Talk:John Quincy Adams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article Needs Help!

Under the section, Three World Events, the original author is not writing in full sentences. Can someone address this? Under the section, Film and Television, the author names six different actors portraying Adams in a single PBS series, The Adams Chronicles. Can that possibly be correct? How so? L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Career Chronology

On the right edge of the page. It is just plain unreadable. It's not in ANY determinable order. It SHOULD be in order of time. At the very least it should be in order of importance of the office. It is too hard to read in the order it is in now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.230.148 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disowned by the Federalists and not fully accepted by the Republicans

There is no source for these statements, and I don't believe they are even accurate. I'm fairly certain, having read a biography on John Quincy Adams some years ago, that he was indeed a republican at the time of his death. In fact, my impression was that he was instrumental in starting the republican party.

I'm also surprised that there is no reference to his relationship with Lincoln toward the end of his life. I think he was Lincoln's Senior/Mentor Senator during the time Lincoln was a freshman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.129.24 (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

not an ambassador

Adams was never an ambassador, and the template should not indicate that he was one. I would have changed it to Minister, but the stupid template has a special ambassador tag, so it's not easy to do. But this should be changed. john k (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article says John Q Adams was the first president to have his photograph taken, in 1843. However the article on William Henry Harrison includes a copy of a daguerreotype from 1841.

So who came first?

118.100.85.38 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A daguerreotype, though having similarities, is distinct from a photograph.--JayJasper (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in protected infobox

The infobox for this page has "Massachusetts's"; the possessive of the word is "Massachusetts'" I tried to fix it but it appears to be protected. Suedid (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:POSS, it's a matter of opinion but I'd use "Massachusetts's". Also see Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, right at the beginning. Smallbones (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on Slavery

The first two paragraphs are very well written, but the first half of the third paragraph is a re-iteration, as well as the final sentance of the third paragraph. 132.3.41.68 (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Jeffrey R. Albro

Chronological order?

I thought info boxes are in chronological order? I understand that "President of the United States" is the most prominent position that Adams has held, but since he was the Massachusetts representative in the years following his presidency, shouldn't that be placed at the top? Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blee395 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Governor of Massachusetts?

This article makes no mention of it but here, Quincy Adams is listed as a defeated candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 1834 and here he is listed as a candidate in 1838. Which, if either, is correct? Tiller54 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Western Frontier

I believe a "Western Frontier" segment would be good for the article. Americans were coming in contact with the British, Spanish, and Indians during President Adams Administration. Trapper Jedediah Smith named a river after President Adams on his travels to the West. At this time the British and Americans shared the Oregon country. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Governor of Massachusetts?

This article makes no mention of it but here, Quincy Adams is listed as a defeated candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 1834 and here he is listed as a candidate in 1838. Which, if either, is correct? Tiller54 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It is apparently the former. Tiller54 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

He ran in the election held November 11 1833 as the Antimasonic candidate for governor --- says Charles Francis Adams (1986). Diary of Charles Francis Adams: November 1834-June 1836. Harvard UP. p. 14.. Nothing happened in 1834 or 1838. Rjensen (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Denmark and Scandinavia?

Among the diplomatic achievements of Adams' presidential term the article mentions "treaties of reciprocity with a number of nations, including Denmark, Mexico, the Hanseatic League, the Scandinavian countries..." At this time, there were de facto only two Scandinavian countries, Denmark (which also included Iceland and the Faeroes) and Sweden-Norway, which had formed a personal union in 1814. Finland, formerly a province of Sweden, had been lost to Russia in 1809 and was now officially an autonomous Grand Duchy under the Russian Czar but had no foreign relations of its own. Since Denmark is also mentioned separately, I wonder what the other "Scandinavian countries" (aside from Sweden-Norway) might be.--Death Bredon (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bemis argues that Adams was able to:" - Who is Bemis?

Pretty self explanatory, without his full name being established, JQA's biographer is referred to with merely his last name. "Bemis" is confusing without at least a full name or a Wiki hyperlink to Samuel Flagg Bemis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nojtamal (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Old Photographs vs paintings

Old photos have many shortcomings. They are Not accurate or realistic because they leave out the color. They used very long shutter times so people had to freeze their expression in an unnatural fashior. Painters could depict realistic colors and realistic poses and representative facial expressions. The photos are best at showing the clothing, but that is a minor issue in a biography of a person's career and personality. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Paintings have many shortcomings. They are not accurate because they are not an actual representation of the individual painted but of the artist's rendering and impression of the individual painted. They painted what they thought they saw.

Let's get real, here: a photograph is always preferable in the infobox because it is the most realistic representation of the individual. Further, policy is to have photos before paintings. Can't get around that. Personally, I find it amazing and wonderful that we have a photograph available of the oldest son of the second President of the United States -- a man who was born in the 1700s. I love the photo and will advocate based on personal feeling as well as policy to keep it there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Realism in black-and-white??? Perhaps you are thinking of the background, or the clothing. But that does not apply to the face or the pose or the body language. What the biographical article needs is a sense of the subject’s personality and character. It is possible in modern photography to get this-- professional photographers today have elaborate control over their lighting, for example, and many lenses and filters. Typically they take dozens – maybe hundreds-- of shots looking for just the right facial expression and body language. When they find the best photograph they keep it and discard the others. You can see how this works when you get a family portait done. Fact is some photos are MUCH better than others because of the faces. In similar fashion, portrait painters spend many hours with the subject looking for the pose that best expresses the personality. 170 years ago, however, that level of exquisite care and preparation was impossible given the photographic technology. The lighting was poor and very hard to control. The chemicals were far inferior to modern film or digital processes. Camera speed was very slow and the subject had be frozen in a pose-- a very unnatural act. A photograph was expensive, he only took one, and that was the one that is handed down in the archives. So if the article is about a building, or clothing, or furniture, the black-and-white photograph works. But it does not compare to a professional full-color portrait done by an experienced artist. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing this in the wrong place. The policy is what it is. If you want to change policy, go to the appropriate board. There is nothing wrong with the photo, it's an accurate representation, excellent quality for that time period, is historical, and it should stay. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Which policy do you mean?? Here is the official; policy WP:LEADIMAGE: "For most topics, the selection of a lead image is plainly obvious: a photograph or artistic work of a person, photographs of a city, or a cover of a book or album, to name a few." Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, Rjensen, I'm referring to the following policy found at MOS:Images/WP:LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". A photograph is a more natural visual representation and, therefore, is preferable over an artist's painting. The painting may be "prettier" or more attractive aesthetically, but it is still the painter's representational vision of the subject rather than an actual representation of the subject that can only be rendered via a photograph. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just curious, which painting would you ideally use, Rjensen? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, the photo he insists on is found here:[1], the reasoning in his edit summary for restoring it via revert was, "drop inaccurate photo--it's black and white and the real Adams was in living color". Diff of revert is found here:[2]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see. Searching images of him in color, these all seem to be edited and/or paintings. Regarding the point you mention from WP:LEADIMAGE, Winkelvi, here's what it says after the text you quoted: "they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". Unless I'm mistaken, most historical books on Adams would contain more photographs of him than portraits. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't do vague. What's your point? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more explicit. A photograph should ideally be used over a portrait/painting. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Which has already been explained to Rjensen, to no avail. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As I argued above a 19c black and white photograph is much less "natural" than a color painting by an artist. B&W is ok for buildings but does anyone think black and white is "natural" for human beings? no one here has dared to make that silly case. Rjensen (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not trying to be intentionally insulting, Rjensen, but your concept that an authentic photograph of an individual is less natural than a painting of the same individual is ridiculous. SNUGGUMS, of course there wouldn't be any color photos of JQ Adams as color photography had not yet been invented. Black and white photographs of real people are more realistic than color paintings of people, which are realistic only to a certain degree. To think otherwise is (as I already said) ridiculous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it exactly "less natural"? If color photographs of Adams were available, I'd say use those, but there don't seem to be any. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it exactly "less natural"? because humans come in full living color. Color photography was rare before the late 1930s. when Hollywood saw its far superior appeal. Rjensen (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My argument is: a) color is decisive & B&W =fake for humans b) pose is extremely important for depicting humans and in 19c it was very difficult to get (because of very slow film speed, poor chemicals, poor lighting, lack of filters & lenses). Today photographers will take dozens or hundreds of shots to get the "right" one and that was impossible back then. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We know what your argument is, you've repeated it several times now. It's still a ridiculous argument. Beyond that, replacing a clear and historic photograph with a painting goes against policy: ""Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". Further, as SNUGGUMS pointed out, the same policy also reads, "they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see". The photograph should stay. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My problem here is that the photo-folks seem never to have thought about what portraits are and how they are used. As for high-quality reference works, tghey strongly prefer paintings. I actually looked. The famous Bemis biography (Pulitzer Prize) has about 20 illustrations but not this photo. I looked at the dusk jackets of about two dozen biographies] on Amazon--none use this photo; they all use paintings. Encyclopedias: World Book (no); Encyclopedia Britannica (no). Obviously the critics are ignorant about his portraits. Adams himself was clear about images of him in his old age: "The features of my old age are ... harsh and stern far beyond the true portraiture of the heart; there is no ray of intellect in them to redeem their repulsive severity." [Portraits of John Quincy Adams and His Wife by Andrew Oliver, p 2] Oliver notes that Adams was painted from life by 60 artists. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand you feel strongly about this, but the photo stays, Rjensen. Your pleas for replacing a wonderful and historic photo with the image of a painting flies in both the face of policy and reason. I hope you drop this argument (which is not likely to persuade or go your way) and re-focus your editing to improving and adding content to the article. Why not put the image of the painting into the article -- just not in the infoxbox? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

hello, again, User:Rjensen;

here is some of what is wrong with your arguements, broken down into parts.

re: "pose"

you argue about the unnaturalness of photographic poses, & about how long the subject had to hold a pose, for a photograph to be taken

here's the thing: POSING FOR A PAINTING or DRAWING TAKES LONGER

& the poses can be every bit as contrived, or moreso.

in a painting, the artist doesn't even have to show the subject's actual pose, they can just make stuff up.

re: accuracy

a photograph is, by definition, an EXACT RECORD of the light-patterns introduced onto the photographic medium, by the camera-lens.

a drawing, or painting is a subjective "likeness", created by an artist, as an interpretation of an image they conceive & create in their mind which might or might not have anything to do with objective reality.

re: objectivity

an unaltered photograph, as stated above, is a simple, literal record of a lighted scene.

a drawing, painting, or other interpretive artwork, is an INTERPRETIVE ARTWORK.

usually, for portraits such as the ones we are arguing over, the artist has been HIRED & PAID by the subject, or the subject's supporters; to produce a FAVOURABLE IMAGE of the subject.

few people hire an artist to paint an unflattering portrait of somebody, especially one "taken from life", & VERY few people will hire an artist to paint an unflattering portrait of themselves, or (voluntarily & knowingly) pose for such a likeness.

theodore roosevelt famously DESTROYED an "official white house presidential portrait" of himself that he DISLIKED.

further, a not insignificant number of the "american history" paintings of which you seem to be so fond, are retrospective, often posthumous, "history-paintings". nobody painted washington while he was crossing the delaware, nor the actual signing of the declaration of independence; most of the paintings & drawings & other interpretive artworks we have, of people & events, are at best composites of sketches, photographs, & the artist's imagination. they are a form of "contrived artiface", to create an iconic image, rather than a precise record of persons, poses, & events.

we are not in the business of "capturing the spirit" of the subject, we are in the business of recording & reporting facts about them.

we are also not in the business of catering to the preferences of a biographical subject, as to their appearance & portrayal. nobody gets to stay "young & beautiful" forever (to whatever degree they were so), & it's not our job to flatter, our job is to be truthful.

finally, re: colour

simply because a painting is in colour, does not guarantee that the colours shown are accurate.

the artist is just as free to choose & alter the colours in their interpretive work, as they are to alter every other aspect of it.

even if the artist has made a good-faith effort to be "as accurate as possible", that STILL doesnt make it a polaroid; there are limits to the colours an artist can produce, & the colours may change over time, as the painting ages, is refinished, cleaned, etc.

the simple reality is that we didn't have widespread colour photography until the mid-20th century; & many/most photographic images taken before that time will be in black & white.

that does nothing to change the fact that photographs are a MORE ACCURATE RECORD of whatever they depict, than an artistic interpretation such as a painting, drawing, or sculpture not directly moulded from the subject.

colour images may be "prettier", but that does not make them more accurate, or better, for our purposes in recording non-fictional history.

& the wiki-policy stands, a stated above by our fellow-editors; if you REALLY want to challenge/change it, then i invite you to start a general discussion about it, via the community process, & see what results you get from that.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to thank Lx 121 for opening up intellectually interesting conversation. Let me take up some of his points 1) “a photograph is, by definition, an EXACT RECORD of the light-patterns introduced onto the photographic medium, by the camera-lens.” Nonsense. All the colors are removed—a failure in "exact record" that Lx cannot seem to appreciate. The photographer here realized the problem, and made sure that Adams was wearing a black suit. A red tie, blue eyes, pink cheeks, brown hair, purple veins -– all that is lost. I recommend looking at Audubon paintings of birds, and guessing what they would look like in black-and-white. I recommend looking at the movie “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” (1939) and pretend, like most viewers in 1939, you have never seen a color movie. The cyclone makes a terrific transition, from Kansas to Oz, from black and white to color. I think it really makes a tremendous difference, and the fact that the technology of the 1840s was poor while the techniques of oil painting had been perfected for centuries should weigh in the judgment of someone who is technologically oriented. 2) “POSING FOR A PAINTING or DRAWING TAKES LONGER” yes, because the artist is looking for the best view of the persons personality and typical way he looks. The artist will chat informally in a friendly low tension environment to discover exactly that pose; He will make a pencil sketch, and replicate it in the full color portrait. 3) “every bit as contrived” -- here we have a key issue: how do we know what is contrived. Answer: we rely on the judgments of humans. Portraits are judged by the people of the time, they are reviewed and evaluated and praised or condemned. Some artists became very famous indeed for the life-like portraits. Historians and museum curators pay close attention to how people at the time evaluated the portrait in terms of realism and quality. (There is even a full-length scholarly book entirely devoted to the portraits of John Quincy Adams.) The National Portrait Gallery in Washington is full of archivists and curators who specialize in these issues – I highly recommend a visit. My point is historians and museum professionals have criteria for excellence and it is not true that artists “can just make stuff up”. If the artist gets the pose wrong or the colors wrong, critics will complain about it. Especially when we are dealing with a President of the United States who was seen in color by thousands of people. This reminds me of the famous quotations by Samuel Johnson, who commented on a dog who walked on his hind legs. “It was not well done, but the mere fact that he did it was interesting.” Likewise the photographs of the 1840s, done with poor cameras, poor lenses, poor chemicals & poor lighting--they too are curiosities. 4) “objective reality” well no. Wikipedia has a philosophy that there is no such thing as the "real truth" in history --only the judgments made by reliable secondary sources are real for Wikipedia. All these reliable secondary sources are in fact written by named humans, not machines or light meters. 5) “interpretive artwork”. Yes that is what the entire article on John Quincy Adams is all about – how historians have selected and presented statements about Adams by actual humans called historians. 6) As for “favorable image” I think that applies equally to a photograph as to portraits. What photographers of 2014 do is take hundreds of shots, with different lenses, lighting, filters, clothing, angles, props and poses. They then discard 99% of the shots and select the one that best expresses the personality of the model. Even the little photography booth where you put a dollar in the slot and get four photographs gives you a selection. 7) retrospective paintings made years later are not realistic, but commemorative. They reflect the people's memory of the event. That is not relevant to the situation here. 8) “we are not in the business of "capturing the spirit" of the subject, we are in the business of recording & reporting facts about them.” Totally wrong. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting the historical interpretations created by the reliable secondary sources – that is what all the history articles do. So-called “facts” using original research or primary sources are discouraged here. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please take your lengthy argument and wall of text to the appropriate forum within Wikipedia. The photo will stay in the infobox and you are wasting our/your time here beating the same dead horse over and over, Rjensen. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Related move discussion

Talk:Louisa Johnson (singer) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Utter lack of charm?

Citation, please. The article contains lots of evidence that Adams was very charming; for example, mentions were made of his being well liked by his foreign counterparts. I smell a feminist putting him down to artificially elevate the contribution of his wife. Kerry (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Could we please use his photograph?

We have a real-life photograph of this man. I don't understand why a painting is used. We use a photograph for Martin Van Buren, despite him having an "official painting" as well. We don't use Obama's painting portrait either, because we have actual pictures of him. Pictures are so much more accurate in portraying someone than a painting. ApolloFirenze (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

it's a bad photo of an old man using poor equipment & poor film--there is no color so it's quite unrealistic: }NOBODY look like that! . The color portrait is much more skillful & represents his at the peak of his career not an old man., Rjensen (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree that the painting is better for the lede pic. The photo could be added into the body of the article, though; I don't think it's so "bad" per se, just not representative of the man in office. I've just reverted it, asking for more discussion. Disagree with edit summary that photos are always better. YoPienso (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

old b&W photos have problems that degraded their realism. Film today is much better than bw film before 1945--the reason was old BW films were "blue sensitive," which meant that bright yellow came out looking dark, gray, and red came out looking very dark gray regardless of the brightness of the original subject. see Kathleen Tracy (2002). The Complete Idiot's Guide to Portrait Photography. p. 69. There was nothing the photographer could do in 1850 lacking good film stock and without filters and with poor lighting. Portrait painters in 1850 on the other hand, had much better control over light, shading, & colors, as well as the person's expression. In 2016 the photographer will take dozens, even hundreds of photographs, & then select only the that has the best facial expression. In 1850 given the time element of slow film, and the high costs, & the inconvenience of the sitter frozen in his facial expression, it was very unlikely for a photographer to take numerous shots in those days. Rjensen (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

and it is not "long-settled policy that photos trump paintings and drawings." Instead look at this guideline: Where they exist, authentic portraits, i.e. artistic depictions of a person that purport to provide an individualized, authentic representation of that person's unique looks, based either directly or indirectly on a witness's first-hand experience of their physical appearance, are obviously the best choice for illustrating history and biography articles about that person. from WP:PORTRAIT

Massachusetts State Senate

Can someone more skilled in these things than I am put his in the Massachusetts State Senate in the sidebar that lists the offices he held? (1/19/2016)

Supreme Court appointment declined

Adams was nominated to the Supreme Court and confirmed by the Senate, but he declined the nomination. I need to find sources, but I will add this to the article. I want to know if anyone else was ever--Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC) nominated or nominated and confirmed but declined to serve.

McCulloch V. Maryland: Implied Powers of the Federal Government by Samuel Willard Crompton. This book contains a reference to Madison's nomination of Adams for the Supreme Court, Senate confirmation, and Adams then declining the post.

William Smith of South Carolina was nominated by Jackson, confirmed, and then declined.

Chester Arthur nominated Roscoe Conkling. Conkling was confirmed, and then declined to serve.

Those are the ones I know of. I hope this helps.

Billmckern (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"President"

Simple grammar rules, people: the word (or any honorific) is not capitalized unless immediately preceding a proper name: eg: ... was given to President Washington ... -as opposed to- ... was given to Washington, then president of the United States. Thanks GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proper, but perhaps not so simple GenQuest: whitehouse.gov "Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States."; nytimes.com "Donald John Trump was elected the 45th president of the United States on Tuesday ..."; and cnn.com "...the 43rd president of the United States." Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Good grammar is not subjugated to bad journalism, especially in government media/publication that thinks that the POTUS may just be god, per other stuff exists. The Times and CNN got it right for a change. Regards. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The relevant WP policy is MOS:JOBTITLES. YBG (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"}

IQ

Was this the "smartest" US president in terms of IQ? See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax#IQ_estimations_by_academics 118.210.31.30 (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cite fix pending

Herring, George p129/cite book|last=Herring|first=George|title=From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776|page=129|publisher=Oxford Univ. Press|year=2008 fix pending Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Hoppyh (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Additions

Just a heads up to other editors, over the weekend I'm going to be adding info from Kaplan and probably Parsons (2009) to the Secretary of State, 1824 election, presidency, and 1828 election sections. I'll edit in my sandbox and then transport it over to here. Orser67 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

If you would, please note the harvnb cite style I have incorporated for Parsons (1998) and you can be consistent with that. (I'm a third of the way into cleaning up refs and bibliography.) Thnx. Hoppyh (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Also just fyi, I still plan on adding to the presidency section. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see an unregistered. editor has waded in and changed the lede photo which is under review—I personally like the edit but not optimistic it will endure in light of the contentious history. The pending review is the first I have encountered. Interesting. Hoppyh (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of infobox image reverted. This has been discussed numerous times on this talk page in the past. Consensus has always been for the photo over a painting. He's the first president to sit for a photo portrait. It's not only historic to have the photo there, photos are always preferred over paintings in infoboxes. Regardless, long-standing consensus has been for the photo, therefore, it will stay as is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Your conclusion is indeed what I anticipated. Hoppyh (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to suspend my own additional edits until the current pending edit reviews are cleared. Hoppyh (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

subject lede photo discussion AGAIN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

oppose r jensen's replacement of the established lede photograph with a painting, for the reasons that have been discussed at least TWICE in the past.

photographs of the subject are inherently more NPOV, & more accurate than artistic representations.

user consensus was reached on using this particular photo.

no reason for the change other than "it looks prettier"

Lx 121 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

FURTHER; this is the same user who attempted to change the image repeatedly in the past.

& was rebutted & rebuffed in repeated, & extensive discussions; with multiple other editors.

we had the discussion, & we had it more than once. consensus was reached to use a photo as lede, as is common practice when photos of the subject are available. particularly from biographical articles. this was the photo that was agreed upon.

the user needs to respect that, or use established procedures to further their dispute.

it is not appropriate for the user to "lurk" articles, until everybody else stops paying attention, so that he can "get his way". this action is a slow-burning edit war.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to make a case why a poor quality black-and-white photo of a decrepit old man accurately reflects the meaning of JQ Adams in American history. Compare with a color portrait in his prime which tells us far more. For ecample he had color in his cheeks! Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• comment: hello, again. with all due respect, you are not saying anything new. you are just recycling the exact same arguements you used before. they were rejected. in response, i will refer you to the statements i made the last time we did this.

& i would like to politely remind you that i was a great deal more patient with you, than some of the other people in that conversation.

the photo is NOT AT ALL "poor quality", & we have several other hq versions to choose from.

the superior accuracy of photography @ capturing a person's likeness, when compared to a painting is not in dispute.

an NNPOV, "hagoigraphic" artwork, that was literally created to create a flattering impression of the subject, is NOT "better"; it is merely "prettier".

there is NO BASIS to object to the photo "because it isn't in colour. that's childish; colour photography didn't become commonplace until mid 20th century. when we have photographs available, we don't use "dramatic paintings" to show ww2, ww1, the civil war, historical subject, or persons. because PHOTOGRAPHS ARE MORE ACCURATE.

...the "color" that is so important to you was chosen by the artist. who was hired to paint nice picture, not to forensically photo-document the subject. professional portrait painters ROUTINELY "altered the facts" to produce the paintings their clients wanted; colour, pose, clothing, setting, features. quite often, the paintings are crammed with allegorical content; especially the big, fancy ones. MOST portrait paintings are contrived to make the subject look good; the artists were HIRED for that. the artist who did that famous unfinished portrait of washington lived for decades hacking off cheap portraits of him, long after washington was dead, based on the studies he did @ that time. so much for historical accuracy.

finally, jqa was still a SITTING CONGRESSMAN when this was taken. the amistad case was only a few years earlier. he was not in any way "decrepit".

this is what the man REALLY looked like. not the pretty artworks.

you've run your arguements through here often enough; & been rebuffed each time. you are using up/wasting other people's time & efforts. a decision was made here. after open discussion. you need to respect that.

take it to arbitration if you really want to. stop switching to the painting when you think "nobody is looking". an edit war is still an edit war, even if you stretch it out into months & years.

Lx 121 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Please desist, or you'll have to be blocked for being edit-warring. No one agreed to use the daguerreotype. Here's the previous discussion YoPienso (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

yes, & if you look back further in the talk page history; like more than 4 months ago, you will find that the matter was discussed & we agree on the photograph.

also, that conversation does not particularly favour your position. add my vote & the other ppl who discussed the matter previously & you "lose".

finally, the link included in that conversation is to an 'essay; which is not policy, & is also misquoted

cheers,

Lx 121 (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Please show us the policy that has been referred to on the talk page and in edit summaries that "photos trump paintings." I've been unable to find it. What I find is MOS:LEADIMAGE: It is common to use an appropriate representative image for the lead of an article—​​often in an infobox—​​allowing readers to quickly assess whether they are on the right page. Often, this will be a photograph or artwork showing a person or place, a book or album cover, etc. This favors neither photo nor painting.

The daguerreotype seems to me to look rather grim, more like a mug shot, while the painting looks dignified. In the most recent discussion, Jensen and I disagreed with ApolloFirenze, forming a weak consensus. (By "weak," I mean there were only 3 people involved with one for the photo and two against. Hardly definitive.) By all means, let's re-open the discussion and come to a stronger one!

Please thread your posts in the standard format. Thanks, YoPienso (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I've just posted this message to the editors I know were involved in discussion about the lead image:

Calling all editors to form a consensus on the lead image at John Quincy Adams. First posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents.

ApolloFirenze turns out to be indefinitely blocked, but I left the message anyway. YoPienso (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support current photo as infobox image. This was decided a couple of years ago, Rjensen has a history of edit warring over the infobox image here and at other presidential articles. He insists on using paintings rather than actual photos/images. See discussion [ here]. I realize that the consensus for this was a couple of years ago, however, I see no reason why a painting should ever be used when a decent photograph meeting MOS for infobox images is available. Pinging SNUGGUMS as also involved in the previous discussion on this issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support use of File:JQA Photo.tif. As I said before, an official photo is preferable over a painting, even if the photo is black-and-white and the painting is in color. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose use of File:JQA Photo.tif because it is unflattering; Adams looks sad or befuddled. Agree that the color painting may not be better. Suggest an engraving that shows his features clearly and makes him look intelligent.

Winkelvi, your link to the discussion isn't there.

It seems both of you share the opinion that "photos trump paintings," but I can't find that's policy or even a guideline. I do not share that opinion. Some photos are better than some paintings and vice versa. YoPienso (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

See Talk:John Quincy Adams/Archive 2#Could we please use his photograph?, which is where this was previously discussed. It might not be a firm rule exactly, but a photo is more authentic than a painting, which is why I support its use. I also don't see anything "unflattering" about it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had found that discussion, in which I'd participated. It certainly was not edit-warring on Jensen's part. Not only is it not a firm rule, it's not a rule at all. Or at least I haven't been able to find it and no one's responded to multiple requests to produce it. Did you look at the engraving? It's 100% authentic, is attractive, and is flattering to Adams, whereas in your preferred image Adams is looking down and looks downcast. It can certainly be included in the article, but imho not as the lead image. I'm not going to get huffy about it, so if you insist on daguerreotype, I'll not revert unless more editors agree with me.

On looking further, I suggest using Asher Durand's 1826 engraving made when Adams was president. He was 56 when elected, and the daguerreotype was made no earlier than 1840 and possibly shortly before Adams's death. YoPienso (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clever with photos, so can't paste them in here. To be clear, I'm asking that these engravings be considered:

Durand's and Tichenor's, based on the Healy painting you don't prefer. YoPienso (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no requirement that historic images be "attractive" or "flattering". Photographs from the era and into the early 20th century frequently portrayed their subjects as unhappy (no one smiled much in photos then) and unflattering (because of the process involved in just taking the photo, subjects had to sit still for many uncomfortable minutes on end). The photo is historic (it's a Matthew Brady, after all), it's widely recognized, there's truly nothing wrong with it, and it's a photo (which is always preferable over a drawing or painting). Finally, it's quite remarkable that we have a photo portrait of a president from that time-period; JQA was the first president to have a photo portrait done of him. We should use it for that reason as well as the others I mentioned here. Based on all this, I don't find your arguments for replacing a photo for a drawing or painting to be persuasive in the least, Yopienso. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• additionally; both of the engravings you are suggesting are clearly less accurate & more flattering, more "hagiographic" portraits of the subject. Lx 121 (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty well settled that photos trump engravings, paintings, drawings, lithographs, etc. on the grounds that photos are the most accurate representations of the individuals.

I know this means we sometimes use photos of individuals who had substantial careers before photography, which means the likenesses show them at an advanced age. Even so, it seems to me that photos are to be preferred, because they're the most likely to be accurate depictions.

Billmckern (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The people were in living color & the photos in dead black and white. That's obviously a gross distortion and falsification of reality that does not exist in paintings. Today photographers use much better film and light and--here's the key point--they take dozens or hundreds of photos to get the one best facial expression--anyone who's been to a professional photographer or seen a wedding shoot knows that. Painters then and now likewise spend many hours with the subject looking for the most revealing expression. 19th century technology meant there was only one photo taken with poor film and poor lighting. Hence the distortions go beyond lack of color. Rjensen (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

• comment - photographic images are inherently more accurate than "representational art" like paintings, drawings, & sculptures. if you really want to argue that one, start a general rfc for it.

also: the human eye only "sees" colour in well-lighted conditions, our eyes are built to detect light/dark more easily & more inherently; rods vs cones. not to mention the wide range of colour-blindnesses. TL;DR our brains have no trouble processing reality in black & white.

the colours CHOSEN by the artist are not photo-accurate; they are decisions, & artiface, not precise documentation. even if the shades are matched accurately, of which you have no guarantee, & little ability to prove, it is unlikely that the same colouring-agents are being used in the painting, as in reality. or that they have aged perfectly.

early photographers were perfectly capable of doing excellent work, & in fact daguerreotypes are EXTREMELY high-resolution. & your summary of the state of the art of 19th century photography is grossly inaccurate.

finally, the rest of your dissertation, about getting the best "look", simply reinforces the NNPOV problem with representational art portraits.

our job' as wiki-encyclopedists, is to provide an accurate likeness off the subject-person; not to make them look pretty, not to "capture the spirit of the subject", not to offer an apotheosis or a eulogy or any kind of "grand summary in one picture".

just to SHOW WHAT THE PERSON REALLY LOOKED LIKE.

& before you repeat yourself about "how paintings are in colour", please reread my comments about that, above.

Lx 121 (talk)

I was in the middle of reading this biography and couldn't help but notice the repeated infobox image change - is this dispute now settled? I think the current photo looks fine, in that it serves its intended purpose. He does look awkward and rather unhappy, but this is to be expected from a man who was bothered by his appearance and suffered depression for most of his life. Speaking of early presidential photos, the ones of Andrew Jackson are even more depressing. Jackson looks unbelievably miserable and grumpy, but crucially the Daguerreotype's represent an accurate image of the (former) president. --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support use of the photo in the info box (per prior discussions). That's more representative of what he looked like, deal with it. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 01:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support the use of the photograph currently used. I suspect most readers are like me and would prefer to see a phoaptionto rather than a painting as a way to make history feel more real. I'm sure there are instances where there may only be one surviving poor quality photo of somebody and it would be preferable to use a painting then, but this is a pretty good photo of Adams. Libertybison (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support use of current photo. Most of the arguments against have been subjective at best or demonstrably false. JQA is the first pres (out of office) to of had his photo taken, and the info box photo is invaluable, accurate and more so than a painting could ever hope to be. --Chairman Peng Xi (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support current image. He seems quite distinguished in it, while the painting under discussion makes him seem stiff and puppet-like, as well as the subject being portrayed at some distance. True, a painting adds colour to the scene and the individual, yet even though a black and white photo distorts reality by its very nature it at least was created using actual photons reflecting from the subject, thus making it a more accurate real-time image than the use of oils to "capture" a once-removed impression. The image itself has attained historical significance, and was taken, by definition, while Adams was still active and working. Randy Kryn 19:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Immediately below the image, Adams' office as POTUS is referenced - serving visually as a caption. Query, should not the image then be of Adams when he was president? Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There are no photos of him as president. The process wasn't invented yet. Closing discussion. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image Removed for Clarification

I have removed the following image from the "Photography" section pending clarification of its identity. It is described as an 1843 image, which is the date of the lede image in the article. It does not appear to me be any version of that. Further identification of it is needed to avoid confusion I believe. File:John Quincy Adams 1843.jpg Hoppyh (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anti-slavery advocacy section

This section needs to be incorporated into the earlier Slavery section in the article. Hoppyh (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Orser67 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:ADAMS, John Q-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ADAMS, John Q-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 11, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-07-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) was an American statesman who served as a diplomat, minister and ambassador to foreign nations, and treaty negotiator, United States Senator, Congressman from Massachusetts, and the sixth President of the United States from 1825 to 1829. Involved in negotiating the treaties of Ghent, 1818, and Adams–Onís, Adams has been called one of the United States' greatest diplomats and secretaries of state. As president, he sought to modernize the American economy and promote education, paying off much of the national debt despite being stymied by a Congress controlled by opponents and lacking patronage networks. Historians have generally ranked him as an above-average president.Engraving: Bureau of Engraving and Printing; restoration: Andrew Shiva

I tried to replace the current image with the featured image, but the padding is too large and the image itself too small. Can anyone help? Thanks! YoPienso (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Brown University

This article states that Adams was a professor there. But list "Notable faculty," about 2/3 down the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brown_University_people, fails to include him.

Whichever page is wrong, fix it.

Jimlue (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Usage of "child" / "son or daughter"

Being discussed on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language in order to get a broader opinion. patsw (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Above-Average or Average?

The introduction for this article ends with the statement: "Historians generally concur that Adams was one of the greatest diplomats and secretaries of state in American history, and they tend to rank him as an above-average president."

However, the Historical Reputation section begins with: "Adams is widely regarded as one of the most effective diplomats and secretaries of state in American history,[220][221] but scholars generally rank him as an average president."

Unless the article is specifically denoting a difference between what historians think and what scholars think (which I'm guessing is unlikely), those two conflicting statements should be reconciled. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about President Adams to pick one or the other.

PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it--> average. Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

IQ going back to the article originally referenced.

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SimontonPresIQ2006.pdf

of 301 geniuses (n = 8). Actually, there were four estimates for each president. First, IQs were calculated for two periods of biographical data, the first from birth to age 17 and the second from age 18 to age 26. These were identified by Cox as IQ I and IQ II. Second, the raw IQ scores for each of these periods were corrected for measurement error (see Cox, 1926, pp. 82-83, for the specific formula). This statistical correction for attenuation was deemed necessary because some biogra- phies had more adequate information than did others. Hence, each period has both uncorrected (U) and corrected (C) IQ scores. The outcome is four IQ scores: I-U, I-C, II-U, and II-C. (515)

At this time, the article has him listed at 165. It seems to be that we should consider the corrected estimate as the most accurate; that is, unless there is any disagreement to this particular methodology. At the very least, the range seems to begin at 165 and end at 175, so it might be worthwhile to adjust this to acknowledge the range at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.64.88.233 (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to assign an IQ value to someone who never took a test designated for such, is highly speculative and shouldn't even be in the article, per SYNTHESIS, OR, and probably CRYSTAL at best, and is certainly FRINGE science. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bunker Hill and the young Adams

May we insert a comment concerning Adams and his mother Abigail witnessing the Battle of Bunker Hill? The event had a great impact on Adams which he wrote about later in his life.

Proposed addition: "At the age of eight, Adams, in the company of his mother Abigail, witnessed the Battle of Bunker Hill, a traumatizing experience that made a deep impression lasting into his final years."

Nathaniel Philbrick: "From Seventy-one years after that day, in the jittery script of an old man, John Quincy Adams described the terrifying afternoon when he and his mother watched the battle from a hill beside their home in Braintree: “I saw with my own eyes those fires, and heard Britannia’s thunders in the Battle of Bunker’s hill and witnessed the tears of my mother and mingled with them my own.” They feared, he recounted, that the British troops might at any moment march out of Boston and “butcher them in cold blood” or take them as hostages and drag them back into the besieged city. But what he remembered most about the battle was the hopeless sense of sorrow that he and his mother felt when they learned that their family physician, Dr. Joseph Warren, had been killed.

Warren had saved John Quincy Adams’s badly fractured forefinger from amputation, and the death of this “beloved physician” was a terrible blow to a boy whose father’s mounting responsibilities required that he spend months away from home. Even after John Quincy Adams had grown into adulthood and become a public figure, he refused to attend all anniversary celebrations of the Battle of Bunker Hill..."

https://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9781101622704

Bunker Hill: a City, a Siege, a Revolution. New York: Viking, 2013. ISBN 0-670-02544-5 OCLC 818953755

Cite Error; Reference 76.

Can someone take a look at reference #76? If I try to fix it I'm liable to break the references even further. Thanks a bunch! -- Sleyece (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Changing Adams' Wikipedia picture

So yesterday I changed the Wikipedia picture of John Quincy Adams from a black and white photograph of Adams to a color painting. The reason for this change was because the photograph of John Quincy Adams was taken after he was president, while the painting was made while he was president. --Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: My edit was recently reversed, why? --Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably because: #1) Its is the article LEDE graphic and those kinds of changes should usually be discussed here first; and #2) Photos are prioritized over paintings in the encyclopedia. You can start such a discussion here, but if you check the archives above, you'll see this has been discussed before, and it's very probable that discussion still wouldn't result in an IAR situation here. Good luck, GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The painting of John Quincy Adams I used may have actually been from after John Quincy Adams left office, as the Wikimedia Commons page for that painting put the date as "circa 1820s-1830s", so does anybody know of a painting that was made between 1825 and 1829? --Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Internal improvements during JQA?

Article text: The Adams administration also saw the beginning of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal; the construction of the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal and the Louisville and Portland Canal around the Falls of the Ohio; the connection of the Great Lakes to the Ohio River system in Ohio and Indiana; and the enlargement and rebuilding of the Dismal Swamp Canal in North Carolina.

All of which is true, but it implies that the Adams administration somehow was involved in these undertakings, other than them being in line with the President's hopes and aspirations.

• The bill chartering the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal was signed during Monroe's presidency. It was finance by private capital and supported by the taxpayers of Maryland.

• The $450,000 federal investment in the Chesapeake & Delaware Canal took place when the company was originally formed in 1799.

• The Louisville and Portland Canal was built and run by a private company chartered in Kentucky. In May 1826, the United States Congress voted to purchase 1,000 shares. JQA did not use his veto, but was otherwise not involved.

• I have not seen that the federal government was involved in the deepening of the Dismal Swamp Canal.

None of the above was the doings of JQA! Creuzbourg (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible category to be added

I have created a new category, "Children who followed their parents as heads of state". John Quincy Adams fits the criteria. But Editor Drdpw feels that the article has too many categories and that this category is trivial. Many feel Wikipedia is becoming a hostile environment. I want this to be an exception. What the majority chooses will be acceptable with me. Pete unseth (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

In the section on his later congressional career appears the sentence: "After the crisis, Adams was convinced that Southerners exercised undue influence over the federal governmen [sic] through their control of Jackson's Democratic Party."

"governmen" should be changed to "government" MrFunEGUY (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)