Talk:John Adams

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)

Comments

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)

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

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.

Should we reprotect this article, because ever since it got unprotected there has been alot of vandalism. CP TTD

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. He wasn't from Braintree, he was from Quincy. I would know, I live there.

"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"

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)

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.

---

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

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. 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)

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

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)

john adamasBold text

'john adams was the 2nd president in the U.S.A.He was wealthy wise man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.118.11 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)