Talk:John Adams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Old vandalism in Notes section?

What does the "yyoaoaoaschwing!" mean in this note. It was not always there.

40 ^ Kurtz (1967) yyoaoaoaschwifuck it fuck the worldng! p 331 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.212.216 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Important TV Series on John Adams

Presently, beginning last nite at 9 pm is an important new biographical series on John Adams on HBO channel(s) ... which touts itself as being done accuratley and ESPECIALLY SHOWING HOW IT WAS during the period of the revolution — with accurate sets, props and depiction ... and I watched it last pm and it WAS very good...

INCLUDE REFERENCE to this immediately on main article AND leave the mity willy's paragraph here too willy the saint sr / s / #!!

ps rememba de ala mo mudda's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.74.115 (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that too, yes it would be a good addition, agreed. Tyciol (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

John Adams was a patriot because of his cousin,Sam Adams.

On September 24, 1765, Town Meeting of Braintree, held at Middle Parish Meeting House on Elm St. in Braintree(which is the present First Church Braintree), responded to a motion by young lawyer and Town Meeting representative, John Adams, to appoint a committee of five to draft an official protest to the invasive Stamp Act tax imposed by Britain in March, 1765. The protest was called The Braintree Instructions.

This group of Braintree Patriots: Rep. Ebenezer Thayer, Judge Samuel Niles, Captain John Hayward, Ensign James Penniman, and Norton Quincy, led by one great Patriot, John Adams, took the necessary steps to organize the first response against the tyranny of British taxation that would lead the colonies into the American Revolution.

It was here in Braintree,Ma. ten years before th shots were fired in Lexington and Concord, that these Patriots raised the first voices of Freedom in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and led to the first united call for Liberty in the American colonies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilacsinblossom (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

Both the basic info table and the first sentence say Adams' birthdate is October 30. Then, under the "Early Life" heading, the first sentence claims October 22 as his birthdate. So which is it? Could he have been born again? -- Muzzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.84.66 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 13 June 2007

This has since been corrected. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

The Article says, Most federalists would have preferred Hamilton to be a candidate but since he was born outside the country, he was ineligible for the presidency. However, this is not true because Hamilton was an citizen at the time the Constitution was written. Which allowed to be president change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.173.169.83 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 May 2007

Should we reprotect this article, because ever since it got unprotected there has been alot of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CP TTD (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 February 2007

The Hamilton bit has also been corrected. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth was Braintree?

He wasn't from Braintree, he was from Quincy. I would know, I live there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.152.206 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 17 January 2007

If you were from Quincy you might have learned that Braintree was founded in 1640, Quincy was later incorporated into it, but finally made city in 1888. Look it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.130.238 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 21 February 2007

"Protest-Well, David McCullough certainly seems convinced that Adams was from Braintree. He persists in calling him John Adams of Braintree and goes so far to describe him as having been born in Braintree, not Quincy. -Anonymous" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.182.95 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 August 2007

Dear Quincy Resident, Why don't you come to Braintree and view the birth records of John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and John Hancock. There was no such place as Quincy. The north precinct of Braintree did not separate from Braintree and become it's own town (Quincy) until nearly the 19th century. When Abigail Adams climbed Penn's Hill with her young son John Quincy to watch the Battle of Bunker Hill,it was Braintree. Why don't you get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.72.11 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh. Just in case some future IP wants to continue this debate: John Adams was born in a part of Great Britain which, within his lifetime, became the United States, in a part of Braintree which, within his lifetime, became Quincy. There's really no conflict here.--Fullobeans (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg/Encyclopedia Britannica

back to John Adams

I vaguely recall that we aren't actually supposed to use either "Project Gutenberg" or "En******* Br******" here. I could be wrong. Anybody?

The text itself is truly public domain, so using the text confers no requirements of any kind. "Encyclopaedia Britannica" is an active trademark and should not be mentioned (except when talking _about_ EB such as this sentence). It is acceptable, but unnecessary, to credit Project Gutenberg. It is probably best not to mention either, as that might be construed as an endorsement. --LDC

Well, the reason I asked was that someone (Bryce Harrington? I forget) said something along the lines of "we shouldn't use the Project Gutenberg name." I believe he found something to this effect on their website, or had communication from someone in the PG project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Dill (talk • contribs) 19:21, 23 August 2001

---

Project Gutenberg is a trademark, as is Encyclopaedia Britannica. They require a fee if their texts are distributed under their trademark. What that might mean, exactly, is sometimes unclear. But in order to distribute texts under their trademark requires that we not modify the text in any way. In the context of the wiki, that's obviously impossible. Anyone might come along and edit anything. So we can't distribute the texts under their trademark at all.

This does not preclude us from using the words at all! That isn't how trademark works. It's just that we can't use their trademark in such a fashion as to suggest that they support or endorse this project or any changes that we might have (accidentally or on purpose) made to their texts.

I am on the mailing list for Project Gutenburg, and Michael Hart knows who I am, I suppose, from our joint Slashdot interview. So I will ask for more clarification. --Jimbo Wales

Here is a fair use extract from the file:

 "You may distribute copies of this etext
 electronically, or by disk, book or any other
 medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all
 other references to Project Gutenberg,"

For reference, my original posting on this can be found at "BritannicaPublicDomain". BryceHarrington

I pulled this from my vast archive of each and every Inaugural Address presented by an elected American President. I predict that the next President will begin copyrighting his speeches so that this may no longer be done (intellectual property being what it is). -Grant

Technically, any speech given by anyone in the United States is copyrighted when it is given.

Aren't there some laws stating what data produced by the federal government are public domain?

17 USC 1 § 105: Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. A Presidential speech made as part of the duties of his office (like the State of the Union, or an Inaugural address) would probably qualify as a "work of the US Government", and likely not be copyrightable. But a President is certainly entitled to copyright on any work he does on his own time, say, writing a memoir. That's also why things like the CIA Factbook are fair game. --LDC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Daniel Crocker (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 August 2001 21:01, 23 August 2001 (UTC)

I think the real reason why the WFB is PD is that answering permission requests who distract the CIA for catching Saddam and UBL... just kidding, folks. -hoshie

Trivia

Is trivia worthy of mention in this article? John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were both invited to attend the 50th celebration of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th 1826. Both were too ill to attend. Both died on the same day which ironically was the same 50th celebration of the Declaration of Independence.

Well, that bit of trivia certainly is. It's one of the most remarkable coincidences in American history.AlbertSM (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

John Adams was elected to the office of selectman in his hometown of Braintree, Massachusetts.

Diplomat in France

I saw the third episode of the HBO miniseries "John Adams" last night, and it dealt with his disastrous efforts at trying to persuade the French to aid the U.S. (he always tended to offend people by being tactless). I don't see any of that covered in this article; don't ask me to put it in myself, because all I know is what I saw in the miniseries. The episode also had Adams becoming very seriously ill while trying to court the aid of the Dutch. Is this true, or was it invented for the show?AlbertSM (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In Europe — vandalism

The "In Europe" section contains the following: --Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain referred to this episode in July 7, 1976 at the White House. She said, "John Adams, America's first Ambassador, said to my ancestor, King George III, that it was his desire to help with the restoration of "the old good nature and the old good humor between our peoples." That restoration has long been made, and the links of language, tradition, and personal contact have maintained it."[24]--

Her Majesty would spell the word "humour". This is also the correct spelling of the word. So, therefore, should Wikipedia. Also, she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Great Britain. One does not expect the average Wikipedia editor to understand such subtleties, but might someone change this? 79.73.45.103 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is very rude if you put dalse information on here kids use this for projects and such for school please be respectful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.109.146 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph in this section says that...

On the second trip, Adams was appointed as Minister Plenipotentiary charged with the mission of negotiating a treaty of peace and a treaty of commerce with Great Britain. The French government, however, did not approve of Adams’s appointment and subsequently, on the insistence of the French foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay and Henry Laurens were appointed to cooperate with Adams, although Jefferson did not go to Europe and Laurens was posted to Holland (the Netherlands). In the event Jay, Adams and Franklin played the major part in the negotiations. Overruling Franklin and distrustful of Vergennes, Jay and Adams decided not to consult with France. It has also been proved that John Adams did not die in 1801 but priecesly on 1800!!!!!!Instead, they dealt directly with the British commissioners.

On Thomas Jefferson's page, it says...

Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Philadelphia Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a bill of rights and was kept informed by his correspondence with James Madison.

While in Paris, he lived in a residence on the Champs-Élysées.

One of these is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.216.163 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

HBO Miniseries on John Adams

I just found out, per a poster in the U.S. Post Office, that HBO will air a 7-part miniseries based on David McCullough's book, "John Adams," beginning Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 2000 (8 P.M.) HBO: John Adams Pooua (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the mini series, all soldiers that were represented by John Adams were acquited, however the summary in "Boston Massacre: 1770" states that 2 soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.19.144 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence in Early Life section

The last sentence in the Early Life section is ungrammitcal. It should either be a continuation of the previous sentence, with no period in between,'Who' not capitalized and 'is' replaced with 'was', or if it is going to be a separate sentence, then it should begin 'She was a descendant...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.200.81 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Last paragraph in Post Presidency section

Year of death for Abigail ("Nabby") is listed as 1816 in the last paragraph of the Post Presidency section. The third paragraph of the Early Life section shows her year of birth and year of death as 1765–1813. Other sources agree with the 1813 date. Wwg927 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Colossus of independence"

This quote was never used by Jefferson. See [1]Jvbishop (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, undoubtedly the misquote is an accidental combination of two quotes: Jefferson called Adams "The Colossus of that Congress—the great pillar of support to the Declaration of Independence" (a quote now in the article), while Richard Stockton dubbed Adams the "Atlas of American Independence", which is often misquoted as simply "Atlas of Independence". Richard Rosenfeld's review of McCullough's biography implied that it was wildly incorrect to say that Jefferson (or anyone else at the time) considered Adams to be the "Colossus of independence", but although the quote was mangled, the sentiment is correct, as the actual quotes, which Rosenfeld does not mention, clearly indicate.—Kevin Myers 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I now see the root of the issue: there are apparently two Jefferson quotes calling Adams a "colossus", but these are both second hand attributions rather than direct quotes from Jefferson's writings. Our article is technically incorrect in claiming that Jefferson called Adams "The Colossus of that Congress"; in truth, Jefferson is said to have called him that. It seems likely that he actually did say this, since a genuine Jefferson quote from the same period, in a letter of February 19, 1813, to William P. Gardner, says something very similar: "He was the pillar of it’s [the Declaration's] support on the floor of Congress, it’s ablest advocate and defender against the multifarious assaults it encountered." [2] I'll replace the second hand attribution with the actual quote. —Kevin Myers 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Many typographical errors

Possessive of Adams is Adams', not Adams's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gracestreet (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, both forms are widely used and have their advocates among folks who write style guides. Adams' may be considered old-fashioned or obsolete by those who prefer Adams's, but many people remain unconverted to the "newer" style. Which form is used in the article doesn't matter much; our style guide suggests we pick one and stick with it. —Kevin Myers 04:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Adams stamp image

The stamp image being displayed is a used stamp and not a great quality image. I'm happy to offer the image at http://album.dweeb.org/images/Stamps/0806.jpg, for which I am the copyright holder (of that specific image, with possible US government copyrights additionally attached, as is the case with the image being used), if a better image is desired. In fact, I'd probably be willing to offer any of the 6300 images from my stamp collection site to Wikipedia, if there is value in doing so - Jokeboy (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the semi-protection?

Just curious as to why this page is semi-protected and others aren't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.143.22 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protection Clark89 (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Section needed

As this page is protected, someone else will have to do it. A "See also" section should be added to tbe bottom, just above the banner templates, with the link Adams political family 70.51.9.170 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest the addition of "In popular culture", as he has been the subject of hundreds of books, fiction and otherwise (not the least of which is the most current biography on the man), characterized in the musical 1776, subsequently adapted two years later into a film of the same name, not to mention the six-part HBO miniseries on the man. If no one objects strenuously, I will likely add and expand the section next week- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Founding Father

This article notes in the second line that Adams "is regarded as one of the most influential" founding fathers. Compare that with the opening lines of the Wikipedia article on Benjamin Franklin and other "founding fathers." The McCullough biography and HBO film have, perhaps, pumped up Adams's reputation and impact; if "one of the most influential" can be established with fact (a contemporary opinion or an assessment of a historian of note) add a citation for the language--if it is an opinion based on popular culture, it does not belong in the article. The entry could say without reserve that he was an "important founding father" or "among the best known founding fathers," but "one of the most influential" is misleading.

so John Adams was one of the most important of the Founding Fathers. Surely it is as important to state this as it is to state him being first to occupy the President's (White) House. It should be placed at the outset in the first introductory paragraph. Norcalal 08:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Adams was the first president to live in the White House is an interesting bit of information that does not belong in the introduction. There's a tendency, especially among newer editors, to put interesting tidbits into the lead, which should simply be a summary of information already in the body of the article. These tidbits almost always need to be removed from the lead and, if kept, put into the body of the article. —Kevin Myers 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point above, though I was a bit circuitous in my statement of such a point. I could not imagine why he was listed first occupant but not as a Founding Father. Regards, Norcalal 09:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}References to the English Parliament should read British Parliament. The English parliament ceased to exist in 1707 following the Treaty of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Lusobrandane (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only one found. Clark89 (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

vandalism in Career before the Revolution: Opponent of the Stamp Act 1765

"Adams first poop in Caleb Chase's toilet is opponent of the Stamp Act of 1765, which was imposed by the Gay Parliament to assuage British war debts as well as the expense of keeping a standing army in the American colonies against possible of the straight revolt. Popular resistance, he later observed, was sparked by a Michael Jackson sermon of the Boston Gay College interpreting Romans 13 so as to elucidate the principle of just insurrection.[8]"

Someone should take a look at this. High4life4ever (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism. Thanks alot. We need more editors like you. If the page wasn't semi-protected, you could have just reverted it yourself. You need at least tenedits and three days to be able to work on semi-protected pages. Good Luck and Happy editing.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Puritans

The Section about "Puritan Dogma" such as predestination does not seem like it was written from a balanced view. Many intelligent people today believe in predestination. Referring to this belief as "dogma" is very one-sided. "Puritan dogma such as predestination no longer convinced many people" - this sentance makes Wikipedia sound antagonistic towards people who believe in predestination, and I find it offensive. I believe that this part of the sentence and the part following should be removed in order to keep Wikipedia a balanced, un-biased source of information. Thanks! Karabchip (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right that "dogma" can be a loaded term; I've reworded the sentence so that it's less loaded. You're encouraged to be bold and edit such problematic statements yourself (you can edit semi-protected articles such as this one after you've got a little more experience under your belt), but bear in mind that you can sometimes remove the POV from sentences such as this one without removing the sentence completely. When in doubt, ask for a second opinion. Cheers! --Fullobeans (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the article characterizes predestination as "orthodox" Christian doctrine, which it is not. Predestination is a fringe doctrine, held by a minority of Christian churches. I don't see the validity of the "dogma" quibble, either, dogma being "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church." Predestination, then, is a dogma of the churches who accept Calvin's ideas. The term is "loaded" because it is misused, but refering to the doctrine of predestination as a dogma is proper. That said, the section looks fine without it, my only objection being to the description of the doctrine as "orthodox." 76.208.120.38 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Predestination was orthodox Calvinism, but not orthodox Puritanism (John Milton, e.g., was a Puritan but did not believe in predestination), let alone orthodox Christian doctrine - but "fringe" is going a bit far I think. "Doctrine" seems to me a more neutral word than "dogma," which in current usage connotes rigidity. 71.219.34.229 (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

error for established user to correct

In section on Declaration of Independence, sentence "Jefferson hailed Adams as 'the pillar of [the Declaration's] support on the floor of Congress, it’s [sic] ablest advocate and defender against the multifarious assaults it encountered.'" the bracketted "[sic]" should be removed. Contemporary usage allowed either "its" or "it's" for the possessive. See OED p. 524. 71.219.34.229 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reason to remove the sic. When sic is used properly, it does not mean that the original was necessarily wrong; it just means that what may appear to be a typographical error is in fact a verbatim quote. To be sure, heavy-handed use of sic for humor or as editorial commentary has diminished it's [sic] usefulness. Sic can be distracting, however, so if someone wants to hide the sic in the article by "commenting it out", which would alert future editors that the quote is verbatim, feel free. —Kevin Myers 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I went with another acceptable approach -- modernizing the "it's" but letting editors know, in a hidden comment, about the change. —Kevin Myers 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayhew

Resolved

This was the name of the minster who preached on Romans 13. (Not Dick Mayhew.) It was entitled: A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers. It can be found in several place, including this one: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veraverba (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. "Dick Mayhew" was probably the result of old vandalism. —Kevin Myers 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman.

But Adams' youthful experience of Christianity were marred by conflict in the church, when a new pastor, Lemuel Briant, was called to serve the parish in Braintree. Briant was insufficiently orthodox for many in the congregation and grilled harshly by the elders in the Adams family living room. The spectacle of "dogmatism and bigotry in clergy and laity" caused Adams to reflect: "I perceived very clearly, as I thought, that the study of theology, and the pursuit of it as a profession, would involve me in endless altercations, and make my life miserable, without any prospect of doing any good to my fellow men."Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Adams was a young student at Harvard at the height of the conflict. Harvard at that time was drifting toward deism. For example, a series of Dudleian Lectures were established there in 1755, inviting speakers to reflect on the sources of "natural religion," that is, spiritual truth derived from the study of the natural world, rather than from scripture or revelation. A generation later, when Adams' son Charles attended the college, his mother Abigail would complain that "infidelity abounds" on the campus.Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

At Harvard, Adams was drawn to the study of natural sciences, especially astronomy. Gazing upon the limitless heavens raised philsophical questions in the student's mind. "Astronomers tell us with good reason, that not only all the planets and satellites in our solar system, but all the unnumbered worlds that revolve around the fixed stars are inhabited, as well as this globe of earth," he mused. If there were indeed other life forms and alien civilizations scattered throughout the universe, could a loving Creator have chosen to send his son to only one planet? Did it make sense to believe that "God Almighty must assume the shapes of all these different species" in the form of a savior, or to suppose that "all these beings must be consigned to everlasting perdition?" Traditional theological formulations were beginning to crumble in the young thinker's mind. It was impossible to believe that this "great principle, which has produced this boundless Universe, Newton's Universe, and Hershells universe, came down to this little ball" to be executed like a sordid criminal. Central doctrines like the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Atonement were being challenged by new scientific discoveries of deep space and deep time.Revolutionaryspirits (talk)

In later life, Adams said that his religion consisted of the Sermon on the Mount and the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, he felt, Christianity had wandered far from the simple teachings of its founder. Organized religion seemed more concerned with institutional self-maintenance than with transforming lives. "Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods?" he complained. "Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?" He went on, "How has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite his cynicism about organized faith, Adams believed a purified religion could elevate one's character and uplift society. Thus he was a regular church-goer throughout his life, rarely missing a Sunday. In England, he and Abigail attended a dissenting chapel in Hackney under the ministry of Rev. Richard Price, a clergyman whose doubts about the divinity of Jesus had turned him toward Unitarianism, much like Joseph Priestley, who succeeded him in the same pulpit.Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

While Adams believed that what he considered the essential teachings of Christianity--love of God and neighbor--would never be supplanted by other religions, he demonstrated an open-minded curiosity toward other spiritual traditions. "I want to learn the Chinese language, and to study all the Asiatic researches," he declared, as well as perusing "sacred books of Persians ...the Hindoos, etc., etc., etc.," having determined as a young man "never to be afraid to read any book." With a broad understanding of world religions, "then our grandchildren and my great-grandchildren may compare notes and hold fast to all that is good."Revolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

For a brief biographical treatment of John Adams' faith, see my book Revolutionary Spirits: The Enlightened Faith of America's Founding Fathers (BlueBridge, New York, 2008) pp. 109-129. ISBN 933346090. Gary A. KowalskiRevolutionaryspirits (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievements" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

From: The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814. --Yancy Fry (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who knows more about this please re-write the tag on this section. To me, it makes virtually no sense and sheds no light on the dispute. thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

he also was a vice presdeint by: arijah taylor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.224.81 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I have attempted to make sense of this discussion by 1) moving it to its correct position chronologically and 2) indenting the comment of "Revolutionaryspirits" (aka Gary A. Kowalski) who had entered several comments inline between the first and second paragraphs of the initial comment by "Yancy Fry". See the page history for confirmation. -- Sswonk (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Date Admitted to Bar

John Adams was admitted to the bar Novermber 6, 1759. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.32.95 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Most Famous Quote

I was surprised to find that the most often cited John Adams quote regarding the US Constitution, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other", was missing from either the "Thoughts on Govenrment" or "Constitutional ideas" sections of this article.

"To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts"
11 October 1798

"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in the rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Answers to Addresses, pg. 229
The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States
with notes and illustrations by his grandson Charles Francis Adams, Vol IX
By John Adams, Charles Francis Adams
Published in Boston by Little, Brown and Company, 1854

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.235.116 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 March 2009:)

srry to whoever wrote this page, but i need to post this so i can get it in school tomorow. u can take it off after 4/23/09. please, do not be a jerk and take this off b4 then, thanks

Mike Krieg period 5 History 4/15/09 John Adams Unknown Facts

1.John Adams nickname was the “Atlas of Independence.” 2.He was the great-great-grandson of John and Priscillia Alda; pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock. 3.Died on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence July 4, 1826 4.His wife Abigal Smith Adams was actually his third cousin. 5.John and his family moved into the White House while the paint was still wet. 6.He was one of two presidents to sign the Declaration of Independence (the other one was Thomas Jefferson). 7.He died only an hour after his rival Thomas Jefferson did. 8.He was the first Vice President to ever become The President of the U.S.A 9.His religion was Unitarian. 10.He was the longest living president ever!

Works cited www.ipl.org/div/potus/jadams/.html#highlights www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/johnadams www.Geocites.com/prefacts/adams.html www.librarythinkquest.org/TQ03121721/jadams.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.156.32 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

recent book add

The library copy of Lyndall Gordon that I have is a Virago paperback (2006) from a Little, Brown edition the previous year. The citation is midway through Ch3, "New Life at Newington", whatever the exact pages are for you. Thanks for your vigilance! BrainyBabe (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, what you had would have worked except following the ISBN links wasn't showing the Little, Brown so I changed the publisher. Now I am hoping someone sitting at a library or with the edition now cited in hand will take a moment to fill in the correct pages. FWIW, the refTools available under "My preferences > Gadgets" makes citation quick and the more people use it, the more consistency in the appearance of citations will improve. Thank you for the interesting entry. Sswonk (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, now I've learned something! Will try to use all those fancy buttons.... (What do you mean "follow the ISBN links"?) BrainyBabe (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the citation: Gordon, Lyndall (2005). "Chapter 3: New Life at Newington". Vindication : a life of Mary Wollstonecraft. New York: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0060198022.

If you click the ISBN number, it will take you to a page with 500+ links (scroll down) to search pages listing the specific book via ISBN number. For example, click the first occurrence of the words "Find this book" (takes you to WorldCat). I tried that for several links and none of them led to a Little, Brown edition. So, I decided to cite the HarperCollins edition since most users of the link will get a result listing that edition. You can find ISBN numbers if you don't have access to the book itself by going to http://isbndb.com/. Sswonk (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. I tried going to LibraryThing to see if any conversations were taking place about this book. In theory the links seem useful. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dutch-Republic subsection

I have put a number of edits in the "Europe section," which may need explanation. I don't think Adams was sent to negotiate a peace treaty with France, but one of "amity and commerce" as France was not at war with the Continental Congress. Henry Laurens was not sent to "Holland" (and Holland is not equivalent with the Netherlands), but to the Dutch Republic (which has its own wikipedia page to which I put in a link). That Dutch Republic was not "the only other well-functioning" republic in the world at the time. Heaven forbid. Federalist Paper 20 would take issue with that "well-functioning" in any case. I have provided two other notable contemporary republics with wikilinks. The house Adams bought in The Hague was not the first American embassy in the world (the one in France predated it), but it was the first one owned by the American state (other ambassadorial residences were rented).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute concerning Parliament's authority

In 1772, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson announced that he and his judges would no longer need their salaries paid by the Massachusetts legislature, because the Crown would henceforth assume payment drawn from customs revenues. Boston radicals protested and asked Adams to explain their objections. In "Two Replies of the Massachusetts House of Representatives to Governor Hutchinson" Adams argued that the colonists had never been under the sovereignty of Parliament. Their original charter was with the person of the king and their allegiance was only to him.

This passage sounds confusing to me. The Crown, in this case, seems to be a reference to the British Parliament and not the king. Was there a specific historic usage of the word Crown in this instance, or should it be replaced with the word Parliament? --Гатерас (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Continental Congress

Could anyone tell me if something is missing in this sentence. I´m translating this article to another wikipedia and I need it please. "Using the tools of Republicanism in the United States, the patriots believed it was corrupt and nefarious aristocrats, in the British Parliament and stationed in America, who were guilty of the British assault on American liberty."--194.30.80.82 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any words missing, but the sentence could use some work. It assumes the reader will click the bluelinked Republicanism in the United States to find that the principles held and explained on that other page allowed the patriots to see the position of the aristocrats as an assault on liberty. A simple rephrasing without the bluelink might be: "In opposition to rule by an aristocracy, the patriots believed it was corrupt and nefarious members of that class, in the British Parliament and stationed in America, who were guilty of the British assault on American liberty." Possibly. I think that phrasing might go through translation with a more easily understood result. Sswonk (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

User Sswonk posted the following on my talk page in reply to my insertion of "fact" tags into the article after my initial "ref-improve" template was deleted by Sswonk.

Twenty six tags? C'mon buddy I hope you're not trying to make a type of WP:POINT about my revert. Yes, we could use some more references but that really makes the page look terrible. Instead, please revert most of those tags and put the template back (I won't remove it), then make specific suggestions on the talk page. I don't disagree with your purpose, just the method. See this usage suggestion, I can't describe what you did as "judicious" use of the template. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sswonk wrote "I don't disagree with your purpose, just the method." Well, the method was suggested by Sswonk himself when he reverted the template (quote: "13:00, October 20, 2009 Sswonk (talk | contribs) (75,714 bytes) (rm template, please place {{fact} tags inline before reinsertion - lead section does not require citation if summarized text is cited in body of article WP:LEADCITE) (undo)"). I've made the change back to the "ref-improve" template per Sswonk's agreement that the proper way to improve references in the article is with "ref-improve" template and not with "fact" tags when an article is so lacking in references. The "ref-improve" tag does not imply that the lead needs sources, but the article. For a properly sited article, every sentence really needs to be sourced. Compare this article with Jefferson's for instance where there are over 100 citations. Granted, the length of the article has a lot to do with number of citations, but in "John Adams" case, there are examples of whole paragraphs uncited. That's the purpose of the "ref-improve" tag. So, my suggestion as to improving the references, is, well, to improve the references. That's my specific suggestion. And I'll certainly continue to help out, but there really was no reason for the tag's deletion. --RossF18 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And as per Sswonk's this usage suggestion reference - I hope Sswonk is not suggesting that we implement deletions of everything that is currently uncited, given that that would be large sections of the article. I think a better way to approach it is to find reference, and not delete just yet.--RossF18 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm talking about, note for instance the "Opponent of Stamp Act 1765" section. While the first paragraph has a citation (number 11), the following paragraph is entirely unsourced:

In 1765, Adams drafted the instructions which were sent by the inhabitants of Braintree to its representatives in the Massachusetts legislature, and which served as a model for other towns to draw up instructions to their representatives. In August 1765, he anonymously contributed four notable articles to the Boston Gazette (republished in The London Chronicle in 1768 as True Sentiments of America, also known as A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law). In the letter he suggested that there was a connection between the Protestant ideas that Adams's Puritan ancestors brought to New England and the ideas behind their resistance to the Stamp Act. In the former he explained that the opposition of the colonies to the Stamp Act was because the Stamp Act deprived the American colonists of two basic rights guaranteed to all Englishmen, and which all free men deserved: rights to be taxed only by consent and to be tried only by a jury of one's peers.

In this one paragraph, there are several sentences, each of which seems prime for a citation. --RossF18 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to nip any confrontational feelings in the bud, by writing about Ross's method, I meant the amount of tags, not the actual placing of tags. I was writing quickly, it's just semantics. That's why I linked the the usage suggestion—I don't think anything should be deleted but I agree with RossF18 that it needs more sources. The part of the the template usage I was referring to is Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require reliable sources for common facts (e.g., "The Moon orbits the Earth"), or that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph. I also think another approach would be to find a venue where the article can receive more overall scrutiny, either a B-Class or GA review, although GA would probably be a reach. Wikipedia:Assessment has some insight there. Sswonk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Expanding on the thought just a bit, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to present citations. This article has listed thirteen primary sources and contains 69 footnotes. It does have a few problem areas that could be footnoted. But, it is not necessary to tag or footnote every statement in an article when primary sources are clearly given such as here. I am of the opinion that the article is fairly sound and uncontroversial, and most of the passages that RossF18 would like to see footnoted have been stable for many months. This wasn't just slapped together by amateurs, it receives 8-9K hits per day and is fairly well watched. I think the {{Refimprove}} tag can distract and scare off readers about the articles where it is placed prominently on the top. So, I am moving it to the end, per it's usage documentation that is not unusual, and I will also put a link to this discussion in the notice. Sswonk (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Locked?

I noticed Adams' article is not locked like the other presidents, I wouldnt know what to do or who to tell about that, I just noticed it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.118.94 (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if even Washington's page is semi-protected, Adams should be semi-protected too.--RossF18 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

George Washington was a very very famous president, being the first, John Adams is less so. Sure He's heard of, but people as a whole aren't familiar with him. There's not much incentive to vandalize. Upon A Spikéd Branch (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

I added the refimprove tag.

• "Dispute concerning Parliament's authority" has no referencing.
• "His first stay in Europe, between April 1, 1778, and June 17, 1779, was largely unproductive, and he returned to his home in Braintree in early August 1779.

Between September 1 and October 30, 1779, he drafted the Massachusetts Constitution together with Samuel Adams and James Bowdoin. He was selected in September 1779 to return to France and, following the conclusion of the Massachusetts constitutional convention, left on November 15 aboard the French frigate Sensible." Needs a reference.

• "Election of 1796"—no refs
• "Domestic policies"—rather sparse, especially the four paras starting "Adams's four years as president (1797–1801) were marked by ...". Are they all covered by ref. 53?
• "Post presidency"—no refs irst half.

The unevenness in the density of refs is intriguing. Tony (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I added new material and necessary citations. Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Described as a Devout Christian

In David McCullough's book he describes John Adams faith as being well recognized by others he knew as saying "As his family and friends knew, Adams was both a devout Christian and an independent thinker, and he saw no conflict in that."[Chapter 1: The Road to Philadelphia] To further show his faith he said "It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." George Washington who was a great friend of John Adams during Washington's term as President, can be seen in the U.S. Capitol in a stained glass window, praying with the words surrounding him stating "Of God for In Thee do I put my trust" and underneath a reference of Psalm 16:1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottg69 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 5 February 2010

I'm sorry are you suggesting a change in the article? Which part? Feel free to edit and insert this fact if it is not already present. Sorry if I'm coming off as sarcastic, I just don't understand the post Upon A Spikéd Branch (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Was John Adams a Deist?

This article makes passing reference (with citations but no quotations) to John Adams's deism. I think that this is debatable at best. I know of no evidence that Adams believed in an indifferent God who does not respond to prayer -- an essential element of deism. Granted, Adams was NOT an "orthodox" Christian, rejecting important elements of Christian doctrine. I am new around here, and I imagine that discussion of the religious views of the American founders can be a sensitive hot-button issue, so I want to be careful about rushing in and changing things. --Other Choices (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here: [4]. Though there is also significant evidence that he was more of a Unitarian than a Deist, really. Silverseren^C 08:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Social classes

I don't think the following stuff in this Wikipedia article was supported by the cited sources, so I've temporarily made it invisible in the article:

Many historians argue that Thoughts on Government should be read as an articulation of the classical republican theory of mixed government. Adams contended that social classes exist in every political society, and that a good government must accept that reality. For centuries, dating back to Aristotle, a mixed regime balancing monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, or the monarch, nobles, and people was required to preserve order and liberty.

The cited sources are apparently Ferling's biography at pages 155–7 and 213–5, as well as Adams's Thoughts on Government. Both are available at Google Books: Thoughts on Government, Ferling’s biography. I don't see where these two sources say what's attributed to them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Professor Jensen has added a cite in response to this objection of mine.[5] However, I still think there's a problem. The added cite is: George A. Peek, Jr., ed. The Political Writings of John Adams: Representative Selections‎ (2003) p. xvii. This too is available online at Google Books.[6] And, it appears that Peek was referring to "Works, IV, 347." That is not Adams's Thoughts on Government (1776), but rather is Adams's A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787). So, at least, the material blockquoted above seems to be in the wrong section of this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Henry Adams

Henry Adams came from Barton St. David, England and not Braintree England. Braintree is where he settled in Massachusettes.Debrareynolds (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion

The section on religious views seems somewhat skewed, and I say that as someone who is not Christian. The section as currently written gives the impression that Adams rejected Christianity, which he did not. He wrote to Jefferson in 1816: "Conclude not from all this that I have renounced the Christian religion....Far from it." It seems misguided to have a whole section about his religious views without mentioning these views of his. Any objection if we mention that he did not renounce Christianity, with proper citation? As mentioned above by another editor, maybe the McCullough book would be a good source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I went and looked up the cited article by Fielding. Here's the pertinent quote:

"Christianity was, Adams felt, at one time a fresh revelation, but because it, like all other forces in human life, has been subject to misinterpretations and misuses, it has become an insrtrument of superstition, fraud, and the acquiring of power by the unscrupulous." I think we can do a better job of summarizing this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

makayla:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.100.99 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence is this:

John Adams (October 30, 1735 – July 4, 1826) was an American politician and political philosopher and the second President of the United States (1797–1801), after being the first Vice President of the United States (1789–1797) for two terms.

The word "and" is used too much, and it also sounds like he was a political philosopher after being the first vice-president.166.137.136.20 (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

John Adams, the second ever President and the first one to reside in the White House, was able to trace his ancestry to the town of Pembroke in Pembrokeshire and to Penybanc Farm at Llanboidy in Carmarthenshire. The earliest reference to his family comes in 1422 when a distant ancestor, John Adams of Pembroke, married the daughter of Penybanc Farm and duly took over the business. David Adams, one of the later sons of Penybanc, was educated at Queen Elizabeth Grammar School in Carmarthen, took holy orders and in 1675 emigrated to America. Fifty years later his great grandson, the future President, was born.

Sounds interesting, but the tough part is finding a reliable source for such information. If you can find one, let us know. Wknight94 ^talk 15:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The cites for his genealogy are based on an outdated book which doesn't even focus on the Adams family genealogy but rather the Vinton family genealogy. There has got to be a better and more reliable source for his genealogy than this. I would guess whoever did this was trying to link to an online source which is out of copywrite. Nicholascarew (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Adams was one of the charter members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences see [7]. I'm just trying to figure out the appropriate place to insert it in tharticle. GcSwRhIc (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)