Talk:John Adams/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Featured article lead style

Pinging User:Wehwalt.

Shouldn't it be "John Adams was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801" rather than "John Adams was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father who was the second president of the United States, serving from 1797 to 1801"? Just a thought considering that aritcles such as Stanley Bruce and Gough Whitlam and John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker start with the first option. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have not involved myself with this article, I decline to express an opinion. There are, of course, always multiple ways to open an article. MOS:LEAD does not require any particular phraseology. I'm not quite sure why this discussion is being begun but see this edit and this one and this one and this one and, more generally, this history in which Ak-eater06 repeatedly reverts to get their way on this issue in the exact opposite direction that they now appear to be advocating. I AGF of course, but the cynic in me says either they have had a remarkable change of opinion or they are hoping for something by coming here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ak-eater06, I am confused about a number of things here. Firstly, if you chose to ping an editor in your original post, I'm not sure why you would choose someone who admittedly is not involved in the article. As examples to support your position, it is extremely odd and quite unhelpful to choose articles about Australian and Canadian prime ministers when the subject is a United States president who lived in a completely different time period. Finally, in the Bruce article, you yourself made the change in order to make it look that way. [1] In my opinion, it is not entirely honest of you to change articles to suite your preferred style and then bring them up in a separate discussion as examples of some pre-existing consensus. Also, Wehwalt linking to edits in which you apparently advocated the opposite position simply makes the whole matter even stranger. Basically, what are you trying to do here? Display name 99 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Adams' status in April 1789

Perhaps I'm looking too hard into this. But was Adams acting president from 21 to 30 April 1789? GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Change to number of Presidents not attending their successor's inauguration ceremony

Shouldn't this: "Including him, only four out-going presidents (having served a full term) have not attended their successors' inaugurations.[257]" be changed to "Including him, only five out-going presidents (having served a full term) have not attended their successors' inaugurations."

John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Andrew Johnson, Donald Trump

<ref> https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/here-is-history-presidents-who-refused-attend-successors-inauguration/IKKS3Y5C5JALJFZKPCQCRZJXM4/

Radownie (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)radownie

 Done ––FormalDude talk 03:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

In the side panel the link to presidential successor Thomas Jefferson is not connected. The page for Thomas Jefferson exists, and is linked to elsewhere in the panel. Simple change. Davevane (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:REPEATLINK, we try not to repeat links unless it would make things more clear, and repeating the same link for Jefferson multiple times in the infobox would not be edifying Cannolis (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Under successor on the side Thomas Jefferson does not link to the Thomas Jefferson wiki page, I suggest turning that into a link. DigitGod (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see response to the exact same request above. Cannolis (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Tie-breaking votes in the Senate

"He cast 31 tie-breaking votes, all in support of the administration, and more than any other vice president.[158]" may be wrong, both in the number cast and it being "more than any other vice president", according to the following Wikipedia page: [2] Apparently, it was John C. Calhoun who holds the record of 31 votes, with Adams in second place with 29. (I tried to check the source given here, Page 460 of McCullough's book on "John Adams", but Google Books' preview of the book didn't allow me access to "Page 460".) If this needs fixing, I can't do it; someone else will have to. Thanks. 76.236.220.28 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

According to McCullough, Adams cast 31 tie-breaking votes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

need clarify

User:Display name 99: footnotes 256: Ferling, ch. 19., stand for what? Ferling 1992, 2009 or 2016?--Jarodalien (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also as footnotes 128: Ferling, ch. 11–12..--Jarodalien (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Footnote 311: Adams, Vol. IV, p. 195, "Thoughts on Government", Adams should link to which source?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ferling, ch. 11–12., Ferling, ch. 19., "ch." is page or chapter number?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Footnote 322: Works of John Adams, IV:557, which works? "Adams, John; Adams, Charles Francis (1851). The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: Autobiography, continued. Diary. Essays and controversial papers of the Revolution. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Vol. 3. Little, Brown."? 325: Adams, Letter to John Jebb, Vol. 9, p. 540, which book? Also 327: Adams, John (June 8, 1819). Letter to Robert J. Evans.--Jarodalien (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks User:Display name 99 for the improvement, only "185–242", "371–410" seem a little bit off.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

footnote 55 & 334 looks the same.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jarodalien. Thank you for expressing your concerns. With regard to the page numbers that I added, the first page range is the page range of the chapters previously signified. The second is the range of the article that is cited within the journal. I don't think that there should be problems with either of them. Are there any other issues that you notice? Thank you again for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Display name 99, I mean they were to many pages between 185–242 or 371–410, doesn't feel like something I expect from a FA.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to me rather sparse about Adams’s personal life, especially given all the information available about him, and his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There is substantial detail concerning this in the sections on Adams' early life and later life. Additional information is dispersed where appropriate throughout the article. Display name 99 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Religion is a major topic

The religion of the Founding Fathers has become a heated topic in recent years--with one group arguing that the US was founded a Christian nation. [See for example John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction (John Knox Press, 2016).] The religion of John Adams thus is of special importance. Historians for many decades have written on the topic -- since 2018 alone hundreds of scholarly studies are listed at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2018&q=religion+%22John+Adams%22&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27] However one editor simply erased the conclusions that he for vague reasons disliked. I restored them. Rjensen (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Rjensen, the John Adams article quite long. It is over 16,000 words long. One of my other featured articles, Andrew Jackson, has been proposed for removal as a featured article candidate for reasons based largely on length, and it is actually less long than this article. This article is in need of a bit of trimming, and the religion section is where some of it can occur. The content that I removed is vague analysis from obscure sources. Some of the same sentiments are repeated, and the text conveys little information about Adams' true feelings on religion. The section should be a brief and cogent summary of Adams' stated thoughts about religion rather than a disordered compilation of general observations by little known authors that appear without proper evidence to support them and overly long quotes such as the one that you just added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

the scholars quoted are all experts on Adams' religion. I think they all make sense regarding theology. They are much more useful on this topic than best-selling generalists like McCullough (who writes with much verve on many many topics.) My point is that we need expertise rather than brevity. Religion & politics and original intent of the Founding Fathers is a very HOT topic. For years the religious & political conservatives have stressed the original intent of the Founding Fathers. In 2022 alone just look at the liberal reaction to the Supreme Court re original intent in Dobbs case on abortion--surely it's the most intense issue in US politics in decades. Andrew Jackson is indeed out of fashion. Nobody wants to praise him these days: his Indian wars are unforgivable. Likewise Jefferson is weighted down by his slaves. But in my opinion the distaste editors have with Jackson and Jefferson are not good reasons to chop down the Adams article. Rjensen (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it alone, but at the very least, I encourage you to trim that large quote that you added and replace it with about a one-sentence summary in the final paragraph of the section. The quote is unnecessarily long, and in my mind it makes no sense to start the section by talking about Unitarianism because Adams didn't become a Unitarian until late in life after he had retired from public service. Display name 99 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If there are so many sources on Adams' religious beliefs, have you considered creating a spin-off article? We already have articles on the Religious views of George Washington, Religious views of Thomas Jefferson, and Religious views of Abraham Lincoln. There is no reason to keep everything in the individual's main article. Dimadick (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

yes I'm looking into a separate article but lean against it. We can move text into the Adams presidency and diplomacy article and maybe family stuff into the Adams political family. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note #348, Jefferson mocking the religious

The article states that "...Jefferson tended in private company to mock religious feelings." referencing Wood, Friends Divided, pg. 16. There is no mention whatsoever about Jefferson's attitude toward religious people in that text on that page. I'd like very much to find the primary source that describes Jefferson's sentiment as described in the article. FavoniusProgeny (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Swearing in of John Adams" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swearing in of John Adams and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#Swearing in of John Adams until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

Change “At 90, Adams was the longest-lived US president until Ronald Reagan surpassed him in 2001.[306]” also surpassed by Ford, H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. https://potus.com/presidential-facts/presidents-age-at-death/ TroyGirl (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see a reason to list out all presidents that surpassed John Adams' age. It seems most appropriate to list the first president to surpass him and then leave it at that, no? The current sentence doesn't insinuate that Reagan was the only president to do so, and so curious readers can separately research if others also achieved it. —Sirdog (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Info conflict

On Adams' page, it says that he cast more tie-breaking Senate votes than any vice president. Leaving aside the possibility that it may have to be changed if Kamala Harris breaks that record, according to the list of tie-breaking votes cast by the vice president of the United States, John C. Calhoun holds the most, at 31, with Adams in second at 29 and Harris (as of now) in third at 26. Not sure which is correct, but they obviously can't both be. Since I mostly stick to grammatical edits, I'm not comfortable tackling this question on my own. Packer1028 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The totals listed in the list article match those put out by the U.S. Senate: Calhoun 31, Adams 29, Harris 29 (updated March 1, 2023). The claim that Adams cast the most is incorrect. Drdpw (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Short description

Drdpw, I was aware of the history of changes to the short description when I reverted your edit. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Randy Kyrn's version is, in my mind, superior to yours, for the reasons that I stated in my edit summary. Please either defend your version or allow it to be changed back. Display name 99 (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia:Short description, the Adams biographical article short description, like the short description for every article of an American president (or any national leader for that matter) should state their name and the period they were in what is the most important office in the land and of their lifetime. The pinnacle of John Adams' life was: second President of the United States (1797–1801). Drdpw (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Founding Father, second president of the United States" works much better. The pinnacle of Adams' life was spearheading and championing the creation of a nation, a nation which likely would not have existed if not for him. The same can be said of the other great Founding Father presidents - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. All four were essential. All four flowed together into a vast river of intellect, leadership, action, and bravery. Short descriptors containing only their time as the nation's president miss the mark in terms of encapsulating their historical significance. Interestingly, adding two words actually does accurately and adequately define Adams' life and civilizational imprint: "Founding Father, second president of the United States". Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The policy that you cited, Drdpw, says that a short description should be a "concise explanation of the scope of the page." Referencing Adams' presidency and nothing else covers only a portion of what the page is about. Randy Kryn's version is a broader summary of Adams' career in fewer characters. Display name 99 (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In doing so, wouldn't we be opening every presidential article short description up for alteration discussions, not just for "founding father and", but for "general and", "businessman and", "actor and", and etc.? Drdpw (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, but only a couple would likely pass (Civil war general..., World War II general...) as very little can be added to "U.S. president" to equal the status. Actor and businessman wouldn't compare with "U.S. president". But the four Founding presidents seem a whole other ballpark. It can be argued that without any of these four there would not be a United States to administrate (what a remarkable group in world history). The only Founders equal to these four, Benjamin Franklin and, maybe, Alexander Hamilton, include the Founding Father short descriptor. The other three talk pages should probably be made aware of this discussion, as they too seem to be in the vicinity of this change. As for WP:SHORTDESC, it is not a policy or even a guideline, and links to an informational essay. I think short descriptors showed up in 2018 (earlier?), and there are no set rules as to acceptable wording, just suggestions. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. If a president's notability depends almost entirely on their presidency, we can leave it at just that. But when something else that they did comes close to equalling their presidency in importance, it seems like we ought to consider mentioning that as well. The best example of all would be Ulysses S. Grant. Grant is unique as perhaps the only U.S. president whose presidency is eclipsed by his other achievements. And yet the short description on his article mentions only his presidency, which I find completely nonsensical and misleading. But these are the exceptions. I have no problem keeping the descriptions as it is for the vast majority of presidents. In my mind, the only presidents that we would change this for would be Washington through Madison, maybe Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower. That's it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I would keep that Adams was a diplomat. He served as Minister to Great Britain. That was an important duty, especially after the American Revolution. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Cmguy777, you may be looking at the lead sentence. The present short description is "President of the United States from 1797 to 1801" with the proposed change being "Founding Father, second president of the United States" (the words 'Founding Father' would cover his service as diplomat as well as his other founding activities). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Where is the short description located? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Right at the top if you click the 'edit' button. If you use Vector22 skin (the default) it appears in the search box when you search for 'John Adams'. I've heard it appears on mobile but don't know what it looks like there. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. How about this? Founding Father and President of the United States (1797-1801) Cmguy777 (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Good idea, but that could make it seem that Adams' was a Founding Father for only four years (which may confuse some readers). Wikipedia style would also lowercase 'president' in that example. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll be restoring Randy Kryn's version to this article, as we seem to be 2 to 1 in favor of it and the other person has not responded here. I propose that appropriate changes be made to the other articles. Display name 99 (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is a moot point, but I think the years (1797-1801) John Adams was President should be added to the short description. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I would have put Founding Father, President of the United States (1797-1801). That shows John Adams was a one term President. However, I am fine with the current change. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Display name 99, I had left a note at the Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Founding Father talk pages about this discussion, so if it has been sparsely attended it's not for lack of notification (which usually means 'sure, go ahead'). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

The claim that John Adams has more tie-breaking Senate votes than any vice president is incorrect. It conflicts with the Wikipedia article on tie-breaking votes in the Senate by vice president, which claims that John C Calhoun has the most with 31, and that Harris is currently tied with Adams at 29. When looking into the sources, this reflects the currently available information from the US Senate. Crovou718 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 5 Aug 2023

Please add link for historian Page Smith 2.14.10.86 (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Display name 99 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Gilbert Stuart,_John_Adams,_c._1800-1815,_NGA_42933.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for August 27, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-08-27. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

John Adams (1735–1826) was an American statesman, attorney, diplomat, writer, and Founding Father who served as the second president of the United States from 1797 to 1801. Before his presidency, he was a leader of the American Revolution that achieved independence from Great Britain. During the latter part of the Revolutionary War and in the early years of the new nation, he served the U.S. government as a senior diplomat in Europe. Adams was the first person to hold the office of Vice President of the United States, serving in the role from 1789 to 1797. He was a dedicated diarist and regularly corresponded with important contemporaries, including his wife and adviser Abigail Adams and his friend and political rival Thomas Jefferson. This oil-on-canvas painting of Adams was produced by Gilbert Stuart, approximately between 1800 and 1815, and is in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C.

Painting credit: Gilbert Stuart

Recently featured:

• Pobiti Kamani
• Pénélope
• Lemon

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

In the "Born" section, change "1935" to "1735" for the Old Style year. 2601:100:8A80:3F80:387D:5291:B9F:8401 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should the article on John Adams refer to people held in slavery as "enslaved people" or "slaves"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

With over a month since the last response, I think that it's time to shut this down. Despite some latent support for "enslaved persons," consensus favors "slaves" over "enslaved persons." Display name 99 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this article refer to people held in slavery as "enslaved people" or "slaves"? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Enslaved People: I believe this article should use the same language found in George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and All men are created equal, among other articles, which refers to people held in slavery as "enslaved people". This is also how the language is moving, since a person who is enslaved is still a person. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Rockstone35, I'm not going to debate you here because I don't think that it would be productive, as both of us have made our positions clear, but I do want to point out that none of the articles that you are citing use the language that you favor adding to this one. They all say "slaves" instead of "enslaved people." Display name 99 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a debate, just a clarification... the articles use a mixture of both, which I should have been more clear about. For example, George Washington's article says "Along with other Founding Fathers, he has been condemned for holding enslaved people.", while Thomas Jefferson's says: "He first recorded his slaveholding in 1774, when he counted 41 enslaved people". The All Men Are Created Equal article says "Jefferson argued many cases to free enslaved people." --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I skimmed the section on slavery in both the Washington and Jefferson articles. It seems as though they almost exclusively say "slaves." Display name 99 (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Slaves-A plumber, a teacher, or an electrician is still a person, and yet we do not say "plumbing person," "person who teaches," etc. The word "slave" is, if I am not mistaken, still the most common identifier in academic sources, and all major biographies of Adams use this language. "Enslaved person" is nothing more than unnecessary verbiage, communicating no additional information beyond what can be said in one fewer word. Display name 99 (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option B: Slaves. The phrase "enslaved people" is superfluous and verbose, and is wholly unnecessary—much like the phrase "displaced people" instead of the much more common and already neutral "refugees". Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to update its content to conform to passing euphemism treadmill taboos. "Slaves" is already established as a neutral word which has been in use for centuries (including by slaves and former slaves themselves), and which performs its function adequately and without insult. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option B equivalent terms, one is shorter and more common. Agreed re euphemistic treadmill. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
• Slaves- This truth I hold to be self-evident - that the simplest clearest, most concise way to say something is usually to be preferred in WP. In this case no reason is offered for deviating from the plain form apart from the possible preferences of past ages. Other than in quotes, I cannot imagine any situation where "enslaved people" would be preferred over "slaves", except in the sense of "enslaved peoples", ie referring to races or nationalities 'under the yoke'. Is "enslaved people" a euphemism, or simply a stylistic archaism? Either way it has very little to recommend it. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Slaves per Festucalex. Alternative is unnecessarily verbose and euphemistic. Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
• Slaves "Enslaved people" isn't an improvement and it's too wordy. I don't really understand the objection to the word slaves. Thanks Nemov (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Slaves - (Summoned by bot) The objections that I have heard to the use of the term "Slaves" is that referring to them as "slaves" implies that they were less than human. I don't understand, and maybe the use of a euphemism is too easy, because they were treated as if they were less than human. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe this should be an RFC on the MOS, rather than on a President who, like his son, never was involved in the wrong of slavery. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Good idea. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Ortizesp (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Enslaved people. For reference see:

National Archives Catalog - https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/enslaved-person

"Enslaved person is the preferred term for an individual. Enslaved persons and enslaved people are preferred terms to refer to groups of people. Enslaved can be used as a modifier instead of slave before a person’s name, role, or profession, or the modifier slave can be removed and not replaced in that instance, especially if the description elsewhere provides context related to enslaved people or slavery (mentioned elsewhere in notes or indexed as a subject).

Do not remove all uses of slave; the term should be retained when used as a modifier related to economic systems. Restrict its use to existing terms and bodies of records and evaluate on a case-by-case basis for future records. This approach will be reevaluated as policies and practices at peer institutions develop.

For the subject authority file, the new preferred term is enslaved persons and slaves is the non-preferred term." W9793 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Additional relevant sources from government, academic, and public educational institutions:

The Library of Congress - https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=SACOLIST;ba7a5aa8.2205

"In September 2021, a proposal was submitted to change Slaves to Enslaved persons. The Library of Congress took the proposal under advisement for more research and evaluation, and determined that the proposal would be re-considered and a decision would be made in March 2022.

During that time, the original proposer, Rowena Griem of Yale University, worked to improve the change heading proposal and compile a list of all the potentially impacted headings. The SACO African American Subject Funnel, led by Lauren Reno for this project, assisted her. They also agreed to help with research when the time came to make the related proposals. The Library of Congress would like to take this opportunity to thank these catalogers for their work in moving this forward; their assistance has been and will continue to be essential.

Following the period of additional research and internal evaluation, the Library of Congress will support the change of the heading Slaves to Enslaved persons. The March 2022 editorial meeting will be an opportunity to discuss the full outcome of the decision on all related headings and develop a more complete plan for the full project. Due to the large volume of headings associated with the heading change, a special list for Slaves/Enslaved persons will be issued."

National Park Service, Underground Railroad - Language of Slavery - https://www.nps.gov/subjects/undergroundrailroad/language-of-slavery.htm

"Enslaved Person  

This term is used in place of slave. It more accurately describes someone who was forced to perform labor or services against their will under threat of physical mistreatment, separation from family or loved ones, or death. For the general purposes of this website, the term refers to one of the tens of millions of kidnapped Africans transported to the Americas and their descendants held in bondage through the American Civil War.

Enslaved person emphasizes the humanity of an individual within a slaveholding society over their condition of involuntary servitude. While slavery was a defining aspect of this individual’s life experience, this term, in which enslaved describes but person is central, clarifies that humanity was at the center of identity while also recognizing that this person was forcibly placed into the condition of slavery by another person or group."

The Dickens Project, UC Santa Cruz - https://dickens.ucsc.edu/programs/virtual-universe/vdu-community.html

“Following the expertise and guidance of scholars in Black and African American studies, we will adopt the preferred language that addresses the racism of historically used terms. This includes enslaved person/worker/mother/child rather than “slave”; enslaver vs. “master” or “mistress”; mixed-race person vs “mulatto,” “quadroon,” etc. We will also name rape and other forms of sexual assault as such, particularly when referring to the rape and other sexual assault of enslaved people or literary characters, rather than using euphemisms such as “sexual affair” or “sexual intercourse.” We acknowledge that for some this may be new terminology, but we ask that you strive to follow best practices as we embrace anti-racist practices as an organization.”

Underground Railroad Education Center - https://undergroundrailroadhistory.org/the-vocabulary-of-freedom/

"Also important to reevaluate is the use of “master” and “slave” in our lexicon. With the word “slave,” we deny the humanity of the enslaved person; with “enslaved person,” we recognize their enslaved state as imposed on them and not intrinsic to their identity as a human being." W9793 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think that consensus will unfortunately not be in our favor, even though you make a much better argument, in my opinion. It may be worth doing this RFC as part of the manual of style, instead of just this article. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Move to the end of the RfC. W9793, people make new responses to RfCs below those already provided, not at the top. Display name 99 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 Yes that's a good idea.

@Display name 99 Thanks - sorry about that. W9793 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Slaves/Both The term enslaved person feels like just another trend. If some professionals don't like the term, then good for them. In any case, I don't see why both terms can't be used. This feels like a "long form, short form" kind of situation. There's nothing wrong with scattering the long form throughout the article, but it can't be used in every instance. It's too wordy for that, and it would quickly sound pompous or at least fluffy. Just "the enslaved" could also be used, unless that somehow also denies humanity due to the lack of the word "person". Kerdooskis (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• Slaves is most recognizable and easier to understand for our readers. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35 Slaves - I feel like the term enslaved people is missing the point a bit, and is not used in academics or in the majority of RS. Also, slaves is the common name and is consistent with other articles. JacobTheRox (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Enslaved person/people because that is the current form acceptable in academics and is the most neutral use of the term. I traveled to Mt. Vernon this time last year and every plaque, grave marker, and signage used the term "enslaved person/people." Those on this thread saying it is not used in current academics has outdated source materials, which is evident in the long list of sources provided above by W9793. In fact, I would venture that academics and mainstream media are the two outlets that have adopted this relatively new, politically correct terminology. So even if our general lexicon is slower on the uptake, Wikipedia shouldn't be. Pistongrinder (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's interesting to know that Mt. Vernon has also made the change - thanks for sharing. W9793 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Enslaved People/Persons per users above. BogLogs (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Enslaved persons. Someone above compared the term to plumber or lawyer which are professions that people chose. Slave was/is not a profession nor is it chosen. The term enslaved person differentiates in an important way. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (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.