Jump to content

Talk:George Washington/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

A Fabian???

Was Washington a Fabian? The recent historians are saying, only briefly -- for about a year after losing NYC in 1776. Buchanan says: A Fabian strategy had been forced on him the previous winter because of the army's small size and condition. But now, the army strong once more, if still to a large degree amateurish, Washington had a renewal of confidence that would lead him again to battle. (The Road to Valley Forge p 226). Ferling says he decided to go Fabian after Long island (Sept 1776) but turned to convention warfare at Brandywine (Sept 1777). Little (1929) notes that "Fabian" became a catch phrase in 1776, applied disparagingly by his political enemies at home and defensively by his friends. But Little says it was not true.(Shelby Little, George Washington 1929. p. 206.] Rjensen (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Fabian strategy" comes from the term "Periclean strategy" that means to gradually drain "the enemy's endurance in order to convince him that he could not gain a decision." [Hart (1954), Strategy, page 31] One example is that the Thebes stalled attack on the Spartans in order to "develop a picked professional force." [page 33] The Grand strategy was "not merely an evasion of battle to gain time, but calculated for its effect on the morale of the enemy--and, still more, for its effect on their potential allies." [page 46] Fabius Cunctator used a defensive strategy to wear down the Carthaginian army. Washington adopted the strategy in September 1776 where he would "on all occasions avoid a general Action or put anything to the risque unless compelled by a necessity into which we ought never to be drawn." Ferling mentions that this meant a long protracted war and that foreign assistance was imperative, i.e., the French military. [Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, page 143] Cmguy777 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ferling says GW was Fabian in 1776-77 but then when he had a better army & French support GW reverted to aggressive tactics (p 224) Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes exactly! Washington's Fabian tactics were successful. Getting the allied support and improving the Continental army are all part of the Fabian tactic. With an allie and a better army one can go on the offensive. This is due to stalling or the Fabian tactic. The end result of Fabian Tactics is to go on the offensive and victory. This is what Washington did and it worked. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Washington was clearly Fabian in 1777; Ellis (p. 101) quotes John Adams: "We are under no more apprehensions than if the British Army was in the Crimea; our Fabius will be slow, but sure." Ellis then characterizes the campaign beginning in August 1777 as Washington's "Fabian phase". (He doesn't give a good indication of when he thinks it ends, though). Magic♪piano 17:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
we all agree that Washington was a Fabian during the 12 month period of September 1776 to September 1777. But the fighting went on over six+ years 1775-81 and for five of those six years Washington was not a Fabian. The text is clear enough, the question is how to phrase this in the opening lead.Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The earlier Fabian action is linked to Washington going on the offensive later in the American Revolution. The Fabian strategy is an overall strategy designed to win the enemy according to Hart. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Fabians never go on the offensive and avoid big battles). They wear the enemy down by many small actions. Washington went for big battles after Sept 1777--Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Yorktown Rjensen (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it even necessary to mention Fabian strategy in the lead? In the body, sure; but if it's a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things, why put it in the lead? (I think Ellis thinks the Fabian phase lasted at least through Valley Forge, if not longer; he characterizes Washington as being cautious about what to do during the British march across New Jersey in 1778, despite the improved training of his troops.) Magic♪piano 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Washington used his Fabian tactic to get his men trained and get the French involved. The questions remains, how much did the French help win the Revolutionary War? If it was neccessary for French involvement to win the War, then Washington was a Fabian. Stalling for an allies help is a Fabian tactic. Even Ferling stated "foreign assistance was imperative". [Ferling (2000), Setting the World Ablaze, page 143] If the reader is told that Washington did everything, put a whooping on the "patsie" British generals, while side stepping the French involvement, then the reader is mislead. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
GW used every winter camp season to train his men, regardless of his tactics during the campaign season. No RS connects Fabian with French entry--the RS all say it was because the US defeated and captured a main British army at Saratoga--no Fabians there. The French were important but they did NOT enter while GW was using Fabian tactics, only after he stopped using them in Sept 1777. Rjensen (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Washington's success at Saratoga got the French involved. The central question is were the French needed as an allie to win the Revolutionary War? How signifigant was there involvement in terms of forcing the British to surrender? Washington's Fabian tactics got his military stronger to win at Saratoga. He got the win and the French joined in. Hart says Fabian is an overall tactic. Hart's manual on war has extensive research. Does the RS specifically state that Washington stopped being Fabian once he started being aggressive or was being aggressive the way to get the French to be allies? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip about Hart; I looked into his book and he uses Fabian briefly only to talk about the Romans, and does not use the term beyond that or to describe any other action or program. Hart never mentions Washington or the American Revolution in that regard. So there is no point in citing him in this article. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome. I would not use Hart in the Washington article, but only as a reference for defining Fabianism or Periclesism. If the French were necessary to win the British, then Washington needed an allie. Were the French subordinates to American troops or were they a separate military under Louis the XVI's authority? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that after Saratoga the British had no reasonable chance of winning the war, but they had the depth of funding to keep at it for many years. The French made that impossible by turning the war into a world war. The Americans drove theBrits out of the South all by themselves---Cornwallis went to Yorktown to escape the relentless American pressure, his intention was to abandon the entire southern campaign, and return to New York City. that is, the Americans alone were responsible for the defeat of the British Southern campaign. However, the capture of the British army at Yorktown was made possible when the French fleet blocked the rescue of Cornwallis. On the Fabian issue, Lengel makes the clear point "yet Washington's reputation as a Fabian... is unjustified. Despite what is sometimes said in writing, his instincts were always for seeking decisive engagements that would kill red coats, demoralize the British in America and Europe, and speed the end of the war. [Lengel, General George Washington p 150Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It's all good and well to describe what historians say about whether or not Washington actually used Fabian tactics; it should probably be stated (somewhere) that his contemporaries used words like "Fabius" and "Fabian" to describe his strategy for at least some of his campaigning, regardless of the historic consensus. Magic♪piano 01:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
that point was already covered in the very first post in this section: Little (1929) notes that "Fabian" became a catch phrase in 1776, applied disparagingly by his political enemies at home and defensively by his friends. But Little says it was not true.(Shelby Little, George Washington 1929. p. 206.] Of course, historians today know far more about what was happening in the war than observers at the time (because hundreds of thousands of secret documents are now open for study) Rjensen (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Americans were successful pushing the British out in the Southern Campaign on their own. However, the French Navy was necessary for the British surrender at York Town. Washington was an aggressive General, yet he used the Fabian tactic to get the overall win, i.e. getting the French Navy to trap Cornwallis at York Town. Hart considers that getting an allie is part of the Fabian tactic. Rjensen brings up a good point that Washington was aggressive at Saratoga. This got the French to become allies with the Continentals. The classic definition of Fabian strategy is to stall, improve your army, and get an allie. Washington's aggressive Saratoga campaign would have modified the Fabian strategy. In essense Washington used a fusion of Fabian and aggressive military strategies to win the Revolutionary War. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Fabian tactics involve harassing an invading enemy army by continuous small-scale attacks, and avoidance of a major battle. The RS saying nothing about improving your army or getting allies. Washington did not fuse the Fabian and aggressive strategies, he rejected the Fabian strategies (after Sept 1777) because he was basically committed to aggressive large-scale confrontation, as the statement by Lengel shows.Rjensen (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is the Hart RS. The Fabian strategy historically incorporates:
"In the first phase Sparta and her allies attempted a direct invasion of Attica. They were foiled by Pericles's war policy, of refusing battle on land while using the superior Athenian navy to wear down the enemy's will by devastating raids.[Hart (1958), Strategy, page 31]
In the years immediately preceding the rise of Epaminondas, Thebes had released herself from Sparta's dominion by the method later christened Fabian, of refusing battle--a grand strategy of indirect approach, but a strategy merely of evasion--while Spartan armies wandered unopposed through Boeotia. This method gained Thebes time to develop a picked professional force, famous as the Sacred Band, which formed the spear-head of her forces subsequently. It also gained time and opportunity for disaffection to spread, and for Athens, thereby relieved of land pressure, to concentrate her energy and man-power on the revival of her fleet. [Hart (1958), Strategy, page 33]
The strategy of Fabius was not merely an evasion of battle to gain time, but calculated for its effect on the morale of the enemy--and, still more, for its effect on their potential allies. It was thus primarily a matter of war-policy, or grand strategy. Fabius recognized Hannibal's military superiority too well to risk a military decision. While seeking to avoid this, he aimed by military pin-pricks to wear down the invaders' endurance and, coincidentally, prevent their strength being recruited from the Italian cities or their Carthaginian base. The key condition of the strategy by which this grand strategy was carried out was that the Roman army should keep always to the hills, so as to nullify Hannibal's decisive superiority in cavalry. [Hart (1958), Strategy, page 45-46]
From Hart's RS on the Fabian strategy the following can be summarized. The Fabian Strategy:
  • Is an overall grand strategy.
  • Has an effect on allies and the morale of the enemy.
  • Incorporates the refusal to fight.
  • Incorporates raids to wear down the enemy.
  • Gains time to improve both an army and navy.
Washington, as far as I know, after the New York route, refused to fight a direct battle with the British until Saratoga, so in that matter he was a Fabian. Washington for the first year wore down the British Army by raids giving him time to improve his own Continental Army. In that respect he is Fabian. Washington's victory at Saratoga caused the French to join in the fight. This may or may not be Fabian since Washington was aggressive, however, the action did induce the French to come into the War. Washington needed a Navy. The direct military victory at Saratoga was a result of his Fabian tactics [gaining time to improve the Continental Army] and got the French involved in the War. With the French naval blockade Cornwallis was trapped at York Town. Washington modified and/or fused the Fabian strategy with aggressive direct battles starting at Saratoga. That is what made him the superior general, he had the ability to adapt to the situations given to him, make modifications, and get the victory. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a note. It appears from the research that Washington was given 5,000 French troops and the Continental Army was give $20,000 in French gold. This had a signifigant affect in the War and at minimal links Washington with Fabianism. An allie was needed. This depends on the definition of being a Fabian. As far as I know there never was a desisive battle to once for all finish off the British. If the prolonged war had a negative affect on the British government, then that is part of the Fabian strategy. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
yes indeed the French were a terrific help. But there is no RS that links Fabian tactics ("avoid big battles") and the French in any way. Yorktown was very big and very decisive--it was not hit and run. Rjensen (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jamesjp, 1 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Within the sentence, "Washington became President of the United States in 1789 where he tried to bring brought rival factions together to create a unified nation."

I would suggest two corrections be made to that sentence. Personally, it comes across as a run on sentence. I would end the first sentence after "...1789." and start the next sentence from there. The original sentence also had a redundancy of sorts with, "...bring brought..." I suggest the elimination of "brought" should the original sentence be kept. My overall suggested rewrite is as follows:

"Washington became President of the United States in 1789. Once President, he attempted to bring rival factions together in order to create a more unified nation."

Jamesjp 02:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Shearonink (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Super rich??? not

The notion that Washington was super rich has long been discredited by historians. Chernow 2010 says, re 1796, "The cash-strapped Washington knew that the world reckoned him a much richer man than he really was. Mount Vernon's glorified façade of wealth and grandeur covered up an operation that was, at best, only marginally profitable." [ch 57 note 38]. His political opponents said he was rich but that was false. GW had title to thousand acres of land in West Virginia, but squatters lived on it and refuse to pay rents, and he could not sell the land, so to value it to 2010 land prices is nonsense. this section recently added to the text depends on an unreliable popular book with no citations to reliable biographies.Rjensen (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sourcing is poor as well. It should be removed. MarmadukePercy (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I knew the sourcing as given looked problematic but wanted to immediately place another editor's citation & information (User:Anwar saadat) in a more suitable section than amongst the funeral information.
As to the sourcing being poor and characterizing the source-material as 'unreliable' and popular'. I am not sure that just because a book is popular that it should be automatically discounted, otherwise Chernow et al would be discounted as well. For editors interested in looking into this matter a little further, the actual information and data did not originate from the previously-cited GetRichSlowly commercial website, it is from the 1996 Citadel Press book titled The Wealthy 100: From Benjamin Franklin to Bill Gates--A Ranking of the Richest Americans, Past and Present by Michael Klepper and Robert Gunther.
As to the qualifications of the two authors of "The Wealthy 100"...
  • Robert E. Gunther - wrote or collaborated on 20 books including several in the "Wharton on" series including ...Making Decisions, ...Managing Emerging Technologies and ...Dynamic Comptetitive Strategy. Wrote articles for The Harvard Business Review, American Heritage and Investors' Business Daily plus other publications. Also collaborated with Richard D'Aveni on Hypercompetition: ..., a book published by Simon & Schuster. All this information is from Google, Google Books, Mr. Gunther's obit at UPenn.
  • Michael Klepper - was founder and Chairman of Michael Klepper Associates a media training and placement firm (now retired), former member of Directors Guild (was at NBC for seven years, ran the Jerry Lewis Telethon at one pointl), author of I'd Rather Die Than GIve a Speech (intro by Edwin Newman).Michael Klepper info)
Regarding George Washington's net worth...
In July 2010 Forbes.Com refers to the book and George Washington's finances here. The Forbes article is called The 10 Richest Presidents and was written by William P. Barrett a long-time columnist who has been writing for Forbes since 1997. Some additional information is available in an October 1998 American Heritage article at AmericanHeritage.Com [1] called 40: A Ranking of the Wealthiest Americans of All Time that Mr. Gunther and Mr. Kleppner contributed to. At the bottom of that column the An Astor Ball for All Time - How we chose the richest Americans addendum by Gunther & Kleppner encapsulates the extensive research and methodology behind the book.
I think George Washington's net worth is a subject that should be included in the article. Economists' & business-writers' contributions have as much validity as historians' contributions in this case. ** Shearonink (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Klepper and Gunther say that the $530,000 figure is Washington's own estimate, which they claim is 1/777th of the US GNP; I did not check their bibliography for where they got GNP figures. They claim that Washington was "among the richest" Americans, in marked contrast to some of the other founding fathers. The inflation figure added by the editor ($18B) is not in their work, and is problematic for reasons stated by Rjensen. Magic♪piano 22:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
But, just the same, why shouldn't Washington's net worth be discussed or laid-out in the article? Maybe some considered him to be land-poor, maybe Mount Vernon and all his property were actually smoke and mirrors, but the fact remains...Martha Washington didn't have to sell off all her possessions and Washingon's books and their joint-property and whatever else to pay his debts... the man wasn't poor. I think Washington's money-management skills and property-management skills speak to his intellect, his practicality and his leadership. Why isn't that aspect of the man worthy of being included in the article? Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As long as it's properly sourced (i.e. not a blog post like the original), I think it's fine. I'd cite Klepper and Gunther directly, if their work is to be used. (I have page numbers for what I wrote above.) Magic♪piano 02:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
All these Johnny-come-lately studies of Washington's purported 'Forbes 400-esque' status are silly. Anyone who makes such claims doesn't fully understand the nature of the Virginia economy of the era. Sure, Washingon owned quite a bit of land, and was in the upper tier of the Virginia planter gentry. But as historians have noted, many planters could boast of such apparent wealth, but in most cases they were deeply in hock to the factors in London and others, as the example of Jefferson demonstrated. In short, these were among the most highly-leveraged operators in history. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
MarmadukePercy is right about Virginia. There is no point in using journalists like Kleppner who have no knowledge of 18th century America. there are two full-length scholarly books on Washington's estate, and most of the scholarly biographers summarize the situation. Robert F. Dalzell Jr. and Lee Baldwin Dalzell, George Washington's Mount Vernon (2000) which is excerpted at Amazon.com, see page 219 for elaborate accurate details as verified by scholars. Washington divided his estate equally among 23 heirs. Rjensen (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I'm not even the editor who brought this so-called 'super-rich' citation & text into the article, but is the claim entirely invalid? I don't understand why authors who don't happen to be professional historians seem to be so disregarded in this area. My main point is just that Washington's financial-sense and financial-management and shepherding of personal resources is an important aspect of his life and should perhaps have more of a presence somewhere in the article. Washington certainly wasn't poor and in his latter years could be said to be (as the article says) among Virginia's wealthiest men... so perhaps that will have to do. Shearonink (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

GW was indeed rich in terms of land and slaves. Rather like several hundred other planters. The pop author Klepper wanted to make him out to be the Bill Gates of the era--top 100 richest Americans of all time!!!! shouts his book title--but he doesn't know as much about Washington as the editors of this article do. Washington (like Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry etc) had a very hard time turning land and slaves into profits because tobacco prices were low and these folks spent lots of $$$$ on luxury and entertainment.Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
"Klepper...doesn't know as much about Washington as the editors of this article do." Your evidence to support this claim? And is this implying that Klepper's work should be excluded? I want to add, it's not that I agree with Klepper, but that's a pretty bold statement, and your earlier comments on "Indians" raise questions.Ebanony (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
the evidence is that Klepper has not provided any reliable sources to back up his claims, while the editors on this page and on the main article have done so. Wikipedia rules on quality of reliable sources are clear enough: For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. says wp:RS Fortune Magazine has ridiculed the Klepper approach, saying "By basing their comparisons on data that are merely convenient, Klepper and Gunther resemble the drunk in the old joke who looks for lost keys not where he thinks they were dropped but under a streetlamp where the light is better." [2] Rjensen (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Do share this "evidence that Klepper has not provided any reliable sources". Can you identify his sources for us, please? (This is a test; I know the answer.) Once you have done so, we can all assess their reliability. Magic♪piano 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I just quoted the Fortune review that ridicules their sources: "Klepper and Gunther resemble the drunk...." The best source on the economic issues is Lee Soltow, Distribution of Wealth and Income in the United States in 1798 (1989) Rjensen (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
And now you understand why you get the sort of responses you do. Ebanony (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Mr. Jensen appears not to know what he's talking about; yet thinks his opinion ought to have weight, because he read something in a magazine. So much for relying on Professional Historians(tm), which he seems to think so highly of. (Or is it beneath Professional Historians(tm) to open "pop" economic books and read their notes and bibliographies?) Magic♪piano 00:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually read Lee Soltow, Distribution of Wealth and Income in the United States in 1798 (1989). Try it--or use the Soltow article in "The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Aug., 1984), pp. 444-451. He thinks that GW exaggerated the value of his western lands (for which he could not find buyers at his asking price). Rjensen (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Richest president

Oops! I did not realise my edit triggered a long discussion here. I have added more refs to the article. Washington was indeed the richest president. It was plausible as most of the land reforms in the USA happened after his death. Throughout the 19th century, land was the major source of income and wealth. Washington's vast fortune must have helped him win the support of the Colonies easier than otherwise plausible. The only people who were comparable to Washington's clout was Derby, Franklin and Hancock then. Also, Kennedy seems to be the only president who comes close to Washington in legacy though he never inherited it. Suggest retaining this unique advantage. Anwar (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Suggest retaining this unique advantage"? This isn't ESPN. You've done an end-run around discussion of the topic. There's no advantage to be gained by that sort of behavior. Moreover, your edit is poorly sourced and poorly written. Now join the discussion, please, before doing that again. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I added a brief section on Washington's wealth in the 1790s, based on good reliable sources. The sources of wealth at other points are fully reported in the article already. As some of the comments above suggest, misperceptions about the rich persist for centuries. Washington was in the same league as other big landowners in Virginia, South Carolina, etc., and well below the great estate holders in upstate New York. Rjensen (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree about his being in the league of other landowners in Virginia and South Carolina, especially. And certainly below the old patroon types in upstate New York. Thanks for adding what you did. Hopefully, this'll be some middle ground that all can agree on. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
You have doubled his fortune from $530k to $1m. That would make him a billionaire by 2010 prices. Several sources converge at $530k figure. Should it be marked down?
Also, it should be noted that he was the richest person to hold office of presidency. Anwar (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
GW himself estimated $530,000 for Mount Vernon; historians have added in the other assets to get "about $1 million". In terms of purchasing power that is about $18 million today (did somebody say BILLION??? No--just 18 million, which is actually nice money). to covert dollars over time go to converting dollars then to dollars in 2009. Rjensen (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This source puts GW's fortune at $525m.
This source puts GW's fortune at 1/777th of US GDP. That works out to $18,171m in 2009 (based on IMF estimate of GDP).
Forbes had declared that GW was indeed the richest president ever.
The inflation calculator at measuringworth.com seems flawed. For instance, the calculator suggests that $1m in 1799 is worth $674k in 1899. Does that mean the States had deflation in the 19th century? Anwar (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
yes there was SEVERE deflation in the late 19th century--the Free Silver movement of William Jennings Bryan in 1896 was an effort to inflate the currency to end deflation. For RS, Wiki requires scholarly books by experts on the 18th century--like the ones in the bibliography. Rjensen (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
To head off people (like me) who will (correctly) claim that Washington's estate was actually valued at $530,000 at the time of his death (link to Sparks reprint of his will), the work done to revise it to $1M should be characterized and properly attributed as an estimate by (named) historians (rather than the bland editorial assertion now being made). It should also probably be mentioned that he appeared to be somewhat cash-poor in his later years. Magic♪piano 15:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The Will implies that an acre cost $10 in 1799. Wow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.45.225 (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
as Lee SOltow (a RS) notes, GW's $530,000 figure was "optimistic"-- that is, it represented his asking or ideal price rather than the actual market value of the Western land at the time, which was much lower. we have good data for Kentucky in 1798, showing that over 100 men owned comparably large tracts of land, and one person owned over 100,000 acres in Kentucky. So Washington's landholdings were not especially large. Rjensen (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Foreign policy

Okay, it appears that this editing regarding aid to Haiti is more or less resolved, however the notion that it was Jefferson needs clarification. Jefferson as Sec State sent the funding and weapons under GW. If you want to debate article location or which article, then move the entire foreign policy section to the administration article, but that's another discussion. Nevertheless, the funding and weapons were made available to the French in lieu of some payment of loans for the purpose of assisting colonists. How they spent the money is unknown, unless you have their ledger handy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that foreign policy was so important that a brief summary here is needed. Hunt suggests that Jefferson and Hamilton were the main players on the Haiti issue, which is barely mentioned in most GW biographies--Chernow has zero mention of this aid. So I suggest that Haiti does not belong here at all and better fits the GW Administration article, where Jefferson's role as Secty State is covered. Rjensen (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't make me no nevermind which one it's in. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed that this appears a relatively minor incident and ought probably be relegated (to the administration and slavery articles). More should be given here on the impact of the Jay Treaty (and possibly other actions by Washington) on US-French relations; they were heading downhill when he left office, and provide a connection between his policy and his 1798 military service that is not currently evident here. Magic♪piano 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we're now all agreed. I esp like Magicpiano suggestion to have more on Jay Treaty and the 1798 army role.Rjensen (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Wasn't he a Deist? http://www.deism.com/washington.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This issue is already given an overview within the George Washington article in the article's section on religion and in a separate Wikipedia article called George Washington and religion. Besides, it seems to me from its very name that "deism.com " is not an independent source but instead has a biased point of view and, as such, is probably not suitable as a reference for this matter. Shearonink (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

John Hanson

George Wasington Is Not The First President John Hanson Is Look At His Wikipedia Page (108.7.222.21 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

Being President of Congress is not the same as being President of the United States under the 1789 Constitution.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Jojhutton - I agree. Shearonink (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

But He Was Predident Of Congress In 1781 Before George Washington Witch Means He Was President (108.7.222.21 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

I just reverted this on the John Hanson page as it looked like outright vandalism to me. I suppose it's just misguided thinking. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's an old claim that began with Hanson's grandson, and has been periodically revived by amateur historians over the years. The Internet has given it new life: see the Snopes article. Wikipedia articles once used some of the amateur history websites as sources, but we've mostly managed to upgrade to reliable sources over the years. —Kevin Myers 12:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, now the claim does indeed ring a bell. And I'm quite familiar with old wives' tales which have gained new currency in the age of the internet. Thanks for the reminder. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

John Hanson's official title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled," therefore he is the first president of the united states, George Washington was the first president under the new constitution. Shadowtroll5577 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Daniel (wiki username: shadowtroll5577)

Washington College

Washington College in Chestertown Maryland was founded in 1782 as the first college of the new nation George Washington contributed to the initial endowment and served on the Board of Visitors and Governors until he was elected to the presidency of the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roypans (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly an Edit Request but sourced information has now been added to the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Lede (length, text, sourcing)?

Anyone else think that the lede has now gotten somewhat unwieldy? Any feedback and/or consensus about changing it would be useful. To me it seems to have gotten too long, is overly specific with details, could be a little more sourced and also has multiple terms that border on peacock. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most people looking at the article will read the lede, and only the lede. The article itself is too long and too detailed. Therefore we should make sure that all the important points a student needs to know are covered in the lede. Since Washington is one of the two or three most important and most complicated and most written about Americans, he deserves careful attention. No one will be helped by reducing the contene of the lede. As for "peacock" --that's the Hanson fellow who was president of Congress. GW's importance has to be stressed. Rjensen (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. By that logic, the article will soon need to begin with a one-sentence "lede summary". As you say, "The article itself is too long and too detailed." If that's true, it should be further broken up. WCCasey (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
the lede now opens with a one-sentence summary, then a one paragraph summary. So that people who have one minute to spare on it will learn something. Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GW's birthday & calendar switch issue

I'm new to wikipedia and I'm not sure how to create a new topic so I'm putting this information here. The day George Washington was born was called "February, 11, 1731" twenty years later England and its colonies dropped the inaccurate Julian calendar and gradually added the missing year and 11 days back to the calendar. George Washington was only born on February 22, 1732 if you look at it from an astronomical standpoint. Shadowtroll5577 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Daniel (wiki username: shadowtroll5577)

This is an interesting tidbit. If you have a reference showing this, why not make the change to the article? Inline citations are great. Click on the purple guide to referencing if interested: Referencing guide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It's an interesting tidbit that is already addressed in [Note 1] of the article. I do admit, though, that ancestry.com articles have never been at the top of my list of favorite reliable sources, so if you have something better to suggest as a reference, try posting it here and a more experienced editor can help format it correctly. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure what Shadowtroll's question exactly is. I think this has already somewhat been addressed in Reference #4 & #5 (unless Shadowtroll is saying that the article should refer to the date as purely an astronomical one?) The sourcing in the Note 1 is a sidebar to the cited 'Time to Take Note:The 1752 Calendar Change" article in the November/December 2000 edition of Ancestry Magazine and is not an unsourced post from an anonymous contributor one might find on Ancestry.Com's forums or pages. If editors consider Ancestry magazine a non-Reliable Source, there are other references available...
  • A children's page at the Library of Congress called "George Washington Was Born February 22, 1732" has the explanation of Old Style/New Style here.
  • The 'Papers of George Washington' project at University of Virginia in FAQs of their website [3] has a section called: "Why is Washington's birthday celebrated on February 22 when he was born on February 11th?"
I remembered one fairly-recent discussion about Washington's birthdate Archive 7(2010) and found a few more in the Archives including Archive 6(2009). Shearonink (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Farewell Address ("The name of AMERICAN...")

Why did you remove my quote of what George Washington actually said in his farewell address,and leave in the paraphrase of what he said? Shouldn't you take out the paraphrase and leave in the actual quote? Do you realize that that paraphrase has propagated to dozens of websites now where people are thinking its what the man actually said, verbatim? Or is that why you think it's better to leave in an inaccurate paraphrase rather than an accurate quote?The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The lede has to be kept short and a long quote won't work. So it's a paraphrase or nothing. The paraphrase is clearer and more useful to readers; it is not mine, but is taken from a cited RS (historian Andrew Cayton).Rjensen (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue was referred to here at Talk:George Washington. Also, the Farewell Address has its own stand-alone article George Washington's Farewell Address where the text is discussed in much more detail than can be done in an lede. I wonder if perhaps the paraphrased-section, even though it is a quote from a review, if the paraphrase itself could be set apart, maybe enclosed by parentheses? Wouldn't that make it very clear that those last few words are not a direct quote from Washington? Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The actual verbatim quote as it appears in Andre Cayton's NYTImes review of Chernow's biography of Washington is as follows: "The name of AMERICAN" he said, must override any local attachments. There are no quotation marks after the words he said, so the quotation marks around the first four words indicate those words are directly quoted, the last four words (with no quotation marks) are a paraphrase. The removal of the errant quotation marks that had previously appeared in the article after the word 'attachments' has corrected the mingling of the quote and the paraphrase. Shearonink (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Shearonink that text that is set apart (as by quotation marks) should belong to George Washington, not to a reviewer. Washington's style is prolix and hard to follow, so a brief paraphrase is more useful than his long-winded full statement that says the same thing. .Rjensen (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

George_Washington#Ancestry

Recently an editor added an Ancestry section to the article, including a collapsed ahnentafel chart for George Washington's ancestors here. There are a couple of issues with this addition.

  • 1) The edit is completely unsourced.
  • 2) The article is already very long (some would say too long) in length. If the information could be sourced then I think the best solution would be for a separate article (about the Ancestry of George Washington) to be written. Then a link to the sourced info/article could be placed within George Washington as has been done for other associated articles.

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. The information needs sourcing, and would be better as a stand-alone piece, given the present length of this article. MarmadukePercy (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
remove--it does not belong here and adds nothing to the reader's learning about Washington. (it already covers his family in depth). Rjensen (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


I am the author of the Washington ahnentafel and have to respectfully disagree with the above comments. It adds a centralized source with wiki links to articles on his ancestors. There are many long articles that have collapsed ahnentafel data such as this. I have added source info but it is awkward considering the ancestor tree is hidden. An article about his Ancestry would be a welcome addition if someone could uncover the necessary source data to warrant it, his ancestry is certainly notable. I ♥ ♪ ♫ 06:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cdw1952(talk), the post immediately above is yours ("I am the author"...). When you post on a talk page, please sign your posts with four tildes ~.
The ancestry chart is completely unsourced. An article about George Washington's ancestry might be a welcome addition to Wikipedia but as with all other Wikipedia articles reliable sources should be used to reference any claims. The example that you reference, George VI of the United Kingdom, does have a collapsed ancestry chart, but that chart has some referencing from an article in The Times of London. Another consideration...the King George article is only 53 kilobytes long. The George Washington article is already twice the length of the King George, being 115 kb long (without the chart it is 114 kb in length). So adding to the length is becoming an ongoing issue. I think an ancestry chart for a king is entirely appropriate to be included within the George VI of the United Kingdom article since kingship is inherited through genetics but maybe not in an article about an American President?...
As an example of what could possibly be worked towards in the George Washington article, maybe we should all take a look at Thomas Jefferson#Ancestry and its linked article Ancestry of Thomas Jefferson. In consideration of the present length of the article, in my opinion I think the chart should be removed, saved in a user-sandbox or perhaps on this talkpage and, pending further research, then placed within a stand-alone article sometime in the future. (I am not volunteering to do the research on this, those who have an interest in including the ancestry link should be motivated to do so.)
By the way, was the ancestry chart copied from another source? If so, and if that source is not acknowledged here and there is not permission to have it placed in Wikipedia's pages, then there could be copyright/plagiarism issues with having it within Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


When I use four tildes as I did in the posting above it produces my signature which I realize was lacking a talk link. The ancestry chart is my own work and sourced properly. I understand the article length issue but do not have the time to compile and write a stand alone article on GW's ancestry. I ♥ ♪ ♫(talk) 05:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC) 05:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The hidden ancestry chart is sourced with links to wikipedia articles on Washington's ancestors -- pretty clever. --Other Choices (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


I have now lifted the ancestry chart from the article and placed it below on this Talk page since the consensus so far is to not include it in the article; the chart at least for the present time has been deleted from the article. The major issue as I see it is that the information is basically unsourced according to Wikipedia standards and guidelines. Shearonink (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, but I'm not sure how you are counting "consensus." Two editors favored inclusion of the chart, and four editors opposed, but of those four opposing editors, two inaccurately stated that the chart is "completely unsourced." Shearonink now states that the information is "basically unsourced according to Wikipedia standards and guidelines." Perhaps the editor could clarify. As it stood, the chart displayed the wikipedia page of the relevant person when the name was clicked, and the wikipedia page was full of relevant source information. What's wrong with that? What is the relevant wikipedia policy in this situation? Does it include provision for ancestry charts? If not, then perhaps it is reasonable to consider amending the policy. How does one go about that? This information is uncontroversial and has been in the public domain for decades if not centuries. I've been an amateur genealogist for over 30 years, and I think that having the ancestry of a public figure at one's fingertips is both useful and interesting.--Other Choices (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, perhaps I didn't look at the consensus comments correctly. It looks like there were three favoring deletion and two favoring keeping (I guess your post where you said it was clever was a keep). Yes, having the ancestry of this person would be interesting (I do a fair bit of family-research myself) but if it is included as part of an article again, I think it should be in a stand-alone 'Ancestry of George Washington' article like the Thomas Jefferson/Ancestry articles. This particular article is getting too long already. Also, even though the chart links to other Wikipedia articles (and I do agree it's clever), the chart itself is not sourced and (somewhere in Wikipedia's guideline-pages, I don't know where that is right now), even though the names are Wiki-linked and there is sourcing at those articles, it is my understanding that an editor cannot use other Wikipedia pages as references (which is what this chart is basically doing). A single Ancestry.Com chart would not seem to be sufficient as sourcing for the chart here and for all the individuals within it. Shearonink (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
every single person in Wikipedia has ancestors and can have an ancestry chart. The charts are important for kings, who inherit the throne in complicated ways--but not important for GW who repudiated inherited power. He did not have famous ancestors, and his parents are already well covered in this article. So leave the chart out. Anyone who thinks it's valuable can start a new article on GW's ancestry (using reliable sources). Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Rjensen; if his ancestry was somehow important, this would be relevant and worthy of inclusion. (Presumably the content of the chart is capable of being cited, but has not; this is beside the point of whether or not the chart actually adds value to our understanding of GW. IMHO, it doesn't.) Magic♪piano 16:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it takes me so long to reply to posts on the talk page. I vote for inclusion in as much as it is relatively small and more useful than the references to his ancestry scattered through the "Early life" section. When the chart was within the article it WAS properly sources. When you copied it here the source information was corrupted. The source is http://www.genealogy.com/famousfolks/georgew/ |title=Ancestry of George Washington|publisher=genealogy.com |accessdate=February 4, 2011. It was reference 165 and linked to George's name in the chart. I request that you restore it to the article since all the votes for removal did not recognize it's sourcing. I disagree that there should be a stand alone article at this time. I think the chart should be worked into the article in a way that improves and shortens the early life section. George's ancestry is notable since he has direct linkage to Royalty and can be traced back to 1066. Had he not renounced it he would undoubtedly have been crowned King. I ♥ ♪ ♫(talk) 04:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually was aware that the source of the George Washington ancestry chart was the Genealogy.com tree. However, the sourcing for the chart itself is not clear. I see that the person who prepared the chart is named at the Genealogy.Com website but accepting at face value what someone has posted elsewhere on the Internet doesn't agree with Wikipedia guidelines. I have done some family history research and have found that so far as historical/genealogical research goes the Internet is full of relationship mistakes that are repeated until they become accepted as true. Now note that I am not saying that *this* particular chart has errors, just that errors happen quite a bit in family-trees and that the article needs to be very careful about posting a seemingly unvetted chart. I am still of the opinion that a WIki-link within George Washington to a stand-alone 'Ancestry of George Washington' article is a viable alternative to including the chart within this already unwieldy article but whatever the consensus of the community is fine with me. Shearonink (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you included an ancestry section, I would be willing to provide all the info I have. George Washington is my 3rd Cousin 5 times removed because his 2nd great grandfather is Nathaniel Pope, and Nathaniel Pope is my 7th great grandfather. I can also provide sources. Froggy26rk (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

Opinion are needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information is too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasons for recent minor changes to succession boxes

1. When we say "New title" should we not be clear on whether it is only the name (a new style), or the office that is new? Of course, the Presidency of the USA was created when the Constitution was ratified (Article II), so that clarifies that. 2. When it comes to his military offices, doesn't it make more sense that his earlier term should be listed 1st? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Shark attacks?

I hope this is the right place to report a typo. In the paragraph on his Fabian strategy, it says that he harassed the British "with quick shark attacks". Surely not... 68.38.122.71 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC) David.

User:Fat&Happy fixed the typo. Thanks for catching it. It is much more likely that Washington employed quick, sharp attacks rather than shark attacks:)--JayJasper (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. Collaboration of the Month

George Washington (9 votes, stays until April 17)

Nominated 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by April 17 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

  1. Spongie555 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  2. Shearonink (talk) 13:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  3. Purplebackpack89 21:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  4. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  5. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  6. Arctic Night 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  7. The more I think about it, the more I think this is the sort of article these collaborations were designed to punt into GA or FA territory. It is iconic yet should be more manageable than some other big articles I can't think of as I am writing this but will surely pop into my head in the next hour or so...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  8. (Iuio (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC))
  9. --Aude (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Good Article status is a good waypoint along the way to Featured Article candidacy, and generally results in a pretty rigorous review. I strongly recommend it, especially for larger articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

Here are a few comments that may help in the improvement of George's article. Major improvements have been made to this article in recent weeks and I think we are pretty close to getting it to at least GA level.
  • The article just went through a GA review (it failed in September 2010) so there are some good advice for improvements to the article there. After spending the better part of 2 hours reading the suggestions and reviewinng the history of the article most have been addressed. Mostly by the same three editors. I recommend we contact them to help with the article as well. For one they have already done a lot of the work on the article thus far and would probably appreciate assistance and secondly they might be a little irritated at us pulling the carpet out from under them so to speak after they have done so much work on it.
  • The lede is a bit too long and needs to be shortened
  • The lede should not contain any inline citations. It is a summery of the article so the citations should already be in the article with references
  • We need to fix the bunching problem in the beginning.
  • The article doesn't flow chronologically like it should. I jumps around grouping things Like personal life together rather than flowing in order of occurance. I think this needs to be cleaned up.
  • There are a few places that still need inline citations.
  • Too many images on the right. We need to spread them out a bit more
  • Again we need to standardize the dates. there are 2 or 3 different formats used in the article
  • Didn't George write a few things? I think we need to add a works section to list at least some of them
  • There is a whole separate article for George Washington bibliography. Do we really need this. Seems kinda unencyclopedic and maybe we should roll it into the article. --Kumioko (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Considering the volume of material written about Washington (a decent US university library probably has many shelf-feet of books on him), a proper "further reading" list would lengthen an already-long article.
You say the lede should not have inline citations. This is technically incorrect; most citations in the lede are for quoted material.
Also, a brief comment on "jumping around". His life is in fact presented chronologically (in sections 1-7). However, it is useful (and, some would argue, important) that aspects of his life and thinking (like his attitudes on slavery and religion) be called out so that details of those things are not sprinkled through the biography and hard to find.
One other thing that is necessary for formal review is checking the provenance of all of the images -- some of them have very weak sourcing, and I would flag them were I to review this article. Magic♪piano 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Magicpiano, reviewing the images would be very helpful - I think GA is a reasonable destination for this article soon, and this would help immensely. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The images are getting worked on, as I have time. I am planning to replace or upgrade some, as I'm doing. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed all of the images. The forensic reconstruction images needed to be pulled, but most of the other images present as of this writing are OK. The following image has dubious provenance that needs to be questioned (or the image pulled):
-Magic♪piano 13:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The back cover of that book sources it to SuperStock, a stock image provider. That site lists the image with no author information. It certainly appears to be in the public domain, as Google reveals hundreds of sites selling the same image and there's nothing obvious that places it in the last century. —Designate (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because an image is widely reproduced on the internet doesn't mean it's free (I've had such images removed from Wikimedia). The fact that it's widely available through stock images sites is a good sign that it may well be PD, but the image still lacks proper provenance. A GA reviewer might let this slide, but this image will almost certainly fail an FA image review without proper provenance that is citable to a reliable source. (If you doubt this, feel free to invite either User:Jappalang or User:Fasach Nua, two regular image reviewers, to weigh in.) Magic♪piano 15:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I agree. Might as well take it to FFD now, since we have the source and it's no good. —Designate (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Forensic reconstructions

Aren't these copyrighted by the creators? —Designate (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate place to ask is at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The photographer/uploader incorrectly claims he created the entire work, and when I pressed him on this a while back, he essentially claimed fair use on the statues, but has not since then updated the image pages. (I personally am uncertain whether the fair use claim has legs.) Magic♪piano 15:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion here. Magic♪piano 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we move the "Washington was a deist" argument to the religion article?

Editors are concerned that this article is too long. Recently some material was added (citing Paul Boller), spotlighting the controversial claim that Washington was a Deist. Inclusion of this material here would seem to be unbalanced without giving room to competing arguments, which would mean enlarging the article even further; so I would like to suggest moving this material to the George Washington and religion article, where it would seem to fit nicely. --Other Choices (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

the RS say Washington was a deist--it's not controversial and not long (it runs 125 words). The suggestion of removing basic information about GW's religion however is controversial and POV. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Rjensen's post:
1) The claim that Washington was a deist is self-evidently controversial; just look at the George Washington and religion article -- there is clear scholarly disagreement about how to label Washington's religious beliefs.
2) Perhaps the length is not a serious consideration, but recently an even shorter addition was objected to because of length. In the present case, a neutral point of view requires mention of reliable sources that disagree with Boller, which would make the article even longer. And this, presumably, is why we have a separate article devoted to Washington's religious views.
3) I don't see how my suggestion can logically be labelled POV. In general, such accusations are best accompanied by evidence or preceded by polite qualifiers such as "it seems to me." --Other Choices (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Ideally the Religion section in this article should be a summary of George Washington and religion. If there is controversy about his views, it (the controversy) should be fully explored there and summarized here. (Assuming the religion article represents a cross section of scholarly views on the subject, I don't find the assertion of Deism controversial, although it seems clear there are those who disagree with the assessment. These views should be presented here with appropriate balance.) Magic♪piano 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the need to have a balanced summary here of the contents of the religion article. However, it seems that the religion article hasn't been completely developed. I just added some content to that article, reflecting the thought of Peter Lillback, the most prominent of the "Washington was a Christian, not a Deist" crowd. The source is Why Have Scholars Underplayed George Washington’s Faith? Please understand that I am not endorsing Lillback's view. However, if Boller's view is represented here at the George Washington article, then balance seems to require that Lillback's view be equally represented, or at least mentioned. Perhaps the best solution is to limit both of them to the religion article, with a sentence summarizing different scholarly views here. This subject is a real live wire, both culturally and among scholars. It's an interesting challenge for wikipedia editors to get it right.--Other Choices (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Boller is an established scholar with lots of reviewers praising his work. Lillback is self-published (it's published by a company of which he is president see the website, and it has not received any good reviews I have seen in the RS. Lots of scholars have looked into the matter--Gaustad has called a "warm deist"; Chernow (2010) in his massive new biography poingts out that "Numerous historians, viewing Washington as imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment, have portrayed him as a deist." Frank E. Grizzard (the editor of the Washington papers) says Washington relied upon "a Grand Designer along Deist lines."

James MacGregor Burns said GW's expressions were "typical of Enlightenment deism." The leading conservative history is A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen (2007), which states, "Washington tended toward Deism, a general belief in a detached and impersonal God who plays no role in human affairs." What you have on the other side is not scholars of Washington but evangelical Christians who want to make the US into a Christian nation by claiming the the Founders intended that all along. Rjensen (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rjensen for pointing out that Lillback's book was basically self-published.--Other Choices (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Keenen25, 8 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There is a dichotomy in a statement made in the first paragraph of this article. In fact, the first three paragraphs of this article might as well be tossed out as total propaganda due to the complete lack of sources. In the first paragraph it reads; 'As President, he built a strong, well-financed national government that avoided war, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types, and Washington is now known as the "Father of his country".'

The dichotomy is specifically where it says "avoided war, suppressed rebellion". Aside from the fact that there is no source cited for this statement it is unrealistic. You can't avoid war and point guns at people.

Keenen25 (talk) 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see how the phrase "avoided war" clashes with the wikipedia article on the Northwest Indian War. Perhaps other editors will want to share their thoughts on that one.--Other Choices (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The lead (per WP:LEAD) does not require its material to be cited, since it is supposed to be a summary of the article as a whole. If you find an assertion in the lead that is not supported in the article body, it should be pointed out.
That said, Keenen25 has a point. The Northwest Indian War is not even mentioned in this article (it is in Presidency of George Washington), and it was ongoing at the start of his presidency. His role in it would presumably require an adjustment to the assertion in the lead. (I'm not deeply knowledgeable about his presidency, so I leave this to others to fix.) Magic♪piano 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I edited that section to be more representative of popular acclaim than an authoritative statement (verifiable rather than necessarily truthful). If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The big issue in the 1790s was avoiding a major war with Britain and France, which GW avoided. The Indian "war" started long before his presidency and lasted long afterward. it was part of what Skaggs and Nelson call the "The Sixty Years' War for the Great Lakes, 1754-1814." I revised to include the invention of political parties. Rjensen (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest simply changing "war" to "international wars". The issue need not be dealt with at length here, but the lone word "war" is misleading.HelpCleo (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, as there was an ongoing state of war in the Ohio territory during most of Washington's administration. Perhaps "foreign wars" sounds better than "international wars."Other Choices (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deism debate

--moved from talk:rjensen--

deism and POV

Recently you stated that my suggestion to move the Boller material from the George Washington article to the George Washington and religion article was POV. I'd like to know why you said that, if you care to explain. And, on a related topic, it seems to me that in the various articles where our editing overlaps, the use of words like "deism" and "providence" is often muddy and ill-defined. I see that as a problem and am inclined to strive for clarity in the use of terms. Part of the problem, in my view, is that reliable sources often use these two terms in conflicting ways, often without clearly defining what they mean; and this leads to confusion in wikipedia articles. Perhaps you'd be willing to comment.--Other Choices (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you want to hide information you dislike. The GW and religion article is long and poorly written and disorganized--a good place to hide info. Given the titles you seek out it looks like a deliberate effort to inject a fundamentalist religious interpretation into history. Rjensen (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
You misjudge me, but I am inclined to agree with your general criticism of the GW and religion article. I intend to try to improve that article in the future; I imagine that you'll want to have a hand in that, also. Regarding my own point of view, you can examine my original contribution to scholarship on the American founding here. --Other Choices (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
natural law is fine -- I used to be a student assisted to the editor of the Natural Law Forum (now the American Journal of Jurisprudence) Are you denying that you have an agenda to deemphasize Deism and emphasized the Christian origins of the American Republic??? Rjensen (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I am denying that I have an agenda to emphasize the Christian origins of the American Republic. I think that claims about iconic founders' alleged deism are improperly overemphasized here at wikipedia, so I do have an agenda to restore balance. A case in point, which I haven't gotten around to addressing, is the OR at the Benjamin Franklin article at note 80. As I see it, the problem with this issue in the scholarly literature is that scholars who reject the model of a Christian/Deist dichotomy for a threefold Christian/Theist/Deist division do not agree on terminology. Some scholars end up using awkward phrases like "mild Deist" or the oxymoronic "Christian Deist"; and others muddle through without precise definitions. This presents a challenge to wikipedia editors who want to both be informative and stay true to their scholarly sources.--Other Choices (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK I'll take that. The term "warm/mild deist" refers to people like Washington who were very warm in their support for religion, believing it was very good for the nation to have a religious population, whether that theology was true or not. that is a different question than what was Washington's own private theology. People like Jefferson and Tom Paine were much harsher in their attacks on organized religion. "Christian Deist" is not oxymoronic--it refers to people who were Deist in terms of their understanding of the role of God creating a clockwork universe, but who also strongly recommended Christian ethics as a moral standard for Americans to emulate. They did not believe that God had created Christian ethics, but they did believe that Jesus had created them and they highly admired Jesus as an ethical leader. Jefferson and Washington are thus "Christian Deists" Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that we'll just have to agree to disagree about the phrase "Christian Deists." Moving forward, I think it will be best to work to improve the GW and religion article, and then revisit the issue of a proper summary in this article.--Other Choices (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Boller is a balanced source. Washington had a fusion religion, believing that God intervened or "predestined", i.e. Calvanism, in the American Revolution. He can't be classified as just a diest, although he held diest beliefs. Washington's view of Christ is not generally known, however, he did not take communion. If Gouverneur Morris is a trusted source, then Washington, had confessed to Morris that he did not believe in the works of Christ. Jefferson did not believe in the miracles of Christ. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When to consider nominating for GA status...

Now I am no expert on George, but I'd be keen on input from some of the major contributors to this article about how close or far off they feel this is from the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. I feel that GA is an excellent 'way point' toward FA, and serves also as a 'stable revision' of sorts that can be referred to in case the article erodes or is vandalised. All input appreciated. If someone felt like nominating it, I reckon it'd be picked up for review pretty darned quickly...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I helped a little with the GAN six months back. I've not really kept up with it since then (not really my area of expertise), but the biggest problem we had was comprehensiveness—there seemed to be quite a bit of good material lacking. Whether that's been addressed since, I don't know. The other big problem faced with an article on a high-profile important subject such as this is that it attracts a lot of edits (some more helpful than others), but lacks (or lacked) one or two editors devoting the kind of time it takes to maintain an article like this at a decent standard, meaning that it can actually deteriorate over time. If there are a handful of people who know (and have access to) the sources and are well-read on the subject, then GA certainly shouldn't be a great struggle. I'm afraid I don't have the familiarity with the subject and sources nor the talent to be much use in expanding it, but I might be willing to take on the eventual GA review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the article has some way to go. I personally have tried to focus on maintaining the early sections (early life and F&I war) in a somewhat coherent style, but am not presently inclined to do the research necessary to improve the rest of the article. I feel the section on the revolution is deficient, being not much more than a recitation of his actions, when his relationships (with Congress, governors, difficult and power-seeking subordinate officers, troops, and opposing leaders) and influence over campaigns not under his personal control are matters of some relevance. (The section on "Commander in chief" begins to address some of these things.) This is something I am trying (slowly) to address in George Washington in the American Revolution; when that article is sufficiently improved, those improvements should find their way here. I suspect (lacking detailed knowledge) the section on his presidency is also deficient.
Those are my factual concerns. There are also the inevitable MOS issues, including lack of full citation and consistency in formatting same. The latter in particular will require a dedicated editor with an eye for detail. Magic♪piano 13:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I can copy-edit and patch up, but everything I know about Washington, I read in this article and I lack the time and passion to do the serious research it needs. I'd be happy to clean up the mess left in the wake of an expansion, but that's probably the limit of my usefulness (unless there's a book called George Washington for Brits who lack passion for American history but want to know a little bit more about this bloke!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
HJ that'd be very useful to just massage the article and make sure all the refs were formatted correctly and fields filled and other MOS stuff. The review of content is very useful, so some will be added once the daughter article is done. If anyone else can add content that'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I nominated the article for GA the last 2 times, the article itself did in fact improve, however, we were at a loss since none of those that were in the loop on the article participated in the review, not at least until later. It failed both times but the 3rd GA resulted in the article being improved significantly since the last, that said last time I didn't have access to a referencing resource such as Credo. I feel that this time I'll be at an advantage since I've got an account now (thanks to the donation from Credo) and I could always run through encyclopedia entries. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:57pm • 10:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did George Washington die twice? (He is listed in two different cause of death categories.)

George Washington is listed the Deaths from asphyxiation category and the Deaths from pneumonia category. Did he die of both causes? Or is this an error? 71.109.151.27 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

His cause of death is quite complicated to research. He probably had what is known as acute bacterial epiglottitis (though some writers have claimed it was "quinsy")...in other words, for us laymen, he had a really, really bad sore throat. The medical treatment he received was as good as many, better than most of his day but from the writings of the withnesses, Washington at his own request had himself bled by his overseer then after the two doctors were summoned, he was bled again. Altogether, Washington lost half of his normal blood volume, at least 3.75 liters worth, so he went into shock which was certainly a contributory factor to his death. Elisha Dick, the younger of the two three doctors in attendance, wanted to perform a tracheotomy so Washington could at least breathe but it was a new procedure and he was over-ruled by the older James Craik. So, yes, Washington actually did suffocate, because his throat was so swollen he couldn't breathe. I think the 'death from pneumonia' category could be in error...pneumonia usually has a slow onset, Washington's final illness progressed rather quickly. He came down with the sore throat condition on a Friday morning and was dead around 10pm that Saturday night. Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in reading an in-depth study of Washington's final illness and his death, I was able to find a .pdf version of the Vibul Vadakan article published in the Spring 2004 edition of The Permanente Journal here. Its title is The Asphyxiating and Exsanguinating Death of President George Washington (maning he suffocated and was basically also bled to death). From this and other sources, I think that the Pneumonia category is in error and am therefore removing this article from that cat. Also, I find from re-reading the Vadakan material again, that there were actually three (not two as I previously stated above) physicians in attendance - Doctor Dick, Doctor Craik and Doctor Brown. Shearonink (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lede & cites

Was wondering if there are opinions pro/con about including inline citations in the lede, mostly re:the birthdate and Old Style/New Style. Shearonink (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, noting old/new style dates is irrelevant. However, if other editors feel it's important, an internal link to the article Old Style and New Style dates should suffice. Is there a WP policy/guideline on this? I don't know. WCCasey (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: the lead section, it seems very long and detailed. The lead is just a summary of the most important aspects, not a retelling of everything. For example do we need to say "He was home schooled by his father and older brother" in the lead section? Go through every sentence like that. One could sum up his entire life in one fairly brief paragraph. See WP:LEAD. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

actually most readers ONLY read the lede section. Therefore it has to be a stand-alone summary of his life & importance. In this case an unusually active life with major roles beginning at age 20 (hence the reference to his education). Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I keep reading that "most readers ONLY read the lede section". Has this been researched and documented? If true, maybe it's an argument for making the lede shorter and less detailed. Readers will then be forced to get into the main body of the article. WCCasey (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
on usage, researchers report that "More than any other reason, 8 in 10 survey respondents (82 percent) reported that they went to Wikipedia to obtain background information or a summary about a topic....Wikipedia is ideal for big–picture background" 2010 study. Alexa reports that the average wikipedia user spends only 5 minutes at a time--barely enough to get through our lede. Rjensen (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not need to have references cited since what is covered in the article has been referenced. If there are any references, I would say the less references in the lede, the better. The lede is a summary that is suppose to interest readers in to reading the whole article, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

On footnotes in the lede--I dropped three on the Julian Calendar issue that were redundant given the good coverage in the section on his early life. That leaves three notes--two for quotations (required by Wiki rules) and one on his worldwide reputation; the last one #3 can be dropped when the appropriate section on his reputation is added.Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

from WP:LEADCITE:"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."

Refs were in the lede to prevent people from repeatedly challenging & changing well-sourced material. Presently, the article is MISSING THREE RED REFS which come from the below: [2][3][Note 1] --JimWae (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out (I only saw two that were missing though...). The redlinked-refs have now been fixed. Shearonink (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:George Washington/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Throughout the article, I am seeing both "Britain" and "Great Britain"; remain consistent with how that it used, preferably, stick with "Great Britain". Done
  • "Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the two or three greatest presidents." - Seems awkward reading it, especially at the end; it that supposed to mean the "second or third greatest president" or the "top two or three greatest presidents"? Done Shearonink (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Gregorian calendar with the start of the year on January 1, he was born on February 22, 1732." - I think that comma after January 1 should be a semi-colon, since it was kind of a different idea.  Fixed
  • "initial attack and then was killed...whether tomahawked by Tanacharison" - I wouldn't do that three thing ("..."), instead, replace it with either a semi-colon or a dash (if you choose that, use the HTML code "& ndash;").  Fixed
  • Some of the references are not in Cite Web format. Citation templates need not be used, they are just there for convenience and nothing else, as long as they contain enough information about the reference (publication date, author etc.)
Unsourced statements
  • "The newly wed couple moved to Mount Vernon, near Alexandria, where he took up the life of a planter and political figure." - Unsourced  Fixed
  • "Like most Virginia planters, he imported luxuries and other goods from England and paid for them by exporting his tobacco crop. Extravagant spending and the unpredictability of the tobacco market meant that many Virginia planters of Washington's day were losing money. (Thomas Jefferson, for example, would die deeply in debt.)"  Fixed Text has been altered, statements sourced. Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "Washington had three roles during the war. In 1775-77, and again in 1781 he led his men against the main British forces. Although he lost many of his battles, he never surrendered his army during the war, and he continued to fight the British relentlessly until the war's end. He plotted the overall strategy of the war, in cooperation with Congress."  Fixed
  • "His achievements were mixed, as some of his favorites (like John Sullivan) never mastered the art of command. Eventually he found capable officers, like General Nathaniel Greene, and his chief-of-staff Alexander Hamilton. The American officers never equaled their opponents in tactics and maneuver, and consequently they lost most of the pitched battles. The great successes, at Boston (1776), Saratoga (1777) and Yorktown (1781), came from trapping the British far from base with much larger numbers of troops."  Fixed
  • "Washington reorganized the army during the long standoff, and forced the British to withdraw by putting artillery on Dorchester Heights overlooking the city. The British evacuated Boston in March 1776 and Washington moved his army to New York City."  Fixed
  • "The next spring, however, the army emerged from Valley Forge in good order, thanks in part to a full-scale training program supervised by Baron von Steuben, a veteran of the Prussian general staff. The British evacuated Philadelphia to New York in 1778, shadowed by Washington. Washington attacked them at Monmouth, fighting to an effective draw in one of the war's largest battles. Afterwards, the British continued to head towards New York, and Washington moved his army outside of New York."  Fixed Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "John Adams, who received the next highest vote total, was elected Vice President. At his inauguration, Washington took the oath of office as the first President of the United States of America on April 30, 1789, at Federal Hall in New York City."  Fixed
  • "Washington reluctantly served a second term. He refused to run for a third, establishing the customary policy of a maximum of two terms for a president."  Fixed
  • "To protect their privacy, Martha Washington burned the correspondence between her husband and herself following his death. Only three letters between the couple have survived." Fixed
Two sources found and text adjusted to reflect the fact that (even though they are few in number) it is five letters between the two that are known to still be in existence.Shearonink (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I will let you know if I find any more issues involving the article.--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I fixed more issues and struck those that have been fixed. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:59pm • 06:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Also there's no requirement for the references to use citation templates as long as they meet WP:REF. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:00pm • 07:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I will pass this article after a citation is found for "Countless American cities and towns feature a Washington Street among their thoroughfares."--12george1 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(Outsider comment:) Ref 70 (after "Washington had the major voice in selecting generals for command, and in planning their basic strategy.") has an "unreliable source" tag after it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Gee, I would have missed that. After reading what "Truth-It!" is about, it seemed like a smaller version of Wikipedia, and so I would agree with it being an unreliable source. Ok, so the those that are fixing the issues from this GA should also fix that.--12george1 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm the one who took at look at "Truth-It!" and thought it deserved an 'unreliable ' tag. The 'selecting generals for command' statement is like the "Washington Street" statement... everyone kind of knows it's 'true' but finding the proof could be difficult. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What you need is a middle school textbook, or a middle school teacher who knows American history. That'll get you the information on the generals. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Sven,,,I'll try to find something in that vein tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Credo is helpful but only in sourcing the above statements, encyclopedias generally tend to avoid trivia and Google is also helpful but only to a certain degree as Google Scholar searches can get clogged with junk... I'll go to my local library and search the catalogue for any reference books that have useful information. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:43pm • 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I found some possibly helpful information from World Book Encyclopedia:

Extended content

From the time Washington took command to the end of the war, he had to put up with many incompetent officers. Congress sometimes appointed the generals without asking Washington's advice. The states appointed the lower-ranking officers in the Continental Army and all of the militia officers. Most officers were chosen for political reasons. Some generals, such as Charles Lee and Horatio Gates, believed they should have been commander in chief. They sometimes ignored Washington's orders. In the winter of 1777-1778, a few army officers and members of Congress hoped that Washington might be replaced by Gates. This group became known as the Conway cabal. It was named for the foreign-born general Thomas Conway, who had criticized Washington sharply. But there was no organized movement against Washington. Congress continued to support him.

— Chase, Philander D. "Washington, George." World Book Advanced. World Book, 2011. Web. 3 June 2011.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

With the issues now addressed, is there anything else that can be done to improve the article? Just as a note, 12george1 has not been editing for ~2 days, Shearonink has left him a note asking for further input. I'd say the article's come a long way and that we have a fighting chance of making this a GA :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:02pm • 03:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We probably should browse through the article to make sure it's WP:MOS compliant, the ref dates should all be in DD MMM, YYYY or YYYY-MM-DD format, I'd suggest the latter for continuity, however, given that's the only correct format that is predominantly used. Aside from that I'll fix other MOS issues. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:07pm • 03:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no particular affinity for one date-style over another, just so long as the date/month/year is clear - I'm sure from all the different editing that the date-styles in the references are all over the place. Taking care of any other MOS issues sounds great too. Is there any kind of script or bot that would fix all the dates into one style? Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
There is but it applies for the whole article :S if not we could do it manually, I almost achieved this myself until IE crashed on me... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:53pm • 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed Did a find-and-replace on Word, then fixed up the other tidbits with Advisor.js, also I converted the table from raw HTML to wikimarkup. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:46pm • 11:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the state of the article. Therefore, I will now be passing this article. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That's good news, a lot of people have worked on improving the article over the past couple of months. It was a U.S. Collaboration of the Month for March 2011. Shearonink (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I guess what they say is true, "3rd time lucky" ;) (this being the third time I nominated the article for GA), each time the article was 1 step closer and coupled with the contributions between each nom the article has come a long, long way since then. Well done everyone, let's now pull our resources and make this an FA. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:11pm • 08:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Tale of Silver Dollar Throwing

The first sentence of Cherry Tree section need to be revised. Currently it reads: "Apocryphal stories about Washington's childhood include a claim that he skipped a silver dollar across the Potomac River at Mount Vernon." It should be revised to be "... threw a silver dollar across the Rappahannock River near Ferry Farm." http://www.mountvernon.org/visit/plan/index.cfm/pid/808/ George Washington Foundation sponsors celebration of the stone throwing on President's Day at Ferry Farm, near the city of Fredericksburg. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02202006/0220washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiccorn (talk • contribs) 21:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The original source for this legend is George Washington Parke Custis' (Washington's step-grandson) memoirs of Washington. I have sourced this from a Frank Grizzard column here, which quotes Custis' book as saying "The power of Washington’s arm was displayed in several memorable instances—in his throwing a stone across the Rappahannock river below Fredericksburg, another from the bed of the stream to the top of the Natural Bridge, and yet another over the Palisades into the Hudson." The origin is the 1857 story of the stone-throwing which somehow then morphed in the 20th Century (at least by the 1930s with Walter Johnson's feat of throwing the silver dollar across the Rappahannock) into a myth of Washington throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac, but one of the definitions of apocryphal means 'of questionable authenticity', so saying there is an apocryphal story/myth/legend about Washington by the very word implies a level of the defined 'questionable authenticity' regardless of how the story originated. Shearonink (talk) 06:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Slave owner

I noticed that the lede does not specifically say Washington was a prominent Virginia slave owner. Rather the article states Washington's family "used slave labor". I believe this is side stepping the slavery issue. His family having used slave labor does not neccessarily imply that Washington was a prominent Virginia slave owner, owning hundreds of slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have been bold and altered the lede to reflect a few more of the domestic aspects of Washington's life. I also adjusted some of the wording in the lede regarding Mount Vernon and Washington's post-war life before becoming President. Shearonink (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed "After years of planning, Washington freed all his slaves in his 1799 will." The one sentence in the article that mentions Washington's Will seems somewhat ambiguously worded. Is it specifically referring to the Will or to Washington's treatment of his slaves while he was alive? Any mention of the Will in the lede should be clearly supported by sourced material from the article itself. (And yes, I know that Washington did free the slaves he held in his Will, but that fact actually does not seem to be clearly stated within the article. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the wording of that particular sentence?... "Regarding slavery, Washington is best known for setting the example of freeing his slaves in his 1799 will, to take effect on the death of his widow. He provided for training of the younger slaves, and created a fund for old age pensions for the older ones".) Shearonink (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
good point. I restored the lede sentence and included details with two cites in the main text. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That looks good. There is a sentence that directly links Washington with using slaves on his plantation. His freeing of slaves is personally signifigant, however, there was no rush to free slaves after Washington freed his slaves. In fact, the Virginia slave law that allowed slaves to be free became more restrictive, although, Virginia slave owners could continue to free their slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Ancestry of George Washington". genealogy.com. Retrieved February 4, 2011.
  2. ^ Engber, Daniel (January 18, 2006). "What's Benjamin Franklin's Birthday?". Slate. Retrieved October 7, 2010. (Both Franklin's and Washington's confusing birth dates are clearly explained.)
  3. ^ "Image of page from family Bible". Papers of George Washington. Retrieved January 26, 2008.


Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_9&oldid=1255840511"