Talk:Samuel Adams

Samuel Adams in the Second Continental Congress

I am disturbed, especially given this article's "featured" status, to find my book Declaration (Simon & Schuster, 2010) listed as reference, whereas the section on Samuel Adams's activities during the Second Continental Congress both denies and ignores the critical behind-the-scenes the biographies to at least consider well-regarded work on the subject by such scholars as David Hawke and Garry Wills. Pauline Maier is cited by the article -- but see her comments in American Scripture on Adams's role in 1776. William Hogeland (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This article was written and featured before your book was published, of course. It appears that someone added your book to the list of references about a year ago, along with a partial quote that revealed nothing of your own take on the subject. This sort of pseudo "research" is common on Wikipedia, and difficult to fix because of its sheer volume. I'll remove your book from the references for the time being. Thank you for pointing out the problem.

It's not true that this article uncritically follows Adams's biographers. If that were true, we'd uncritically report outdated claims from Miller's biography. Instead, we highlight how scholars such as Akers and Maier have challenged some of Miller's claims. If we uncritically followed Adams's biographers, we'd rely more on the pop history biographies of Puls and Stoll, books that may or may not qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

I don't follow your point about Maier in American Scripture. She has very little to say about Samuel Adams's role in the independence movement, even suggesting that historians have traditionally somewhat overstated his role (pp. 68-69). Unless I'm misunderstanding you, her argument is the precise opposite of what you imply it is. But I'm eager to correct any errors and omissions, as time allows. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 22:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, and your point about your sources being well-taken, I withdraw "everywhere dependent." The issue I'd like to pursue is the article's following SA's biographers in dropping him out of sight during what my book presents as the climactic period of his career. If I'm wrong in that presentation, important scholars like Garry Wills and David Hawke are wrong too; primary sources include the diary of Christopher Marshall and later remarks by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Mercy Warren. So I think the issue, at least, deserves serious mention in an important article. Differences in how we're reading the Maier citation are especially interesting. On p. 68, she says "Here at least there is some evidence to support the argument [that SA led "the effort to topple Pennsylvania's government 'from the bottom up.'"]. Since the burden of Maier's work on SA -- certainly including on p. 68-69 of American Scripture -- is always to question scholars' assigning SA the role of backstage puppetmaster, I find her admission of evidence supporting SA's key role in this case more compelling than similar assertions by others who always place him in such a role. To get into where I think Maier might err (on John Adams's status), and Wills doesn't, or where Wills errs and Maier doesn't, etc., might be to misuse the talk page. The salient point, I think, is that there's an historiographical issue with , critical to assessing the career of SA, regarding his role in the politics of 1776, which the article doesn't yet deal with. Thanks for your very fair consideration.William Hogeland (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.107.3 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the section "Struggle with Great Britain" this article asserts erroneously that the Sugar Act of 1764 was the first direct tax by the british parliment on the colonies in America. Simply clicking the link for "Sugar act" reveals the much older Molasses Act of 1733. I have no experience editing, can someone correct this by removing the words "for the first time"? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:9FC0:18:5C75:468C:5A88:6139 (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Locked?

While it says at the top of the page, "Samuel Adams is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so", the article is locked! I just wanted to make a link out of "Independent Chronicle" at the bottom, since there is indeed a Wikipedia article for this newspaper. Can someone do this for me? Thanks. -bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.84.204 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay! (Boy, that was fast!) 71.204.84.204 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

207.191.189.245 (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC) this all wrong fix it!!!!!!!!!!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2015

Can I pls edit? Keisuke3804 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Beer Co.

The S. Adams Beer Co. should be included tell me some info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23jlsnow (talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2016

Please remove the quotation attributed to being spoken by Samuel Adams on 1 August 1776. If one actually consults the source being used to substantiate the quotation, the title page of the appendix that contains the speech directs the reader to Volume II, which on page 440 contains an extensive note that quite thoroughly debunks that it is from Adams.

Thank you. 216.80.32.29 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The quotation was added by Embram with Special:Diff/565246410 in 2013. I will remove this and cite this post for the removal, since it's a candidate for further discussion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed. Folks who disagree should probably discuss this dispute here before adding it back. Thanks for pointing this out. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 07:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Andy M. Wang. The authenticity of this published oration attributed to Samuel Adams (in particular, the identity of the actual author and the exact circumstances of its writing) certainly deserve further study. However, the evidence given against its authenticity comprises arguments of the "seems unlikely because" variety. The characterization by the anonymous editor 216.80.32.29 that the referenced note "quite thoroughly debunks that it is from Adams" is overreaching at best, especially considering that when the note (that disputed the quotation) was written in 1865 there would have been a very strong political motive for wanting to debunk it, considering its contents (Adams' opinion that states should be independent), and therefore we should not dismiss the possibility that the "debunking," taking place as it did nearly 90 years after the fact, may have been a bit of political revisionism. Its being faulty revisionism seems more likely when one considers that the original account of the oration by Adams was published in London in 1776, and later in Paris and Germany in 1778, and there seems to be no record of any contemporaneous debunking of that publication, either by Samuel Adams (who was alive and well at the time) or by anyone else, when it certainly would have been easy to do so, and likely would have been, had the account of the oration been false. Accordingly, the quotation should, at most, be regarded as disputed rather than debunked. Should an established quotation be removed from a Wikipedia article based on a single opinion written in a politically charged atmosphere nearly a century after the quotation's original publication? I don't know, but I certainly don't think the quotation should be "disappeared" as a result. I think it more proper that the quotation be restored with a proper citation, including a footnote indicating that the authenticity of the quotation had been challenged in a note written in 1865.

Incidentally, Andy M. Wang states above that the quotation was added by me. But the history of the page for 21 July 2013 shows that what actually happened is that I had removed the quotation as lacking a supportable citation, and that some 78 minutes later I restored the quotation to the article, giving deference to the original author, after having found an apparently valid citation for it. Embram (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Embram: thanks for the clarifications. At the time, I was in the middle of looking into several edit requests. I glanced briefly at the IP's two links cited and decided that a removal was justified, but could be restored with a small discussion, or a clarification as you provided here. About my stating that you added the text, I simply noticed that you were involved in that section of the text looking at the history. I did not look further back to note that the text initially did not have a citation attached.

I've undone the removal now. I support including a note about its authenticity being disputed per Embram. Thanks again. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's not "Restore it." I have looked and NOT found a proper citation. None of the leading scholars in the last 25+ years have used it--only POV blogs seem to believe it. Rjensen (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with restoring the quotation with a notation that it's disputed, but I'm also happy with holding off on restoring it, per Rjensen, until we find one of the actual 1776-78 publications that are mentioned in the 1865 book that reprints the oration (and later disputes it in a note). If we can find an actual contemporaneous (1776-78) publication, however, then it should be restored. We can't throw out a quotation published in 1776 merely because a single writer 90 years later thinks it's improbable that it could have been written in 1776 (which is the argument given in that note). That being his argument, location of an actual contemporaneous publication would confirm its authenticity. - Embram (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No scholar or editor accepts it. The leading authority (Wells) on Adams writings rfejects it at great length. No biographer mentions it--reason enough we should not mention it= no reliable secondary source. The standard collections of primary sources Adams treat it gingerly: it is NOT listed in Cushing's edition. table of contents. The Wells 1865 edition separates it from authentic speeches, putting it in an appendix with a warning that Adams "is said" to have made it. There are no American editions in 1776. The London edition may just be a forgery. See the discussion at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/AMERICAN-REVOLUTION/2000-11/0973520029 Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

unlock this article

Unlock this article so it can be edited. No reason now to lock it. Samtrunk (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024164803/http://www.samadamsalliance.org/about/our-story.aspx to http://www.samadamsalliance.org/about/our-story.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Samuel Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110090603/http://www.bostonbeer.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69432&p=irol-homeprofile to http://www.bostonbeer.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=69432&p=irol-homeProfile

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links

Could someone look at the "External links" for possible trimming? Things sometimes just creep in but 8 is an excessive number. Otr500 (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Deleted two links but more can be reviewed. Otr500 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2023

2603:300A:9CA:9000:59D4:F000:E099:49E5 (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

In the first sentence of the last paragraph of the "Boston under occupation" section, "Boston" is misspelled as "Bosotn" and should be corrected 216.49.138.189 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Loafiewa (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)