Talk:John Adams

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

"add in 1969, A play by Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards about the 2nd Continental Congress and the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, '1776', was released starring William Daniels to play as John Adams. The musical would later inspire the movie to later come out in 1972 (also starring William Daniels as John Adams). both the movie and musical depict John Adams as the main protagonist [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1776_(musical)%7C musical]] .to In 2008, a miniseries was released based on the McCullough biography, featuring Paul Giamatti as Adams."

}} Adams enthusiast (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I have made an error , i cannot properly cite literally anything, excuse the poor format, still however take the given information. Adams enthusiast (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

Personally, I'm not convinced these are notable enough for inclusion in an already long featured article. Figures as prominent as Adams receive countless media portrayals, and covering all of them will turn the article into a list. This is why we have a separate List of memorials to John Adams page, which already covers these. Jamedeus (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Artists' names in captions

Randy Kryn, a few days ago, you added an artist's name to a caption in the article and were reverted by Nikkimaria, who cited MOS:CREDITS in their edit summary. I have lost track of how many times now you have attempted to add a reference to an artist's name in a caption on this article only to get reverted, usually but not exclusively by Nikkimaria. I don't know what it is about adding the names of artists in captions that causes you to continually do it over and over despite continuously being reverted, as it seems to me like a fairly trivial thing to become obsessed about. But the back and forth pattern needs to stop. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Display name 99. I'm not obsessed, just notice it when reading or editing this page. Again, arguably this is the guiding language, present at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions:

"The minimum information to be included is:

"Artist name – linked for at least their first caption, except where the article is a biography. The name should not be in bold text."

This guiding language gives due credit to the creator of the image, the artist. In this case the artist is Gilbert Stuart, whose portraits of the American Founding Fathers, along with those of John Trumbull, literally defines how the world remembers and recognizes their appearance. Giving due credit to Gilbert Stuart here seems encyclopedic and accurate, and improves the page, per guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It says except where the article is a biography. I also wish to draw your attention back to MOS:CREDITS, which says not to include the author's name in the caption unless relevant to the subject. Here, it isn't. You're always welcome to try to have policy changed, but for now, I think that I agree with Nikkimaria that the artists' names should be omitted. Display name 99 (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The wording "excerpt where the article is a biography" pertains to the artist's own biographical article (in this case, Gilbert Stuart' s). The visual arts guideline and credits guideline seem equally applicable, and the relevance to the subject, Adams, comes from the fact that he is defined by this notable artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. I’ve gone back and forth with Nikkimaria a few times as well. Removing the artist from the caption does nothing to improve the article, sadly it does quite the opposite. I’ve argued this a few times, but to no avail. I’ve lost the motivation as I don’t believe any compromises can be reached on this issue. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 00:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I echo your concern. Which brings a question, Nikkimaria and Display name 99, why are you so opposed to the names of these prominent artists in a caption under some of their most prominent artworks? Artists like Gilbert Stuart, John Trumbull, and a scarce number of others, knew that only they were presenting the actual images of their subjects to be passed down to the centuries...if they thought that far ahead, and they probably did, knowing that only a few people were painting America's Founding Fathers, and that logically they'd realize that their renditions would define the era. Since the guidelines provide both avenues, what's the problem for, as Robertus Pius says well above, improves the article. In sincerity, I don't know how to understand your reasoning that removing the artists' names under their masterpieces improves the encyclopedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Because the artists and what they may or may not have realized is not the subject of this article, and does not merit being highlighted so prominently. Doing so is a distraction rather than an improvement. I also agree with Display name 99's response above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

These paintings define the subject of the page. It's how society pictures them, as they were, and as they led, because the artist was wise and talented enough to leave a true perspective to the Americans of the future. Without these painters, and similar contributions by sculptors, the approximations of John Adams, George Washington, and the rest would not live on. Our two viewpoints both have merit, as you rightly say that adding the linked nams may shift the attention of readers to: "Hey, I recognize that picture! Gilbert Stuart? Never heard of him, I'll check him out...". But what is wrong with that? Reader's choice. If the reader wants to see who was insightful and capable enough to share their real-time experience in Adams' presence with generations to come, why stop them before they start by removing an altogether appropriate link. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more, very well put. I have a great affinity for portrait art. It’s sad other editors consider artists being credited for their beautiful works in the caption to be a distraction. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The simple answer is it doesn’t improve the article whatsoever. Purposely removing informative content from the caption because you consider it a “distraction” is not an improvement to an encyclopedia. Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

"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)