Talk:Samuel Adams/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

The American Cato?

Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics/Biographies A lists Samuel Adams as having the nickname, "The American Cato."

However, there is presently nothing about "The American Cato" in this article. Would anyone care to research this and add it?

Kevyn 07:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes I know! The American Cato would make a very good addition to this/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.37.10.164 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will add it into the "Legacy" section of the article. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

article moved

I moved Samuel Adams (American revolutionary) here because he had by far the largest number of incoming links: see [1] (after I changed the links to that page), compare to [2], [3], [4], and [5]. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agree with move. -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Differing viewpoints

Just a question to put out there, and before doing any editing i thought i would ask it. There are opposing views of Sam Adams' role in various events leading up the American Revolution, and this article tends to be more biased towards the "Sam Adams intentionally instigated (event)". For example the article states he organised the Boston Tea Party, whereas there is actually speculation as to whether he really wanted the event to happen and that he have tried preventing it. In light of this, i suggest a few minor edits to the article, or alternatively, a subheading could be placed at the end of the birography discussing these oppising interpretations. This is in the interest of balance and transparency. Lawson

As long as you have sources to back up your edits, go ahead. Also, please remember to sign next time using four tiles (~~~~)--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 15:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sons of Liberty

I am removing an anonymous addtion. Its format and placeent are bad, even if the material is good. I cannoy recommend the link but, with improvement, the material might go in the article. Lou I 13:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed material:

(After failing as a brewer and newspaper publisher, Adams found that his chief preoccupation, politics, was his true calling. Following lengthy experience in Boston town affairs, he rose to prominence in the Massachusetts assembly during the opposition to the Stamp Act in 1765. An organizer of Boston's Sons of Liberty, he played a key role from 1765 until the end of the War of Independence in Patriot opposition to what Adams believed was a British plot to destroy constitutional liberty.) from http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_001100_adamssamuel.htm

Concluding Sentence

The final sentence really bothers me: "Samuel liked young schoolchildren, he wanted them to be present at his funeral; his daughter refused, as she didn't want them to miss school."

I changed a comma to a semicolon to make it more grammatical, but I feel like the sentence really needs to be reworked or deleted. As written, it hints at the perverse. Did Samuel Adams like "young schoolchildren" in the manner of Miss America? Or in the manner of Lewis Carroll? Or in the manner of John Wayne Gacy?

This is my first edit at Wikipedia, so I thought I'd comment first, before just deleting the sentence.

I agree that it sounds odd and ambiguous. Also, I hadn't heard that before so I would like confirmation that it is true, anyone have a source for this? Welcome to wikipedia Idahogie, thanks for the edit, I hope you enjoy the stay. You can sign you posts by typing four tilde (~) characters in a row, it will replace it with your username and the date/time, like this: Lorax 02:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Concluding Sentence Removed

As it's been about two weeks with no objection, I've deleted the following sentence: "Samuel liked young schoolchildren, he wanted them to be present at his funeral; his daughter refused, as she didn't want them to miss school."

PS. Thanks for the tip, Lorax.

Idahogie 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Patriot: Adams fits the definition

The Dictionary (Webster's 3rd) defines Patriot as: one who advocates or promotes the independence of his native soil or people from the country or union of countries of which it is a part (as a colony). Fits Sam Adams perfectly. (The Loyalists did NOT call themselves Patriots.) Rjensen 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

More quotes?

I would like to add some more quotes to the samuel adams entry to help give it more depth. Feloniousd 04:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Posted the following quotes to entry on Samuel Adams:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions" --Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience, direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum." --Samuel Adams, Speech, 1 August 1776

Source for both was liberty-tree.ca [[6]]

I'm an infrequent editor, so I'm sorry for any breach of convention. Please contact me if there are issues with my edit. Feloniousd 04:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that, a quote that is not recorded by the the man himself on paper should be labled as "atributed", and if possible by whom? For instance; "blah blah blah" --atributed to Samuel Adams by Jon Doe at his grandmother's funeral, 1783 Feloniousd 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Added another quote; "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."

if anyone knows the source text let me know

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men" = The Writings of Samuel Adams - Page 213

by Samuel Adams - 1904 online at [7] Rjensen 20:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

what where his siblings?

What were Sam Adam's siblings? I can't find it anywhere, thank you.

Like many who were born during the 18th century, Samuel Adams was the only surviving child of his parents. They had 13 children in all-Adams was the youngest. As I understood it, the children died in infancy and in early childhood. Some of them were not named I believe.

Finding out information on Samuel Adams' early and personal life online can be difficult. I had to hunt for sometimes to find out the names of his first wife and his children. I did read in one of his biographies that he had a son of the same name that was a doctor and after some tweaking and googling I found references to him. Many things tend to be centered around his life just before, during and a little bit after the Revolutionary War.

Hopefully in the future Samuel Adams will get the same type of resuscitation that his cousin John has enjoyed.

Ladydayelle 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Grrr

Someone needs to edit the intro thing, I dunno how to do it. Inappropriate... some jerks probably got a kick out of that.

Political Cartoon

I think we should mention the British political cartoon published during the American Revolution, or at least mention it. It was actually quite popular among the counter-revolutionaries. Those Americans who supported England

It reads "

     SAM ADAMS SAYS
    I WANKED IN YOUR ALE"

The OED's earliest reference for "wank" in any sense is from 1948, so I think it's unlikely that that wording was in use during the time of the American Revolution. But if you have a reference, feel free to add it, and I'm sure the OED would love to hear about it too. 216.75.188.95 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Primary Sources" added by 72.80.105.76

I reverted a long list of quotes that 72.80.105.76 added to the page. If anyone thinks some of these are significant, feel free to add them back onto the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samuel_Adams&oldid=103704123 -- >|< shablog ^talk/_cont 23:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey slightly off the Samuel Adams topic, it says in the early life section that Adams was influenced by john Lock and his ideas, of natural rights "life, health, liberty, or possessions" i don't pretend to be an expert on the topic, however, i have read a fair bit that the laws were of Life (including health and safety), Liberty, and Property (and its pursuit through enterprise etc etc and protection of that property) not trying to be annoying but i figure if your gonna do something do it right, could someone check this for me? i don't want any decision to be based on my knowledge alone. cheers

Locke's laws...

Hey slightly off the Samuel Adams topic, it says in the early life section that Adams was influenced by john Lock and his ideas, of natural rights "life, health, liberty, or possessions" i don't pretend to be an expert on the topic, however, i have read a fair bit that the laws were of Life (including health and safety), Liberty, and Property (and its pursuit through enterprise etc etc and protection of that property) not trying to be annoying but i figure if your gonna do something do it right, could someone check this for me? i don't want any decision to be based on my knowledge alone. cheers

sorry i added it twice

I added that bit in the article a few weeks ago. I believe I found the direct quote through the book I was using as a reference (Mark Pul's book) or the actual Google Books text of the Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Anyway, this is in fact referenced, and it was originally under quotations, so I do believe it is accurate. Nishkid64 02:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

Someone please check the birthdate at the beginning of the article and under "early life", they do not agree.

The Congressional Biographical Directory gives September 27, 1722. That's generally a pretty authoritative source for Members of Congress and their predecessors. On the other hand, the alternate source with a day of the week may be pretty good too. Someone needs to check that source, and if necessary seek a consensus of sources. Newyorkbrad 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I never saw that there were two different dates. Two of my primary sources state that his birthday was on September 16, including a number of online sources like whitehouse.gov. However, there are a number of sources that also say his birth was on September 27. I think both dates should be put in and a little note about conflicting sources should be added, since both appear to be used in a hundreds of sources. Nishkid64 00:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, I believe the discrepancies come from the differences in Old Style and New Style dates. In James Hosmer's biography on Adams, he says Samuel was born on September 16 (OS), 1722, which could probably mean the September 27 date is date according to the Gregorian calendar. I've left a note of that on the article, and changed the date to September 16. Nishkid64 13:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've confirmed that Nishkid64's theory is exactly correct. Cf. George Washington who had the same thing happen, more famously. Kudos to Nishkid for figuring it out; I feel like a dummy for not having gotten it first. Newyorkbrad 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeios.com quotes link

Guys, just discuss having or not having the link at "External links" instead of unproductively using the undo and revert button. Personally, I think the link shouldn't be included. It does not provide with many quotes by Adams (if it had more, I would consider it), and if readers really want to see quotes, they should go to WikiQuote. A few editors, including myself, sourced all the quotes there, so WikiQuote would be the most appropriate place for quotes by Samuel Adams. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it appears the matter was settled at Micahburnett's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Tea party

I draw your attention to Ray Rapheal's book "Founding Myths" (New Press, New York, 2004 - ISBN# 1565849213) which fairly convincingly shows that Adams did NOT "organize protests against the British, including the Boston Tea Party in 1773". According to Rapheal, Adams did approve of some protests after the fact, but did not organize them ... and ardently disaproved of at least one of the protest (He criticized that of August 26, 1765 - calling the participants "mobbish")... and during the evening of the Tea Party he called for calm and expressed a desire for peaceful solutions. There was no "secret signal" as the article states. It is always difficult to separate fact from patriotic myth... but we should try. Blueboar 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I attempted to edit taking into account the contentions mentioned in Rapheal's book... my edit was reverted with the comment: Numerous sources (letters, diaries, etc.) are provided to back up claims made in the article; if the myth book has reliable sources from the days of the Revolution, bring it up at the talk page. The book certainly does... it quotes (and cites) such sources as Adams's own letters and diaries, and the accounts of his contemporaries. More importantly, it goes into detail as to why many of the traditional sources that paint Adams as the mastermind behind the Sons of Liberty got the story wrong. It traces the creation and developement of the myth and details how it has entered modern historiography.

Now, I am not completely willing to dismiss all those tradtional sources. My edit is not meant as a "revisionist" view to delete the roll that Adams played in the Revolution... but, to simply admit that there is some doubt about him being the principal "organizer" of events. This is why I changed it to state that he "played a leading roll". That makes him one of many who also played leading rolls, which is closer to historic fact. Blueboar 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As my sources indicate, Adams definitely organized some of the protests. He was in opposition to some protests that he felt were too violent. I don't think you can just take a book on Revolutionary myths and claim that everything in there is the truth. For all you know, the sources Raphael used could be wrong, as well. Also, if you wish to cite references, please follow the referencing style I used throughout the article (so that we will have consistency throughout). Nishkid64 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best if you mention the doubt over Adams' pre-Revolutionary role in the "Legacy" section. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, what page did the quote in which Adams called the violent protests "truly mobbish in nature" come from? Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. "According to legend, Adams, in control of the meeting, did want not give up the fight. A cry "Boston Harbor a tea-pot tonight"" The bolded text shows what you added in those two sentences. That is not what the Larabee reference stated, so a source for the legend bit must be added.

The "mobbish nature" quote comes from p. 52 of Raphael's book... He gives the following citation for it: "Samuel Adams to John Smith, Dec. 25, 1765, in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1904) 1:60" Blueboar 22:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference added. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist

Wouldn't Sam Adams be considered a terrorist by todays standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk • contribs)

Are you proposing that we call him a terrorist in the article? If not, I fail to see what your question has to do with the article. ShadowHalo 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the word "terrorism" was first used in the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. The actions of the French people involved killing and massacring, both of which are identified with terrorism. American activities included tarring and feathering and destroying British property. I don't really see this as terrorism. Also, Sam Adams was not personally involved in any of the mob violence. In the article, it even states that he was against the mob violence that was sometimes used against the British. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While the analogy is anacronistic, if I had to make comparisons to modern times, I would put Adams as one of the leaders of a "Political Wing"... supportive of the goal, but using different methods. If you see my comments about the Tea Party and other demonstrations that took place in the 1770s, there is clear indication that Adams abhored violence and anything that could be (mis)equated to "terrorism". Blueboar 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since "terrorism" means "terrorizing people," I think the mob violence of this period fits the term, irrespective of Adams's distance from the turmoil. Brutannica 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since "terrorism" means "terrorizing people" - Actually, "terrorism" is probably the single hardest word in english to define (see definition of terrorism). Your definition is, frankly, a ridiculous one. By your definition, Ashton Kutcher is a terrorist. Raul654 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The label simply does not fit the facts. No one was "terrorized" by Adams. While there were riots and mob violence during this period, Adams is on record as abhoring such violence. He favored peaceful demonstrations, boycotts, petitions and pamphlet writing... hardly the acts of a "terrorist". While there is some debate as to how involved he was in planning the Boston Tea Party, even if he was highly involved you can not call the Tea Party an act of Terrorism... the participants were very careful not to harm the men on the ships, and assured their captains that no harm would befall them. At worst, it was an act of "political vandalism", not an act of "terror". While Adams did become an advocate of armed rebelion and independance in the months leading up to to the battles of Lexington and Concord, this was not "terrorism" either... it was focused on organizing local militia to fight against regular armed troops. That's rebellion, not terrorism. No... modern terms and concepts do not fit historical events - Sam Adams was not a "terrorist". Blueboar 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tea Party Section confusing

I think the section about the Boston Tea Party needs to be reworked. It may be understandable to someone familiar with the event, but for someone like me, it seems unclear, poorly written and unprofessional. Here is a particularly confusing section:

By November 28, a cargo ship named Dartmouth was in the Boston Harbor, carrying 114 chests of East India tea. British law stated the ship was required to unload and pay the duties for the cargo within twenty days. In response, Adams introduced a resolution the next day in a town meeting in Faneuil Hall. The measure stated that the tea should be sent back to England without paying for the import duties. The resolution was passed unanimously.

It is unclear here who pays the duties. If "the ship" pays the duties then what do the american's care? Are they upset because that increases the price of tea for them? Why would they send the ship back? Why not accept the tea, without the duties? In addition the whole idea that the shipment is taxed at all seems contraditory to a sentence at the beginning of the section:

"The Tea Party was an act of protest in response to the Tea Act, a tax law passed in London that allowed the British East India Company to land tea free from the tax that had been imposed on it earlier."

This seems contradictory. Are the Americans FOR the tax. Obviously not. Then why would they protest a ship that is allowed to land "tax free" And how can it be that British law states that "the ship" (which is bearing east India Tea) "was required to unload and pay the duties for the cargo"

In addition, this sentence is particularly irksome: "The measure stated that the tea should be sent back to England without paying for the import duties" It makes it sound as if the tea itself pays duties. Why not just say: "The measure stated that the tea should be sent back to England and the import duties should be left unpaid."

In conclusion I am very confused. I'm pretty sure that the Americans were feeling hostile to both the British East India tea co. and the British government. Yet this does not seem consistent with a protest against a law "that allowed the British East India Tea Company to land tea FREE FROM THE TAX that had been imposed on it earlier." I thought it was a protest which involved the delay of a tax which it appears that the British government REQUIRED to be levied on the shipment aboard the Dartmouth.

Eathan Keyboards 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

American ships also carried tea cargo, but they were taxed, while the British East India Company wasn't. I'll look into the issue later, and make the necessary corrections. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is backwards. American ships carrying tea were not taxed because they were smuggling tea from other countries while the East India Company was paying the tax. BradMajors (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam Adams?

Why does "Sam Adams" re-direct to this article? In my experience, Sam Adams most often refers to the beer, not to this article...

I don't know if that's a common problem or anything, just thought I'd bring it up.

Well, "Sam" is a common nickname for "Samuel". He was referred to as "Sam Adams" from time to time (I know I've seen scholarly works refer to him as "Sam"), so it's more appropriate that the page redirects here. I would (hopefully) think that people type "Sam Adams" to get the person, not the beer. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You should really read the article about the beer one!! "Samuel Adams is the brand name of American beers produced by the Boston Beer Company and named after Samuel Adams, a brewer and patriot." Samuel Adams is the proper name of the beer, named after Samuel "Sam" Adams so Sam Adams should redirect here... seven+one 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit of info on the "Sam" nickname for future reference, just in case it needs to be addressed in the article in the future: Samuel Adams was rarely (if ever) known as "Sam" during his lifetime. Pauline Maier has written that the anachronistic title of John Miller's book, Sam Adams, Pioneer in Propaganda, is therefore an indication of the limitations of that biography. Ray Rapheal's book Founding Myths posits two different Adamses: Samuel Adams, the historical person, and "Sam Adams", a mythical person invented at a later date, who secretly pulled all the strings of the Revolution. The Puls biography says that Adams signed the Delcaration of Independence simply as "Sam Adams", but I think he has misread the document. I believe the signature is actually Sam^l with a superscript "L", the common abbreviation of "Samuel" at the time. Many signers of the Declaration abbreviated their names; compare Adams's signature with Samuel Huntington's. —Kevin Myers 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hosmer's book points out on page 16 that "to his contemporaries it was affectation quite superfluous to go beyond the monosyllable in giving his Christian name". I would be curious as to where Maier found that he wasn't called Sam. 69.116.89.12 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Hosmer cite, but that's an odd way of phrasing the issue: "where Maier found that he wasn't called Sam". I guess the answer is: almost everywhere, since what she's saying is that almost all references to the man in contemporary documents call him "Samuel". More to the point, I think, is where Hosmer got the idea that people usually called him "Sam", since apparently there are very few examples of people calling him that at the time. —Kevin Myers 01:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper

I am new to wikipedia so i cannot yet edit certain pages. while i was writing a research paper on sam adams i noticed an error in your page; the newspaper he wrote was called the Independent Advertiser not the public advertiser... just thought i would let you know so that someone could edit it since i can't yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethancfa (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See this. The title was "The Public Advertiser". Nishkid64 (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected

Please add Persondata to this article. Merrieman 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Od Mishehu 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It was already there. Look above the categories. Nishkid64 (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Tea Act

I have corrected an error in the article about the East India Company not being required to pay the Townshend duties. The article had used as a citation "Puls, pg. 140", which does not support what was written. The Puls citation supports the article as it is now written and I have added an additional citation. BradMajors (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Section needed

As this page is protected, someone else will have to do it. A "See also" section should be added to tbe bottom, just above the banner templates, with the link

• Adams political family

70.51.9.170 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – —Ashanda (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

References section

I'm thinking of re-organizing the references section to have separate notes and references sections, with short notes like "Puls (2006), pp235–237" in the Notes section, and links from there to the References section with the full bibliographic details of the book, as at Che Guevara and as described/discussed here. Comments? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it—that's really the best approach when you have multiple citations to a handful of books. Personally, I don't care for Harvard-style citations within footnotes, i.e. "Puls (2006), pp235–237". Better for a number of reasons is Chicago-style, i.e. "Puls, Samuel Adams, 235–37." Harvard-style is a relic of the typewriter era, where one wanted to give a citation as brief as possible without a footnote (which were a pain to create on typewriters), so the date of publication was used as a short substitute for the title. The oddly confused conflation of Harvard and Chicago does seem to be popular on Wikipedia, if nowhere else.

This article also has a confused "Further reading" section, which has both "further reading" material and books that have actually been cited and belong in a "References" section. —Kevin Myers 03:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and the Chicago style sounds good; I think I'll use that here as you suggest and on other articles too, if I don't encounter objection from others. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. For examples of featured articles using Chicago style, if you or anyone else needs examples, see Italian War of 1542–1546 or Pontiac's Rebellion, to name just two. —Kevin Myers 23:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Beer link

A link to Sam Adams beer should be on the beer page, not here. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)