Talk:James Otis Jr.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jdang2019. Peer reviewers: Macallebs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

Contrary to the edit summary used to insert the copied text, http://www.juntosociety.com grants only "permission to reprint", which is not sufficient for use on Wikipedia. Even if permission were obtained, the copied text is not appropriate for Wikipedia and would need to be entirely rewritten. —Centrx→talk • 01:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an annotated bibliography

I've removed this:

==Further reading==

According to Bernard Bailyn, the dean of revolutionary war historians, the best description of Otis is found in

• Wroth and Zobel, eds, Legal Papers of Adams II, (1965) Vol. II, No. 41, Petition of Lechmere, pp. 106 – 147. It may seem surprising that the best analysis of Otis is in the Legal Papers of John Adams (no reference to Otis in the title). Wroth and Zobel’s forty page editorial commentary is more accurate and detailed than most of the Otis literature.

Perhaps the two most valuable essays on Otis after Wroth and Zobel are:

1. Bernard Bailyn himself: Pamphlets of the American Revolution 1750-1776 (1965) Vol. I. pp 409 – 415; Vol. II. pp 546 – 552,
2. William Cuddihy, The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, 602-1791, (2009). William Cuddihy is the leading fourth amendment history scholar in the country.

His monumental work on the Fourth Amendment first appeared in his 1990 unpublished Ph.D. dissertation which was cited, not only by fourth amendment scholars in the last two decades, but also by Sandra Day O’Connor in Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 669, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2398, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

There are two biographies of Otis which, although hagiographic and filled with inaccuracies, are a must read for any Otis scholar.

• William Tudor, Life of James Otis (1823).
• John Clark Ridpath, James Otis, the Pre-Revolutionist (1903) (available at Project Gutenberg)

See also:

• Jeffrey W. Purcell, “James Otis, ‘Flame of Fire’ Revolutionary Opposing the Writs of Assistance and Loyal British Subject?” in Massachusetts Legal History (1999).
• Dickerson, Oliver M. "Writs of Assistance as a Cause of the American Revolution". In Richard B. Morris, ed., The Era of the American Revolution (1939), 40–75. Argues that the writs did not play a major role in the coming of the American Revolution.
• Frese, Joseph. "James Otis and the Writs of Assistance". New England Quarterly 30 (1957): 496–508. Somewhat revises Dickerson's view by showing some public awareness of the 1761 cases, but greater influence on events after 1766.
• The Boston merchant Mungo Mackay observed the altercation in 1769 and testified about it as reported in the New-York Journal, published as The New-York Journal or, the General Advertiser, Dated 10-12-1769, Issue 1397, Page Supplement 1, New York, New York.

Unfortunately much of the Otis literature is rife with inaccuracies.

because it's unsourced opinions from random editors over the years. For information about the purpose of this optional section, you may want to read WP:FURTHERREADING. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I read WP:FURTHERREADING and it seems to me that it says the further reading section can contain an anotated bibliography. The sources cited look entirely scholarly to me. Which ones do you find to contain unsourced opinions? Bootboy41 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of these opinions cuts the heart out of the article. As pointed out many times, James Otis was a somewhat mysterious person. Addition of further reading materials adds to our knowledge of the person, and that is what Wiki is all about. And, I don't see any "unsourced" opinions either. Block1945 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Understatements

Damn, I need to write a book. I'm one of Otis's decendents and I know a lot of family stories. The wiki page is very good, but to call him an unlikeable character and to say that he and his wife had a strained marriage are understatements.

Does anyone know how I should go about doing that, or inserting those stories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.231.113 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I look forward to your book! Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Review

Great additions so far to the article. You mention that Otis was banished from Cambridge in 1743. Is there a known reason for this? At the end of the section on Patriot and Pamphleteer you mention his views on racial equality which is helpful for understandings the discourse on rights and race in the colonial period. In your citations you post the full citation multiple times, you can shorten them after this first to include only the authors last name and page as long as it relates to the same source. You write " four tracts that Otis wrote during 1764–65 reveal contradictions and even intellectual confusion" without further explanation, perhaps add an explanation to this section on how they contradicted each other.

-macallebs

RTV Feedback

The article in its current public form needs to incorporate more of the secondary resources listed under "for further reading." Given Wikipedia's explicit goal as a tertiary source, the article should draw from that wealth of existing peer-reviewed materials. Thus, this feedback incorporates changes that were made but deleted, that would substantially improve the current article—with some revisions.

The material on Otis’s family are valuable, but would better fit in the prior section on his early life. Do the secondary sources that characterize James Otis, Sr. (“a domineering and envious patriarch”) give details of either how we know this or its impact on Otis, Jr.? Ending the sentence there, but giving a second sentence of either of those details might integrate it better into the article’s focus on Otis, Jr.

The section on the Writs of Assistance should specifically focus on that controversy. I would suggest moving up the materials on his early career *either* to the Early Life section or to a new Early Career section. Reading about that early career and politics is absolutely germane, but once I get to “Writs of Assistance,” I want to read specifically about that controversy and Otis, Jr.’s role in it. Thus, if you move these to Early Life, make it chronological – Harvard comes before marriage and the like. If you do an Early Career, it works to keep his Harvard education with the early details of his career. I would also suggest a brief explanation of the Otis-Hutchinson rivalry.

For the Writs of Assistance section, start with the sentence: “Otis then represented the merchants who were challenging the legality of the "writs of assistance" before the Superior Court” revised to “In 1761, Otis, Jr. represented the merchants who challenged the legality of the “writs of assistance” before the Massachusetts Superior Court ….” Continue to refer to Bernard as “Governor Bernard” for clarity.

But I would expand the Writs section given its centrality in Otis’s biography. First, bolster the definition of the writs themselves—the existing sentence is only a start (their transferability, for example). Draw a bit of Otis’s own language in the account of his oratory. Right now, we don’t know what he argued or why his speech drew such attention. Link to his actual speech (and Adams’s notes); they’re not hard to find online. Finally, to get at Otis’s impact, see James Farrell’s New England Quarterly article on his speech and *memory*.

In the “Patriot and Pamphleteer” section, nice incorporation of T.H. Breen’s work! It’s good to see more on slavery in this article. I would suggest bringing in Bernard Bailyn here as well—still the canonical scholar on this subject. If you wanted, you could expand the “Death” section to be “Death and Legacy,” including in there a bit on historiographical debate on Otis. See Samuelson 493-495, see Breen, fn 4.

Citations: - Go ahead and consolidate citations where multiple details, cited in a single paragraph, come from the same part of a single source. - It would be great to update the partial footnotes – Samuelson, Ferguson, etc. - The New England Historical and Genealogical Register source is correct, but lists the publisher as the author. It’s published by that organization so the author can be omitted; Samuel G. Drake was the publisher.

108.184.175.96 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Burning his papers

@TimothyBlue: I'll not revert your latest insertion of text which you keep reinserting verbatim. (This leads me to suspect a copy/paste editing, which immediately makes me suspicious of the sentence's source. But we can discuss that later.) The main problems that I have are as follows:

• Why is this fact significant? Who cares if he burned his "papers"; what does that act signify? If it has meaning, then you need to expound on it; one sentence simply is insufficient.
• What "papers"? His library? The books he wrote? His journals? Old love letters?? What?
• Your writing is bad. The tense "he would burn" is wrong; "he burned" is correct. And of course he did it before he died!

These issues need to be repaired soon, or I will be deleting that sentence again. And make sure that you are not doing a copy/paste from another source. —Dilidor (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dilidor:

• "Why is this fact significant?" Because he is a significant historical figure and writer from the early American revolutionary period. The destruction of his papers means they are not available to historians and students as they would be for others such as John Dickinson.
• "what does that act signify?" The fact as documented by the Smithsonian is that he burned his papers. He did not leave a reason or it has been lost. Any comment on his reason would be speculation or opinion.
• "one sentence simply is insufficient" A fact can often be stated one sentence.
• "What "papers"?" His papers are his writings. It would not include his library.
• "This leads me to suspect a copy/paste editing, which immediately makes me suspicious of the sentence's source." - your baseless accusations are not appropriate and they violate WP:CIV
• "Your writing is bad." - your insults are not helpful and they violate WP:CIV. If you would like to propose alternative wording for the sentence, please do. Any changes you wish to make can be discussed here per WP:BRD
• "These issues need to be repaired soon, or I will be deleting that sentence again." You are not the final authority about what is written here. WP:CON We can discuss it and if we cannot agree, we can get a mediator through dispute resolution to find a mutually acceptable wording. I will not engage in an edit war with you. If you attempt to start one over a simple statement of fact that has a citation from a reliable source I will go to dispute resolution.
• "And make sure that you are not doing a copy/paste from another source." Your tone and accusation are hostile and violate WP:CIV
• I've asked several other people to join this discussion and help mediate it. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to adopt a hostile tone, make insulting accusations, demand changes and threaten deletions, but its not helpful. It gives the impression you want to have an argument and not a discussion, that you are more concerned with being in control than improving the article. Perhaps if more people are involved it will help alleviate this problem. This article has room for improvement and I hope to have time to work on it.   // Timothy::talk 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Wow! You're amazingly thorough and verbose here; what a shame you can't do the same in the article. "Before he died, he burned his papers." Why are you telling me this? What papers?? What result did this have? Why does it matter to us today? But it is a relief to know that he did so before he died instead of after! Why not take your verbosity and passion to the article and expand on this otherwise useless piece of insignificant information? —Dilidor (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Most impressive—you made it two sentences long, doubling your previous output! You certainly wax eloquent when challenged; pity your editing cannot compare. Nonetheless, I've fixed the remaining problems. —Dilidor (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor - Please re-read the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Saying that someone's writing is bad (even if their writing is bad) is uncivil and can be construed as a personal attack. So be polite, even if it means saying that their writing needs improvement (if it does). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite right. My apologies. Thank you for pointing it out. —Dilidor (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible Content Dispute

I was asked to look into a dispute about the content of this article. It isn't clear to me whether there is a content dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate it at DRN, but only after some discussion here. I don't think that it is important or useful to wonder why he burned any of his papers. The article establishes that Otis had episodes of madness. If there is a content dispute, then I would suggest that each editor make a statement about what they think should be changed in the article, or what they think should be left unchanged in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Hi Robert, thanks for mediating. I left off for a bit to disengage.

I looked and Dildor's final edit of the "Burning the papers" passage [1] is acceptable to me.

He reverted some changes I made to the Further Reading section [2]. I think he reverted without looking, I think I can change them back. It simply combines a duplicated reference and adds an issue number and adds a source.

Hope you are well   // Timothy::talk  07:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that this content dispute can be considered resolved. —Dilidor (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Founding Father? Most likely, not

I was impressed by Otis's early support of patriotic causes and initially felt he deserved the title Founding Father. After further research, however, I came to accept the view that Otis's struggles with mental illness and alcoholism had negated his effectiveness and that his "tenure" in the movement was too short to warrant the recognition. While Otis's early speeches and writings were unquestionably influential, by the start of the 1770s he was no longer a contributor and in fact, he had come to be regarded as something of an embarrassment.

Based on this, I removed the title from the lead sentence in Otis's article, and I addressed the issue by adding a short second paragraph, since the tragedy of his demise id most notable aspect of his life, sadly of greater significance than what he accomplished.

I am alerting @Randy Kryn, the editor who added the title a few months ago, to let him know and to seek his feedback. Allreet (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Otis and his influence on the Founders and Founding, and there are some sources on the page which call him a Founder. I think you've got the presentation right for now until other editors come in to look at the sources. Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian could have a look (and maybe this discussion could be linked on the Founders article). Whatever is decided he would still deserve the patriot listing, which is where he's at now. Thanks for the ping Allreet. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Alcoholism? "Embarrassment? This sounds a bit typical, per modern day cynicism and trendy academic opinion. Any evaluation should be based on established facts, contributions, and the extent of founding involvements. Are these allegations speculation, or backed up by primary sources? i.e.Letters and diaries from prominent and significant individuals, contemporaries, that referred to him as such, and explain why. Any secondary sources to this effect would have to be highly scrutinized, and if they so proclaim, would have to be noted as opinion if not soundly substantiated. Esp peer pressured modern day sources from afar. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The alcoholism was just a symptom. Otis became a raving lunatic who wandered the streets and had to be forcibly removed from the city - by his contemporaries. That's not speculation. It's what happened. Sadly, some of Otis's instability can probably be traced to a beating he took from a custom-house agent he had criticized. But that's speculative. What's not is what John Adams wrote in his diary (January 1770): "“He rambles like a ship without a helm...I fear, I tremble, I mourn for the man." Allreet (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that's more than fair. Sources seem reliable also, esp Adams' statements. The Mental health decline section is lacking citations. Haven't dug into the sources, been busy elsewhere, but wouldn't the two sources in the lede suffice here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)