Talk:John Adams/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Featured article lead style

Pinging User:Wehwalt.

Shouldn't it be "John Adams was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801" rather than "John Adams was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father who was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801"? Just a thought considering that aritcles such as Stanley Bruce and Gough Whitlam and John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker start with the first option. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have not involved myself with this article, I decline to express an opinion. There are, of course, always multiple ways to open an article. MOS:LEAD does not require any particular phraseology. I'm not quite sure why this discussion is being begun but see this edit and this one and this one and this one and, more generally, this history in which Ak-eater06 repeatedly reverts to get their way on this issue in the exact opposite direction that they now appear to be advocating. I AGF of course, but the cynic in me says either they have had a remarkable change of opinion or they are hoping for something by coming here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ak-eater06, I am confused about a number of things here. Firstly, if you chose to ping an editor in your original post, I'm not sure why you would choose someone who admittedly is not involved in the article. As examples to support your position, it is extremely odd and quite unhelpful to choose articles about Australian and Canadian prime ministers when the subject is a United States president who lived in a completely different time period. Finally, in the Bruce article, you yourself made the change in order to make it look that way. [1] In my opinion, it is not entirely honest of you to change articles to suite your preferred style and then bring them up in a separate discussion as examples of some pre-existing consensus. Also, Wehwalt linking to edits in which you apparently advocated the opposite position simply makes the whole matter even stranger. Basically, what are you trying to do here? Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Adams' status in April 1789

Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this. But was Adams acting president from 21 to 30 April 1789? GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to number of Presidents not attending their successor's inauguration ceremony

Shouldn't this: "Including him, only four out-going presidents (having served a full term) have not attended their successors' inaugurations.[257]" be changed to "Including him, only five out-going presidents (having served a full term) have not attended their successors' inaugurations."

John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, Donald Trump

"

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

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

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

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

References

Artists' names in captions

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

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

"The minimum information to be included is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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