Talk:George Washington

An event in this article is an April 30 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

• Talk:George Washington/Archive 1 includes the following sections: Disconnect of GW's Wealth, Repairs undone>, First President and "under the Constitution" issues, Religious beliefs, Odd stories, Father of his/the/our Country, Honored Americans, Birth date, Washington's poet friend?, Birthplace, Final Rank, Wig/powdering, Military Rank, Category Scottish-American, Cut 'n paste editing, Sources in this article, Federalist?, Reentering the military?, Can we add some Washington trivia?, I changed part of the introduction to religious views., His Bible, George Washington Farewell address..., Recent shortenings of article, Farewell Address, Unanimous?, Innoculation.

• Talk:George Washington/Archive 2 includes: Opening Lines, "Personal Information" section, Presidency section, Personal qualities, Major presidential acts, Section inaccuracies, Trivia, French and Indian War, "Humane" to slaves, Two Technical Questions, extended semi-protection, Personal Wealth, Farewell address, Lead portrait, Factoid vault, Washington and Slavery, Washington's Swearing, Indian views of Washington, Changing the Revolutionary Army

If any discussion from these topics has not been finished, feel free to bring the thread back to this page.

Delete religious beliefs?

I deleted the "A Christian or not a Christian" section. If anyone wishes to read the insanity that was that discussion (partly my fault), click here. It took up 21 kilobytes on this page! Anyway, the real discussion that should be had is whether to keep the religious beliefs section. I am FOR deleting it. Since Washington never stated his religious beliefs (reluctant to do so apparently) and since his output on religion is limited to religious pluralism (though that famous letter is said to have been ghost written by Jefferson, if the source is correct), is it noteworthy? Lincoln's religious beliefs are a matter of controversy as well, yet his article contains no section on religious beliefs. I suggest we delete the religious beliefs section and leave the whole religion controversy to List of United States Presidential religious affiliations. It is what they deal with. Does anyone agree with me that the section should be deleted? --Sparkhurst 21:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we delete this section as well. Especially since there is overwhelming evidence showing his strong Christian faith. The liberals/humanists on this board seek to undermine this fact.

• • Provide some real evidence then, keeping in mind that deists are not atheists. --JimWae 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I provided overwhelming evidence yesterday all of which has been deleted. Keep in mind that Deists are not Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Gbdill (talk • contribs)

To answer Sparkhurst's question, Washington's religious beliefs are disputed enough to merit at least some coverage in our article. Right now, the section is strong on anecdote and completely lacking in scholarly opinion. For example, here are three scholarly views:

According to biographer James Thomas Flexner, "George Washington was, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, a deist." On the other hand, biographer John Ferling writes that Washington "was not a Deist, however. He believed in God's intervention in worldly affairs, and he anticipated a life after death." According to biographer Marcus Cunliffe, Washington "was a Christian as a Virginian planter understood the term."

I haven't added these yet because I haven't read two essential books on Washinton's beliefs: Frank Grizzard's The Ways of Providence: Religion and George Washington, and Paul Boller's George Washington & Religion. And anyone who hasn't read these hasn't read widely enough to write a good overview appropriate for this encyclopedia. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 16:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ---

Agreed. Unless both sides are equally presented I believe this section should be omitted. I will continue to edit this section until the administrator of this site says otherwise. I believe there is overwhelming evidence to show that Washington was a Christian in the literal sense. I presented these facts yesterday all of which has been deleted.--Gbdill 17:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ---

I am terribly dismayed by the lack of evidence to show our president's as something other than being a Christian in the literal sense. I believe there is an overwhelming attempt at undermining our president's religious beliefs here. I propose we eliminate these sections from all of our president's entry altogether. Mr. Wae seems to have an agenda here by labelling most of our president's as deists or unitarians just based on a few quotes that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs.--Gbdill 17:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Your dismay or personal opinion does not give you the right to delete sourced material. If you have evidence GW was Xn, present it here. Aside from deleting all evidence of deism, what you added yesterday was predominantly unsourced assertion & editorializing - except for the letter from Nelly, which is still in the article (and is certainly not overwhelming). Is it your intention to overwhelm us with emotion, instead? --JimWae 18:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is the sort of overwhelming evidence you inserted yesterday, as you deleted sourced material:--JimWae 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

    However, Washington was a confirmed member of Christ Church Episcopal Church in Alexandria, VA where he and his family regularly attended services. Contrary to what some believe, Washington was a devout Episcopalian believing in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit along with the inerrancy of the Holy Bible. To assume that he was a Deist is merely based on unconfirmed facts.

That is an outright lie. I edited unsourced material such as: "Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. There is considerable evidence that indicates he, like numerous other men of his time, was a Deist—believing in God but not believing in revelation or miracles." Washington's views are not controversial unless of course you contrive a lie such as what you have done. I simply added material and YOU have deleted it.

Here is my information. You cannot disprove the facts. By the way, just because one person has dismissed a source doesn't mean that everyone else has.

In a letter written by Washington's adopted daughter to refute any doubts concerning Washington's religious convictions, she states:

"I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, that they may be seen of men." (Quote by Nelly Custis-Lewis - adopted daughter of George Washington in a letter written to Jared Sparks, 1833.)

Many others attest to Washington's Christian faith:

“He was a sincere believer in the Christian faith and a truly devout man.” (Quote by John Marshall - Revolutionary General, Secretary of State, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice)

George Washington is quoted as having a reliance upon the hand of the Creator for the Divine Providence of this land.

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." (George Washington, 1783)

George Washington professed his faith in Jesus Christ therefore making him a Christian in the literal sense of the term.

“O Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon.”

“ I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.”

"Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ..." (from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752)

You MUST be fair and add this information in and accurately convey both sides of the issue. As it stands now, your article solely supports Deism and not Christianity.--Gbdill 04:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have presented the material and source and it is now posted to the site. Perhaps you too are emotional by taking it upon yourself to delete my material from yesterday. Instead of deleting you should add. --Gbdill 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • What you have mostly done AGAIN is delete sourced material that was there and substituted unsourced opinion, such as: To say that he was a Deist is completely false.. You will see soon that there are many others who will remove such rubbish I see you are on a tear today, removing material on Washington, Adams, & Jefferson. Please see WP:NPOV --JimWae 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What you have inserted has been thoroughly discredited. If you had taken time to read and consider material you have deleted you would have seen: "An unfinished book of copied prayers attributed to him (as a youth) by a collector was rejected by the Smithsonian Institution for lack of authenticity."[1]
  • Your behaviour here is little different from vandalism --JimWae 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"To say that he was a Deist is completely false" is based on the quote by his own daughter exclaiming the heresy of other claims that he was something other than a Christian. The truth hurts doesn't it? And indeed I am on a tear. I am tired of the lies that many people like yourself have rewritten history to conform to your liberal and humanist views and to undermine the Christian heritage of our nation. What's next... Jesus Christ was a Deist too? --Gbdill 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that both cases should be presented in the article, and that's how it should be. The truth is, his religious beliefs are ambiguous and in an academic forum you need to highlight questionable assertions with citations and neutrality. By no means should we omit the section, as it is clearly obvious Washington's religion played a large part in his life. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although Washington's religious beliefs are not ambiguous. But, please tell this to Mr. Wae. He has taken it upon himself to delete my material that I presented yesterday. --Gbdill 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

For the most part I will stay out of this. However, I'm with JimWae on this one: PRESENT SOME EVIDENCE, PLEASE! --Sparkhurst 19:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence has been provided. Please see article. --Gbdill 19:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence? It seems like biased Xian-revisonist fluff. While you claim you wish for both sides to be presented, the changes you continue to make to the section would suggest otherwise. --Sparkhurst 19:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe a Wikipedia administrator should mediate this issue. What is the process? --Gbdill 19:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You can add your evidence and material but don't delete others' in the process. That's vandalism. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you are speaking to me "gbdill" then that is exactly what I did yesterday. I simply added material not delete. However, Mr. Wae has done otherwise. --Gbdill 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Due to Mr. Sparkhurt's and Wae's obvious anti-Christian rhetoric, I no longer will debate this issue with you. I will hand it over to Wikipedia administrators. --Gbdill 19:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well, then. However, you may not be able to do much, you have broken the 3RR rule. Aaрон Кинни (t) 19:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Then I guess we all have violated this rule today, haven't we? --Gbdill 20:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Just you I believe. Reversions of vandalism do not count, anyway --JimWae 20:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Gbdill, I am by no means anti-Christian, sir and I resent being labeled as such by you. Those who are anti-non-Christian never really care to entertain the notion that Washington may have been a deist. Instead, they cite hagiographies written by those seeking to convince others he was a pious Christian rather than analyze the evidence in an intellectually honest manner. The extent of Washington's religious views are a mystery. He never stated them yet you claim to know. So I might point out one more thing, I noticed you took offense to the religious pluralism paragraph. I find it fitting that you deemed it unsuitable and what a pity. The world would benefit tenfold if more people took it to heart. --Sparkhurst 19:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Never once did I "label" you as anti-Christian. I simply stated that you have posted anti-Christian rhetoric (i.e. your comment about Xtian revisionist fluff). Do you often twist and distort people's words or is that your typical repsonse to anyone who disagrees with your world views?--Gbdill 20:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--Gbdill 20:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

--- I see that Wikipedia has become an online encyclopedia provided ONLY by certain individuals with certain beliefs. It is a very one-sided and biased op-ed piece that sides with only liberal and humanist viewpoints. --Gbdill 20:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a liberal. I could go on a little diatribe, but I won't. What is the point? You won't bother listening and you'll simply continue to insert your POV into the section. It is a wonder you haven't been banned yet. --Sparkhurst 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Banning those that disagree with your viewpoint... sounds a little reminscient of COMMUNISM.--Gbdill 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• • You will be banned for your behaviour (3 RR & vandalism), not for your viewpoint - which if you could support, perhaps you would not need to resort to vandalism --JimWae 20:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jim is right. If you only added your note about that church, with a proper source, no one would have a problem. It is your removal of other material, which is sourced, in addition to your insertion of POV material such as the "rise of atheism" and editorializing that "to say Washington was a deist is false", which are not acceptable. Please refer to WP:NOR and WP:V. All claims must be sourced, especially so the most broad and sweeping claims. Kasreyn 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU guys are complete morons. Wikipedia is so liberal in their views it's obvious. I just did a search on "Wikipedia liberal bias" and the number of results were staggering. Go ahead and ban me, twist the truth and do what all liberals do... make up crap!--Gbdill 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, a search on "George Bush liberal bias" turns up over 6 million articles, about 11 times more than "Wikipedia liberal bias". I'm not sure google hits on a phrase really mean that much. Sam 19:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Um, politicians are supposed to be bias, not encyclopedias.

Stephen Colbert once said, "Reality has a well known liberal bias." Though I don't necessarily agree with this, I think it is people like you who manage to give it some credence. Boy, I can't wait for Godwin's Law to take effect! --Sparkhurst 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I think we might be looking at a new all-time speed record for exhausting the community's patience blocks. (Not to mention WP:CIVIL) Anyone have an egg timer handy? Kasreyn 10:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Gbdill is vandalizing the article again as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=207.67.145.219 --JimWae 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm. Don't see where he has vandalized anything. Please elaborate. Woeman 18:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jim - removing information AND a supporting citation because it does not agree with your POV is vandalism. Continuing to revert an article when multiple editors are engaged in a discussion of that article is contrary to how we work here at Wikipedia. If nothing else, the current one-sided revert war shows that the views held by Gbdill and the anonymous editor do not reflect the consensus opinion. --ElKevbo 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps both sides should be equally provided. Prior to Gbdill's edits it was seemingly pro-deist with a slight bias to it. Instead of deleting either sides perhaps both should be kept in. Afterall, a concensus approval does not mean the facts are correct or incorrect. Woeman 19:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, please spare us the POV rhetoric! Gbdill's data is no more/less POV than JimWae. Gbdill cites many references and sources to support his claims. Instead of defaulting to the POV rhetoric, why don't you just admit to a pro-deist/liberal bias? Woeman 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please desist from labeling other editors and assume good faith on the part of other editors. --ElKevbo 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• • That should also include YOU. Please keep that in mind. Woeman 21:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If ElKevbo accuses you of bias, I will be the first to warn him to be civil. As far as I can see, you are the one being incivil. Kasreyn 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You guys are so blatantly liberal and bias it's pathetic. Both Gbdill and myself have provided ample evidence citing many references to Washington's strong faith in Christ and yet you have chosen to strike the information in order to suit your atheist ideaologies. Neither Washington or any of the other founding fathers were Deists save perhaps Jefferson and Adams. The liberal/atheist POV is so prevelant throughout this Wikipedia that it sickens me. Like Gbdill said earlier, next you will be claiming Jesus was a Deist. If you truly want to make Wikipedia a reliable source then you MUST remove your bias judgement and candidly look at the facts. Otherwise, Wikipedia will be yet just another forum for people to voice their opinions and ideas. It won't be long before Wikipedia will become a glorified blog. Woeman 22:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that the current entry into Washington's religious beliefs are totally based off of a few biased resources and are not confirmed. Even if they are, where is the other side of the issue presented? It's too one-sided. Where are the facts that Gbdill has cited numerous times? --70.249.155.89 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite (against my better judgment). You're both welcome to add well-cited, verifiable information supporting a claim that Washington was...well, anything, including Christian or some specific sect or branch of Christianity. What is objectionable about your actions (nevermind your words) is that you have been removing other information that is also well-sourced.

By the way, your arguments may be taken more seriously if you were to register an account. And WoeMan - please stop "signing" your statements with a non-existent username. I'm not sure that it's a violation of Wikipedia policy but it's certainly not very conducive to honest and collegial relations with other Wikipedia editors. --ElKevbo 02:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have now simply added sorced material and have not deleted anything that is unsourced. Please except this information.--Gbdill 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Unconstitutional laws during Washington's presidency?

Were any laws made under the presidenticy (sorry for my infamously poor spelling) of George Washington ruled unconstitutional?

Hi. No such thing was possible during Washington's presidency because the SCOTUS (Supreme Court) did not have that power at the time. The SCOTUS's power of review of constitutionality over the law was essentially assumed after Marbury_v._Madison, 1803, which was during the Thomas Jefferson presidency. Marbury is the essential case upon which the SCOTUS's review power was based. So, the answer is, no, there were no laws ruled unconstitutional during the Washington and Adams presidencies (at least; there are likely many other presidencies where no such thing happened). Hope this helps! Kasreyn 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gbdill and 70.249.155.89's edits

The above discussion was becoming rather hard to follow, so I'm starting this section.

Allow me to explain precisely why I support ElKevbo's take on this issue, and why I will be reverting as needed. I will note all WP policies violated, which so far is most of them.

1. Failure to use edit summaries. Gbdill and 70.249.155.89 (assuming they are different people) do not explain significant changes with an edit summary, and fail to engage in real substantive debate on the talk page. This shows a lack of faith in their fellow editors or any desire to behave in a collegial manner; see WP:CIVIL.
2. Constant name-calling and accusations of bias. Such comments serve no purpose and disrupt the project. Ad hominem attacks do not prove anything about the substantive issues under discussion here. See WP:AGF, WP:NPA. It's especially ridiculous to accuse ElKevbo of "liberal" bias, given the great amount of work I've seen him do keeping the article on George W. Bush NPOV and properly sourced.
3. Blanking a large section of the article without consensus merely because it is under dispute. A {{disputed}} tag is a more appropriate solution. Removing content in this way is likely a violation of WP:POINT as well as WP:VANDalism.
4. Extensive revert-warring by Gbdill on 7/4/06 constitutes violation of WP:3RR. Complete refusal to moderate his edits, synthesize them with others' work, or in any other way show the slightest willingness to compromise only worsen the severity of this. It is rapidly becoming apparent that Gbdill will not be satisfied with anything except WP:OWNership of the religious beliefs section of this article.

If these editors can bring themselves to discuss their changes with others, they would see that their additions, if properly sourced, would be gladly added. Their refusal to admit that their reversions also remove sourced content does not change the reality that their edits have not helped the project. Kasreyn 02:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)