Talk:Abigail Adams

The article mentions that during her husband's presidency, she was unusually politically active for a woman of her time. That's very interesting, but it would be nice if the article mentioned what some of her political activities were. I don't think I've ever read an another article on a political figure where it just said "And then s/he went and did some politics." Redsrevenge (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

---I am with you on this so called 'political work' she did in the white house or during the revolution. i've reviewed the external links and have yet to locate where she was known as 'mrs.president'. not only that, but her input was as a wife, and john even gave a mild rebuke in regards to adding in her two cents worth of expectation for women with the 2nd Continental Congress and the writing of the declaration of independance.i would say she wasn't so much political as she was a type of 'activist' for women. the portion regarding slavery is poorly written and doesn't show a woman politically active, just active in righting certain wrongs...

I am not pleased with the way this has been written in reference to her 'politics'. ~~ brattysoul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.228.142 (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

--- Abigail Adams was very politically active for women at her time. She had her own opinions and was not afraid to share them with the public. Her husband held her opinions very dear and talked through, or ran many things past her during his political career. She was both political activist and a women's rights activist. She strived for equality for all, no matter the race or gender.^{[1] [2]}

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

end quote under woman's right. 108.80.59.169 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've fixed it.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The portrait of Abigail Adams at the top of the page is incorrectly attributed to Gilbert Stuart. The picture section opposite page 320 of the 2008 edition of John Adams by David McCullough identifies this youthful portrait as the work of Benjamin Blythe in 1766. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyBloom (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Marriage and children" section, for correctness please change this wording:

John had inherited from his father in Braintree, Massachusetts (later renamed Quincy), before moving to Boston, where his law practice expanded.

TO:

John had inherited from his father in Braintree, Massachusetts (part of which was later renamed Quincy), before moving to Boston, where his law practice expanded.

OR BETTER for simplicity just remove the words in parentheses as they are not needed:

John had inherited from his father in Braintree, Massachusetts, before moving to Boston, where his law practice expanded. Bilanglo (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done -andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the reference given to Nagel's JQA biography because there's no reference to religious views at all on the cited page, much less those of Abigail Adams. The cited passage from the UUA site is pretty unequivocal, and in the absence of better references I think it has to be preferred. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It links to Thomas Jefferson's daughter, not his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.202.191 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It should link to Jefferson's daughter. His wife was dead by the time he took office, so his daughter assumed the titles of Second Lady and First Lady

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Several of the links to Harvard University Press books have broken since HUP changed our link syntax.

Please change the link in the External Link section for My Dearest Friend: Letters of Abigail and John Adams, Harvard University Press from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ADAMYD.html to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057050

Please change the link in the External Link section for The Adams Women: Abigail and Louisa Adams, Their Sisters and Daughters, Harvard University Press from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NAGADX.html to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674004108

Please change the link in the External Link section for Descent from Glory: Four Generations of the John Adams Family, Harvard University Press from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NAGDEX.html to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674198296

Please change the link in the External Link section for Adams Family Correspondence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press from http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ADAADA.html to http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674004009

Thank you.

Gkornbluh (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks for finding the new URLs. RudolfRed (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Curious to know why there are two versions of the same portrait in this article - one facing left and the other facing right....? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbentley (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Good call! Looks like the upper one was cropped and refaced. We are not supposed to edit pictures. Okay if someone took a "close up" of an existing portrait, but appears that someone photoshopped it to face the opposite. If true, it should be rm not only from here but from WikiCommons. (Disclosure: I am not an expert on that photo!) Student7 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The following paragraph should likely be moved up one since it's out of order chronologically, and it also contains a date error as well as ambiguous text:

Here's the actual paragraph: Smith married Elizabeth Quincy in 1842, and together they had four children, including three daughters: one born in 1743, Abigail born in 1744 and another born in 1745. Their only son, born in 1746,[4] died of alcoholism in 1787.[5] In 1764 Smith presided over the marriage of John Adams and his daughter. In July of 1775 his wife Elizabeth, with whom he had been married for 33 years, died of smallpox. In 1784, at age 77, Smith died.

Suggested fixes: 1) Move paragraph up one so it flows correctly in the chronology, otherwise it's confusing by talking about Abigail as first lady and then about her parents' marriage. 2) Add father's first name at the beginning of the sentence so it's clear to whom it's referring. 3) Fix the year of their marriage. Perhaps it's 1742, I'm not sure, but I know it's not 1842.

Thank you.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

108.210.154.192 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)#

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 22:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

108.210.154.192 (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

•  Not done Edit request is empty/not clear. Please submit a request with information about the requested edit. Steel1943 (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

According to Abigail's letter to John dated Oct 1, 1775, in which she says, speaking of her mother, "this day about 5 oclock she left this world for an infinitely better", we may infer that Elizabeth's death was in October, not July, of 1775. 72.95.90.55 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Ralph Chapman rchapman.cea@gmail.com

A new paragraph was added that says her sisters were born in 1739 and 1742. The next paragraph reads that her parents married in 1742 and is unchanged from the previous discussion of 1 1/2 years ago. So what is it? Her two elder sisters were illegitimate or the previous paragraphs are sloppy and need to be edited or eliminated. Which is it? Thanks! 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

She was born November 11th, NOT November 22nd, and the correct date makes it true that she died two weeks before her birthday. ...Right? Yes and no. In 1752, the calendar changed from the Julian to the Gregorian. That meant 11 days were added to compensate for the shifting of the calendar. SO by the "old style" calendar, she was born on November 11th, just as her husband was born on October 19th. But since we now go by thee Gregorian, that means her birthdate is November 22, 1744, NOT November 11th. Ok. ? 66.67.32.161 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Abigail Adams was married to john adams they were married on october 25th 1764. john adams has children. john adams has kids because abigail adams had children. by kaylee hutchins at mckinley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.179.123.238 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Abigail Adams was wife of john adams. and she wrote many letters to john adams. they known each other since 1762. adams died on october 28th. she was 73 years old when she died. crowns nearby penn hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.179.123.222 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

She is commemorated on the Boston Women's Heritage Trail.^[1]

date of birth: nov. 11, 1744 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.120.226 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abigail 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/20090225003941/http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=197 to http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history.do?action=Article&id=197

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've extensively seen that Abigail Adams was born November 11, not 22. Also I asked my teacher and she said the 11th as well 65.123.159.131 (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done We include both old style (November 11) and new style (November 22) dates. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I recently added some citations to this article. I also rearranged some facts in the article to try and provide more of a chronology of Adams' life. I think having some of her positions on political issues at the end of the article works fine, I moved things like the death of her daughter Nabby, which had been in the Europe section and moved it to her later life where it fits chronologically.

There is a lot to be done on this article including expanding on several events and finding citations for facts already in the article. I welcome any collaboration. Given her importance in American history I think this article is a great target for improvement. Knope7 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

she is a lesbian Jebbush69 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You're going to need a lot of very reliable sources to support that claim. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Current text: Adams brought the children of brother William Smith, her brother-in-law John Shaw, and her Charles to live in the President's House during her husband's presidency because the children's respective fathers all struggled with alcoholism

Suggested Edit: Add the word "son" in between "her" and "Charlies" to read:

Adams brought the children of brother William Smith, her brother-in-law John Shaw, and her SON Charles to live in the President's House during her husband's presidency because the children's respective fathers all struggled with alcoholism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdavis1511 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done-Knope7 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that Abigail joined up with John Adams in France after the war ended. This is incorrect. Abigail, along with her daughter Nabby, were reunited with John in England first, not France, where he was to serve as the first ambassador to England. They had a house in France during this time which they did go and visit. Ftweedy (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

^[1] Aliggon (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2017 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "During the long periods while John Adams left his wife Abigail to watch over the farm and the family, she made a lot of the money that made the Adams family wealthy. Many think that John died wealthy because if his wife’s smart financing skills." right after the statement, "Adams was responsible for family and farm when her husband was on his long trips. "Alas!", she wrote in December 1773, "How many snow banks divide thee and me."'

Saxton, Martha. "Abigail Adams, Capitalist." The Women's Review of Books 27.6 (2 Isabellatabarrini21 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Added the information as a separate paragraph. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add 'Boston Women's Memorial, completed in 2003 by Meredith Bergmann, is dedicated to women that "had an impact on the idea of justice in our society through their writing". It features Abigail Adams alongside Lucy Stone and Phillis Wheatley.^[1]' Dan7em (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The sculpture features three women who "all had an impact on the idea of justice in our society through their writing". That is the starting point for deciphering any sort of theme of the sculpture, not what it is dedicated to, unless you mean that is what the women were dedicated to, then you'd be partially correct, in that this may not have been what they were dedicated to personally, but rather, what the artist believed they had an impact upon. "Dedicated" is problematic because in the source you provided the artist does not mention the word "dedicated" anywhere in the text - it is not a term the author/artist used herself. If any sort of ideal was dedicated within the sculpture's creation, that ideal is best explained by the artist: "Each figure is posed in relation to her pedestal in a unique way that adds to her portrait. Stone has attempted to subdue and steer her pedestal, Adams leans in companionable, almost spousal co-existence on hers, and Wheatley has made hers into a desk, the object that symbolizes the privacy that she won with her talent while still a slave. I placed them around the circle, each absorbed in her work, with quotations or biographies readable from any angle to encourage visitors to compare their ideas and actions and to form their own conversation among them." .spintendo⋅⋅) 07:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

She was a dick and she hated so many people. She cheated on her husband John Adams. 65.51.227.27 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2019 (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. aboideau^talk 17:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This statement appears to be politically motivated rather than a nuanced understanding of her role and stances.

She was not seeking equality in rights/responsibilities. Her "remember the ladies" is not actually a learned, "erudite" approach.

The women who were most influential in framing the Constitution were from colonial PA, NJ and DE. These include Susanna Wright, Mary Norris Dickinson, etc.

John Adams did not sign the US Constitution (which uses only the terms "Person" and "Citizen" and excludes the term "Man"). The US Constitution also excludes religious sources of law. He and Jefferson (who also didn't sign the US Constitution) framed the Declaration of Independence in "Man" with religious source of law claimed ("endowed by our Creator").

Her position as a woman egging on her "Divine Right of Man" husband, whose ideology is more Cromwellian, probably did influence the Revolutionary War happening and the Dec. of Independence. She clearly did not understand the constitutional issues, including those of the 1689 English Bill of Rights (which also uses only the term "Person"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.155.68 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 2007 Abigail Adams bronze medal reverse.jpg
• 2008 Louisa Adams bronze medal reverse.jpg
• Abigail Adams First Spouse Coin reverse.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This article says her parents were married in 1742 and that her sister Mary was born in 1739. In another part of this same article, it says that the first daughter (presumably Mary) was born in 1743. Wiki genealogy site says parents married in October 1740 and that Mary was born in the spring of 1740. This is a hot mess! I will see if I can find any credible documents on Ancestry or FamilySearch.

Ancestry has documents that Mary Smith Cranch died 17 Oct 1811 at the age of 70. This would make her birthdate 1741. Her parents married in 1740. The confusion is with the quote from William, saying he was married to Elizabeth for 33 years when she died, when it was actually 35 years. There are many genealogical notations they were married in 1740.

I'm curious why we're using the Blyth portrait in the infobox and not the Stuart one. The Stuart one was made closer to her time as First Lady. Stuart's portrait of John Adams from the same timeframe is used in his infobox also. -- Calidum 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Calidum: I merely reverted to the most recently used portrait in order to get rid of the coin image that was ridiculously added to the infobox. If you feel the Stuart image is better, add it, you'll have no objection from me. I just want to make sure that contemporary portraiture is used and nothing posthumous. Best regards, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It's ok you reverted to it -- and I agree we shouldn't be using a coin. I'd like to see why the Blyth portrait was chosen before I switch them. -- Calidum 23:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

What is written in the death section of Abigail Adams? Is it true? Please see to it. SpaceHero4 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit of November 2021 added the phrase "blue mustache" to the alt text of Adams' portrait, and there was some other clear vandalism which has since been removed, but there are other changes made as part of that edit seem good to my uneducated eye and which are still in the article. That edit, made by an editor who made no other edits, could probably use review by a knowledgeable editor. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

she is cool 160.7.18.41 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The same portrait of her in her later years is shown in four places in the article. One or at most two should suffice, IMO. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: regarding your revert here: the painter is not the subject of this article. It would of course be relevant to their article to discuss what he is well known for, but not in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here Nikkimaria, and if a longer discussion is needed maybe we can discuss a venue. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures the guiding MOS direction for captions of works of art would be the section "Using works of art" with the relevant section being Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions which states that the artist of an artwork should be named in the caption of that artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures indicates that "not all this information needs to be included in the caption, since the image description page should offer more complete information about the picture". This is consistent with MOS:CREDITS, which indicates that "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable", and correspondingly with MOS:INFOBOX. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is about works of art, not just any picture. The links I provide above address what occurs when the image in question is a work of art. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about a work of art; it's about a person. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The applicable MOS language linked above is about the caption of an artwork. Artworks can be exhibited on any page, such as the descriptive life-portrait of Adams by a then-and-now notable painter. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:VA is the applicable MOS for "writing about the visual arts"; that's not what we're doing here. A further-info reference from CAPTION doesn't restrain us to VA, particularly when doing so would contradict multiple other parts of CAPTION and INFOBOX. Plus the painter is already identified the other three times the image is used in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read it again, this is applicable to all images in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures, quote, "For works of art (see WikiProject Visual arts Art Manual of Style for fuller details): Who is the artist?" Yes, good find that the image is used several times on the page, but this discussion is not only about this image but my request to revert other artist removals from other pages (artists only, not objecting to your removal of photography studios). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Fuller details" for what "people might want to know" does not mean "must follow requirements at", and doesn't override either VA's limited scope nor the other provisions at CAPTION and INFOBOX as outlined above. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The links provided describe what to do within captions when an artistic work is imaged on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That interpretation makes no logical sense, and requires ignoring most of the applicable MOSs. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Read the links. And it makes perfect sense, an artist's artwork in captions is covered by the linked MOS sections. I'll put this discussion at the Visual arts Wikiproject page for further comment, hopefully a full RfC isn't in the works but may be. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've read the links. Here's what they say:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Infoboxes_and_leading_images: "An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose...take extra care that both the image and the caption stay sharply focused on the whole of the article's subject...Additional descriptive information about the image should be contained in the image description on the image's page".
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits: "image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable, since the infobox should contain only key facts of the article's subject".
• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Purpose: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content".

Interpreting "see WikiProject Visual arts Art Manual of Style for fuller details" as meaning 'follow WikiProject Visual arts Art Manual of Style for all artworks regardless of context' would require ignoring all of that stuff that the links actually say.

And if you do throw out the MOS entirely, exclusion is the more logical approach. The purpose of the lead image in a biography is to represent the article's subject, not anything to do with the artist, notable or no. The object of interest is the person, not the portrait; neither the notability of the creator nor the designation of the image as "art" changes its purpose, so nor should they change the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• In this case, the link should certainly be included. That passage in MOS:INFOBOX should be rewritten, and most certainly does not reflect our normal practice when portraits by significant historic artists are used in infoboxes. One might cite WP:ASTONISH. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Coming to this discussion from George Washington, where there are analogous issues.

  As described in MOS:CAPLENGTH, there is extra incentive for succinctness in the caption of a portrait in an infobox. That article is using a portrait painted in 1803 by Gilbert Stuart. The caption was recently changed from "1803 portrait" to "1803 portrait by Gilbert Stuart". I think that the first version was not good, because 1803 was four years after Washington's death, so the reader would naturally wonder how that happened. The second version is even worse, because it is distracting to mention, let alone link to, Gilbert Stuart in the infobox for George Washington. I proposed: no caption at all.

  Returning to Abigail Adams, at least in this case the portrait is from life. But in general, the infobox is supposed to be succinct and condensed. Discussion of the provenance of portraits should be done, if at all, in the body of the article. If the infobox is crammed with additional goodies, it's no longer useful as an infobox. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Bruce leverett. Yes, the dating language of the portrait in the George Washington infobox needs editing so as not to imply it was from life. But the portrait still needs a caption for crediting the artist Gilbert Stuart. Did you follow and read through the MOS and WP links above? They, of course, tell a different story. Artists are always (in a perfect world) credited for their artworks. To do less is, as Johnbod says above, almost WP:ASTONISH. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Credit for the art is found in the meta-data of the art. Copying it up to the article is just a convenience. Copying it up to the infobox is just a nuisance. Invoking WP:ASTONISH is silly. Countless Wikipedia illustrations do not credit the artist or photographer, precisely because the credit is already present in the meta-data. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewing some other presidential articles, I find that for most of the recent ones, the caption of the infobox portrait is something like "Official portrait, 2003". Exceptions are Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover. For older ones, up through James Monroe, credit is given to the portrait painter; but nothing for John Quincy Adams or Martin Van Buren, and for William Henry Harrison, it's just "Official White House Portrait, 1835".

  For other founding fathers, each article is different. The caption in the infobox of Alexander Hamilton gives information that isn't even in the metadata of the portrait -- I don't know where it's from. For Gouverneur Morris, there's just a date. For Patrick Henry, the names of the painter and of the original painter are copied up from the meta-data.

  Some of the illustrations are by painters or photographers who are themselves notable, such as Gilbert Stuart or Matthew Brady. Does this excuse the practice of copying their names into the infobox caption? It does make it more tempting. We spend a lot of our effort on Wikipedia making connections between notable persons or things. But the language of MOS:CAPLENGTH makes it pretty clear that the infobox should be sharply focused. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Almost all of those are photographs, which aren't credited to the photographer. The MOS covers artworks, paintings. The Alexander Hamilton image is posthumous, so the longer explanation is needed, akin to the problem you pointed out at George Washington which needs further explanation. The images which are portrait paintings, if the artist is known and notable, should be mentioned and linked. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with your point that such inclusions are a distraction from the purpose of the caption. Note regarding the other presidential articles, a lot of those were added earlier today - I've reverted those pending the outcome of this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  You've removed, for example, Gilbert Stuart from the image caption of John Adams, one of Stuart's most famous paintings. Crediting Stuart (and the other artists) is not a "distraction", it's a Visual art guideline necessity for portraits such as this. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  In your opinion. In mine, discussion of that painting to Stuart's career belongs in Stuart's article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  To repeat from above (the discussion is getting long and these links are important as the core of the disagreement), and please read the links carefully, thanks: According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures the guiding MOS direction for captions of works of art would be the section "Using works of art" with the relevant section being Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions which states that the artist of an artwork should be named in the caption of that artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  So you've claimed, and so I've refuted. Let's let others weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  You're forcing your point of view above established practice and using argumentum ad temperantiam to seem temperate. That historical portraiture should include the artist is the established practice. Your supposed refutation is fallacious. You should revert your edits and let neutral editors resolve the issue you are trying to force. Sturmde (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I am not sure what you have in mind by "established practice". This article in particular did not have a caption on the infobox illustration until 2021. In any case, the language of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits leaves little room for interpretation: these credits are "discouraged" in the infobox. I hadn't noticed this unambiguous statement when I wrote above that it was "tempting" to add such credits. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts starts as follows:

  This page sets out some guidance on special issues commonly encountered in writing about the visual arts, and has been developed by members of WikiProject Visual arts.

  We aren't writing about the visual arts, and the articles we are discussing are not (as far as I know) of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Perhaps that's why we seem to be talking past each other?

  The guidance I was referring to, MOS:CAPLENGTH, is from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Special situations. (It begins, "Captions of images in infoboxes and other special situations call for special consideration.") Do you think that it conflicts with the subsequent section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If a portrait by a notable artist appears only once in a biographical article on the sitter, namely in the infobox, then the artist's name should be linked to in the caption, because there isn't any other opportunity to do so. That happens not to apply to this article because, bizarrely, Gilbert Stuart's portrait of Abigail Adams appears four times on the page, but that isn't usually the case. One can be sparing with detail and still include the artist's name without it being a "distraction". Ham II (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

That credits are "discouraged" in the infobox does not mean they are forbidden. Plainly there are cases where omitting such credits would be serious malpractice. The infobox image for Felix of Burgundy needs a caption to prevent WP:ASTONISHment: how is there a photograph of a 7th-century bishop? Is this an actor in costume portraying Felix? That article and many other FAs have proper captions for their infobox images, which demonstrates that, allowing for discretion, the practice is established. A painted, drawn, or sculpted portrait is one artist's version of the subject and that should be acknowledged in the caption. Ewulp (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. I am sorry to learn that the consensus-building process here has been disrupted by selective notification. @Randy Kryn: I appreciate your desire to bring in more visual-arts voices, but notifying them and no projects relevant to this article does not contribute to the development of a valid community consensus - certainly not something you could extrapolate to other non-VA articles, as you propose doing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines/policy refers to and belongs to Visual Arts caption language, as outlined above. Captions of artworks by notable artists, no matter on which page or topic the artwork appears, are eligible to include the name and link of the notable artist. It's that simple, and the only question raised here is how to handle this styling if the same artwork appears more than once on the page. How long are you going to insist that this circular discussion continue? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

As you are aware, the assertion that the VA project MOS is applicable to non-VA articles is disputed, and those other than yourself who support applying the VA MOS here are those who appear to have come in via the VA project - a pretty textbook example why this approach to notification is problematic. So in response to your question, we can consider the matter settled for this article, since anyone with a specific interest in it would presumably have seen this discussion on their watchlist and had a chance to weigh in - but that cannot be said for any other article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If it is disputed, then here, again, are the links which answer this entire question: "According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures the guiding MOS direction for captions of works of art would be the section "Using works of art" with the relevant section being Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions which states that the artist of an artwork should be named in the caption of that artwork." This guideline chain does not only cover Abigial Adams but applies to every artwork image on Wikipedia. Yet you revert when it is applied. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that "guideline chain" is the interpretation that is disputed - see the guidelines linked above that support the opposite outcome. So that will leave us with discussing the issue on a case-by-case basis where there is a disagreement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

To give credit where credit is due, Randy Kryn scrupulously pointed me to this discussion when I started a discussion of infobox captions in Talk:George Washington. But I suppose that there might be subprojects that might make useful contributions to this discussion, such as Presidents or Biography or whatever; is it OK for us to notify them as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts has been notified? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Applying an outcome from a single article talk page across other articles is tenuous at the best of times; I would suggest that if a central discussion is desired, it shouldn't be here, and it shouldn't start from mud. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• The info recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures is present in the image description, so the guidance there is satisfied. That guideline does refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions for "fuller details", and if possible, the extra details listed there should also be in the image description. Since we're using the image in the infobox primarily as a biographical illustration, it's much more useful to highlight the detail of biographical importance. Since the image is repeated later in a context more focused on visual art (in comparison with other works), a more VA-focused caption makes sense there. Given the additional brevity concerns of the infobox, I think the short caption is adherent to the letter and spirit of the various guidelines. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Pardon my lack of familiarity with Wikipedia formatting, style, and editing culture. This sentence in the "Early life and family" section is incorrect or misleading, "Smith married Elizabeth Quincy in 1740, and together they had three daughters; Abigail was the youngest, following her sisters Mary (1739–1811) and Elizabeth ("Betsy", 1742–1816)."

It is misleading because Abigail Adams's parents had four children; three daughters and one son (William Smith, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_(patriot)). It is incorrect because Elizabeth "Betsy" Smith Shaw Peabody lived from 1750—1815, at least according to this person record from a Massachusetts public library (https://haverhill.pastperfectonline.com/byperson?keyword=Peabody%2C%20Elizabeth%20Smith%20Shaw%2C%201750-1815). Here is another Wikipedia article supporting the notion that Abigail was the second of four children and not the youngest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_political_family#:~:text=Elizabeth%20Quincy%20(1721%E2%80%931775)). Other sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS, and the National Park Service also support that Abigail was the 2nd of four children.

The associated source/footnote does not support the claim in the sentence in a clear and accessible fashion. I believe that the sentence in question ought to be struck from the article and replaced, unless somebody can update the citation with a compelling and authoritative source. DBlasioN (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense and Vozhan: The net effect of this edit was to move the comma from just after the new-style date to just after the right-square-bracket after the old-style date. It is a peculiar way of using the OldStyleDate template, omitting the year argument but adding it in later, but I think it is correct. It was reverted, and I was going to revert the revert, but I'm hesitating so as to check with both of you. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that it is correct. What I have seen is that the year argument is generally not omitted for articles that use the DMY format, but articles using the MDY format (e.g. articles on US topics) do omit it or use {{OldStyleDateNY}}. I do not know why @Remsense reverted this edit. —Vozhan (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2025 and 5 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zhaoaccount (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by GavinOh (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)