Talk:George Washington/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Section header for 'French and Indian War'

Res this edit: I don't disagree that the header looks a little odd with the double parentheses, but am not sure that changing
'French and Indian War (Seven Years War) (1754-1758)' to
'French and Indian War (Seven Years War; 1754-1758) is the best solution, but.... everything else I tried for that header? They all look a little odd, even the eventual solution I came up with (and the use of single quote marks to set off 'Seven Years War' is probably against some MoS guideline). Maybe other interested editors could take a look and weigh in here, as I said there are probably WP:MOS considerations as well. Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would use only one war name in the header, if the date range is to be kept. Magic♪piano 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Magicpiano; otherwise you have to explain how the 'Seven Years War' lasted only five years. WCCasey (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lede length...

A maintenance tag about the lede possibly being too long {{lead too long|date=July 2011}} was placed on the lede. I disagree that material from the section could be moved into the main body of the article itself (the article is already over 58,000 characters long!) but perhaps the lede could be trimmed. Opinions anyone? Shearonink (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

shortening the lede won't help any user. The first paragraph of the lede is already a self-contained summary of GW. People can stop. Or they can read the next few paragraphs for more details. If those details are removed they will have to wade through a LOT of material and many will be frustrated. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I am for trimming only if content is not taken away. Washington was highly active and was involved with many projects. I admit though the GA article lede, in my opinion, looks better if the paragraphs are uniformly the same length. Possibly splitting the second paragraph into two paragraphs would look better. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, splitting the second paragraph would make 5 paragraphs. Possibly going through the lead to look for and remove any repetative information would improve the lead section. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible sentence deletion or modifications from second paragraph:

• "He was home schooled by his father and older brother, but both died young, and he became attached to the powerful Fairfax clan, who promoted his career as a surveyor and soldier."
• "Because of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured two major British armies at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781."
• "After years of planning he freed all his slaves in his will."

These are just suggestions. Please no changes, if any, until complete or majority concensus. No edit wars! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the wording could be adjusted. For instance the first sentence's structure seems outdated/too flowery. He was home schooled by his father and older brother, but both died young, and he became attached to the powerful Fairfax clan, who promoted his career as a surveyor and soldier. The first part of this statement is apparently in error. According to Washington bio at Mount Vernon website

"Little is known about George's formal education. Commonly the children of Virginia gentry were taught at home by private tutors or in local private schools. Boys generally began their formal education around the age of seven with lessons in reading, writing, and basic arithmetic. Later they were taught Latin and Greek, as well as such practical subjects as geometry, bookkeeping, and surveying. Wealthy planters often sent their sons to England to finish their schooling, as was done with George's two elder half brothers, Lawrence and Augustine."

"The death of his father, however, made schooling abroad an impossibility for George Washington. He may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. Later he went to another school, either in Fredericksburg, Stafford County, or Westmoreland County. He excelled in mathematics and learned the rudiments of surveying."

So referencing 'home schooling' as a verifiable fact is actually incorrect. The second half's wording of "attached to powerful Fairfax clan"? Not my favorite, I would suggest something along the lines of

• "Specific details about his education remain unknown, but following his father and oldest brother's deaths before he was 15, Washington was personally and professionally mentored by members of the Fairfax family." I know it's not shorter, but maybe it would read a little better... --Shearonink (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why not summarize what the article body says? Freeman (apparently, since he's what is cited) claims he was schooled in Fredericksburg until 15. You can read what Ferling writes about GW's education here. Magic♪piano 00:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has already adjusted that particular sentence, but it's hard to figure out what is verifiable about GW's education. Ferling says on Page 5 of The First of Men: A Life of George Washington "that Washington had books and a tutor" and on Page 6 that "Some of his training was at the hands of private tutors (one of whom was a convict indentured servant), although later he was enrolled in a small school in Fredericksburg operated by an Anglican clergyman." The Miller Center states that Washington's education was "the equivalent of an elementary school education". And, as I quoted above, Mount Vernon.Org states "He may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. Later he went to another school, either in Fredericksburg, Stafford County, or Westmoreland County." Sounds like even Mount Vernon doesn't quite know for sure, but I have adjusted both the lede and the "Early life" section. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Died young

The Washington men died young. As Ferling says of the grandfather: The First of Men: A Life of George Washington Page 2: "He died young, before his fortieth birthday, a fate that would haunt many others in this clan." GW's father died at 49; GW himself said "I was of a short-lived family"Rjensen (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:GeorgeWashington BattleofPrinceton.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:GeorgeWashington BattleofPrinceton.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.86.151.169, 8 August 2011

Please change "however, there is no record of his ever taking communion, and he would regularly leave services before communion—with the other non-communicants (as was the custom of the day), until, after being admonished by a rector, he ceased attending at all on communion Sundays.[195]" to say,

"There are several documented accounts of George Washington partaking in communion.

Major Popham, who served under Washington during the War, wrote to Mrs. Jane Washington on March 14, 1839:

"In a conversation with the Reverend Doctor Berrian, a few days since, he informed me that he had lately paid a visit to Mount Vernon, and that Mrs. Washington had expressed a wish to have a doubt removed from her mind, which had long oppressed her, as to the certainty of the General's having attended the communion while residing in the city of New York subsequent to the Revolution. As nearly all the remnants of those days are now sleeping with their fathers, it is not very probable that at this late day an individual can be found who could satisfy this pious wish of your virtuous heart except the writer. It was my great good fortune to have attended St. Paul's Church in this city with the General during the whole period of his residence in New York as President of the United States. The pew of Chief-Justice Morris was situated next to that of the President, close to whom I constantly sat in Judge Morris's pew, and I am as confident as a memory now laboring under the pressure of fourscore years and seven can make me, that the President had more that once-I believe I may say often-attended at the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him. And I am aided in my associations by my elder daughter, who distinctly recollects her grandmamma-Mrs. Morris-often mentioned that fact with great pleasure."

In an 1855 letter, General S. H. Lewis claimed General Porterfield, the brigade-inspector under Washington, told him:

"General Washington was a pious man, and a member of your church (Episcopal). I saw him myself on his knees receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper in ______ Church, in Philadelphia. He specified the time and place. My impression is that Christ Church was the place, and Bishop White, as he afterward was, the minister. This is, to the best of my recollection, an accurate statement of what I heard from General Porterfield on the subject."

There is also an account of Washington taking communion with Presbyterians while encamped at Morristown.

"While the American army, under the command of Washington, lay encamped at Morristown, New Jersey (winter of 1776-7), it occurred that the service of the communion (then be observed simi-annually only) was to be administered in the Presbyterian church of that village. In a morning of the previous week the General, after his accustomed inspection of the camp, visited the house of the Rev. Doctor Jones (Johnes), then pastor of the church, and, after the usual preliminaries, thus accosted him: "Doctor, I understand that the Lord's Supper is to be celebrated with you next Sunday. I would learn if it accords with the canon of your church to admit communicants of another denomination?" The Doctor rejoined, "Most certainly; ours is not the Presbyterian table, General, but the Lord's table; and we hence give the Lord's invitation to all his followers, of whatever name." The General replied, "I am glad of it; that is as it ought to be; but, as I was not quite sure of the fact, I thought I would ascertain it from yourself, as I propose to join with you on that occasion. Though a member of the Church of England,, I have no exclusive partialities." The Doctor reassured him of a cordial welcome, and the General was found seated with the communicants the next Sabbath. "

(Notes)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.135.190 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Someone will have to take a look at the material from the reference you've provided. Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In any event, the details of who allegedly witnessed his communions don't need to be in this article: they should be placed, if anywhere, in George Washington and religion. It would be sufficient (assuming the sources check out) to say "There are only a few known instances of Washington taking communion.(new citations here) He would regularly leave (etc, previous citation here)" Magic♪piano 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Rozell (link, citing Boller, George Washington and religion), the third story (Samuel Coxe's claim that he took Presbyterian communion) has never been confirmed. The other two are probably treated with skepticism by serious historians, due to their "friend of a friend" nature. Espinosa (link) temporizes, saying Washington "seldom if ever" took communion. Magic♪piano 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be those who want to protect George Washington's image. When his Pastor confronted Washington on not going to communion, Washington stopped going altogether to the communion services. This article never stated that Washington never took communion. Obviously, Washington had some issue with taking communion regularly. Communion requires confession of sins and an introspective look into ones life, in remembrance of Jesus' crucifixion by the Romans. Washington apparently had issues with looking at himself introspectively. In fairness to Washington, he did the correct act of passing up communion if he himself felt he was not ready to take communion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made what I think is an adequate change to this article to address the above request, based on the above. Magic♪piano 13:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job Magicpiano. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

U.S postage stamp/currency section

I have moved this section here from the article and provided a link to presidential postage stamps/currency in the article. Per consensus reached in other presidential biographies (e.g. Lincoln, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Garfield), this represents a disproportionate use of space for a relatively insignificant memorial to the president.

George Washington appears on contemporary US currency, including the United States one-dollar bill|one-dollar bill] and the Quarter (United States coin)|US quarter dollar. On US postage stamps however, Washington appears numerous times and in many different denominations. He appears on one of the US Presidents on US postage stamps#First appearances|first postage stamps]] issued by the United States Postal Service|US Post Office in 1847, along with Benjamin Franklin. Beginning in 1908, the US Post Office issued the longest running series of definitive stamps in the history of the US Post office when it issued the Washington-Franklin Issues, a series of more than 250 postage stamps bearing engravings of Washington and Franklin. Washington has been depicted on U.S. postage stamps more than all other notable Americans combined, including Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin. File:Washington 1862 Issue-24c.jpg|thumb|115px|Washington, general issue of 1862, 24c File:Washington 1895 Issue-2c.jpg|thumb|115px|Washington, general issue of 1895, 2c File:Washington WF 1917 Issue-5c.jpg|thumb|115px|Washington-Franklin Issue of 1917, 5c File:Washington WF 1917 Issue-7c.jpg|thumb|121px|Washington-Franklin Issue of 1917, 7c]] File:Washington at Prayer Valley Forge 1928 Issue-2c.jpg|thumb|115px|Washington at Prayer, Valley Forge, issue of 1928, 2c File:George Washington 1908 Issue-4c.jpg|thumb|right|upright=0.7|James Sharples|Sharples' 1751 profile of Washington is used on this 1908 postage stamp.

I have restored the postage section with images. There was consensus on the Lincoln page to remove some stamp images, not all. Not a blank check to remove all stamp images from all President pages. Many Presidents articles (1, 2, 3,4) include stamp images and have so for more than a year. Consensus Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. The claim that appearance on postage is "relatively insignificant" is opinionated and discretionary at best. Stamp images existed on this page for more than a year and while the article became a GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.163.19.188, 8 September 2011

in the actual displayed Wikipedia text of Washington's early life it says he was born on "butt poop turd", 1731 but in the hidden text of the editable frames it is correct....apparently someone has added malicious text.

173.163.19.188 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, but I think the vandal patrol has fixed it. Magic♪piano 20:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 13 October 2011

My edit request is regarding the use of hyphens, commas and semicolons; in many places they're used incorrectly and make reading the text difficult and sometimes confusing.

69.198.84.146 (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Per the Edit Request template's text:

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

If punctuation used on Wikipedia is an issue for you, please be aware that the Punctuation section of the Manual of style addresses the correct and accepted usage of punctuation markings on Wikipedia. Also, this talk page is for discussion of ways to improve the associated article George Washington, from your request it is impossible for me to tell if you are addressing the usage of punctuation in the article itself or asserted incorrect usage of punctuation in Wikipedia in general. If, in your opinion, there is a need for additional editing and punctuation correction, consider creating an account, being bold and fixing the problem. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I just did a quick scan of the lede. Commas were used to separate complex list clauses with internal punctuation, some including terminal comparisons with the first clause in the sentence. There was at least one semi-colon prevarication (; furthermore) which lacked the trailing comma after the prevarication. Commas are over-used, there are a load of semis in the text where the clauses would be better as single short sentences. Some of the complaints are reasonable: many of the clauses are pieced together in an antiquarian academic style. The largest problem, however, is the poor structuring of sentences in an article aimed at an encyclopaedic readership. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and with a page as important as this one, the punctuation and structure should be perfect. I am willing to see what sort of edits/changes you would make to this articleBeefcake6412 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson quote

[Thomas Jefferson]] said "[Washington] thinks it right to keep up appearances but is an unbeliever." Jefferson (who did not know Washington on a personal basis) was not a RS and this is not good history. Chernow (Washington) says that Jefferson got the information from Dr Green, and Chernow points out that Green said Jefferson garbled it. Rjensen (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

potential Crossing the Delaware resource

Crossing the Delaware, More Accurately December 23, 2011, 12:30 PM by COREY KILGANNON New York Times

99.190.86.5 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section

Since there is already an article on Washington's legacy, does there need to be a legacy section in the article? I find the Legacy section a bit jumbled. The "Cherry tree" myth could be a separate section. There is Lee's eulogy and then there is mentioned that Washington was reinstated as General of the Armies of the United States. I am not sure how those two events are related. Do there need to be any changes to or renaming the "Legacy" section? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Dates for George Washington's birth

At the beginnng of the George Washington article, the birthdate for GW is shown in the New Style (NS) and the Old Style (OS). The difference in dates should be 11 days. The information shown is one (1) year and 11 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.229.75.136 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

See: Old Style and New Style dates#Differences between the start of the year. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The difference between old-style and new-style dates at this time was 11 days, so unless someone was born at the start of January or the end of December they should have the same birthyear regardless of style. George Washington was born in February (according to both styles), and should therefore both styles should have the same year.
(I believe the date "O.S. February 11, 1731" should probably have its year changed so that it reads "O.S. February 11, 1732".)
165.236.161.4 (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In the old calendar, the new year began on March 25. Since GW was born in February, it was still 1731. This is explained in Old Style and New Style dates. Magic♪piano 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Manual of Style for dates would seem to support "O.S. February 11, 1732":

At some places and times, dates other than 1 January were used as the start of the year. The most common English-language convention was the Annunciation Style used in Britain and its colonies, in which the year started on 25 March, Annunciation Day; see the New Year article for a list of other styles. 1 January is assumed to be the opening date for years; if there is reason to use another start-date, this should be noted.

though probably either choice requires a footnote which probably will be either overlooked or ignored by a significant number of readers. Or perhaps we could use "O.S. February 11, 1731/32" as the linked article says parish registers at the time normally did. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious question

Is there POV in the Religious section? There are two rather large quotes that state Washington was not a deist (Lillback) and that he was a Christian (Chernow). Boller Jr. is not even quoted in the article. I believe the Lillback and the Chernow quotes give over-weight emphasis to the point of view that Washington was not a diest and that he was a Christian. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's well balanced. The key section on deism opens with Historians have different views on the question. Paul F. Boller, Jr. has argued that "Washington was in fact a typical 18th-century deist." and gives two footnotes to Boller. Chernow--the latest and most distinguished (Pulitzer prize) study is quoted: There has been a huge controversy, to put it mildly, about Washington's religious beliefs. so all the readers learn about Boller's view and that there is a big controversy. Rjensen (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Boller, Jr. is mentioned yet he does not get the same paragraph treatment as Lillback and Chernow get. I believe Boller, Jr. deserves more then one abbreviated sentence. I also disagree with Chernow's reasoning that because one goes to church that makes that person a Christian. I don't know of any Episcipalian church or Church of England doctrine past or present that states attending church makes one a Christian. That seems to be an idea only proposed by Chernow. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Chernow summarizes the same points Boller uses--ie Washington used Deist language a lot. (for example, "providence" instead of "God"; no mention of Jesus). As for "Christian,"--well yes, I would argue that if XYZ over his entire life attends Anglican religious services on a regular basis (and only those) we can call him a Christian. Rjensen (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rjensen. My only suggestion would be to at least give Boller Jr. more then one sentence. However, I am for editor consensus. The Church of England actually states that doing good works without the grace of Christ is sin. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Church of England's 39 articles: Thirty - nine Articles Article 13 specifically states:

Of Works before Justification

"Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Cmguy777 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that attending church gives any person status as a Christian, even if over an extended period of times. No Episcopal or Church of England doctrines support Chernow's conclusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Meyer stated that one does not become a Christian by Church attendance alone. She stated "A Christian is someone who has had his heart changed by faith in Jesus Christ." In Pursuit of Peace: 21 Ways to Conquer Anxiety, Fear, and Discontentment Cmguy777 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

James A Fowler stated, " There is no human performance or effort that can effect the spiritual reality of becoming a Christian." What does it mean to be a Christian? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following edit:

Neither the Church of England nor Episcopal church doctrines or articles supported that regular Church attendance makes a person a Christian; rather salvation is dependant on ones faith. James A Fowler stated, "There is no human performance or effort that can effect the spiritual reality of becoming a Christian." Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

NO. we follow the RS not our own research. b) As for "faith" and what was in Washington's heart and soul, no one knows. Cites by Joyce Meyer and James A Fowler are not RS regarding George Washington--(they are not historians and are selling their own brand of 21st century Christianity. . The historical criterion for being considered "Christian" was baptism in the Church (which did happen to Washington).Rjensen (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chernow opened the argument, in my opinion, when he stated that Washington's regular church attendance made him a Christian. Neither the Episcopal Church nor the Church of England supports this doctrine. I have given sources to the Fowler and Meyer comments and the Church of England's 39 articles. With that said I won't put in the edit. I am for editor consensus. Currently there is no concensus on extending Boller Jr. comments or inserting the above paragraph, therefore, I consider this discussion closed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Robert Corfe as source

Is Robert Corfe (2007) considered a reliable source: Diesm and Social Ethics? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

no, in my opinion. he's a businessman who garbles his superficial history. Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks Rjensen. He seems to be a successful businessman who writes books. He stated that Washington was a diest. However, he does not seem to be academically accepted or reliable. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Gary Scott Smith as source

Is Gary Scott Smith (2006) a reliable source? Faith and the presidency: from George Washington to George W. Bush Cmguy777 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Smith is a solid RS -- he's a conservative, a college professor with six books -- on his book with Oxford University press, see the very favorable comments at comments. On the 2006 Faith book, the prestigious Journal of American Studies evaluated it: "he does such a fantastic job of explicating the Presidents' career trajectories by means of their religious convictions that the book is in fact far more than this." Rjensen (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks Rjensen. I thought he would make a good source on George Washington and religion. He may go over what is already in the article, however, might have alternative perspectives. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

George Washington was not the fifty second president of the US

Sikthsense (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The page was vandalised, but it has been fixed now--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Typo in second paragraph

"hold together the arm" should read "hold together the army" --184.7.78.185 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Offspring/Stepchildren

I am aware that GW had no children of his own, however he is often cited as having a "son", presumably a stepson. Can we see additional information on this? 99.2.69.235 (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

000peter

I have provided 11 references. Please don't remove it from the infobox.Pass a Method talk 18:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that your seven sources are representative of broad historical opinion on the subject. Magic♪piano 20:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 11 refs, not 7 Pass a Method talk 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

only RELIABLE secondary sources count. That means reliable by 2012 standards and requires access to the modern scholarship and sources, and publication that qualifies by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The old/ popular stuff does not make the cut. Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Deism refs

Shown in this edit seem to be formatted differently from any other references in this article, plus the following information is missing: page numbers, publisher, year published, etc. Anyone know how to fix this?
Also, while I concur that from the verifiable reliable sources it could certainly be stated that Washington was a Deist in religious philosophy, that does not seem to be to be the same as a religion...so far as I know, Washington did not worship in the Church of Deism or get baptized as a Deist. From what I understand, a Deist can be an adherent of any religion or even possibly none, just because one states that one is a "Deist" doesn't necessarily mean that one is Christian (or, in Washington's case, Church of England/Episcopalian). The verifiable information indicates that Washington was a member of certain organized churches throughout his life and that information should at the very least be placed first in the Infobox, which is what I have done.Shearonink (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are several ways to format refs. They dont all have to be identical. Pass a Method talk 15:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all refs have to be identical, it is true that there are many accepted reference-forms that Wikipedia accepts as part of its WP:MOS. But this article is a WP:GA, and as part of the fairly recent Peer review and ongoing article improvements, I seem to remember that the Book-references were converted to Harvard citation style and brought into agreement with each other. This set of references does not agree in form with any of the other ones that appear within the References section and also lacks information which would seem to be essential to verifiability: publisher/date/page numbers/etc. Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There are different forms of references, but those used within an article should be consistent in form. They should also be complete enough that someone can locate exact copies of the cited works (since things like page numbers can disagree between editions of printed works). Magic♪piano 17:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cherry tree

Did George Washington cut down his father only charry tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.184.81 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox change?...

The order of the religious beliefs in the Infobox was recently changed as shown in this edit, Anglican/Episcopalian had been first and now Deism is first. Isn't Deism a philosophy and not an actual religion, can't people be adherents of differing religious beliefs and also Deists? Even though reliable sources concur that Washington was a Deist they also state that he was a member of the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches and not a member of the Deism Church. I'm not sure which link should be first but think that any interested editors should weigh in on this matter before the Infobox's format is altered in this way. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

all the RS agree that GW was a lifelong practicing Anglican/Episcopalian. Inside that denomination there was a wide range of theology, and GW used the language of the "deist" faction according to most RS. (He never used the language of the evangelical/Low Church faction, or the High Church faction.) The infobox in my opinion should say "Anglican/Episcopalian." Rjensen (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Shearonink Deism is more of a religious concept than a philosophy because it assumes something about God. Also deism is not a church.

@Rjensen The infobox alrady says he was "Anglican/Episcopalian.". Pass a Method talk 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If Deism is not a church or an organized religion then why has it now been listed first? Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would drop "deism" from Infobox. save that for people like Tom Paine. Rjensen (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with dropping deism. There are dozens of references suggesting he might have been a deist. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Rjensen. Deist aspects can be discussed in the article but doesn't need to be in the infobox.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been had previously and Rjensen's proposal was rejected by the community. Stop wasting our time by bringing it up again. If you do propose it, you should give some good arguments for that. I haven't seen any good arguments so far. Pass a Method talk 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

the argument is that deism (in GW's case) was an informal subdivision of Episcopalian theology, not an organized religion one could "belong" to. He claimed membership in and was active in his Ang/Epis church; that all RS agree on. His deism is more speculative: GW used the vocabulary of deism BUT never made a statement about being a deist, never joined a deist group & and never attended any deist ceremonies. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability states that "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia". As long as reliable sources describe GW's religious views as deistic, per wikipedia policy, it should remain. Pass a Method talk 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

"deistic" does not work--no RS calls that a religion. The RS say he formally joined one and only one church or religion, which is the line on the Infobox. His theological outlook is not a category in the Infobox. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, your proposal violates WP:NPOV which states that content should represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Note my emphasis of the word "all". Secondly deism is a belief in god, which obbviously is religiously relevant. Pass a Method talk 00:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To me the major change is that the order of the stated religions was altered. Previously Ang/Episc was first and now Deism is first, so the question remains...why? Do the reliable sources state that he was a Deist first and foremost or do they state that he was a Christian first and foremost? (I really don't know, that's why I am asking) For example though, it does seem to me that one could be a Fundamentalist as well as an adherent of differing religions, but that shading of religious belief would not seem to be a separate line-item as being a member of "Fundamentalism". Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

the deism argument is well covered here and in the spinoff argument. To make my position clear: GW's religion was Ang/Epis (hence the Infobox; his subgroup or faction or theological outlook INSIDE this denomination could have beeon one of several positions (such as High Church, Evangelical, deist, etc), and in his case it was deist. GW was always a member of the Ang/Epis church, and never a member of any deist group. No one says he ever changed his position. That makes Ang/ Epis the choice, in my opinion, for the thumbnail Infobox. By the way I dropped two cites (of three) that fail the RS test; one cite is quite enough. Rjensen (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@Shearonink It was not altered. That was the original order until someone changed it.

@Rjensen Actually, Some historical accounts state that GW was not a devout follower of the Epis church, and that he remained standing when others knelt in church and he rarely attended church. He rarely mentioned religion and he never communed. He also was a keen reader of deist writers of the enlightenment. This type of behavior indicates its preferable to avoid emphasizing his Epicolopian affiliation. Pass a Method talk 01:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Original order?....It seems to me that this article has been through so many changes, I'm not sure how relevant the original order of any particular information is. (By the way, the first mention of religion in the Infobox I could find dates from June 2011 and only mentions Church of England/Episcopalian membership.) In a Wikipedia article, the only emphasis should be on what multiple reliable sources state. If the majority of RS state that his deistic outlook was more meaningful/important to him than any (apparently trivial) church membership/affiliation/beliefs, then perhaps his church membership/affiliation should be deleted from the Infobox?

I do agree that the subject of "George Washington & religion" receives in-depth coverage both within this talk page's associated article and within George Washington and religion. Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad link

Someone should fix the link to Wikimedia Commons, it is broken. (Category:Category:George Washington) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arildto (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks for noticing. Magic♪piano 14:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Because of his strategy two British armies were captured at Saratoga?

In the second paragraph of the introduction, lines 7-8: "Because of his strategy, Revolutionary forces captured two major British armies at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781.'

This statement might be modified or qualified, because as it stands it attributes too big a share of these victories to Washington. Many, many factors were involved, and though Washington did contribute at Saratoga by his timeliness in sending crucial reinforcements, let's face it, he wasn't there.

Certainly, if Horatio Gates or Benedict Arnold were to read such a statement--indeed if Washington himself were to read such a statement about how the Battle of Saratoga was won--they would reject it as inaccurate.

The bald statement "Because of his strategy" might give the unwary reader the impression that Washington presciently planned an ambush of Burgoyne, whereas I'm not aware of evidence supporting this.

A better statement might be: "Washington made strategic contributions to the crucial victory at Saratoga." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerre1859 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias

This paragraph under Washington's religious beliefs is written in the first person and extremely biased. Can someone please remove it?

There has been a huge controversy, to put it mildly, about Washington's religious beliefs. Before the Revolutionary War he was Anglican – Church of England – which meant after the war, he was Episcopalian. So, he was clearly Christian....He was quite intensely religious, because even though he uses the word Providence, he constantly sees Providence as an active force in life, particularly in American life. I mean, every single victory in war he credits to Providence. The miracle of the Constitutional Convention he credits to Providence. The creation of the federal government and the prosperity of the early republic, he credits to Providence... I was struck at how frequently in his letters he's referring to Providence, and it's Providence where there's a sense of design and purpose, which sounds to me very much like religion... Unfortunately, this particular issue has become very very politicized. (67.243.164.243 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

The paragraph is preceded by: "Chernow, in a 2010 podcast, summed up Washington's religious views:"

"Chernow" is previously identified in the article as Ron Chernow, who is a well-respected historian without a particular religious axe to grind. Please elaborate on its bias (especially how it is "extreme"). Magic♪piano 17:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the only problem with this section really is that, since it's apparently all quoted from Ron Chernow, it should be formatted as a block quote like the others in the article. As it is, if one missed the preceeding line for whatever reason, this reads like a major shift in the article's tone. 68.149.38.112 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

WHITEWASHED

The dishonest libertarians who RUN wikipedia have effectively whitewashed perhaps one of the cornerstones of George Washingon's beleifs.

NOWHERE in this article does it get into George Washington's support for a strong central government. As of now, the words "Central Government" don't even appear in the article at all, leaving the reader with a completely skewed understanding of the nation's first President and his intentions.

Google the words "George Washingon" with "Strong Central Government" and you will find a slew of sources supporting this, including in Washington's own writings.

Please don't let the libertarians whitewash our nation's history by allowing them to control the flow of information and omit anything that doesn't line up with their narrative.

This is a prime example of why so many scholars and academics don't support Wikipedia..

--69.125.144.110 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No single group runs Wikipedia, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The reason this particular article is protected from IP-editing is because of frequent and persistent vandalism. All anyone editing as an IP has to do in order to add sourced information to this article is register as a named-account, do ten edits, be over 4 days old and then they will be autoconfirmed. Then, as an autoconfirmed editor, find multiple independent reliable sources that back up allegedly missing information and add that info along with the references to the article. If, as you say, a slew of sources are there to support your assertion then it should be easy for you to add the information and the references yourself. --Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's all in the opening paragraph: "Washington...oversaw the creation of a strong, well-financed national government that maintained neutrality in the wars raging in Europe, suppressed rebellion, and won acceptance among Americans of all types." and the ending paragraph of the opening lede: "Washington had a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to preserve liberty, improve infrastructure, open the western lands, promote commerce, found a permanent capital, reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of American nationalism." That pretty well covers it. Rjensen (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 June 2012

The year of Washington's O.S. birthdate should be changed from 1731 to 1732. The transition from the Julian to Gregorian calendar changed dates by 11 days in the period when Washington was born, but it did not change the calendar year of a date (unless, of course the Julian date fell in late December). See, by comparison, the dates of Thomas Jefferson's birth in the Wikipedia article on Jefferson, and the details of the Gregorian calendar in the Wikipedia article on that topic. Fizzbowen (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More to the point the reason for this particular OS year being different than the NS year is explained in Old Style and New Style dates. The caveats on changing the start of the year don't apply to Jefferson. Magic♪piano 00:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

But why doesn't WP:MOSDATE#Calendars apply here, specifically:

At some places and times, dates other than 1 January were used as the start of the year. The most common English-language convention was the Annunciation Style used in Britain and its colonies, in which the year started on 25 March, Annunciation Day; see the New Year article for a list of other styles. 1 January is assumed to be the opening date for years; if there is reason to use another start-date, this should be noted.

Fat&Happy (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This Slate article, which is reference 10 in the current revision, does a good job of explaining the calendar conversion and its results. Under the Old Style, March 25 was when a new year started (and the year number incremented). With the conversion to New Style, the past dates between January 1 and March 25 had their year number incremented, to be in the 'same year' as those dates after March 25. —ADavidB 03:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the Slate article, the issue of the birthdate (Old Style/New Style) has come up before regarding Washington, see this link to various sections in the Talk page archives as well as this particular link. Shearonink (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)