Talk:George Washington

Authors?

what is the name of the person who rote the story of george washington in this internet explorer please could you tell me because i am just a little girl from qsi (grade five)please just tell me don't be shy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.192.83 (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Click on the "history" tab at the top of a page to see who helped write it. —ADavidB 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Old Style

I'm not sure that his birthday should be measured in old style, wasn't europe already on new style at the time? -Qwertyfish11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyfish11 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up, i want to know if i could delete the old style date, as i don't think this is relavent anymore, but correct me if im wrong Qwertyfish11 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Please do not remove that. It is a common source of confusion, as his birthdate is often given in either form, depending on which source is consulted. The first date given is the new style date and the old style date is mentioned secondarily. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could there at least be some regularity? I was thinking modifing it as follows: (N.S. Birthday-Death O.S. Birthday-Death) thanks for your patience, i'm new to wikipedia Qwertyfish11 (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is already standardized for similar uses of such dates. His death is not given in old style because it occurred after the changeover. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, i appreciate it It'll always be Burma to Me (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Biological Child

It was known that Washington did not have children of his own, but claims have been made that he was the father of a mixed son named West Ford with a slave named Venus. After seeing a kind of documentary about it last night, I thought it would be interesting or atleast considerate to note this allegation. I have not found any information of this in his article, yet I have found information elsewhere. Redvans (talk)

Any information put here needs to be verifiable, not just claimed. With reliable sources, info can be included. —ADavidB 11:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of West Ford's descendants claim Washington fathered Ford; the claim is dealth with in the book "Washington and the Slave Power." The problems with the theory are 1) West Ford was born during the Revolution, and his mother was actually owned by Washington's brother, so opportunities for Washington to conceive him were very limited; 2) Washington had no children with his wife, but apparently wanted to (he placed orders for various remedies for sterility to his London agent)--but his wife had two children by her first husband, making it likely Washington was indeed sterile; 3) there is no positive evidence in favor of the claim--Washington never really knew Ford, who was a young boy when he died, and never took any interest in him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.247.146 (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GW's Thanksgiving Proclamation

We should make reference to this proclamation in the article. This balances the debate a little more and is essential to understanding George Washington's true character more, since it expresses his thoughts, whether fake (merely to please the public) or real. Go here to see it http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/thankstext.html --Comder (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

British Traitor?

No mention is made that George Washington was known as, and still is, a traitor to the British Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.7.253 (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And we're proud of it. Screw the Brits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Grow up, sometime.88.105.93.3 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometime. Until then, IP on U. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess there were hundreds of thousands of traitors then. If he still is, then I guess there are hundreds of millions now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me we signed a treaty with them after the Revolutionary War. That would presumably nullify any of this "traitor" nonsense. And oddly enough, I don't recall their complaining about our alleged treason when we were bailing them out in WWII. Must have slipped their minds. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a non-issue raise by an anonymous poster. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term a-non-ymous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to respond to anonymous trolling, with trolling of your own. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are all so bias about the British, maybe you should not be editing Wikipedia in articles that have even the slightest to do with History and the British peoples..--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That remark shows you think of us as "the colonies" you arrogant ass. The Brits aren't stop being biased about Americans any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.126.48 (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its a good point, we need to view this un-biased without any emotions or opinions in it, just cold hard facts, and if "The British consider George Washington a traitor" is a fact, it should have a piece of this article, best filed under foreign relations. Qwertyfish11 It'll always be Burma to Me (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, so what? What are they going to do, come here and arrest him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As always, we just need reliable sources for verification, in conjunction with neutrality and no original research. —ADavidB 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, as of yet, all I've found accuses George as being a traitor against America. So, I stand corrected, Washington isn't considered a traitor to the Brits. Even see this article on Wikipedia. Somewhere in there it even states that he was found not a traitor in a trail, but don't quote me. -Qwertyfish11 (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about that in the Treason article. I assume you mean "trial". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This section is getting pointless, someone should delete this BTW, your user page rocks! Cheerios and Cheers: Qwertyfish11 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think i gave the wrong link, I Googled "George Washington british traitor" and It gave a wikipedia URL, it said something along the lines of Trial.... George Washington...... not guilty. Qwertyfish11 (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

New file File:George Washington by Gilbert Stuart.jpg

Recently the file File:George Washington by Gilbert Stuart.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 11:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Greatest man in the world"

I removed the following from the intro of the article (referring to Washington retiring to Mt Vernon after the war):

prompting an incredulous King George III to state, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

It's a great story, but there is no reliable source to support it. The Cato link is to a blog post. The Reliable Source, the Wood book, does not support the statement. According to Google Book Search, or Amazon's Search Inside This Book (the latter shows much more but requires a logon), Wood writes,

King George III supposedly predicted that if Washington retired from public life and returned to his farm, "he will be the greatest man in the world." [emphasis is mine]

Per Amazon (search for "George III" and look in the results that say "Backmatter"), his footnote attributes it to,

Washington to New York Legislature, 26 June 1775, in Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of Washington, II, 305; Wills, Cincinnatus, 13.

So our source qualifies it with "supposedly" and his source appears to be Washington himself. It doesn't seem to qualify for including in the article, unfortunately. Guanxi (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, shouldn't it be phrased:

King George III supposedly predicted that if Washington retired from public life and returned to his farm, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

-Qwertyfish11 It'll always be Burma to Me (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed POV and contreversial info

I removed the following info from the lead <blockwuote>Washington is seen as a symbol of the United States and republicanism in practice. His devotion to civic virtue made him an exemplary figure among early American politicians. For 1 this seems very POV, the second issue is with the tone that he was exemplery figure but yet he owned many slaves. It just seems contradictory. I placed it here in case someone had a problem with my decision.--Kumioko (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:George Washington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No one would question the importance of this article, especially to American readers. There are some issues that give me pause, primarily related to the lack of references.

• The American Revolution section is very poorly referenced. Since this is a primary part of the article it is surprising that it is so under referenced. I note a template from May 2009, I added one of my own, several more could be added but I think it conveys the point.
• the "Foreign Affairs" sub section of the Presidency section has no references.
• The "Monuments and memorials" sub section of the Legacy section has one in-line citation.
• Several of the website references have nothing more than the link. Per WP:CITE they should at least have the publisher and accessdate, the author, date, and work information are also good if provided.

I want to keep the article as GA but there needs to be some work done on the references. I would be willing to discuss this review with anyone. I will hold the article for a week and see if some work on referencing can be done. H1nkles (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has been on hold for two weeks and my referencing concerns have not been addressed. As such I will remove the article from GA due to the fact that it does not meet the GA Criteria regarding referencing. H1nkles (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

See Above (GA Reassement)

There should be references in the American Revolution section. There are only about 5, and a couple citation needed's in the section. Someone should go about to do that, as i don't have the Security clearance to do that -Qwertyfish11 says:"It'll always be Burma to Me (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)"

Founding Fathers' birthdates

This subject has been discussed by editors of this article in Archives 1, 3, 4 and 5, dating back to 2004. The most recent (please forgive the slight redundancy) was as late as February of this year, as follows:

---

About the calendar (see Archive 5)

There is an error in the notes that says contemporary records indicate George Washington's date of birth as February 11, 1732. The year is wrong. At the time Washington was born, New Year's Day was March 25. The contemporary records of his birth, including his baptismal certificate, indicate he was born on February 11, 1731 not 1732. When Great Britain changed to the Gregorian Calendar, England and Wales, and the North American colonies, also changed New Year's Day from March 25 to January 1, starting with December 31, 1751 being followed by January 1, 1752 instead of January 1, 1751. Because Washington was still alive when the change was made, his birthday was retroactively re-stated from February 11, 1731 to February 22, 1732 after the change of calendar took effect.

Anyway, the footnote needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.168.158 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

What reliable source can everyone consult to resolve this matter? —ADavidB 00:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that the unsigned comment above is correct; I've read in a number of credible sources that Washington was born in 1731 O.S., because prior to adopting the Gregorian calendar Britain treated the start of the year as March 25. See the article Old Style and New Style dates and its references. See also the end of the following article, which addresses Washington's birthday in particular: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_Util_StaticDemo/MethodJulGregCal.htm The only reason I'm not making the correction immediately is that it's a relatively minor error and I don't have anything outstanding to put into the footnote. DGaryGrady (talk) 05:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus it would confuse the issue, assuming it's even true, which I question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

We might be able to put this calendar issue to rest. It's also been discussed on the Ben Franklin Talk page. An editor of Ben's article came up with a source that clearly explains both Franklin's and Washington's birthdates, and this has been cited in the Benjamin Franklin lead thusly:

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705^[1]]– April 17, 1790) was one of . . .

1.  ^ Engber, Daniel (2006).What's Benjamin Franklin's Birthday?. Retrieved on June 17, 2009

So it seems prudent that we do something similar with the article on Washington, thusly:

George Washington (February 22, 1732 [O.S. February 11, 1731]– December 14, 1799) was the . . .

5. Engber, Daniel (2006).What's Benjamin Franklin's Birthday?. (Both Franklin's and Washington's confusing birth dates are clearly explained.) Retrieved on June 17, 2009.
6. The birth and death of George Washington are given using the Gregorian calendar. However, he was born when Britain and her colonies still used the Julian calendar, so contemporary records record his birth as February 11, 1731. The provisions of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, implemented in 1752, altered the official British dating method to the Gregorian calendar with the start of the year on January 1.
7. "George Washington Birthplace National Monument". National Park Service. Retrieved 2008-01-26.
8. "Image of page from family Bible". Papers of George Washington. Retrieved 2008-01-26.

• NOTE A: In the 6th reference the year has been corrected to 1731. Here's hoping all interested editors will take a gander at the newly retrieved source above and agree that the correct date is 1731.
• NOTE B: The 7th reference might not be a good source, in that the first line reads the year as "1732", but the quote from the family Bible clearly states "1731 / 2".
• NOTE C: Look closely at the image of the family Bible in the 8th source. It reads 1731/₂. This is the old style of showing the difference back in Washington's and Franklin's day. (Take a close look, because the "one" in 1731 looks almost like a "two", but not quite.)

So the old-style year is definitely 1731. I shall correct this error in the article in a few days as long as there's a consensus for it.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  10:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• PS. I see that I didn't account for there being other footnotes referenced on this Talk page, so I have adjusted NOTEs A, B and C accordingly.

Can somebody fix the tense issue?

In the intro there is the line:

Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington returned to private life and retired to his plantation at Mount Vernon, prompting an incredulous King George III to state, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

While in the footnote it says:

Johnson, Paul (2005). George Washington: The Founding Father. HarperCollins. p. 78. ISBN 0-06-075365-X. "In London, George III questioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. 'Oh,' said West, 'they say he will return to his farm.' 'If he does that,' said the king, 'he will be the greatest man in the world.'"

I'm not sure what the best way to fix the line in the intro would be, but the phrasing and use of the word 'prompting' seem to make for an awkward/incorrect tense/causality issue. If anyone who regularly works on this article has any ideas? 66.183.69.201 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it the sequence of events you're concerned about? That is, the first quote makes it sounds like the King said it afterwards, and the second was beforehand. Instead of "prompting", maybe a better way to say it would be, "living up to the King's statement that, 'If he does that...'". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest: "After asking about Washington's plans after the war, and being told some predicted Washington would retire to his farm, an incredulous King George III said, ...", followed by "Washington did, in fact, return to private life and retired to his plantation at [[Mount Vernon, Virginia|Mount Vernon]] following the end of the war in 1873". —ADavidB 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a better question to ask is, "Why does it need to be in two places?" It's really too much of a detailed anecdote for the summary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this info being moved out of the summary and toward the bottom of the American Revolution section. The 'second occurrence' of the info is just a specific quote within the source citation. —ADavidB 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious Views

It says Washington was Episcopalian but his own bishop said that he was never confirmed and never took communion in his church even though he attended. Please, see http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4783149/k.778D/Deism_and_Americas_Founders.htm the Church-going deists section. I think it would be appropriate to add another slash and "deism". --98.227.38.196 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.38.196 (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Negative that. Your source doesn't say Washington was a deist; it merely mentions a possible controversy (very weak at that).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then, let's define being an "Episcopalian" here. If he was not confirmed and his own bishop/pastor couldn't name his religion (among other things mentioned in the source), can we still call him Episcopalian. --98.227.38.196 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a bad source. The bishop mentioned is Washington's bishop in Philadelphia (his temporary home) and "another pastor" (who?). Washington's home was in Virginia which would be one of many possible logical reasons why he might not confirm with another district or take communion with a church he didn't consider as his home church. The author of your source errantly forms a bad conclusion based on the meager and misguided evidence. "The fact that Washington was never confirmed in the Episcopal Church and ceased to take communion after the war adds to the case for him being a Deist." Sorry, it isn't a fact...just slipshod revisionism and a lack of research.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that confirmation in the Episcopalian Church is relevant. However, the only requirement to take communion is to be baptized. I suggest anyone interested in something more scholarly to go here and here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Amendments to George Washington's Farewell Address Section in this article

If possible I would like to amend and expand upon the section on George Washington's farewell address to include some of the aspects of my opening introduction and legacy sections on the George Washington's Farewell Address, which I have recently completed to the best of my abilities.

I believe a review of my work on this article will show that I have no bias or or agenda that I am trying to advance in this article on George Washington but instead that I am only trying to improve and expand this article and others documenting Washington's service to the country.

If possible I would also like to request a peer review of my work on the Farewell Address article if anyone is willing to aid me.

I look forward to your response,

--Epignosis (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The main article says about his Farewell Address, "While he declined suggested versions[48] that would have included statements that there could be no morality without religion..." However, this is a misleading and inaccurate statement, since he said, "And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion." Clearly Washington believed there could be no morality without religion, since he was cautioning the nation that it was likely a false supposition. --Don 12:58, August 27 2009

Freemasons

Enter info on Freemasonry i think its a valuble part of this topic It'll always be Burma to Me (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)freemason website

I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Recently i saw a documentary, it talked all about the founding fathers relations to the Freemasons. At least put a small section with: main article: Freemasons ^{Qwertyfish11 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)}Cheerios and Cheers!

Being masons, they laid the bricks that formed the foundation of this great land. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still vandalism

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm not usually an editor of wikipedia but I noticed there was still some vandalism at the bottom of the page despite it being semi-protected. I would ask that someone remove this from the page. It appears just before the categories. 71.10.92.206 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see what you are talking about. Where exactly is it? Darrenhusted (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears after "The Washington Family" collapasable and before the categories. 71.10.92.206 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it either. Please be specific and explicit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Already done There was some vandalism to the "Washington Family" navbox earlier in the day. If the problem is still there, please open a new edit request with details of the vandalism. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Rum really belong here?

Is the apparent fact that Washington had Barbados Rum served at his inauguration appropriate for this page? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DWPittelli (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)