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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeschoolingWikipedia:WikiProject HomeschoolingTemplate:WikiProject HomeschoolingHomeschooling articles
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.
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.
On Adams' page, it says that he cast more tie-breaking Senate votes than any vice president. Leaving aside the possibility that it may have to be changed if Kamala Harris breaks that record, according to the list of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president of the United States, John C. Calhoun holds the most, at 31, with Adams in second at 29 and Harris (as of now) in third at 26. Not sure which is correct, but they obviously can't both be. Since I mostly stick to grammatical edits, I'm not comfortable tackling this question on my own. Packer1028 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The totals listed in the list article match those put out by the U.S. Senate: Calhoun 31, Adams 29, Harris 29 (updated March 1, 2023). The claim that Adams cast the most is incorrect. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: I don't see a reason to list out all presidents that surpassed John Adams' age. It seems most appropriate to list the first president to surpass him and then leave it at that, no? The current sentence doesn't insinuate that Reagan was the only president to do so, and so curious readers can separately research if others also achieved it. —Sirdog(talk) 02:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drdpw, I was aware of the history of changes to the short description when I reverted your edit. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Randy Kyrn's version is, in my mind, superior to yours, for the reasons that I stated in my edit summary. Please either defend your version or allow it to be changed back. Display name 99 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going by Wikipedia:Short description, the Adams biographical article short description, like the short description for every article of an American president (or any national leader for that matter) should state their name and the period they were in what is the most important office in the land and of their lifetime. The pinnacle of John Adams' life was: second President of the United States (1797–1801). Drdpw (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Founding Father, second president of the United States" works much better. The pinnacle of Adams' life was spearheading and championing the creation of a nation, a nation which likely would not have existed if not for him. The same can be said of the other great Founding Father presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. All four were essential. All four flowed together into a vast river of intellect, leadership, action, and bravery. Short descriptors containing only their time as the nation's president miss the mark in terms of encapsulating their historical significance. Interestingly, adding two words actually does accurately and adequately define Adams' life and civilizational imprint: "Founding Father, second president of the United States". Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. The policy that you cited, Drdpw, says that a short description should be a "concise explanation of the scope of the page." Referencing Adams' presidency and nothing else covers only a portion of what the page is about. Randy Kryn's version is a broader summary of Adams' career in fewer characters. Display name 99 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In doing so, wouldn't we be opening every presidential article short description up for alteration discussions, not just for "founding father and", but for "general and", "businessman and", "actor and", and etc.? Drdpw (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, but only a couple would likely pass (Civil war general..., World War II general...) as very little can be added to "U.S. president" to equal the status. Actor and businessman wouldn't compare with "U.S. president". But the four Founding presidents seem a whole other ballpark. It can be argued that without any of these four there would not be a United States to administrate (what a remarkable group in world history). The only Founders equal to these four, Benjamin Franklin and, maybe, Alexander Hamilton, include the Founding Father short descriptor. The other three talk pages should probably be made aware of this discussion, as they too seem to be in the vicinity of this change. As for WP:SHORTDESC, it is not a policy or even a guideline, and links to an informational essay. I think short descriptors showed up in 2018 (earlier?), and there are no set rules as to acceptable wording, just suggestions. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. If a president's notability depends almost entirely on their presidency, we can leave it at just that. But when something else that they did comes close to equalling their presidency in importance, it seems like we ought to consider mentioning that as well. The best example of all would be Ulysses S. Grant. Grant is unique as perhaps the only U.S. president whose presidency is eclipsed by his other achievements. And yet the short description on his article mentions only his presidency, which I find completely nonsensical and misleading. But these are the exceptions. I have no problem keeping the descriptions as it is for the vast majority of presidents. In my mind, the only presidents that we would change this for would be Washington through Madison, maybe Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would keep that Adams was a diplomat. He served as Minister to Great Britain. That was an important duty, especially after the American Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cmguy777, you may be looking at the lead sentence. The present short description is "President of the United States from 1797 to 1801" with the proposed change being "Founding Father, second president of the United States" (the words 'Founding Father' would cover his service as diplomat as well as his other founding activities). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Where is the short description located? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Right at the top if you click the 'edit' button. If you use Vector22 skin (the default) it appears in the search box when you search for 'John Adams'. I've heard it appears on mobile but don't know what it looks like there. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it. Thanks. How about this? Founding Father and President of the United States (1797-1801)Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea, but that could make it seem that Adams' was a Founding Father for only four years (which may confuse some readers). Wikipedia style would also lowercase 'president' in that example. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be restoring Randy Kryn's version to this article, as we seem to be 2 to 1 in favor of it and the other person has not responded here. I propose that appropriate changes be made to the other articles. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe this is a moot point, but I think the years (1797-1801) John Adams was President should be added to the short description. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have put Founding Father, President of the United States (1797-1801). That shows John Adams was a one term President. However, I am fine with the current change. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Display name 99, I had left a note at the Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Founding Father talk pages about this discussion, so if it has been sparsely attended it's not for lack of notification (which usually means 'sure, go ahead'). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]