Talk:James Madison/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Why prefer biased primary source wording?
BRD dispute by Freoh regarding revert made by Dhtwiki on 4 Dec
A recent edit by @Dhtwiki changed some wording that seems to strongly favor Madison's own views, in violation of WP:VOICE. The edit talks about majority factions only as "factions" or "tyrannical majority" and talks about their "corrupting effect." The justification given is that this wording is "according to source," which seems to violate WP:PSTS. Why are we restricting ourselves to Madison's own views in the name of "a balanced or consensus work"? Freoh (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- You were quoting a "controversial study", according to the blurb at the worldcat page. How is that study less likely to be biased? Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Anything about politics is going to be controversial. I was citing a respected 20th century historian, which based on WP:PST and WP:RSAGE should be preferred over an 18th century primary source. Freoh (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- You were citing an avowed iconoclast, as well as a scholar with definite left-wing views. Was he a notable expert on Madison? The lengthy quote seemed to be undue. If Zinn's point of view is to be incorporated into this article, I think it merits some discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
You were citing an avowed iconoclast, as well as a scholar with definite left-wing views.
- You were citing the subject of the article, as well as a scholar with definite right-wing views. Zinn is not
a notable expert on Madison
in particular, but I think this section was more reliably sourced before you changed it to cite only a primary source. Do you have anotable expert
in mind? Feel free to cite them instead. Freoh (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)- I wasn't citing anyone. I was reverting to the status quo because I disagreed with your changes. I took a look at the bibliography in Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which is the most recent I have. It didn't see Zinn mentioned, although I only perused certain parts. Lance Banning's The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic is named in the "Constitution" section as "the most exhaustive account" of Madison. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit made it so the only source cited regarding Madison's views on majority factions was Madison himself. If you have a secondary source that you think would be appropriate to cite here, I'd like to see your proposed change. Freoh (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't citing anyone. I was reverting to the status quo because I disagreed with your changes. I took a look at the bibliography in Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which is the most recent I have. It didn't see Zinn mentioned, although I only perused certain parts. Lance Banning's The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic is named in the "Constitution" section as "the most exhaustive account" of Madison. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The lengthy quote seemed to be undue.
- It was part of the citation because I wanted to make it easier for people to see the cited content without having to find a copy of the book, but I'm happy to replace it with a page number if you'd prefer. I don't understand why a citation including a quote is justification for removing the whole citation. Freoh (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that providing quotes from offline sources can be helpful; but since I disagreed with what you were inserting, I found it undue and that undoing it was the best solution. Also, remember that this article is a featured article candidate and seems to be getting support. It must have been already well edited to have gotten that far. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick-D and Hog Farm: New editor User:Freoh (with a total of 220 edits in his account) appears to feel that your pre-FAC comments did not lead to an 'already well edited' article, and he is presently reverting against 3 editors here on the Talk page for the Madison article. All 3 editors Jtbobsaysf, Dhtwiki and myself have asked him to revert but Freoh appears to be fixated on adding his Zinn material into the article without support. Was this an oversight in the pre-FAC review by Nick-D and Hog Farm about Zinn or should all of Freoh's edits be rolled back; he currently has no support on this Talk page for any of his edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Freoh appears to be fixated on adding his Zinn material into the article without support.
- I'm not sure where this is coming from. I thought that you'd given me the go-ahead. Freoh (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Nick-D and Hog Farm: New editor User:Freoh (with a total of 220 edits in his account) appears to feel that your pre-FAC comments did not lead to an 'already well edited' article, and he is presently reverting against 3 editors here on the Talk page for the Madison article. All 3 editors Jtbobsaysf, Dhtwiki and myself have asked him to revert but Freoh appears to be fixated on adding his Zinn material into the article without support. Was this an oversight in the pre-FAC review by Nick-D and Hog Farm about Zinn or should all of Freoh's edits be rolled back; he currently has no support on this Talk page for any of his edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. Remember that consensus can change. Freoh (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that providing quotes from offline sources can be helpful; but since I disagreed with what you were inserting, I found it undue and that undoing it was the best solution. Also, remember that this article is a featured article candidate and seems to be getting support. It must have been already well edited to have gotten that far. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You were citing an avowed iconoclast, as well as a scholar with definite left-wing views. Was he a notable expert on Madison? The lengthy quote seemed to be undue. If Zinn's point of view is to be incorporated into this article, I think it merits some discussion. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Anything about politics is going to be controversial. I was citing a respected 20th century historian, which based on WP:PST and WP:RSAGE should be preferred over an 18th century primary source. Freoh (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Madison's article will likely contain the article subject's views. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, the article can contain Madison's views, but it should be written from a neutral point of view. The WP:VOICE guidelines forbid stating opinions as facts. Freoh (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Both Dhtwiki and Jtb appear to be in agreement on this edit. After reading through it, there appears to be a better article to match the concern which you appear to be presenting which can be addressed on the Wikipedia page for Federalist No. 10, which discusses majoritarianism and factions at both the time of Madison and in later received opinion. Possibly you can add your edit there. For now both of these editors are in agreement and I'm restoring the version of the Madison article without the tags. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause, please see the instructions at Template:POV section#When to remove. I have re-added the maintenance templates because the WP:NPOV concerns have not been addressed:
- This section uses judgmental language in violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Majority factions are referred to only as
factions
and atyrannical majority
, and their influence is described asdangers
and acorrupting effect
. - It is overly reliant on primary sources, in violation of WP:PST.
- In general, it seems biased in favor of Madison. Madison
explains
, which is cautioned against in MOS:SAID. I'd argue that the weight given to the positive effects of Madison's ideology is WP:UNDUE, and it could be more balanced.
- This section uses judgmental language in violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Majority factions are referred to only as
- I was satisfied with this section before the edit, but I'm open to compromise, as long as these concerns are taken into account. Freoh (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- @General Ization, Jtbobwaysf, and Dhtwiki:: User:Freoh is apparently edit warring against Wikipedia policy on this page. His edit was reverted under BRD because he has no support for his edit, and because all three editors Jtbobwaysf, Dhtwiki and myself are in agreement that his wanting to force his edit into the article is undue. Could you comment of this situation, which appears to be a repeat of his other edit warring notifications which you (General Ization and Jtb) have made on his Talk page previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause, I'd recommend you read WP:INAPPNOTE. It seems that you invited @General Ization to this discussion because of a months-ago disagreement with me, and your invitation is not neutrally worded. Freoh (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
his wanting to force his edit into the article
- I am not attempting to force my edit. I am trying to reach a compromise that addresses my concerns. Freoh (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not a party to this debate, and I agree with Freoh it was inappropriate to try to draft me into it based on my contact with that editor concerning a completely different issue in August. If you believe this is a behavioral issue that violates one or more policies, WP:ANI or WP:EWN may be appropriate places to seek assistance. General Ization Talk 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Freoh is also edit warring on other articles and probably ends up at ANI shortly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let's go slow on taking this to one of the noticeboards. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- He was been edit warring and serially tag bombing the article for 4-5 days now; when you reverted him on 4 Dec for his edit on 3 Dec, then he needed to go to Talk page for discussion under BRD. Instead, he has used the 'politeness to new users' policy to make nearly 13-14 violation against Wikipedia policy for BRD. Once you reverted him on 4 Dec, he needed to start Talk page for which he still has no support. Are you suggesting another 4-5 days of "politeness to new editors" as the most appropriate approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- My reversion was based on taking issue with what seemed POV-pushing, especially in using pointed language ("slave owner" rather than "planter") and an undue addition from Zinn's point of view. However, Freoh has made further objections that may have some merit. I was going to let editors more well versed in the literature decide those issues, especially those active in promoting the article to FA status, of which you seem to one. If Freoh seems to be an otherwise intractable editor, then noticeboards may be the only solution, although patient argument here might still be the solution. I'm not going to stop anyone from taking raise this at the appropriate board. It's just that I think it should only be a last resort. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC) (edited 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC))
- He was been edit warring and serially tag bombing the article for 4-5 days now; when you reverted him on 4 Dec for his edit on 3 Dec, then he needed to go to Talk page for discussion under BRD. Instead, he has used the 'politeness to new users' policy to make nearly 13-14 violation against Wikipedia policy for BRD. Once you reverted him on 4 Dec, he needed to start Talk page for which he still has no support. Are you suggesting another 4-5 days of "politeness to new editors" as the most appropriate approach? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let's go slow on taking this to one of the noticeboards. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @General Ization, Jtbobwaysf, and Dhtwiki:: User:Freoh is apparently edit warring against Wikipedia policy on this page. His edit was reverted under BRD because he has no support for his edit, and because all three editors Jtbobwaysf, Dhtwiki and myself are in agreement that his wanting to force his edit into the article is undue. Could you comment of this situation, which appears to be a repeat of his other edit warring notifications which you (General Ization and Jtb) have made on his Talk page previously. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause, please see the instructions at Template:POV section#When to remove. I have re-added the maintenance templates because the WP:NPOV concerns have not been addressed:
- Both Dhtwiki and Jtb appear to be in agreement on this edit. After reading through it, there appears to be a better article to match the concern which you appear to be presenting which can be addressed on the Wikipedia page for Federalist No. 10, which discusses majoritarianism and factions at both the time of Madison and in later received opinion. Possibly you can add your edit there. For now both of these editors are in agreement and I'm restoring the version of the Madison article without the tags. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, the article can contain Madison's views, but it should be written from a neutral point of view. The WP:VOICE guidelines forbid stating opinions as facts. Freoh (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Given that nobody has proposed a solution to these problems, I'll make my own proposal that addresses the opposition people have about citing Howard Zinn. I propose that we return this section to the way it was before the edit by @Dhtwiki, with an additional reference to Feldman 2017, p. 210. Freoh (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you could restore the edit to the one you refer to just now with Feldman, 2017, pages=208–209, then that appears to be what Dhtwiki is requesting along with Jtbobways. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- But aren't pages 208-209 about Federalist 51 and the balance of powers? My proposal was about content earlier in the paragraph, about Federalist 10 and majority factions, which Feldman discusses on page 210. Freoh (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that the update to Feldman, page 210, would likely work for the request made by Dhtwiki and Jtbobways for you to restore the edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, made the change. Freoh (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to be expanding your edit again to get your Zinn edit into the article, which you have no support for on this Talk page. You have just stated that you would restore the article to this edit which does not include the Zinn edit, and is without the Zinn material. I'm suggesting that you restore the article to the version without the Zinn edit and then return to this Talk page for discussion as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I think there was a miscommunication here. I was proposing to revert it
to the way it was before the edit
, not after, and I was proposingan additional reference
supporting the same content supported by Zinn. I am not satisfied with the version after the edit because of the reasons listed earlier in this conversation. Feel free to revert my recent changes and discuss further here. Freoh (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)- You have been asked to keep all of your comments on this Talk page, and not to put them elsewhere such as on my Talk page over and over again. Keep all your comments in one place, here on the Madison Talk page so that all editors participating here can see what you are commenting on. If you are serious about your last offer above to restore the previous version, then it would be useful for you to stop editing the article before consensus for your edits is reached on this Talk page; three editors @Jtbobwaysf and Dhtwiki: and myself have asked for you to stop your edits. You would made things easier for all involved if you could rollback all of your edits in order to give others a chance to present the Wikipedia process for altering and updating articles which are peer reviewed. Jts is apparently on the verge of reporting you for edit warring on multiple pages and your edits here on the Madison page are not helping you on this count. If you can rollback all of your edits, then the editors here can explain the Wikipedia process for editing peer reviewed articles. You currently have 150-160 edits, and there is an understanding in the Wikipedia pillars that experienced editors like Jtb and Dhtwiki will usually go out of their way to explain things if you give them a chance. May I request that you rollback your edits in order to engage these experienced editors more effectively on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- As you requested, I just reverted my edit. I'm interested to see your proposal for this section. Freoh (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I have made attempts to notify Freoh on his peronsal talk page of policy violations as well as explain on a case by case basis on these article talk pages. I am only here on this talk page as I noticed policy violations by Freoh on other talk pages and came here to have a look if the pattern of TE was continuing (it is in my opinion). Freoh is conducting WP:SEALION across a multitude of articles including this one and the only reason I have held off on a report is due to WP:BITE. As Ernest stated Freoh should leave their comments on the article talk pages, rather than on personal talk pages. If Freoh cannot find consensus to make changes, then the content stays as it is. This practice of pushing a WP:FRINGE POV (whatever it may be) through WP:TE must stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I have made attempts to notify Freoh on his peronsal talk page
As Ernest stated Freoh should leave their comments on the article talk pages, rather than on personal talk pages.
- I'm confused by these comments. Where would you prefer editors leave comments about each other's behavior? Freoh (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This practice of pushing a WP:FRINGE POV (whatever it may be)
- I guess my biggest question here is this: what's "fringe" here? My edit was supported by more than one reliable source, and the current version is supported only by Madison himself. Freoh (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This response is WP:SEALION. Fringe is that Dht has already responded to you above in the very start of this section relating to this iconoclast source and you then you admitted "Zinn is not a notable expert on Madison" and are still going on about someone else should propose a source because they didnt agree to your addition. Adding the templates to my talk page (while a bit absurd) is fine, and its good and appropriate that you continue to discuss this Madison content on this talk page (rather than mine). +1 there. Back to the crux, adding a long and undue quote to an article (from a source you admit is not an expert) doesnt require another editor to provide a counter-source to refute your addition. The burden is on you to find some content and source that is neutral and agreeable to the other editors. All of this has been explained to you above (and on other talk pages) and you continue to WP:BLUDGEON about your views, please WP:LISTEN. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Add Feldman as non-primary source for Fed. #10; remove citation tag. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- This response is WP:SEALION. Fringe is that Dht has already responded to you above in the very start of this section relating to this iconoclast source and you then you admitted "Zinn is not a notable expert on Madison" and are still going on about someone else should propose a source because they didnt agree to your addition. Adding the templates to my talk page (while a bit absurd) is fine, and its good and appropriate that you continue to discuss this Madison content on this talk page (rather than mine). +1 there. Back to the crux, adding a long and undue quote to an article (from a source you admit is not an expert) doesnt require another editor to provide a counter-source to refute your addition. The burden is on you to find some content and source that is neutral and agreeable to the other editors. All of this has been explained to you above (and on other talk pages) and you continue to WP:BLUDGEON about your views, please WP:LISTEN. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- You have been asked to keep all of your comments on this Talk page, and not to put them elsewhere such as on my Talk page over and over again. Keep all your comments in one place, here on the Madison Talk page so that all editors participating here can see what you are commenting on. If you are serious about your last offer above to restore the previous version, then it would be useful for you to stop editing the article before consensus for your edits is reached on this Talk page; three editors @Jtbobwaysf and Dhtwiki: and myself have asked for you to stop your edits. You would made things easier for all involved if you could rollback all of your edits in order to give others a chance to present the Wikipedia process for altering and updating articles which are peer reviewed. Jts is apparently on the verge of reporting you for edit warring on multiple pages and your edits here on the Madison page are not helping you on this count. If you can rollback all of your edits, then the editors here can explain the Wikipedia process for editing peer reviewed articles. You currently have 150-160 edits, and there is an understanding in the Wikipedia pillars that experienced editors like Jtb and Dhtwiki will usually go out of their way to explain things if you give them a chance. May I request that you rollback your edits in order to engage these experienced editors more effectively on this Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, I think there was a miscommunication here. I was proposing to revert it
- You appear to be expanding your edit again to get your Zinn edit into the article, which you have no support for on this Talk page. You have just stated that you would restore the article to this edit which does not include the Zinn edit, and is without the Zinn material. I'm suggesting that you restore the article to the version without the Zinn edit and then return to this Talk page for discussion as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, made the change. Freoh (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that the update to Feldman, page 210, would likely work for the request made by Dhtwiki and Jtbobways for you to restore the edit. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- But aren't pages 208-209 about Federalist 51 and the balance of powers? My proposal was about content earlier in the paragraph, about Federalist 10 and majority factions, which Feldman discusses on page 210. Freoh (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you could restore the edit to the one you refer to just now with Feldman, 2017, pages=208–209, then that appears to be what Dhtwiki is requesting along with Jtbobways. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
- @ErnestKrause, I think this part is improved by your addition of a secondary source, but it still doesn't seem neutral enough to me.
- The language is still judgmental. You refer to majority factions as a
tyrannical majority
, and you describe their influence as adanger
and acorrupting effect
. I didn't see this language used in the text you cited except for the word "danger" in a Madison quote, so this seems like original research. - You removed an aspect that I think deserves due weight: the way Madison used the government to favor the interests of the property-holding minority against the popular opinion of citizens.
- The language is still judgmental. You refer to majority factions as a
- Freoh (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop edit warring against three editors who have asked you to stop violation of Wikipedia BRD policy for your disputed edit which was reverted by Dhtwiki. I'm requesting again that you stop edit warring on the article and ask you to remove your 13-14 edits made in violation of Wikipedia policy for BRD since 4 Dec. You have no support for your edit on this Talk page and three editors have asked you to stop edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by
13-14 edits made in violation of Wikipedia policy
. Are you asking that I get your approval before making any edits to this article? Because that seems like ownership behavior to me. Freoh (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by
- Please stop edit warring against three editors who have asked you to stop violation of Wikipedia BRD policy for your disputed edit which was reverted by Dhtwiki. I'm requesting again that you stop edit warring on the article and ask you to remove your 13-14 edits made in violation of Wikipedia policy for BRD since 4 Dec. You have no support for your edit on this Talk page and three editors have asked you to stop edit warring. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
What is considered "excessive cruelty" to slaves?
A recent edit from @Antiok 1pie added content stating that Madison abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves
. This is a very subjective statement. It's also not supported by the source, which states only that Madison avoided the kind of excessive cruelty that might have drawn judgment from his peers
. This seems like a low bar not worth mentioning in the article, especially when other sources write that Madison's slaves were not "always whipped all day long" (Broadwater, Jeff (2012). "Chapter Nineteen: James Madison and the Dilemma of American Slavery". In Leibiger, Stuart (ed.). A Companion to James Madison and James Monroe.) Freoh (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- One common objective measure of a master's cruelty is how many runaway slaves they had to advertise for, in order to get them back. Those advertisements could be quite self-incriminatory, as they could contain personal descriptions that would include signs of cruelty, such as scarring (from being whipped), other deformities (from being in unsafe work environments), or signs of psychological trauma (such as having a speech impediment). I can't speak to Madison in particular, but Virginia plantation owners were noted for having adopted a paternalistic attitude towards those in bondage, an attitude lacking among more hardscrabble exploiters of such labor, who would be more likely to be found in newer territories that allowed slavery (e.g. Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.). Dhtwiki (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Your WP:OR on slavery today is different from what historians are pointing out and what Dht refers to above. Comparing a good slave owner to a bad slave owner might sound strange to you, but historians are making the distinction and your objection to it is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you that Madison wasn't as cruel as the worst slaveowners and that he viewed himself as relatively humane, but that doesn't seem enough to justify saying that he
abstained from excessive cruelty to slaves
. "Cruel," "humane," and "excessive" are all subjective, and we should avoid stating opinions as fact. Freoh (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC) - What original research are you referring to? This seems like a clear cut case of a source being misrepresented.XeCyranium (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- I believe you that Madison wasn't as cruel as the worst slaveowners and that he viewed himself as relatively humane, but that doesn't seem enough to justify saying that he
- It appears "eccessive cruelty" has been removed from the article. There still is a neutrality tag on the slavey section of the article. Hopefully editors can work together and get the neutrality tag removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe this article could help. Article: Princeton & Slavery James Madison Cmguy777 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- It appears "eccessive cruelty" has been removed from the article. There still is a neutrality tag on the slavey section of the article. Hopefully editors can work together and get the neutrality tag removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion about the short description
There is an ongoing discussion about the short descriptors of the first four U.S. presidents at Talk:John Adams#Short description, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)