Talk:John Quincy Adams

"lost by a narrow margain"

According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by over 33%, not a narrow margain. The acual popular vote was 151,271 for Jackson and 133,122 for J.Q. Adams. Jackson took 99 Electoral College votes while Adams took 84. By todays standards that would be considered a landslide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.139.82 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The article describes Adams as if he we some big opponent of slavery by looking at his actions in the House. He spoke up for the rights of white tax payers to present petitions to the House. And before that? When he had far greater power? So, no the description of Adams is not quite complete. He was directly involved in persecuting runaway slaves, and (if I recall correctly) wrote some pretty extreme and racist work. NPOV because this article selectively focuses on certain things, and not others directly related to his involvement in slavery. How will this be addressed? A link to Parsons book, placed by rjensen, whilst not a bad thing, doesn't address this. There's much more to the picture. Ebanony (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

the lede is designed to summarize the article as it exists. Ebanony makes all sorts of claims about material that is not in the article. The RS spend a lot of attention on JQA's opposition to the slave power while in the House--he was probably the single most famous "big name" politician so involved in the 1830s and 1840s. I'll add some more on the topic. Rjensen (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ebanony makes all sorts of claims about material that is not in the article." Such as? Seems you misread my comment: "The article describes Adams as if he were some big opponent of slavery by looking at his actions in the House." The article does give that impression. However, the things I discussed like Adams' role in going after runaway slaves and racism cannot be found in the article. Why not?Ebanony (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"Member of Congress"

A new editor has added a new section, "Member of Congress".[1] This is a mature, stable article so dumping in a big chunk of text is a problem. On its own, the material seems reasonably well-written though rather thinly sourced. However it repeats topics already covered in the text more briefly, sometimes gets off the topic of Adams, and may devote a disproportional amount of space to this one topic. Could the editor who added it, and any others, try to find additional citations, integrate it with the existing material, and focus it more on Adams?   Will Beback  talk  08:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann statement

"Bachmann Backers Edit John Quincy Adams’ Wikipedia Page, Emulate Palin Camp." Expect this to be all over the news soon. Prioryman (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not Oceania, the year is not 1984 and we do not adjust reality to fit what political leaders spout. Seriously, people. The Cap'n (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked it up in the Guinness Book of World Records, though, and it didn't say anything about it. That book is unamerican! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.199.236 (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Up to this point, what is reported is not actually happening. A few ip editors have been injecting the phrase "founding father", sometimes as a clear jest and sometimes modifying the father who is considered one of the founders, but most of what's going on is normal ip vandalism which occurs when an historical figure gets mentioned in the media. Semi-protection is now in force; nobody has been editing the page in any but the most minor ways. Sure would be a good time to get cites on everything and tighten the page up some. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall, this looks more like trolling than actual Bachmann supporters. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is some credit, however, when the article has had such bits added as "deeply conservative values" with it's citation being a single-sourced article based on "The Conservative Mind" where it's source material directly contradicts the citation. That, and the claim that he was a Republican, should be excised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.235.129 (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bachman's mistake is not in calling JQA a founding father--he was a full time paid diplomat in Russia (as secretary and translator to US minister Dana--quite independent of John Adams. The language of the Russian Court was French, which JQA spoke well but Dana did not) in 1781--before Yorktown and during the Revolution. That's pretty close. Bachman's mistake is calling him a lifelong enemy of slavery. He got into that business after he left the White House in 1829. (he never publicly attacked slavery in 1820s) Rjensen (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

JQA may have been a "a full time paid diplomat" in 1781, but he was also fourteen years old. Not close enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoAdamite (talk • contribs) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A secretary and translator to US Minister Dana now qualifies as a "Founding Father" of the USA? Boy, we really are broadening the definition, aren't we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastormaker (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

lots of soldiers were young. JQA started at age 14 and kept in govt service almost continuously to his death. Rjensen (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers were soldiers, not Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were the people who constructed the philosophical basis of the country, not everyone who followed their leadership.