "commissioner".

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of McCullough handy. Anyone who does is welcome to clarify this.

All three articles should be internally consistent, and consistent with each other. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The above is (almost) wholly erroneous, based on an incorrect reading of John Adams. (The article says that Franklin, not Adams, was named Minister Plenipotentiary in 1778.) I apologize for the distraction.

I note, however, that the infobox entry for United States Envoy to France in this article (John Adams) is wrong. Although Adams was sent to France twice, he was never the ambassador or the Minister Plenipotentiary, as noted in List of ambassadors of the United States to France. The two primary sources that we are citing in the infobox support the claim that Adams was sent to France as a Commissioner in 1778, but in that position, he was subordinate to Franklin. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Short description is too long

The short description is too long. To check this, type "John A" in the Wikipedia search box. A list of articles whose names begin with those six letters will appear. Each article name will be followed by the article's short description. If the short description has to be truncated, it's too long. Right now, as I do that check on my computer, the short description for John Adams is truncated after the first digit of "1797". I will revert to restore the version that did not include "Founding Father". Bruce leverett (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Have changed it to: Founding Father, 2nd U.S. president (1797 to 1801). That adds back the critical Founding Father descriptor (Adams was much more than a president, he and a few others pretty much founded the nation). How does that fit in the count? You may want to do the count as Thomas Jefferson's short summary and edit it to similar wording if it's too long. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine. Will do the same for Jefferson if somebody hasn't gotten to it already. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

@Display name 99: I will assume your recent edit is a response to other recent edits including one of mine, so I will not start BRD from scratch by reverting.

You have not restored "statesman", which is good. But you have restored "American". It is silly to say that he is "American" and that he was "president of the United States" in the same sentence. That is why I cited MOS:REDUNDANCY.

As for the restoration of attorney, diplomat, and writer, what are you trying to accomplish? MOS:LEADCLUTTER says, Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead. You are, of course, overloading the first sentence by describing 5 notable things about the subject. Is there some reason this works for this article, where it doesn't work for others?

We mention his career as an attorney in the first sentence of the second paragraph. We mention his career as a diplomat in the third sentence of the first paragraph, and again in the second paragraph. We mention his writing in the second paragraph. Without these things, the first sentence, which otherwise just mentions his presidency and his "Founding Father"-ness, is direct and to the point. With three additional things gathered and dumped into it, that sentence is just a pile of words. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bruce leverett. The nationality of an individual needs to be mentioned immediately, as it is best for the reader to first know that before understanding other elements of a person's identity. Thus, the opening sentence of Ronald Reagan, which is also a featured article, reads "Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States..." The first sentence in the Vladimir Putin article says "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who is the president of Russia..." There are many more examples like it. I don't think that this manner of introduction is backed by any official policy, but it does appear to be the norm on Wikipedia.

With respect to the rest, I understand your argument and appreciate your reference to policy. I have done as you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the list of occupations.

I disagree that the nationality needs to be mentioned "immediately". See for example, the Cleopatra and François Mitterrand examples in MOS:OPENPARABIO. You are making a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument: "It's done this way in articles X and Y, it's OK and best to do it this way here." I have mentioned this before in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents#First sentences. Most of the biographies of U.S. presidents used to start with "XXX was the Nth president of the United States, serving from YYYY to ZZZ". In the years since about 2011, most of them were modified to use the more verbose style, not because of any policy change that I know of; indeed I don't know why this was done, in most cases there was no edit summary.

Having said that, I am not sure how to handle the reference to Founding Fathers of the United States; with my change to John Adams, "United States" appeared twice in the first sentence, which is just as repetitive as your version. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Adams' contributions as a Founding Father during the Revolution are arguably as important or even more important than his tenure as president. Having the identification "Founding Father" in the lead is thus critical, and it represents all of the other occupations that Adams held without having to spell them out individually. With "Founding Father," it is essential to say "American" first, as other countries of course have founders as well, and this clarifies what country Adams helped establish. I believe that it should stay in. I oppose any further alterations to the opening sentence. The length of the opening sentence has been substantially reduced and you got probably about 80% of what you wanted. You could always take it further, but I say leave it here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Display name 99's initial approach here - we need to set out the basic context before getting into his role as founding father. That is standard in the literally hundreds of biographies I edit every day. GiantSnowman 09:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I initially agreed with a longer opening section, but my view on the matter has shifted after considering Bruce leverett's arguments and looking at other articles. Standard practice isn't to list every major thing that a person did in the first sentence, but only give a bare outline. The first sentence of the Julius Caesar article reads: "Gaius Julius Caesar[a] (12 July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) was a Roman general and statesman." It doesn't say that Caesar was a priest of Jupiter, consul, provincial governor, dictator, author, etc. In the case of Adams, as with most well-constructed biographical articles, the remainder of the opening paragraph hits all of the major highlights, and all that is needed in the opening sentence is the most general overview. Display name 99 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Novanglus

Novanglus currently redirects to this article. It's a pen name he used for a series of political essays, but neither the name nor the essays are mentioned anywhere here outside the bibliography. I decided against listing the name at RfD, but where would it be appropriate to mention, if anywhere? Glades12 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

There used to be a paragraph in John Adams mentioning the essays he wrote under "Novanglus", but it was deleted in this edit as part of FA review. You could consider adding back some text about that topic, but from looking at the FA review in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Adams/archive2, I would guess that that would be frowned upon.

You could consider writing an article about the Novanglus essays. They might be notable enough. Then you could add a link to the article in the "See Also" section of John Adams.

Otherwise, I suppose the redirect should just be deleted. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

John Adams' political philosophy

The article on John Adams gives considerable weight to his being "a Founding Father" before becoming the new nation's 2nd President, and more than implies that opposing groups were "radicals" without either defining what a "radical" would be (in this context) or any citation for attribution of its use. In addition, the article fails to identify Adams' political philosophy as it was: strong federal government with supremacy of the Executive (President). Among others are two notable sentences that are clearly opinion: [after cite 352] "The country tended further away from Adams's emphasis on order and the rule of law and towards the Jeffersonian vision of liberty and weak central government." [no citation] That sentence implies that Adams strove for "order and the rule of law" whereas Jefferson's "vision of liberty" must have been striving for its opposite, so much so that Jefferson (wanted?) a "weak central government." Both presumptions are inaccurate and misleading. Jefferson felt that a "strong central government" (that Adams supported) posed a risk of returning to a monarchical or despotic tyranny. [and after cite 358] "In his 1962 biography, Page Smith lauds Adams for his fight against radicals whose promised reforms portended anarchy and misery. [no citation]" This entry is rife with opinion while devoid of fact, whether it be of Bruce leverett (if he wrote it) or the authors he cites. But embedded is opinion that "Adams was fighting against possible anarchy and misery" that would result from "radicals' reforms" (implying that Adams was logical and thoughtful whereas those with opposing views were radicals threatening anarchy and misery). Of importance is that nowhere in the entire piece on John Adams is the "XYZ affair" identified or discussed, despite the fact that it was instrumental in Adams turning the new nation (to the far right) so much that he had newspaper publishers and oppositional politicians arrested and thrown into prison. I think the article needs a section dedicated to Adams' political philosophy, including the 'how' and 'why' Adams almost destroyed the fledgling nation by his stubborn 'need to be right.' GeoT8 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)