Jump to content

Talk:George Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.78.183.133 (talk) at 21:07, 4 October 2007 (→‎Unconstitutional laws during Washington's presidency?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleGeorge Washington has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 21, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Template:WP1.0

Templates

Peer review and collaboration

Template:USold Template:PastACID

Notices

Template:FAOL

To do

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

Somebody needs to fix the birthdate on Washington from 1932 to 1732!

At the end of early life it says that his wife told barbra walters that he was a feminine man in 1999!!! totally wrong

Archives

  • Talk:George Washington/Archive 1 George Washington was a self centered jerk who loved to tease little children. He would lure them into his house and cut them up and eat them. Nasty, right? I know.... it sickens me so so sos os sos sos sos so much. in fact, it discusts me... He was such a freak... omg....FREAKY...

68.73.84.89 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 179068.73.84.89 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later in 1790, he published a letter written to Jewish leaders in which he envisioned a country "which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance . . . May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." <r e f>Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, 1790 [1]. This letter may have been ghostwritten by Thomas Jefferson, Ellis, p. 195.</ r e f>

Regarding the removal of the above - we can surely say he didn't signed it - and there is an easy way to tell if he wrote it - was it his handwriting? No evidence has ever been provided that TJ wrote it - and a quick Internet search also turned up no such evidence. Perhaps that is what needs to go. --JimWae 07:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ellis in the footnote now - a footnote to a footnote seems to be needed - do we have a quote? --JimWae 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis says "there is considerable evidence that Madison wrote it." (BTW, this highlights the problem with Wikipedians selecting original quotes without having seen them analyzed in scholarly secondary works — as amateur historians, we haven't done the huge amount of reading necessary to properly evaluate published primary sources. When a footnote needs a footnote, it's a sign that there's more to the story than the original maker of the footnote realized.)
Nevertheless, Washington published the Newport Letter under his name, and so it reflects his sentiments. (Ellis calls it "the most uncompromising endorsement" of religious freedom Washington ever made.) It doesn't matter who actually wrote it, since many presidents have used writers. Technically, the Farewell Address was ghostwritten by Madison and Hamilton, [poop but we wouldn't delete it from this article for that reason. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, has Ellis seen the hand-written original? Is it GW's writing? What evidence (other than it being somewhat outspoken [like TJ] rather than reticent [like GW]) does he have? Is someone suggesting that TJ dictated the words for GW to write? http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=200&parent=60 --JimWae 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't say im sorry i had 274664 babys in your bed what is true is the "considerable evidence" is, although his footnote is the Washington Papers series, which perhaps has some editorial notes which go into more detail. For our purposes, it doesn't matter. We don't evaluate the work of published, credible historians here; we just report what they say. Unless we can cite other published, credible historians who have doubted Ellis or have expressed a different opinion, as far as we are concerned Ellis is the infallible voice of God. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 22:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a source that contradicts Ellis. The considerable evidence is NOT that TJ wrote it, rather ... http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/hebrew/reply.html --JimWae 01:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Truth be told, I wasn't really interested in this -- but now I am. Now I do wonder what Ellis's so-called "considerable evidence" is. The link you give cites as support the work historians from half a century ago (Freeman and Boyd), so I wonder if Ellis has more recent sholarship in mind. Maybe somebody here knows more. Regardless, mention of the letter clearly belongs in the article (it shouldn't have been removed in the first place), with probably a brief statement in the footnote about the disputed authorship. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 06:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, no Judicial Review at that time. Well, put and thoughtful answer Kas. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty lazy answer. After Washington's presidency ended, some laws did not pass during it were ruled unconstitutional. Marbury_v._Madison ruled section 13 of the Judiciary Act 1789 unconstitutional. Richard75 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act 1789 was the only law enacted during Washington's presidency to be declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not declare another law unconstitutional until it invalidated the Missouri Compromise in the Dred Scott Case. In the 20th Century, however, the Supreme Court did find that the Alien and Sedition Acts (enacted during the Adams administration) violated the Constitution, but by those enactments had long since ceased to be law. Dwp2000 04:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington has a small bird

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: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)[reply]

== was inventor of popcorn

Germany did actually have minor participation in the American Revolution. Baron Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian General (Prussia being the political entity that became the German empire in the late 19th century), helped train the Continental army and served as an advisor to Washington.

schooling

John Fitzpatrick, in Dictionary of American Biography, Volume 11 (1936) says "During this period George Washington received the major part of his school training, which totaled seven or eight years. His father and his elder half-brother Lawrence seem to have been his principal, if not his only teachers."

Can someone with the appropriate bibliographic information please add this source as a footnote as noted in the To-do list? That would prevent this confusion from happening in the future. --ElKevbo 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last Will and Testament of George Washington

We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of George Washington's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of George Washington. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to George Washington's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of George Washington. to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Thank you! I'm sure this will prove useful. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)jjgkgfkgnf George Washington Dies in 1968. He was the class clown. George always disruppted class. And yes i am taling about the president George Harrison Samuel Jeffery Washington.[reply]

Religious beliefs / Letter to Mason

the Failed verification tag. --studerby 05:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Buckland Loves Men

That particular article is an argument for religion in gov't & once AGAIN it is NOT a reliable interpreter of GW's thoughts. His letter does NOT support taxing to support religion - he merely says he is not among those so alarmed by the bill that would do so - AND he does say it would be better (less political) to have the bill die unpassed. --JimWae 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Nothing from that article can be taken at face value - it is a source of opinions about GW & a polemic for a POV - it cannot be taken as a reliable source of factual statements. Anything that comes from there should be prefaced with "according to the author(s) of this article" --JimWae 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. After finding the scan of the letter, I didn't read it (had to download it and manipulate the image to make my tired eyes). Reading it, I find the LOC text around the quote on their website to be subtly but significantly distortive of the plain meaning of the text of the letter. --studerby 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Wae you are right, however I dont think you are applying the same standard to the links that you provide. You want a disclaimer listed "According to the authors of this article" yet the opinions of authors from diesm.com is ok? I removed the header in religious views for a variety of reasons:

1- Diesm.com is not the best encyclopedic source. 2- Its definitely POV. 3- Its takes away from the content quality of the article. Do not tell the reader "There was information indicating that Washington was a deist" SHOW THE READER THE INFORMATION IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE.

Please do not reinstate that POV (positive or violated) boner. But if you want to add the information in the body of the article with sources please do so and I will not touch it. Otherwise I commend you for your quality work.

71.131.234.230 05:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not put that link in the though I do think a summary might be achievable along the lines of: "Raised a Christian, there is evidence that in later life GW's beliefs were closer to deism. Washington chose his words carefully regarding religion, and never publicly espoused either Christianity nor Deism"
  • The word principle is not in the letter & he never says he does not oppose it - in fact he expresses the wish the assessment bill had never been "agitated" --JimWae 06:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do not think that I am being rude with my capitalized words. I have just found that if you are not clear with people on wikipedia they don’t listen which gets very annoying. I understand your reasoning and on most articles I would agree but I do not feel that for Washington's religious views a summary is good given that it is an important topic and should be explained in detail. I don’t think it would adequately address the questions readers have and they should know specifically why he had certain views and we should do our best to provide the necessary information. Historians are not immune to POV so I think its best just to present the important information and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Washington is just too important to have a biographer summarize his views with one or two sentences. I certainly don’t think it will hurt the article to add more info. But I do agree with you that we should try to keep it short if we can. Also I will have to request a manuscript of the letter to George Mason so we can all accurately review it.

71.131.234.230 06:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to the manuscript image is in the article. He does not express support for the bill, not even in principle. He writes that he is "not amongst the number of those who are so much alarmed at the thought of making people pay to support that which they profess". He then expresses the wish that the assessment bill had never been "agitated". To say he supported the bill is a bad misreading of the letter. He is telling Mason not to expect him (GW) to be amongst those fighting the bill, but also makes it clear he will not support it. In truth, what the Library of Congress site now says is a misreading that appears to be slanted propaganda. Why are tax dollars going to pay for this propaganda? --JimWae 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The steepness of the slant makes the entire LOC article a very poor choice for use as a reference - In keeping withsource material & less commentary by "historian"s, we need to reference his Farewell Address rather than that piece of ... --JimWae 07:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Washington's religious views are a matter of some controversy. Raised a Christian, there is considerable evidence indicating that in his later years his views became more deistic - believing (like numerous men of his era) in God but not believing in revelation or miracles.
FYI, User:71.131.234.230 is a sockpuppet of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. -Will Beback 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deism is now restored to the infobox. BCorr|Брайен 12:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion, Morality, and Virtue in Farewell Address

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desertlet us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the
The idea that Washington was a major thinker on questions of religion, morality and society will not hold water. He held the conventional belief that religion and morality were good for a society--nothing very profound there. So there's not much reason to pay close attention to these beliefs--which are much closer to secularism in 2006 than to evangelicalism. He did not seem to believe in a personal God who answers prayers and the like. Rjensen 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that people have such a problem with the Founding Fathers showing any hint of a belief in God? Rjensen, you obviously ackgovernment. But you fail to see all that his statements ecompasses. Why would Washington have made such a statement in the first place? Think about it. He stated that one cannot expect that national morality can prevail without religion. From everything the founders wrote, you can see that they worried about a tyrannical government taking over in America in some future period; this was one of their greatest fears. They treated all religions equally in that they did not want one to take a strangle hold of all other religions and then use their power to form another tyrannical government the founders were so keenly aware of. In order to prevent this, national morality would be necessary, meaning, a general moral behavior among the people of America as well as its elected leaders. Morality would be essential in electing honest leaders and only honest, moral, educated, and upright citizens can elect the moral leaders necessary in preserving an American republic. This is why the Founding Fathers always mentioned religion and education in their writing yet carefully and purposefully excluded an endorsment of any one religion. This exclusion did not mean that they were Atheists are antagonistic towards religion in general! The easiest argument to support would be that they very much disliked secularism, humanism, and atheism as we know them today. All the Founders always looked favorably on religion as can easily be proven through many quotes. Again, recall they were trying to setup the most effective government that would prevent any tyranny to take over, including a significant enough to prevent a tyranny from arising in America's future? Only by and through religion, for "reason and experience both forbid us to expect" otherwise. This is what he was saying (and this is what all the Founders were trying to accomplish when they framed the new government). Yet so many Atheistic humanists, and other secularists, care more about whether or not Washington and Jefferson fathered the child of a slave!!! (Just look at the related section on this Talk Page) Or whether Benjamin Franklin was a playboy!! Why don't you get involved in that discussion to prevent such undocumented rumors from being posted on this article, Rjensen. Even the would-be-writers of such VILE TRASH are unsure if this can be proven. Yet Washington's view of religion as beneficial and necessary to government is clearly proven and is completely documented. Why do you people get off on degrading such important historical figures?! Why is the American public, and Western culture in general, so enticed by social deviancy?! Why is everyone attacking morality and religious principles? That is the aim of Socialism; with religion out of the way, the government is then the only thing left to take the place of the Omnipotent and then, tyrannical government is inevitable. The Founding Fathers knew this. That's why they tried to limit governmental powers and persuaded the the public to be moral and pious. It is just like Patrick Henry said, "It is when people September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite telling dear Gaytan that the only quote you can muster in support of your hackneyed argument comes from Patrick Henry a man who did not support the signing of the Constitution and would "very much dislike" our goverment today. Adams said that everywhere Christianity had taken the reigns of power only "sorrow has prevailed." Jefferson rewrote the Bible, deleting all mysticism and morality he didn't agree with. Franklin's deism or atheism was decried by religious leaders of the day. It is in point of fact difficult to find a single one of the Founders we commonly talk about who had anything at all good to say about religion, even when (as in Washington's case) they didn't have anything particulary bad to say about it. Less Pat Roberton more actual history for you young man! --Anymouse

Anymouse? Is that supposed to say "anonymous" or is that your Internet nickname? Whatever the case may be, though I may be young, I am a defender of America, for what she stands for, and for all that she was meant to be. Yes, Patrick Henry didn't agree with many of the other Founding Fathers, but they did agree on the importance of religion in general. Now for all of you anti-religious, humanist-pushing, left leaners, you always have to assume that when I say RELIGION I am implying CHRISTIANITY or some Evangelical position. That is not what I am saying. Anymouse obviously did not read what I posted above closely enough... The Founding Fathers rarely promoted any one religion due to their fear that later generations would use one religion to form a dictatorship in America later. That ior Jesus Himself. While I may be Christian, I am not implying that all the Founders were as well. My point is this: the Founders were, overall, men with a strong belief in God (w www.playboy.com hich God that is ranges from the many Gods professed by Benjamin Franklin to the Christian God professed by John Adams), love of country, family, and their fellow man, and in one form or another, showed daily devotion to THEIR God. Franklin believed in prayer, contrary to most strict deists. Jefferson loved most of what Jesus stood for but admittedly removed all miracles from the version of the Bible he wrote. Adams was openly religious but was very critical of the organized Christianity of history. Most of the Founding Fathers were raised in very religious homes. Taking all of this into consideration, it is impossible to subscribe to the idea that these men were equivalent to today's Atheist. While they may not have been orthodox Christians, they were men who had a deep respect for God and agreed that religion in general was good for society. Franklin criticized Thomas Paine for "strik[ing] at the foundations of all religion" and stated, "If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it." All the Founding Fathers viewed general religion positively yet they were disgusted by the horrors committed by organized religion. Do not use this as part of you bag of tricks to call them Atheist or Deists. This is simply dishonest. And for your information, Anymouse or anonymous (whoever you are), Pat Robertson is the not on my list of role models. Next time, please sign your comment so that your comments can be that much more credible. (Gaytan 17:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There ought to be mentioned in the article the speculation that George Washington converted to Catholicism on his death bed. There was a Jesuit missionary station across the Potomac and Wasghington often attended Mass when he was in Philadelphia. An internet reference to this speculation can be found on this website: (Todemo edited out this link blacklisted for spam). Please consider this. It would be wonderful if somebody could investigate this in a more scholarly manner. Posted Nov. 22, 2006.

George Washington fathered a slave child?

http://www.westfordlegacy.com/ http://hnn.us/articles/10827.html

It is not proven but there is some (strong?) indication. Maybe like Jefferson? I think it should be mentioned in the article. Since I am not a native speaker I would be glad if someone could put it in!

There was no DNA testing done so there is no scientific proof. It may or may not be true, but that's not for us to speculate. Personally, I don't think it should be mentioned in the article, but I understand that other people will probably conflict with my views (at least, I think so). If we were to include that information, what resources would we cite? Some woman's book that could possibly not be true? --Nishkid64 21:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone certainly could and should write an article on Washington's possible fathering of West Ford. Wiencek's book An Imperfect God also discusses the issue. (IIRC, he doesn't believe there's good evidence that Washington was Ford's father.) Unlike the Sally Hemings controversy, apparently few if any authorities believe the story is true, which should be made clear in the article. The story is too tangential to include in the main article on Washington — there's not enough room in one article to discuss everything — but an article on West Ford should be placed in Category:George Washington, where those interested in reading everything Wikipedia has relating to Washington will be able to find it. • Kevin (complaints?) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the story was passed down over 7 generations of Ford's descendants, and never written down or accompanied by any evidence. If true it would be one of the very few oral traditions that proved accurate over 200+ years--a remarkable event in its own right, especially since there is always a strong tendency of people to embelish their connections with the famous. Rjensen 01:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth. --ElKevbo 02:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read several biographies of GW and many scholars feel that he was probably infertile. He did not father any children with Martha. The scholarly speculation is that this was a result of an illness in his youth. --rogerd 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's presently covered in the Wikipedia article on George Washington. I'd provide you with a link, but you can probably find it from here. ;-) • Kevin (complaints?) 13:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His death

I've read several books on Washington and I've seen many conflicting views as to what he died from.

On Wikipedia it said he got a sore throat and cold which later progressed to something more severe that led to his death. In many book sources, I've read that he got a cold and quinsy, something similar to tonsilitis, but not the same as a sore throat.

At the current time, I changed: In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a sore throat that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia

to...

In 1799, Washington fell ill from a bad cold with a fever and a throat infection called quinsy that turned into acute laryngitis and pneumonia

Even if you go on the article on quinsy on Wikipedia, it will tell you that Washington indeed had quinsy in the days before his death. The website it cites, [2], says that he died of quinsy. It seems there are so many conflicting views here. What do you guys personally think should be done?

All these sources are giving different reasons for his death, and I'm not sure what everyone thinks about it.

--Nishkid64 15:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington did not die of quinsy. You may interpret this because he has the sickness when he passed, but in fact the doctors treating him cut his jugular in his neck to stop the swelling and to let him breathe. They day George died, this procedure was done 4 times. The first Presiden of the United States of America was killed by his doctors and bled to death

WP:AID votes

George Washington (36 votes, stays until September 7)

Nominated July 6, 2006; needs at least 40 votes by September 14, 2006
Support
  1. this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leaders100 23:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maurreen 06:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Crna Gora 17:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Will.i.am 23:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PDXblazers 03:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Davodd 06:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Duran 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Casey14 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. YankeeDoodle14 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Crazysunshine 09:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. x1987x(talk) 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. eric 21:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Chrisrivers 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. plange 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. BalfourCentre 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Draicone (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. C-squared 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --TransNique 02:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kaldari 04:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. GGreeneVa 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kafziel 18:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Nishkid64 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. JColgan 20:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Lukobe 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Durova 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kaobear 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. andrew 21:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Clay 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. mirageinred 21:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ClockworkSoul 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Spongesquid 17:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. HereToHelp 14:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Votes
  1. Casey14 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User already voted for this nomination (#9 above). –Dvandersluis 21:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

State of the Union addresses

Per the item listed in the To-do about potential conversions of certain lists into prose paragraphs, I scrolled through and found a list of wikilinks on GW's State of the Union speeches. We only have articles on two of them. So, do we want to keep the list as is, with only the two bluelinks and the rest red, write stubs on the others, black the others, or convert the list into a prose paragraph with "See also"s at the top directing readers to the articles on the two speeches that we do have? -Fsotrain09 17:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myths and Misconceptions

Is this encyclopedic? To me, this section is an awful lot like those troublesome trivia sections. If all concur, I vote to remove this section. PDXblazers 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll start incorporating some of the information there into other section. --YankeeDoodle14 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't really find a way to get the information in other places, it'd probably be best just to remove the section. --YankeeDoodle14 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mistake to remove the information because the mythology of George Washington is an important topic in its own right. Instead, the bullet points should be converted into a paragraph about Washington myths and placed in the "Legacy" section. • Kevin (complaints?) 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either just keep it right where it is or else give it its own article.Richard75 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style

Can we discuss which citation style is more appropriate? I'm thinking CMS is more appropriate for history articles, since it's not based on scholarly papers only that have hard and well-known author/date sets. Harvard style is best for scientific articles.... plange 03:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

anyone? plange 14:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard works for me. Rjensen 14:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state why using a scientific style works best for a historical article? Especially one mixed with web references and the like? CMS style seems the best style and most used for historical articles on WP when dealing with references from multiple media. --plange 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a history journal, merely an encyclopedia. Harvard is somewhat better, in my opinion, because it is anchored in the bibliography, where full book details can be given. That I think is more useful to users, esp for longer articles like this one. Rjensen 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? So is CMS (anchored in bibliography).... See an example of what I mean here... How would you handle web references with Harvard citations? --plange 18:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CMS uses short titles after the first footnote entry, and for me it's a pain in history journals to find that first reference. I would have it something like this:
  1. Kegley and Kegley 1:117
  2. Virkus, 887.
  3. Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, III, 309.
  4. Kegley and Kegley 1:91
  5. Summers, 108-109.
  6. Kegley, , 401. Rjensen 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
? You find it easier to find Kegley and Kegley, than when the name of the book is used too? Doesn't make sense to me, but also you haven't answered how you'd handle web refs in Harvard style... --plange 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Is there a difference in web refs between Harvard and Chicago? Rjensen 18:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually think you could use web refs in Harvard -- hard to concisely fit a whole web ref in round brackets at the end of the paragraph... Also, does anyone else have an opinion on this? Hard to reach a consensus with only 2 people :-). --plange 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) - can some others weigh in - hard to reach a consensus when split 50-50 :-) Our AID window is closing and I'd like to tackle this... --plange 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm afraid that this won't be too useful) Citations are a mess in Wikipedia and until we come to a general consensus (which will never happen - it will have to be imposed and I don't think that would work well, either) I don't care what format an article uses as long as it (a) allows readers to quickly and easily identify the source(s) used and where information came from (particularly page numbers for printed books) and (b) used consistently. The references in this particular article are messy (now that I really look at them) with some of it in the References section and some of it in the Notes section. --ElKevbo 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My thinking is, that since it started out apparently as CMS, we should keep to the status quo for it and clean them up... --plange 23:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Length

This article is about 70 KB. Does anyone else think it's too long? Maurreen 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the opening summary a bit. Many people only read this part and it has to be comprehensive. Rjensen 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington is the most important person in U.S. history and so this article will always be on the lengthy side because there's much to cover. Several sections in the article do lend themselves to "spinout" articles, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. I wrote the slavery section and could easily spin out that section and leave a short summary here. George Washington and religion could be spun out as well, taking care to leave a NPOV summary here so as not to appear to be burying the controversy in another article.

How many other sections should be spun out? The first four sections of the article (Early life, French and Indian War, Between the wars, American Revolution) are, as of now, primarily my writing and I could spin them out and extend them elsewhere, e.g. George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, etc., which would be nice because there are other interesting or important details which are not covered here because of space limitations. Others who have studied Washington's presidency more than I might be knowledgeable enough to know the best way, if necessary, to spin out sections on his presidency. • Kevin (complaints?) 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think one or both of these suggested daughter articles should be created. --Fsotrain09 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I spun out George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, and George Washington and religion. Will see about shortening those sections and spinning out George Washington between the wars. Maurreen 23:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone who knows more than I do could trim the section on the French and Indian War. Maurreen 23:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try trimming down the section on the French and Indian War. At the moment, the article is 68 KB, but still seems too long as a whole. --Nishkid64 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the early life a bit. The article is not too long--readers expect suitable coverage of one of the most important people in the history of the Americas. Rjensen 02:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess someone else decided to trim down the French and Indian War section. The article is now 54 KB long. --Nishkid64 17:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning out sections helps reduce the length of the article, but this comes with a major drawback, which we're already seeing here. Namely, some people will not understand that this article contains short summaries of other articles (the spun out articles), and that they should add additional details to the other articles instead of here, and only adjust the summary here as the spun out articles develop. This creates lots of work for editors who should make sure that all of the related articles are kept in harmony. If you watch this page, be sure to move added details to the spun out articles as needed and try to instruct editors about how the process works. Good luck. • Kevin (complaints?) 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the George Washington article be featured as the first in a featured series of articles about him, i.e., the ones in the "George Washington" sidebar. He is important enough for this. "Spin out ALL of the articles of the sidebar. They would remain. The "George Washington" article would be reduced to, at most, a 3-5 paragraph "notable importance/accomplishments" summary and the redirects to those articles in the series. Everything from the Table of Contents and below would be removed and placed into the proper articles. The "George Washington" article's sidebar could be retitled "This is the first in a series of articles about George Washington". The new sidebar title could then be copied and pasted over the sidebar title in each article of the series, exchanging the word "first" in the new sidebar title to "second" (for the second article), "third" (for the third article), etc. Each article would carry it's own relavent data on him and allowed to expand. Each article's sidebar could be placed at the top center of it's article, along with a photo. Also, list the series as a new category of featured series, so the series could retain featured status. Comments?robertjohnsonrj 00:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth 1732 in introduction, 1731 in main text.

Opening summary

Should we shorten the opening summary any more than it had been? Right now, though not as long as it was, it still seems a bit crammed with info. For the summary we should probably try to simply get a few things about:

  • His leadership as commander-in-chief during the Revolution
  • His role as president of both the Constitutional Convention and first president of the nation.
  • His importance in American culture.

However for the sake of space we may want to remove such things as the Frech and Indian War details, his motivations behind some things, and other excessive details which are already mentioned elsewhere. --YankeeDoodle14 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason to "save space" in the summary, which is very concise and tightly written. Rjensen 19:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just a suggestion. --YankeeDoodle14 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this:

George Washington (February 22, 1732December 14, 1799) commanded America's war for independence (1775–1783), and was the first President of the United States (1789-1797).

Washington was a <rank> in the French and Indian War (1754–1763). In XXXX the Second Continental Congress chose him as commander-in-chief of the American forces in the American War of Independence. After the war he retired to his tobacco plantation, coming back into public life in 1787 to preside over the Constitutional Convention that re-drafted the United States Constitution. During his two term presidency he built a new system of govenment, moved the U.S. onto the world stage, before retiring once more to his planation in XXX

He became a symbol of the U.S. and is often called the "Father of his Country."

(wihtout the spelling [or other] mistakes of course)Rich Farmbrough, 11:19 4 September 2006 (GMT).

I would be interested to know if the phrase "Father of his Country" is accurate reportage. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22 4 September 2006 (GMT).

He is considered one of the "founding fathers" of the United States, not the "Father of his Country."

Freemason?

Was George Washington not a member of the freemasons? In fact, I'm pretty sure he was, and that so being, his religious beliefs were more inclined to those of the masons, and not the church of england. or other protestant faiths. It seems like Washington...along with many others...is getting an image makeover courtesty of a few religious conservatives. Anyways...it just seems ironic that there is a large section on his religious beliefs yet no mention of hte fact that he was a freemason. And then at the end of the article there is a tiny link provided on Freemasonry.

He was a member of the Freemasons. The problem with mentioning it more clearly in the article is that his own beliefs, as per Flexner, were what would today be called deistic, which is not the connotation the word has today. And the article is already too long to make the added length resulting from clarification problematic. When the article is "downsized" enough, then there will be the room required to clarify this issue. But, as it stands, simple inclusion of his membership in the Freemasons, without clarification, might be more misleading than the "benign neglect" Freemasonry currently suffers in the article. Badbilltucker 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Washington was a member of the freemasons. Almost every founding father you can think of was a member. As well as almost every president to date! From washington to trueman. But to the point, when the first brick of the capitol was layed, washington himself performed a freemason ritual.

Merge [George Washington's presidency] to here

The George Washington's presidency article just duplicates a lot of material that already exists on this page, in fact the person who created it admits that they just cut and paste a whole chunk of text from this article. Instead it would make more sense to add the extra material to this article, which is how the articles for other presidents are done. Richard75 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

washington's birthday

birthday / calendar concern

i am not sure where to add something i learned today... now, i have copied and pasted some information from: http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/washington/

"George Washington's Birthday is celebrated as a federal holiday on the third Monday in February. It is one of eleven permanent holidays established by Congress." ....... "George Washington was born in Virginia on February 11, 1731, according to the then-used Julian calendar. In 1752, however, Britain and all its colonies adopted the Gregorian calendar, which moved the calendar ahead 11 days and made January the first month of the year instead of March. The new calendar placed Washington's birth on February 22, 1732."

no birthday mention of the gregorian/ julian calendar stipulation ... so this is a lot of information i have found and i know it does tie into this page factually, but i do have issues with staying connected in my points so i don't quite know how to include it?

HELP?

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday <-- also no mention of the julian/gregorian calendar change and how it affects the date of washington's birthday as we know it...

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential salary

This article states that GW refused his salary. While it is true that he tried to do so, Congress insisted he take it and he relented. It would have set a dangerous precedent had he not been paid. The framers did not want future presidents to come from only the pool of citizenry that could afford to do the work without pay. See http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/faq/govern.html for confirmation. Cbsteven 16:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC) cbsteven 10/26/2006[reply]

At that time Washington was already a very wealthy man after marrying the widow of one of the wealthiest men in the colonies. the opening salary was 25,ooo dollars. it would be interseting to see how much that compares to todays presidential salary

72.49.147.129kc_bucks72.49.147.129

Semi-protection requested

Just a quick note to let ya'll know that I've requested this article be semi-protected. A quick glance at the history shows that we're spending most of our time reverting vandalism, particularly from anonymous editors. --ElKevbo 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to me (or anyone else) requesting this page be unprotected? It's been semi-protected for over a week now and I'd like to see if we can unprotect it without placing too much of a burden on editors to keep track of and revert vandalism. --ElKevbo 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

Some fascinating facts about his ancestry:

Lawrence Washington (1602-1655)

Worth a link ?

Wikigreetings,

(Lunarian 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

First President

It should be noted that Washington is officially recorded as the first president of the United States. Prior to the passage of the United States Constitution, the name of the similar office was President of the Continental Congress. Badbilltucker 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious request for a cite on this? The numbering of our presidents is based on this, and is something every American schoolkid knows. Am I missing something? --plange 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was just responding to a note on the page's history about someone evidently disputing GW's status as the first President. Badbilltucker 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I knew you weren't asking for it and that you were responding to it, I was just adding my voice to wondering why that person added the cite, sorry I was unclear :-) --plange 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited a comment to note that Samuel Huntington was the first President of the United States (title was "President of the United States in Congress Assembled") but the GW is widely regarded as the First President of the U.S. as he was elected under the current constitution. The edit is made only for accuracy but is donewith great deference to Mr. Washington and tries not to diminish his legacy.Dereks1x 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the title was not really the same, nor was the office the same. The president of the US in Congress Assembled was a position much more like Speaker of the House than like POTUS. SOme comment on this in article is merited - but not at top of that section - and it needs to be made clearer that both the title & the office differed --JimWae 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's added to the bottomDereks1x 02:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) No reliable source calls Huntington the President of the United States because he never held that position. Let's not try to mislead readers Rjensen 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia mentions Huntington as the first President, look at all the links. However, I've relocated the passage to the very end of the article and even made an explanation that President Huntington office was somewhat different in that it could cast the tie breaking vote. (See how history is based on a solid foundation; they should have called Washington the 11th president but once inaccuracies begin, it's hard to change 200 years of history so we're not going to try! Just note it at the end under myths and misconceptions.Dereks1x 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Bridge

Would it be acceptable to add the George Washington Bridge under "Monuments/Memorials." It is a pretty major structure to be named after and thus should probably be noted.

In my opinion, no. It is listed in List of places named for George Washington, which is referenced in this article. Yes, it is a major landmark, but so are many others. --rogerd 18:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


An interesting fact is that George Washington did not really have wooden teeth. They were actually made of hippos and elephant teeth.

Question

Question.Why did george washington join the patriots? Djf2014 18:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because he was tired of the english military. Even though it was his ambition, after being a part of the british military, he hated it. Everyone looked down on him because he was from the colonies.

I have a trivia ? for all of you american history buffs What play was being performed by the english general Borgoyne, while the american were attacking charlestown, during the battle of boston????

kc_bucks

King Washington

Maybe the King stuff should be addressed in the Myths section. I remember hearing in school that there was support for making Washington the King of the US and he refused. It does sound like a myth. Was there really an effort to make him king? --Gbleem 01:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


There waz an effort to make him king its just he turned it all down because he believed it waznt wat the country had been fighting for in the past war. it is though a fact and not a myth. ~~spaz33~~ 9:04, 3 January 2007

Yes of course there was a movement supporting "King George" (not to be confused with crazy george in england!) In fact the painting on the dome in the capitol depicts him almost as a god. Also another depiction of George as King of America can be found in the American History museum in Washington D.C. He is a statue sitting in a chair looking royal. Now, he points to the escalators! ~~kc_bucks~~ March 1

Well, the title offered was "Emperor", not "King", but close enough. Additionally, Hamilton tried to make the President office a lifetime term, but that endeavor also failed, partially because Washington opposed it. -The Gonz 04:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was objections to calling Washington a president - there was debate over what to call the new nation's head of state: John Adams noted disapprovingly—and futilely—that "there are presidents of fire companies and cricket clubs." [3] Mattabat 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there were many suggestions what the President was to called. One suggestion was His Highness the President of the United States Protector of their Liberties

kc_bucks

I think a section should be included about Washington being offered the crown. 208.65.144.198 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much?

There have been several spawn off articles from the main page, and several new sections. My question is, has it gone too far? It's one thing to create sub-articles for things such as trivia, another to have new articles things such as Washington's life between the wars. It doesn't seem to be a common practice for other historical figures. While Washington and the Revolution has its own page, Lincoln does not have a similar one for the Civil War. Perhaps the need to spawn off new articles is just a result of too much information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We could easily trim down the size of many of the sections. Some of the current sections we have also appear (at least to me) to be silly. Why does this article have a section about Washington's interest in sport? It couldn't be added to some other section, or better yet, removed from the overpopulated article? I've had my say, what about everyone else? YankeeDoodle14 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, but what justification is there for branching off Washington's religious views. Looking at the discussions, it appears that the only real reason for it was to move the edit wars off of the main article (and it doesn't seem to have worked either). YankeeDoodle14 18:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington -- traitor? Plus question about his hair

I propose that the opening pp ought to add a line saying that he is remembered an an exemplary figure for Americans "but as a traitor by Britain, a viewpoint that would endure until World War I."

History refers to these men as "rebels" and not "traitors". Zardinuk 21:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he was indeed a "traitor"....history will remember Ghandi and Mandela as "rebels", Washington will always be a traitor here, a traitor who turned on his own country and arranged for the rest of europe to fall on Britain to win his little war...because he never won a single battle on his own. These are verifiable facts and not slurs. The world wide web allows for many sides of a story, and to the rest of the Anglo world, outside the United States, the man was, and still is a traitor, world war one didn't change a thing about that. And if this is deleted again, it will certainly show the real nature of this site. H0ckeyd 3:36, 10 January 2007 (GMT)

Another thing, kind of silly but oh well. The Christian Science monitor recently asked a quiz question "Which founder had red hair" and gave the answer as Jefferson. I was under the impression that Washington also had red hair (under the wig, of course). Anybody remember a source for this? I vaguely recall some sort of reconstruction of his facial physiognomy that somebody published a year or so ago... Thanks!

I was under the impression Washington never wore a wig. He powdered his hair, though. --Sparkhurst 19:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly support the statement that he was seen "...as a traitor by Britain." And yes, I'm an American. Not only is it unquestionably true that Washington was "seen" as one in Britain, he was certainly considered a traitor by every loyalist in the Colonies. Many of the American Founding Fathers understood themselves to be traitors to England, speaking of being "foresworn". More importantly, any commissioned officer who takes up arms against those who commissioned him is, by simple definition, a "traitor" and guilty of treason. This is true regardless of motives, intent or outcome. To ignore this fact is fundamentally unencyclopaedic and, IMHO, jingoistic. Kevin/Last1in 00:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Yes he had red hair. http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/41622 Kevin/Last1in 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, historians remember "traitors" as the folks who lost their war, and Washington won. The British did not take the traitor rhetoric seriously--they captured thousands of Americans and did not put them on trial for treason. (I suppose if they tried that Washington would have tried and perhaps executed thousands of British soldiers he captured.) Rjensen 00:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I know you initially said "The British did not take the traitor rhetoric seriously", but you quickly go on to apply the same for Americans as well. Just a note: The only crime Constitutionally punishable by death, is Treason. I'm no historian, but I think this indicates, at least for the Americans, something contrary to your statement... I do remember some rhetoric about the Brittish treatment of those that had, absolutely, like GW, committed Treason to the Brittish Crown, though. Agreed, as written it is POV, but it'd be keeping POV, & adding more, to say what's been suggested. Grye 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miller explains: " In pursuance of the King's proclamation of August 1775, which declared Americans in arms to be traitors to the Crown, the British Ministry began by treating American prisoners as common malefactors and outlaws. They were thrown into jail and preparations were made to bring them to trial for treason. Lord George Germain and Lord Sandwich were eager to decorate Tyburn with American rebels; and many of the wounded prisoners taken by the British at Bunker Hill confidently expected to be hanged. Some Americans captured at Quebec were actually transported to England and imprisoned in Pendennis Castle as traitors. But the Ministry declined to take the next step: treason trials and executions. No American prisoners were put on trial for treason, and although many were badly mistreated, in general they were accorded the rights of belligerents. Yet it was not until 1782 that, by act of Parliament, they were officially recognized as prisoners of war rather than traitors. " [Triumph of Freedom, 1775-1783. by John C. Miller 1948. Page 166.] Rjensen 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the dualality between what Britain was facing at the time had a lot to do with why he wasn't "punished", and like it or not, it probably has a lot to do with why Britain "stopped" and didnt continue after "defeat", which is a misanoma anyway, as I'm sure there's a whole lot of a country to the north. In fact one could suggest it was a stalemate, similar to that of the Korean war. But Britain had a generation before created a document that would lay the groundwork for a consitution and at that time, it seemed a little lost, so perhaps the population weere glad someone was re-living their hardfought rights. All be it in another land. But he was a man, no god or sooth-sayer and his acts were of a military nature and cannot be considered in the same league as a Gandhi or Mandela.
H0ckeyd 1:36, 21 January 2007 (GMT)
Hear Hear (+a Hear...;-). All things I seem to remember with my sorry-butt American-administered American History classes...;-D Grye 02:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Washington had "auburn" colored hair, which was covered by powder. To be a rebel you are a traitor. These things go hand in hand. No matter what you want to call him, he would of had the same fait if he were to be captured by the English. He most likely would of been hung, but the other options are drawn and quartered, or had his head chopped off at the gillatene.

Trivia

I was wondering if anyone else thought that the following was an interesting trivia point worthwhile of inclusion. As can be seen on the link attached, Princess Diana was actually a relative of President Washington [4]. I think this would be an interesting point to include in the article, but as it wasn't already there. Also, as stated here [5] President Bush is the 14th cousin of the Queen of England, so that would in some way relate Washington and Bush... It's almost sounds to wacky to be true. Nicwright 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Early Life' there should be a correction to: "George Washington was born on February 22, 1732 (February 11, 1731, O.S.)" By the time Britain changed from the Julian (O.S.) to the Gregorian (C.E.) there was an eleven-day adjustment, not a year-and-eleven-day adjustment. Th.chandos 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the opening section of Old Style and New Style dates. JackofOz 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Spinoffs?

Why don't you just merge all the spinoffs so the article will be complete? It's so inpractical to click something else to see the Early Life, etc. --Arnold Go 14:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... Look at all the spinoffs, put them all together on a new sandbox page, & see how big it'd be...?-) Check the history of the main article & wikipolicy too, & you'll see the page was getting way to large. Grye 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda story

Washington did send a ship to seize gunpowder on Bermuda but it had already been removed so the source was wrong and no need for mention in this long article on GW. Rjensen 16:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Story

The powder was removed from the magazine at Washington's request, placed on an American vessel off Tobacco Bay, and delivered to the Continental Army. As Washington promised, the Continental Congress authorised Bermudians to trade with Americans (although it remained illegal from a Bermudian standpoint). This is history as recorded in numerous sources and your repeated removing of the text I consider vandalism.

Aodhdubh 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP:N and WP:V source? | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Washington did send captain Whipple but he found no gunpowder. See Whipple's letter online at [6] also look at this report: "But it was too late; he reached Bermuda and put in at the west end of the island. The inhabitants ...informed him that they had assisted in removing the powder, which was made known to General Gage, and he had sent a sloop of war to the island. They professed themselves hearty friends to the American cause. Captain Whipple being defeated in the object of his voyage returned to Providence." at [7], Or try this quote: "Soon after this, Captain Whipple returned from Bermuda, where he had been well received by the people, but found no powder." from [8]. The point is that Washington's efforts did not produce gunpowder and so the sources/myth used are wrong -- and the story is pretty trivial. The vast bulk of gunpowder came from sources in the 13 colonies and especially France, as Dickinson proved in 1925. Rjensen 02:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American land treaties

The article doesn't mention Washington's role in the Native American genocide. His plan swindled the Native Americans, or his term "beasts", of their territory.

Deeper explanation with footnotes: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#blueprint —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.117.155.184 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Legacy section NPOV

Here is the legacy section


Legacy

   Main article: George Washington's legacy
   Further information: Cultural depictions of George Washington

Congressman Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee, a Revolutionary War comrade and father of the Civil War general Robert E. Lee, famously eulogized Washington as:

   First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life. Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting. . . . Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand. The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues. . . . Such was the man for whom our nation mourns.

Lee's words set the standard by which Washington's overwhelming reputation was impressed upon the American memory. Washington set many precedents for the national government and the presidency in particular. His decision to relinquish the presidency after serving two terms in office would be formalized in the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.

As early as 1778, Washington was lauded as the "Father of His Country"[19]

He was upheld as a shining example in schoolbooks and lessons: as courageous and farsighted, holding the Continental Army together through eight hard years of war and numerous privations, sometimes by sheer force of will; and as restrained: at war's end taking affront at the notion he should be King; and after two terms as President, stepping aside.

Washington became the exemplar of republican virtue in America. More than any American he was extolled for his great personal integrity, and a deeply held sense of duty, honor and patriotism. He is seen more as a character model than war hero or founding father. One of Washington's greatest achievements, in terms of republican values, was refraining from taking more power than was due. He was conscientious of maintaining a good reputation by avoiding political intrigue. He rejected nepotism or cronyism. Jefferson observed, "The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish."


This is not NPOV, especially the last paragraph of it. It also makes statements that need sources. What if I extoll a different American for great personal integrity more than I extoll him for it? What if I see him as a war hero or founding father more than as a character model? How do we define how much is power is due?

Maybe this section needs to be renamed from "legacy" to "praise for" or "remembrance of" if it is going to be nothing but praise.

I totally agree with the accuracy of the paragraph about how he is treated in textbooks, but that needs a source too. I would recommend major modifications to the last paragraph of the legacy section. Like, deleting everything except the Jefferson quote. 128.252.107.160 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell Address

A really tendentious (and ungrammatical) section. And the statement about alliances needs a source; it would exclude not only grand treaties of alliance, but guarantees of say, Cuba or Venezuela. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette!!

I really think that in the section where the Baron von Steuben is mentioned some information should be included on Lafayette. He and Washington had a very close relationship, which I think deserves a whole paragraph, but there isn't even a mention of him. And wasn't there a Polish count that helped to improve the army, too? I can't remember his name, just that it ended in "ski". CClio333 13:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are refering to Kazimierz Pułaski. He was very well know for his development of the American calvary. Had no where near the influence that von Steuben had on the development of the Continental Army. He had no close relationship with Washington like von Steuen had as far as Im aware of, but to be truthful I dont know that much about him. Showers 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by user Pimper

Removed content, perhaps someone should check user's IP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattkopera (talkcontribs) 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Remains Moved in 1861?

Disambugiation page

Why does the dismabuigation page say George Washington is made of radiation? Is it vandalism, or some weird compliment, or obscure fact about Washington??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.160.73 (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks cool. 'll help me with my school. Found you on google.

Innoculation

An information concerning the innoculation of the Continental Army on orders of Washington has, according to my reading of the archives, been removed. I'm unsure whether it should go back in, as the article is already quite a read on the screen, and it may require more than a passing remark if it is to stay despite what is apparently a general unawareness of this procedure before the researches of Pasteur and Jenner. However, I can partially source it, as it was effectively done in the late 18th century. What was then called innoculation was a rather crude ancestor of the vaccine.

The source is a biography of Louis XVI "Louis XVI le Roi Bienfaisant" (Jean de Viguerie, on the various, and often contradictory, influences of the french government prior to the revolution), where a section is devoted to the innoculation of the royal family, and makes note of how the intendant of Franche Comte had financed physicians to do it through his province, and how it was later used by Washington on his continental army. 70.53.139.226 11:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truth

He actually died on December 31. It even says so in a book that I have! 124.180.66.13 11:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts About George Washington

1)George Washington owned over 33,000 acres of land. 2) Washington lived in NEW YORK AND PHILDELPHIA DURING HIS PREIDENCY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.230.187.220 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hair

Wow it was pretty amazing that scientists could discover George had red hair. Can you believe what they can do nowadays? Also, all they had to do was study a portrait of him. Pretty cool! Meldshal42 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that it should be mentioned that George Washington was a redhead; a fact little known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.202.1 (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After finding two solid sources, I added mention of his red hair in the Personal life section. —Adavidb 02:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we speak strictly (say: What?!?)

GW was the 15th persident of the US. [9], but yes, the first one as popularly elected. The presidents of the USA before Washington (say What!?) --195.56.212.224 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington is the first President of the United States, as the title "President of the United States" was established by the US Constitution, and George Washington was the first person elected to this title. There may have been titles similar to President during the days of the Articles of Confederation, but it was not the title President of the United States. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...no. Read BBC article about it. The tilte existed before, and I speak about the title. --195.56.14.113 00:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, don't confuse h2g2 with the BBC -- while h2g2 is a service provided by the BBC, it is not vetted by the editorial processes of the BBC. The disclaimer (in part): Most of the content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. The views expressed are theirs and unless specifically stated are not those of the BBC. olderwiser 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the days of the Continental Congress, there was the President of the United States in Congress Assembled, which implies that this was the head of a congress of soverign states, not the executive of a republic the President of the United States is. George Washington was the first of his kind. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, now it's clear, thanks :) I thought the title was the same, and only the background of it was different. --91.120.97.127 11:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 30th?

Are u sreiously going to tell me he was born on February 30TH!!!???. Well unless we no longer use the grogorian calendar, theer has to be something wrong. 28 or 29 days in febraury, geniuses —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warfwar3 (talkcontribs) 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Some guy probably vandalized the article and won the games at the arcade

. Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geoerge Washington is dead now.

Thanks for sharing that tragic news. -Midnightdreary 14:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

George Washington was British, not American. when he was born, there was no America to be born in.

Technically true in a political sense. He was born in North America after all. Many people born in America referred to themselves as Americans even when under British rule as well. So you might want to say he was born American in a ethnic/physical sense if not a political one. Showers 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish and you know it; it's just another American way of discrediting Britain, her supposed friend... I am English, I was born on Land belonging to England. If I decide tomorrow that I am in fact American, I would 1. be as American as George Washington and B. Know in my heart that I will and always remain an Englishman.....Christ, I didn't even fight in any wars under the banner of England...he did. Dazzh 03:25, May 25th 2007 (BST)

And I suppose Indians thought of themselves as British instead of Indian as well. Being born on British land and all that. Really, I have no idea how you think I discredit Britain by saying that. I know for a fact that's how my ancestor felt about himself before the War even started. One of the reasons why he joined the Virginia Militia. Showers 01:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm- yes, we should credit the british for ... helping us ... defeat the british. hmmmmmmdanielfolsom 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you see, you misunderstand......there was no "us" then,neither was there a "the British"...youwere one and the same, it's a common mistake in the US to assume that the "British" were somehow a foreign nation and army.It was a civil war, no question about it...and it was the "British" system that ALLOWED these events to unfold....if the US were fighting Portugal or France.....they'd probably still be fighting. H0ckeyd01:15, 28 August 2007 (BST)

Uhhh....

"George Washington Had a shit on a stick and then told people that it was ok to have unprotected sex (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)[1] led America's Continental Army to victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), and in 1789 was elected the first President of the United States of America.[2] He served two four-year terms from 1789 to 1797, winning reelection in 1792. Because of his central and critical role in the founding of the United States, Washington is referred to as father of the nation. His devotion to republicanism and civic virtue made him an exemplary figure among early American politicians."

Not sure about that first part... :D

-MS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.4.211.21 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's true, I was there. --NEMT 13:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect we'll be taking some heat for this...

File:Bad Timing.PNG
Google search for "George Washington" on Thursay 5/17 at about 1:30 UTC; take a look at what it says under the Wikipedia result. Though it got changed by 1:35 it was still probably seen by a lot of people, and I don't know how long it had been there before I noticed it. Some rather bad timing by the Google bot.


-- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This happens with Wikipedia articles all the time. No big deal; it'll get fixed in the next Google crawl update. —Lowellian (reply) 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is far too long

There is far too much detail. The entire second paragraph could be summed up in 2 or 3 very SHORT sentences. --JimWae 04:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Oldag07 00:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the myths section is too much of a trivia section Oldag07 00:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington, Deist

{{editprotected}} The infobox for Washington should also include Deist as religion...4.129.67.186 16:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay

Someone told me that the revisions I did by adding John Jay as secretary of State were vandalism. NOT TRUE! Jay ran the department of foreign affairs under Confederation and , then was secretary of state when the department had a name change in September 1789. He remained in charge of the department until Jefferson arrived home from France in March 1790. This is according to every single biography of Jay or Jefferson ever written for adults. AS to Jay being chief justice, he was sworn in in February of 1790, not 1789, and continued to serve as Secretary of State until March. John Marshall was also chief justice and Secretary of state simultaniusly.Ericl 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the U.S. Cabinet infobox did not display correctly and though restored, they still do not. Information in Wikipedia articles needs to include references and source citations. Without such attribution, the info remains likely to be reverted as vandalism. Mentioning "every single biography" here is no no substitute for a proper citation. —Adavidb 02:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

I have editted the place of birth to reflect it in more accurate detail. Although he was born in Virginia, it was more technically the Colony and Dominion of Virginia, British North America as the place would have been referred to at the time of his birth.

I also believe that for all the other presidents born in British North America that their birthplaces be changed to reflect what they were at the time of birth more accurately. For example, John Adams was born in Quincy, Massachusetts but it is more accurate to say he was born in Quincy, Province of Massachusetts Bay etc.

No Kids?

What's the deal?

This is not a talk page about Washington, but rather the article. but if you must know, reading the book "His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph J. Ellis he thinks that Washington might have been sterile. he also states the irony of the fact that Washington is called the father of our country when he can't even have kids himself. to make this wikipedia related, this type of speculation does not belong on wikipedia. Oldag07 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No biological children anyway Showers 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellion and Defeats

Opening section says defeat at Braddocks Field was Washington's only defeat, but others historical accounts make a point that the Continental Army was forced from the field of battle numerous times. Another account says he lost 9 battles and won 1 -- at Yorktown. Still others say Washington and his men realized that to succeed, they needed only to survive, it was the British who had the burden of destroying the independence effort. So all this conflicting information has to be clarified. I'm also not entirely convinced of the merely survive strategy either, since France entered only after Saratoga, a Continental Army victory.

Washington's participation in leading the Continental Army was not treasonous until July 4, 1776. His efforts, and those of his colleages, were in resistance to tax policies. So in 1775, the colonies and the crown were a unified empire battling over political issues. The colonial's only act of treaon before July 4, 1776 against the crown was an effort to enlist the help of the Canadians, who refused.

Re: Nationality

George Washington was English, he even fought for the British at one point. Someone should at least edit that box at the top to add his British Ancestry. 213.48.73.89 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting statements

The second paragraph states "It is curious to note that Washington suffered his only military defeat in the woods outside present day Pittsburgh at Fort Necessity," First, it never goes on to note exactly why that is curious. Because of the location? Because of the name of the fort? Because of Braddock? It looks like a copy / paste out of something else that doesn't fit here. Worse, the very first sentence of the next paragraph contradicts it: "In 1776, he victoriously forced the British out of Boston, but, later that same year, was badly defeated, and nearly captured, when he lost New York City." So obviously the defeat near Fort Necessity wasn't Washington's only military defeat. I'm removing that entire sentence for now since it doesn't make any sense, it is contradictory, and I don't know enough about Washington to rework it properly. --Dan East 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Necessity was the only time Washington surrendered. . . Oldag07 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth

Washington was apparently the wealthiest President, in GDP-relative terms http://www.scottwinslow.com/2002/wealthy.asp but this didn't come across in the article. The biography mentions his wealth by marriage, land purchases, and initial refusal of the Presidential salary, but seems to lack any explanation of how he became one of the richest Americans of all time -- richer even than Franklin. -CKL

Additional sources would probably be helpful. The page provided is an advertisement for an associated book. –Adavidb 11:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section is too long

With six paragraphs, this article's lead section is too long. According to WP:LS, lead sections should not be longer than 4 paragraphs. Even if you combined some of the paragraphs to make 4 paragraphs total, the lead section would still be too long. ---Majestic- 20:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine the way it is. WP: LS is a guideline not a rule. With George Wasington being one of the most important historical figures in the 18th century, I think we can make an exception. Although some work can be done to shorten it a bit. Showers 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Majestic on this one—the lede is trying to incorporate too much detail, when it should be a summary. I appreciate the challenge in an article like this – the problem of a 'summary of a summary' – but there is probably some fat to be cut. Some of the language is a bit flowery with a tendency to shade toward hagiography. Yes, Washington did a damn fine job as President, but we need to keep a properly neutral tone:
Following the end of the war in 1783, Washington emulated the Roman general Cincinnatus, and retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon, an exemplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power. Alarmed in the late 1780s at the many weaknesses of the new nation under the Articles of Confederation, he presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787.
I know I'm probably stepping on someone's pet historical reference, but do we need to invoke Cincinnatus? Is it necessary to laud Washington as 'an examplar of the republican ideal of citizen leadership who rejected power'? (Incidentally, we're also sloppy in referring to 'the war' in this passage and the previous paragraph without ever clearly identifying it as the Revolutionary War.)
Washington retired to his plantation on Mount Vernon following the war's end in 1783. Concern over the weaknesses of the new nation drew him back into public life in 1787, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution.
This new version is shorter by a bit more than a third, but contains the same information—without the editorializing. We should really also have a footnote on the bit where's he's alarmed/concerned about the weaknesses of the new nation, as well.
I would encourage similar careful trimming to the rest of the lede. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]