This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeschoolingWikipedia:WikiProject HomeschoolingTemplate:WikiProject HomeschoolingHomeschooling
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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)[reply]
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. GiantSnowman09:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
The article does indeed mention and discuss the XYZ affair; there is a subsection about that in the section titled "Presidency (1797-1801)".
I get the impression you have only read the lead paragraphs, and not the main body of the article. As it is often done in Wikipedia, the lead paragraphs do not explicitly cite sources, but instead summarize material in the main body, which itself must liberally cite sources. If you find something in the lead paragraphs that isn't supported by something else in the main body, or if you find something in the main body that should support itself by citing sources but doesn't, now that's an error, which is worth fixing, or at least worth calling to the attention of other editors in this talk page.
This post identifies several passages in the "Historical reputation" section that are supposedly without citations. Not every single sentence in an article needs to have a citation placed directly after it. In general, citations are to be placed at the end of paragraphs, and the reader should be able to presume that any material before that citation and after the previous one is cited to the citation at the end. In every case of a supposedly unsourced passage, the material is referenced to a citation that appears following a later sentence. None of it is unsourced. The Page Smith sentence that supposedly drifts into editorial opinion is merely portraying manners in the manner that Smith saw them, not endorsing his point of view. As Bruce leverett pointed out, the XYZ Affair is discussed in detail, as is the subsequent suppression of speech.
The post says: "I think the article needs a section dedicated to Adams' political philosophy." There's a fairly large one already entitled "Political writings," and another section directly below that called "Political philosophy and views." But we aren't going to discuss "the 'how' and 'why' Adams almost destroyed the fledgling nation by his stubborn 'need to be right.'" This is because Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
