Talk:George Washington/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Article photo gallery suggestion

Since there appear to be ubundant photos or artistic depictions of Washington, then a gallery section would be in order. I suggest putting in a gallery section to stop the overcrowding of photos in the main article. Any objections ? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding a dedicated gallery for images of the crossing would seem to place undue weight on artist's interpretations. We have two small images stacked neatly to the right to demonstrate that the illustrated accounts can vary. There is no overcrowding, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about the whole article, not the just the crossing photos. The whole article is overcrowded with photos. A gallery would alleviate the overcrowding of photos. It is hard to edit in the article because there are too many photos in the way. There only needs to be one photo crossing photo, not two. In my opinion there is an article photo overcrowding issue. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

There are only a handful of sections that even have more than one image. The only sections with multiple images are already organized into galleries. Per MOS:LAYIM, "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I urge the article to avoid including a painting that includes a blatant anachronism in it, regardless of how iconic the painting is. The Betsy Ross flag was not only not adopted until 1777, it also is not documented to have existed on the planet until 1792 (see above, Betsy Ross flag etc.) Why talk about artistic license in the history section when we could be talking about the historical facts of Washington's military career? There are obviously plenty of good Delaware crossing paintings. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Betsy Ross flag is a signifigant issue. This is a discussion on a gallery section. As to Laszlo Panaflex's comments, there is an abundant supply of Washington photos. What is more important? text or photos. It was pointed out that Künstler's artwork was "original research". Then all photos of Washington are original research and should be banned from the article. Reducing the photos would clear up space for narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please read more carefully: I said that your analysis (as well as that of any other WP editor) is original research. As to Kunstler, I said we need a source where someone other than the artist himself verifies that the painting is the most accurate if we wish to make that claim. There are long stretches of this article with no images at all, and I see no sections that are cluttered. And images do not stop the addition of text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I gave an Associated Press article. That was my source. I did no original research. You accused me of orignal research because I gave an Associate Press article. The Associated Press did an article on Künstler. Whether I believe Künstler is more accurate in his painting is my opinion as a reader. His painting was to be put in a New York Museum. Künstler must have some credibility as an artist to get his painting planned to be in a museum. My opinion of Künstler being more accurate is just an opinion and it was not put in the article. Editors have a right to their own opinions, political or historical. Editors can't put these opinions in the article. There is a clear violation of historical integrity of a flag that did not exist in a painting of Washington crossing the Delaware, but that photo is in the article. That is a double standard. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I said (here) that we need someone other than the artist himself verifying that the painting is the most accurate, and that your own analysis of the paintings is original research. I have said this several times now and at this point I am through. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

My own analysis of the painting is my opinion, not original research. My opinion was never put in the ariticle. Here is a link that says the American flag in Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze painting Washington Crossing the Delaware: "Due to the time that had elapsed after the titular event, the painting contains a few historical inaccuracies, Parrish says. For instance, the flag depicted was not created until about a year after the battle, and the soldiers used a different type of boat to cross the river. Additionally, Washington appears to be much older than he was during the battle -- the general was 44 at the time -- and he wouldn't have been standing lest the boat capsize." Did You Know?: 'Washington Crossing the Delaware' painting Purdue Today (February 13, 2014) Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Cmguyy777 and Geographyinitiative, it seems you are rehashing points that were well addressed several times, and at length. Once again, we can post almost any image of the crossing, per consensus, so long as we don't make comments about our opinions or that of a questionable source, which we haven't -- all we've done is display images, with their titles and author's names. There's a footnote in the respective caption with a comment about the premature flag. Editors have been more than reasonable about this. Time to move on. -- A gallery filled with images of the crossing would give too much weight to artist's renditions, as we seem to be doing all over again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This is what Isaac Kaplan (Feb 3, 2017) said: " The resulting painting that Künstler created rectifies many of the inaccuracies of Leutze’s original." There someone said it. I did not. Here is the article: This Iconic American History Painting Gets the Facts Wrong Cmguy777 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A gallery would free up space for article narration. George Washington should be a featured article. That means cleaning up the article. Too many photos clutter up the article. This article has 42 photos by my count. There seems to be no order to the photos either. Just thrown together. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

It was already pointed out that images in no way have any bearing on text in terms of readable prose and page length. It was also pointed out that a gallery of images, in the Washington biography would lend too much weight to artists for this one topic. You've made an issue of too many images in the article then turn around and propose a gallery of images. It seems you're only arm-wrestling with editors, asserting contradictions, making up rules and inventing issues. You've done this at least three times now. Accusing all the editors who've contributed to this article of just throwing images together isn't helping either. Please stop it. The incessant and repetitious talk is becoming disruptive and is only bringing instability to this good article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Editors are extremely hostile to even the suggestion of a photo gallery. A gallery would not lend too much weight to the artists. It only means there is an ubundant supply of photos in the article in an unorganized fashioned. I am accused of being disruptive, but it is other editors who are hostile to any changes or improvements to the article who are hostile and disruptive. "Just thrown together" is not an accusation against all editors. I have only suggested improvements. I have added information to the article. Maybe it is just best to make edits without discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The accumulated accusations are what are hostile. Referring to this behavior as disruptive is only natural. -- Images were added by dozens of different editors. While there may be an image that is out of place (I don't know of any off hand) your broad brushed assessment is a little much, and seems to have been made in a disgruntled and retaliatory capacity.You introduced many images and one was even used as a second image, but you're still not happy evidently. Singling out one topic, Washington's crossing, and proposing a gallery of images for it (all the while you complain about too many images overall), is clearly an undue weight issue. Easy math. As an experienced editor it would seem that you would have known better. Please stop acting like you've been singled out and victimized every time one of your discussions fails to convince other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am proposing a general gallery for all photos, not just the crossing. The second image of the crossing can be put in the gallery. I am refering to the existing photos in article to be put in the gallery to free up space for narration. Maybe there is some misunderstanding. It is about organization of the article. The George Washington article should be FA status. I don't understand all the hostility of a limited photo gallery at the bottom section of the article. It is not about photo content, it is about photo placement. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If you intend to start cherry picking certain photos from the body of the article then you will no doubt be met with objections per any given image you'd like to move and seems like a recipe for perpetual debate. Overall, there is no crowding to speak of, the images are fine as they are. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Objections by whom ? This type of hostile wording exemplifies why it is difficult to edit on this article. The images are not fine as they are. The Washington tomb photo extends into his personal life section. The monunment photos are haphazard and should be in a gallery style. It is against wikipedia policy to take editor control or order other editors around or tell them not to make edits. That is really not what Wikipedia is about. Editors should not feel their every edits are being watched or need to be approved by other editors. Its not about removing photos from the article but organzing the photos. Isn't the goal to get George Washington to FA ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a popular Good Article -- everyone's edits are watched, and everyone abides by consensus -- this would include you. Was this reminder too "hostile" for you? No one has taken "editor control". No one has "ordered you around" or told you "not to make edits". This is a flat out falsehood. Please stop making accusations every time other editors don't go along with your ideas. If you see an image that needs tending to, just do it. If an other editor objects or reverts one of your edits then you will just have to deal with it like the rest of us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

From my perspective, it is definitely and unquestionably hard to make reasonable edits to the George Washington article, no 'Boy Cried Wolf' about it. But I think that fact may be good for the article: you have to fight for it. I had to kick hard to do something about the image of an anachronistic flag in a section about military history which was totally bereft of any statement to let young readers know about the anachronism. The Betsy Ross flag is not documented to exist until 1792, but the 1851 painting leads people to believe that the Betsy Ross flag existed in 1776, especially if it is included in a section about historical facts of Washington's military career without any critical appraisal. The word 'consensus' was used to bash me over the head: 'artistic license' they cried. My view: what does a section about military history have to do with the artistic license of a painting in which the flag Washington carried is an anachronism? How can consensus be used to support the uncritical inclusion of a painting with an anachronistic flag in a section about military history? Right now, I'm basically satisfied with the current version of the article in the Crossing the Delaware section, but from my perspective, it was very, very tough to get it this way. It was an interesting experience. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

'Wolf' wasn't directed at you, but the repeated accusations being made. As far as I can see around here, you have not made repeated accusations to editors when things don't go your way. Cmguy777 has made several dozen edits in the last week or so, and not one has been reverted, nor has anyone objected to them. Yes, it's tough to make edits when you go against consensus. Cmguy777 could have spared himself and everyone else a lot of trouble if he was specific about what he wanted to do with some of the images -- to begin with. Instead he makes sweeping accusations about editors just throwing things together, more than suggesting he was going to go through the entire article rearranging all the images. -- Thanks for bringing attention to the flag, though you seem to have placed much weight on the issue, it did open the door to inquiry. I have to admit, I never noticed the discrepancy about the flag before, but again, it's an allegorical image. Now we have a footnote pointing this out along with a second image which Cmguy777 brought to the table to demonstrate that depictions vary. Again, no one has treated you or Cm' unfairly. We're all on the same 'raft' around here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers and Geographyinitiative. It is widely known that Leutze's painting has inaccuracies. In the interest of cooperation I have tempered my edits. I never said editors through the photos haphazardly together. I said "Just thrown together." I apologize. It was my impression of the photos appeared thrown together. Maybe it was negative wording or sounded like I was complaining. I think the article is making progress. The biggest problem is that since Kustler's painting has corrected some of the inaccuracies it is unavailable to the general public. The reason why Leutze's painting is widely used it is, I believe, under public domain, since it was created in the 1850's. I hope and believe editors will work together and get George Washington to FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but Leutze's image is used here because it is indeed iconic, famous, and captures the spirit of the arduous event, with or without the flag. The gallery looks good, btw, after all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Leutze's image does have great artistic value, but has historial inaccuracies. Künstler's image has corrected many of those inaccuracies, but in a modern world of copyright protection it is difficult to obtain the license to use in Wikipedia. From what I know of the Revolutionary War, it was a desperate gamble by Washington to obtain a victory and gain French troop support for the war. That is just my opinion. I think it is important somehow to get Künstler image in the article for a potential FA of George Washington. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Source: American Revolution Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the glass of water as almost full, rather than not full enough. Leutze get's most of it right. Washington, his men, in a small boat, crossing the icy river, while ice is being pushed aside by the men, and perhaps most importantly, capturing the spirit of the event without resorting to exaggerations and flagrant distortions. Yes, the painting presents the scene in daylight, with premature flag and Washington looking somewhat older. The river crossing was indeed a gamble, with the other two crossing parties being swept down-stream. I think it's safe to assume Washington knew what was involved before he set out. Having said that, Kunstler's work, imo, also captures the spirit of the event, which is always important if we want to understand history and the sort of things that drive people through it. Good luck with your communication with Kunstler & Co. As I said, if he understands his work will be used for educational purposes and that it will be seen by many thousands of viewers, every day, unlike the website, it would seem he'll welcome the prospect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your welcome to contact Künstler too Gwillhickers. I think it is impossible to capture the "spirit" of the event, since neither Künstler nor Leutze were there. It was a military operation. Maybe that's just what it was, no glamour. Washington won. It was truely an American event. There were no French troops to help Washington at this time. It probably is not helping that we are argueing over art work. I said I was toning my talk page commenting. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Many feel Leutze has captured the spirit of the event -- far from impossible. You need not be present to feel so. Indeed there was nothing 'glamourous', it was part of a war, but there were strong feelings involved, hence the 'spirit'. Imo, Kunstler also captures the spirit. Paintings can do that. Even photos. Anyway, since you brought Kunstler's painting to our attention, and his website, I thought you were enthusiastic about making contact and getting permission. Myself, I am happy with using just Leutze's work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the George Washington article have the best and most accurate crossing the Delaware graphic representation? Leutze is a great artist but there are many inaccuracies. Why perpetuate a myth? Spiritual is very subjective. Are we talking a Washington conversion to Christianity ? Did Washington thank God after the victory over the British ? What scholars say Crossing the Delaware was a spiritual event, rather than a military operation ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No one said it was a spiritual event. Please make an effort to comprehend what is written, rather than reading into what is written. All this is just empty talk if you're not going to make an effort to use Kunstler's work. Meanwhile, we go with consensus. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers you mentioned that Leutze captured the spirit of the event. What sources say that ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out above, a source says Leutez was trying to capture the spirit of the event, and many agree, but once again, no one has proposed that we say so about his work. You twisted this and carry on as if someone said the crossing was a "spiritual event". It would seem you need to work on reading comprehension and on remembering recent discussions. I'm done with this tacky talk and endless quibbling. If you think Kunstler's painting is better, you need to contact Kunstler and get a consensus to replace the existing painting with his. Once again, good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I was trying to have a civil discussion. Kunstler's painting is more accurate. I found a source that says it has corrected many of Leutze inaccuracies. You are ordering me around with your "you need to" statement. Editor control is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate the inaccuracies of the Leutze painting. You are showing a bias toward Leutze. Where is the source that says Leutze captures the "spirit of the event" ? What exactly does that mean ? There is no need to keep arguing over this. I will agree to that. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No one has ordered you around in the capacity you'd have us believe. Once again, the source for Leutez's comments are above. Once again, no one has proposed we say anything about capturing the spirit of the event in the biography. As for bias, I was the one who said I'd welcome Kunstler's painting as a second image, but you don't seem very interested in pursuing this after all. Meanwhile, please read the text more carefully. The best way to have a civil discussion is not to twist things, blow things out of proportion while making compound accusations towards other editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I would need some sort of quote from a source that say Leutze captured the "spirit of the Crossing". You want me to do the pursueing, but you don't want too, I take it. I don't like to be prodded in that fashion. You seem to be happy with the Leutze photo. It has many inaccuracies. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you, any image will have inaccuracies, including the ones you posted. Once again, the reliable source that claims Leutze was trying to capture the spirit of the event is posted above, but again, this is entirely moot because no one has proposed that we say so in the biography -- yet here you are anyway, demanding a source that's been staring you in the face for the last ten days. Apparently Leutze's inaccuracies are really no big deal for you, as you've cited the Kunstler website, are now refusing to make any effort to get permission, and have accused me of "prodding" you when I recommend that you follow up on your own findings. As I said, I can live with Leutze's painting, so if you really want to replace it you will have to get permission from Kunstler yourself and then get consensus around here. Once again, good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, your condescending attitude towards myself as an editor Cmguy777 is not productive. I can follow up whatever I want to follow up on my own initiative. "Are you now refusing" ? I am not refusing anything. Then I am suppose to get concensus before I put a potential photo in the article. That is telling me what to do. "Posted above". I have found no source posted that says Leutze captures the spirit of Washington Crossing the Delaware. Unless this conversation can become more civil I can see no value in continued participation. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop with the accusations, this is not productive. Please read the source clearly posted above and referred to by at least two editors. I'm glad that you have not refused to follow up on your own findings. Good luck with your sincere efforts to get the best image available. Be sure to let us know how you've made out, and good luck with getting a consensus to replace Leutze's painting with Kunstler's. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I find no source clearly posted above. Why can't you just name the source and page number or website ? Please do not speak for me or give me false praise. "Be sure to let us know how you've made out". "Good luck" those are all condesending phrases. It is my choose whether to follow up on the Künstler photo, not yours. This talk is most unproductive. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the source was brought to everyone's attention by two editors, complete with link, while discussing this at length, yet you carry on as if no one has taken the time to explain things for you. We've provided sources, have addressed the same points over and again at your behest, put up with your habitual accusations along with the distortions of what other editors have said, so at this point you can find someone else to hold your hand, or find the above source yourself. Or just assume I'm lying to you. Again, this is all moot, as no one is proposing we say anything else about Leutze's painting. What part of this are you not getting? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is this source and link located ? I have looked. Gwillhickers, you brought up that Leutze's photo brought up the spirit of the Washington Crossing the Delaware. You are free to have that as an opinion. I don't assume you are lying to me. I just wanted clarifiation from a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You were part of the discussion when a quote from the source was given. Laszio Panaflex found the source and provided the actual links for it, in two instances, with further discussion, again, in response to your other comments!! Unbelievable. I really should just tell you where to get off, you've tried my patience to no end, esp since we're not even going to include this in the Washington biography. For the sake of any newcomers to the page, however, the source is Howat, p.298, and he is more than qualified to speak about Leutze's work, which he does, at length. A quote from his writings can be found, easily, above, here, with LzP's link and discussion following. Before that he provided a link to Howat here. Howat is the same source used in a footnote about the flag issue. Remember? Again, we're not going to include comments about Leutze trying to capture the spirit of the crossing in the biography, but I'm sure that's not going to stop you from carrying on about a moot issue anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. Maybe we are back on track. The quote is "spirit of Washington". That makes more sense. I suppose when one takes into account the spiritual side of man. I can take that quote as is and it could be put in the article for clarification. Questions arise on how spiritual was Washington ? Did Washington view the event as just a military action against the enemy British? Was there any celebration after Trenton? My view is that Washington was unemotional, and I think that is a good quality for a general. But that is going beyond this discussion. I don't think there is anything more to talk about in this discussion. I appreciate your patience. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody said that Washington was unemotional. He was happy for his victory, but disappointed because he had insufficient troops to attack other targets in New Jersey. Our article on the Battle of Trenton also covers the aftermath of the battle:

• "The Hessian forces lost 22 killed in action, 83 wounded, and 896 captured–including the wounded. The Americans suffered only two deaths from bare feet causing frostbite and five wounded from battle, including a near-fatal wound to future president James Monroe. Other losses incurred by the Patriots due to exhaustion, exposure, and illness in the following days may have raised their losses above those of the Hessians."
• "The captured Hessians were sent to Philadelphia and later Lancaster. In 1777 they were moved to Virginia. Rall was mortally wounded and died later that night at his headquarters. All four Hessian colonels in Trenton were killed in the battle. The Lossberg regiment was effectively removed from the British forces. Parts of the Knyphausen regiment escaped to the south, but Sullivan captured some 200 additional men, along with the regiment's cannon and supplies. They also captured approximately 1,000 arms and much-needed ammunition. Last, but not least, was the capture from the Hessians of their entire store of provisions—tons of flour, dried and salted meats, ale and other liquors, but also shoes, boots, clothing and bedding—things that were as much needed by the ragtag Continental forces as weapons and horses."
• "An officer in Washington's staff wrote before the battle, "They make a great deal of Christmas in Germany, and no doubt the Hessians will drink a great deal of beer and have a dance to-night. They will be sleepy to-morrow morning." Popular history commonly portrays the Hessians as drunk from Christmas celebrations. However, historian David Hackett Fischer quotes Patriot John Greenwood, who fought in the battle and supervised Hessians afterward, who wrote, "I am certain not a drop of liquor was drunk during the whole night, nor, as I could see, even a piece of bread eaten." Military historian Edward G. Lengel wrote, "The Germans were dazed and tired but there is no truth to the legend claiming that they were helplessly drunk.""
• "After the Hessians' surrender, Washington is reported to have shaken the hand of a young officer and said, "This is a glorious day for our country." On December 28. General Washington interviewed Lieutenant (later Colonel) Andreas Wiederhold, who detailed the failures of Rall's preparation. Washington soon learned however that Cadwalader and Ewing had been unable to complete their crossing, leaving his worn-out army of 2,400 men isolated. Without their 2,600 men, Washington realized he did not have the forces to attack Princeton and New Brunswick. "
• "This small but decisive battle, as with the later Battle of Cowpens, had an effect disproportionate to its size. The colonial effort was galvanized, and the Americans overturned the psychological dominance achieved by the British Government troops in the previous months. Howe was stunned that the Patriots so easily surprised and overwhelmed the Hessian garrison. On the contrary, Fischer argues that the changing attitudes were buoyed more by writings of Thomas Paine and additional successful actions by the New Jersey Militia than they were by the Battle of Trenton. "
• "By noon, Washington's force had moved across the Delaware back into Pennsylvania, taking their prisoners and captured supplies with them. This battle gave the Continental Congress a new confidence, as it proved colonial forces could defeat regulars. It also increased re-enlistments in the Continental Army forces. By defeating a European army, the colonials reduced the fear which the Hessians had caused earlier that year after the fighting in New York."
• "Two notable American officers were wounded: William Washington, cousin of the General, and Lieutenant James Monroe, the future President of the United States. Monroe was carried from the field bleeding badly after he was struck in the left shoulder by a musket ball, which severed an artery. Doctor John Riker clamped the artery, preventing him from bleeding to death. "
• Following Trenton, Washington's next battle is the Battle of the Assunpink Creek (January 2, 1777). Washington managed to defeat British forces under Charles Cornwallis, 2nd Earl Cornwallis. The next battle was the Battle of Princeton (January 3, 1777). Washington managed to capture Princeton, New Jersey, and the British forces evacuated South Jersey. The next move was the Forage War (January-March, 1777). With both American and British troops active in New Jersey, Washington targeted British troops trying to gain fresh provisions. Indecisive conflict, but the British had large casualties and months of supply problems. By the end of the New York and New Jersey campaign (July 1776–March 1777), the British were dominant in New York, and the Americans in New Jersey.
  • "The British gained control of New York harbor and the surrounding agricultural areas, and held New York City and Long Island until the war ended in 1783. The Americans suffered significant casualties and lost important supplies, but Washington managed to retain the core of his army and avoid a decisive confrontation that could have ended the war. With the bold strokes of Trenton and Princeton, he had regained initiative and boosted morale. The areas around New York City in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut were an ongoing battleground for the rest of the war." Dimadick (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Washington standing in the boat

Cmguyy777, we can't say for sure if the boat would of capsized simply because Washington was standing -- esp since it is highly unlikely given the large boats used. It's possible to even stand up in a canoe. Washington commandeered many boats for the crossing, ordering his men to find "sturdy boats" for the crossing. The boats were carrying many men and artillery. I seriously doubt if the boat would of capsized simply because Washington was standing. Fischer maintains that there is controversy about whether Washington was standing. Chernow, 2010, p. 270 maintains that Washington mainly used Durham boats, large flat bottom boats some 60 feet in length, normally used to carry iron ore. Capsized? I am going to the challenge this source on that account. Who is 'Amanda Hamon' anyhow? Even Kunstler depicts Washington standing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am going by what the source said. I think that since the boat depicted in the photo is not the right boat, that a capsize is possible. That is not the right boat. The raft boat is the correct boat. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The article source is David Parrish, professor of art history. In the Kunstler photo Washington is standing on a raft. Parrish is refering to the incorrect boat in the Leutze photo. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Asking to allow the edit to hold. It is creating controversy. Of course you are allowed to make your own edits. But this really is not worth an edit war. Thanks. David Parrish is professor of Art History. He is the solid source. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of compromise we can leave out the boat capsizing. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I don't think we have time to quibble. I removed information about boat capsizing. We need to keep the rest of information in the caption. It is a compromise worth keeping to get George Washington to FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cm'. I was going to say that we should have worded this better. It led us to believe Washington was not standing, and by most accounts, including Kunstler, he was. The footnote should have read, in so many words, that if Washington was standing in the sort of boat Leutze depicted it would have capsized, but even then, no one can say for sure. Besides, how can anyone say what a fictional boat will do? Cclaiming how Leutze's fictional boat would have behaved is something this Good Article should do without. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Parrish said that about the boat capsizing. I did not. An Art History Professor is a solid source: David C. Parrish. I think this is the best compromise and hopefully this will settle the matter. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you said anything. Parrish is qualified to say all he likes about the inaccuracies about a painting, but that's it. He is not qualified to spout theory about some fictional boat as fact, and I would have challenged such reaching speculation. Doesn't he know it's possible to stand up even in a canoe? Anyway, thanks for compromising. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It is all speculation. Parrish will solve the Besty Ross flag controversy and this article can get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a long foot note, even mentioning Parrish and his occupation by name. I would recommend that we just note the inaccuracies, and if any of the readers are so inclined, they can click on the cite and find Parrish's name, etc. This is an undue weight issue. Meanwhile, the lower image has a glaring inaccuracy with Washington sitting on his horse, which is standing right in the middle of all the men, aboard the boat. If the horse ever spooked there would have been a major calamity. I think Washington would have known better. Howat, p.297, says the horses and artillery were brought over after the men had landed and secured their position. Imo, we should replace that image with one that you first introduced, which gives us a good idea of the numbers of men and boats involved in the crossing. Meanwhile we should remove Parrish's name and personal information from the footnote. I would render the footnote like so:

The flag depicted was created about one year after the event, soldiers used a different type of boat for the crossing, Washington is depicted older than his actual age 44 at the time of his crossing.<Parrish>

Also, if Parrish is the actual source, then his name should be mentioned in the source listing in the bibliography, rather than in the caption. Amanda Harmon is just the writer, relating what Parrish, the reliable source, maintains. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. There is no reason to make this complicated. Hamon was the reporter. She did the writing. Since it is only one note, we can mention Parrish as the source rather than Hamon. But this matter must be dropped. It is just continuing to fester. Künstler's photo is not even in the article. Remember these are just artistic representations of an historical event. A few paintings should not hold up George Washington to get FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I made the changes. I hope we can move on to other things. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The matter was finished, and should have been dropped long ago, put you persisted, and then switched the source and added the long footnote. Using hyper-speak like "fester" is highly uncalled for. I was only making suggestions. We were the ones who pointed out that Leutze's work was allegorical and too much discussion was being given to the subject. It was nice of you to finally admit it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Persisted ? Geographyinitiative brought the subject up. Parrish is an art historian. Only his opinion is in the article. I never admitted Leutze's work was allegorical. Parrish is the source. He never said the painting was allegorical. I added three historical inaccuracies to keep the subject from sidetracking the article that should be FA. I thought I gave a better source. That is why I switched it. There is no need to keep argueing. I was not talking about you "festering" the article. Apparently Geographyinitiative strongly objected to Leutze's work. Festering only means that the subject continued to come up. That is why I put in the Parrish source. I am not blaming your for anything Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My own opinion of Leutze's painting is that artistically it is the best painting or depection of Washington Crossing the Delaware, but it is historically inaccurate. As long as those inaccuracies are listed I don't have any issues with the photo being in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, Leutze get's most of it right. i.e.Washington, his men, crossing the icy Delaware, no horse or cannon in his boat. Btw -- Washington doesn't look that old. Take a close look at his face in Leutze's painting. It's a face of a younger man. Arguably, he looks a bit younger than 44. As our biography mentions, Washington never wore a wig, as many, including myself, once believed, He 'powdered' his hair, which was also fashionable in those days. This is why his hair appeared grey. Evidently Leutze got that part right too. Anyway, I'm not pressing it, but, imo, Parrish is wrong on that account. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I am trying to gain concensus and avoid disputes. The goal is to get George Washington to FA. I don't believe Parrish is wrong. The standing up in the boat could be right, but I think that would need to be answered by a scientific method. Can a person stand up in a boat without it capsizing? Parrish has a Doctorate Degree in Art History. That is what makes him an authority. Editors can have their own opinions. I respectfully disagree that Leutze is mostly right, but I will agree he has the best art work and is so far the best artist. I believe Künster is the most accurate. He may have included artistic license adding the horse. We just don't know how Washington crossed the Delaware for sure. There was no photos. I hope we can agree to use Parrish, at least for now, to settle this issue and go on to other things in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Kunstler has Washington on a flat bed raft, along with a cannon, which were not brought over until things were more or less secured on the N.J. side of the Delaware. But again, this is moot as it looks like we won't ever be using Kunstler's work. Parrish is not an authority on boats, and again, it's possible to even stand up in a canoe. I am not saying we change the footnote or scrap Parrish as a source, but he's just an art critic. Nothing more. He is way out of line commenting on river craft, let alone how a fictional boat will behave. Also, Washington's face in Leutze's work is clearly not that of an old man, and again Washington powdered his hair. Seems like Parrish is, in a couple of instances, reaching for excuses to frown on Leutze's work, which, btw, appears on the cover of numerous books about Washington and/or the Revolution. Again, I'm just commenting, and not pressing for any change in the footnote at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is out of the question to have Washington stand by an artillary cannon on the raft, especially since Washington had planned a surprise attack on Trention. Bingham's Washington mounted on a horse on a raft is a bit hard to believe. I don't mind that being replaced, although Bingham's work has artistic value. I appreciate your opinion Gwillhickers. As long as Parrish keeps the Leutze's "controvery" quiet, that is alright by me. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed they do! As we discussed, it's easy to pick at any depiction of the crossing -- and you are correct, that Washington is standing next to a cannon is certainly par with the overall event, regardless if cannons and horses were brought over later. Even Kunstler's work is largely allegorical. -- It would be sort of foolish to hit the shore with horses and cannons first, followed by the foot souldiers. It would seem the flat bed rafts, a fair number were found, were best suited to transport horses and cannons. I just can't see a horse standing in a boat, and cannons would have to be lifted up and over the edge of the Durham boats. To be fair, we can't rule out that Washington was on a raft, with a cannon. Maybe he wanted at least one cannon nearby by when his party landed, hence Kunstler's flat bed. I haven't found a source that nails this down in no uncertain terms, so we can't say much about this in the actual biography. If the mainstream sources can't shed light on this, there's a substantial amount of primary sources to search though. Maybe Fitzpatrick, who edited and published a multi-volume work of Washington writings, can offer some clues, if not a definitive account. It could of been mentioned in Washington's, or his correspondent's, writings, dispatches, etc. Lotta footwork involved in that one no doubt. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Page length

The readable prose in this article is up to 96k. WP Guidelines (unlike WP Policy) gives us 100k as the upper most limit, but also say that exceptions are allowed for exceptional articles. I'm hoping this will be the case, and there will be a consensus to wave this guideline, (within reason) if and when we submit the article for FA evaluation. We saw the instability and the prolonged and reoccurring debate this created by treating this guideline as some rigid policy in the Grant article. If that's going to happen here, putting the readers as our second priority, then I'd prefer not to nominate the article. We don't want the article to look like it was written by an inventory clerk just to satisfy a guideline. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For now I would just stick with the 100K cap for readable prose. The article needs some cleaning up, possibly in narration and photo arrangement. I think the 100 K cap is a good thing. Grant's article is much more readable. I personally would concentrate on content, clarification, and narration without going over the 100K. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

My goal isn't to go over the 100k limit, but should it occur it shouldn't be something that's going to stop the world. Yes, there is some clean up to do, but mostly in terms of all the source listings and website stuff mixed in with the text. Also, we will have to adhere to a single citation convention, per FA criteria. Currently the biography here uses several types of citations. I would opt for the simple SFN format, which doesn't require the <ref> and </ref> and <ref name=xyz>.. Cleaning up the citations, will needless to say, require a lot of work. Last, I am hoping that we get at least two neutral editors who are more than half familiar with Washington to do the FA review, as opposed to someone who spends most of their time hoping around doing clean up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Add : I don't mean to trivialize the time and effort they contribute, but we truly need editors best suited to review this particular biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

My own view is that we could do some very heavy editing on the details of the Revolutionary War, on the battles and tactics and so forth, which I feel belong in other articles rather than here. This is a biography of Washington, which means that it's about his whole life; that would certainly include information on the war, but "broad brush strokes" info rather than the nitty-gritty details and analysis that takes place here. Gwillhickers has made some very nice additions recently, but I wonder whether they might be better served in one of the articles on the war? —Dilidor (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dilidor. Yes, there are dedicated articles, but we should still give the reader enough information where it doesn't require one to leave this article every time he or she comes to a different section. As a FA, it is still expected of this article to give a comprehensive summary of the subject, regardless of any other dedicated articles -- esp where it concerns those details that impact Washington's life and his military and political activity. Seeing as we are getting close to the 100k mark of readable prose, I will be esp mindful of adding any details that would be better placed in a respective article. Meanwhile, it looks like we gotta lot of work to do with the citation convention and all the stuff mixred in with the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

To correct the misspelling at the end of the third paragraph, change

After victory had been finalized in 1783, Washington resigned as commander-in-chief rather than seize power, proving his commitment to American republicanism.[4] Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which devised a new form of federal government for the United States. Washington was widely admired for his strong leadership qualities and was unanimously elected president by the Electoral College in the first two national elections. Following his election as president in 1789, he worked to unify rival factions in the fledgling nation. He helped pass Alexander Hamilton's programs to satisfy federal and state debts to establish a permanent seat of government, to implement an effective tax system, and to creat a national bank.[5]

to

After victory had been finalized in 1783, Washington resigned as commander-in-chief rather than seize power, proving his commitment to American republicanism.[4] Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which devised a new form of federal government for the United States. Washington was widely admired for his strong leadership qualities and was unanimously elected president by the Electoral College in the first two national elections. Following his election as president in 1789, he worked to unify rival factions in the fledgling nation. He helped pass Alexander Hamilton's programs to satisfy federal and state debts to establish a permanent seat of government, to implement an effective tax system, and to create a national bank.[5]

Note that the attribution at the end should be retained. Datmramirez (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 18:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Cites in the lede

Like many other presidential FA and GA articles, I'd recommend that we adopt a 'no citations in the lede' convention, esp since there are a fair number of statements that remain unsourced there. If we keep cites in the lede, it will mean that we should tag any statements in the lede that lack citations. Would like to get some feedback on this before major work on citations, overall, commences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree (keep cites for quotes). Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If there on no other issues, I'll clear the lede of cites, after waiting a bit. It would seem we need a more clear consensus before making any major changes to this long standing Good Article. We should also see if these cites occur in the actual narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree: remove citations from the intro ("lead"). Technically, an intro should not use citations unless a statement is made that is not expanded upon in the body of the article—which one should not do in the first place. —Dilidor (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good job on painting footnote

I like the footnote on the Washington Crossing the Delaware, December 25, 1776, by Emanuel Leutze. My only problem is that I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the flag depicted was "was created about one year after the event". The Flag Bill from 1777 doesn't say the stars have to be in a circle, and at least some vexilogists say the flag with the circular configuration of stars is not documented to exist on this earth until 1792. Beside this, I think the current footnote is fine. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Geographyinitiative. The note is sourced by David C. Parrish, professor of Art History at Purdue University: Parrish, David C. (February 13, 2014). "Did You Know?: 'Washington Crossing the Delaware' painting". purdue.edu. Purdue Today Purdue University. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Wikipedia has to go by sources. How Parrish (2014) came up with the flag in Leutze's painting was created about one year after the Crossing of the Delaware, the article does not say. Apparently the Flag Bill is not specific on how the flag is to be made. Is there an original flag photographed made in 1777? Is there any reason or reasons to doubt Parrish (2014) ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The flag in Leutze painting appears to be the Betsy Ross flag. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"The Flag Act of 1777" "Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789, 8:464". (June 14, 1777) Cmguy777 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I added a second footnote that said when Congress officially adopted the United States Flag on June 14, 1777. I added a reference. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Slavery section seems unbalanced

This sections seems overly focused on Washington's conflicted feelings about the institution of slavery and portraying him as a "humane" slaver. I understand that it's natural for Americans to instinctively look for the good in the father of the nation but in this case I think it's gone too far and left this section unbalanced. I don't want to undo anyone's hard work but I would propose removing the last two paragraphs and reversing the order of the first two as the easiest solution. The George Washington and Slavery article seems like a better place to get into the details and nuances. -Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.222.24 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Some items of interest. There are some 30 cite web templates being used as sources, this is after replacing a fair number of them. With all the published sources available, over a wide range of years, the article would be better off, and much more stable, if it didn't rely so heavily on sources that will sooner or later change or disappear. Efforts to source statements are greatly appreciated but we should at least inquire into some of the more common and widely recognized sources (Chernow, Freeman, Randall, Irving, etc.) before resorting to a web site source with all the markup involved. When used it should be linked up with a conventional cite. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria maintains that the article must use a single citation type. If a '|ref=harv' is included in a cite web template, the template can be linked to with HARVNB or SFN citations multiple times without adding the entire template to the text every time it's used. There is no policy that says website sources can't be used, so all we can do is hope that published sources, whose page numbers never change, are used as a first choice of reference.

• Currently there are numerous examples of citations that use a <ref> markup to enclose 'harvnb' citation/markup. Here's an example: <ref>{{harvnb|Chernow|2010|pp=10–14}}</ref>. -- This type of cite functions without the <ref> -- Needless to say, much work needs to be done in this area before we can even consider nominating the biography for FA. As discussed above, the harvnb and cite web sources are being converted to the SFN format in compliance with FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. SFN format is best. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Please change the following misused word.

"Battles of Trenton and Princeton Further information: Battle of Trenton and Battle of Princeton Washington crossed the next morning with stormy weather and heavy sleet and show still coming down"

Please change the word "show" to "snow" 2602:306:33F0:1F20:151B:81A4:B8B1:A91E (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 13:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton-Jefferson newspaper war

The section has three references: Cooke 2002, Fitzpatrick 1936; and Banning 1974. Clarification has been added. That is enough to remove the further references tag. Any objections or comments ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

A fourth source has been added: Ferling 2013 Cmguy777 (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The additional sources are adequate. It's a nice little side-line subsection; my edits have been intended merely to improve style. —Dilidor (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dilidor Cmguy777 (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Virginia Regiment

I believe more information is needed on the Virginia Regiment and Washington's service. Since he was not part of the British Army, could he be promoted ? Did he get paid by the Crown or the Colony ? Why did he join the Colonial Army ? This seems to be a transitionary part of Washington's life, and I am not sure it is being explained well. Also. Did Braddock have any influence on Washington ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

george whathington was actaully the guy to sail to the ocean blue in 1492 with corbin blue from high school musical. may st. madeline sophie barat be with you Jbull3083 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually taking this request seriously, or is this just an automated response? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Washington's first military service

Cm' you've been doing some good work! Just one question, you indicated in edit history that this statement was wrong: Washington began his military service in the French and Indian War. If that's true, then, aside from joining up, what/when was his first military experience? This article should be clear on this major detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In part covered by the article, though we have a more detailed spin-off article:

• "Lawrence's position as Adjutant General (militia leader) of Virginia was divided into four district offices after his death in 1752, and Washington was appointed by Governor Dinwiddie as one of the four district adjutants, southern Virginia, and he was soon transferred to Northern Neck and Eastern Shore.Washington's military ambition had been inspired by his half-brother Lawrence's service with Admiral Edward Vernon. Washington was trained in military musters and drills for the Virginia militia and in February 1753 he was promoted to the rank of major. "
• "In 1753, Washington was sent as a military ambassador from the British crown to the French officials and Indians as far north as Erie, Pennsylvania. The Ohio Company was an important vehicle through which British investors planned to expand into the Ohio Valley, opening new settlements and trading posts for the Indian trade.."
• "Lieutenant governor Robert Dinwiddie was ordered by the British government to guard the British territorial claims, including the Ohio River basin. In late 1753, Dinwiddie ordered Washington to deliver a letter asking the French to vacate the Ohio Valley. It was unusual for a colonial governor to give a 21 year-old-man, Washington, such responsibility. Eager to prove himself, Washington accepted without hesitancy Dinwiddies' difficult mission, that appealed to Washington's honor and possible glory. Washington was also instructed to make peace with Six Nations and the English. In the middle of November, having six frontiersmen, Washington left Will's Creek, and a week later he reached the Ohio River expecting to find the French. Learning the French had withdrawn, Washington met with Tanacharison (also called "Half-King") and other Six Nations Iroquois chiefs allied with England at Logstown to secure their support in case of a military conflict with the French. Afterwards, Washington and his men traveled sixty miles into the wintery wilderness, and met the French at Venango, but the French officer there refused to take Washington's letter. Washington reached Fort Leboeuf and delivered the letter to local French commander Jacques Legardeur de Saint-Pierre, who politely refused to leave. Washington kept a diary during his expedition which was printed by William Hunter on Dinwiddie's order and which made Washington's name recognizable in Virginia and England. This increased popularity helped him to obtain a commission to raise a company of men and start his military career."

The French and Indian War would not start until 1754, with the Battle of Jumonville Glen (May 28, 1754) considered the opening battle. And the guy leading the British troops in the battle was "Lieutenant Colonel George Washington". At the time Washington was 22-years-old and had already had two years of military service. Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Washington's military career or service began in 1752 i.e. his training, his promotions to adjuctant general and major. Also Washington served as English military ambassador to the French in 1753. The French and Indian War was Washington's first battle experience, not military experience. My main purpose for the edits was reorganization of section. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Does military experience only refer to battle experience ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I only suggested that we be clear. Of course Washington's military service began when he enlisted, but we still should indicate that his first combat experience was in the French and Indian War, which I see you've now done. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gwillhickers. I just thought that his colonial military career section needed to be reworked or reorganized. He had been enlisted in 1752 after the death of his half-brother Lawrence. I also found a picture of a younger colonial military Washington that I thought the article needed. I think there are too many "older Washington" photos or portraits that could be in an article gallery. Also the French and Indian War continued after Washington retired in 1758. I did not put a date on that section. I hope that George Washington will get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Added section

The American Revolutionary War is actually a sub-topic to the overall American Revolution. The main section should be so, with a summary paragraph, per Washington, with the American Revolutionary War as its sub-section. Washington was a major factor in the events leading up to the actual war. Imo, there should be an American Revolution main section with a summary paragraph to this effect, with a ' war subsection following. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and reordered the sections. After any reconsideration, I hope this sits well with all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I had made a changes to the section because of the years 1775 to 1783. The American Revolution started in 1765. I put that in the article. It is fine with the way it looks now. Thanks Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton investigation

Does this small amount of information about Hamilton warrant its own section? Washington is mentioned only once, and only in reference to Hamilton being his Treasury Sec, while the prgh involves details of a brief episode involving Hamilton that didn't develop into anything, with none of it directly related to Washington. Also, the first sentence says Hamilton was investigated by Congress, but doesn't tell the reader why, yet the following sentence says he was unknown to Congress. The last sentence is speculation about what Congress may have done if they had known about Hamilton. Imo, this material belongs in the Hamilton biography. I've no objections, however, with mentioning this brief episode with a sentence, in context in an appropriate place in the narrative, if there is one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Hamilton was Washington's Secretary of Treasury. Congress was looking into Washington's administration. The Panic of 1792 occured during the Washington Presidency and it affected the whole nation, because of Hamilton. This article can't hide history. Washington had the power to fire his cabinet since he appointed them. I kept it at a minimum. Whether Washington knew of this or not, it happened under his administration. The Republicans did directly go after Washington when he signed the Jay treaty. The whole point of the edit is to show that there was corruption under the Washington presidency, although it remained undiscovered until later. Since Hamilton was living this secret lifestyle and ran a loose department, it deserves mention in the Washington article and the Hamilton article. Did Washington know about any of this, the sex scandal or the missing $200,000 ? I don't know. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Can't hide history? I can think of a dozen things surrounding Washington this article is 'hiding'. Again, this is all about Hamilton. If we can tie it into Washington's direct involvement here then this brief episode might be worth mentioning, certainly not with its own section, which I see you've omitted. Thanks. We still have an apparent contradiction, with one sentence saying Congress investigated Hamilton, with a following sentence saying he was an unknown, then discovered (discovered when?), which is a little difficult to accept, given Hamilton's involvement with Washington during the war, and given that all Cabinet appointments are heavily scrutinized by Congress and others. The investigation yielded nothing. As for Hamilton's sex scandal, an affair that spilled over into Adams' presidency, please, this has zero to do with Washington and needs to be out of the Washington Biography. As it is, it's lumped in with the same sentence that mentions financial crisis in 1792, as if it had a significant or any bearing on it. Evidently we're going to need more opinions here.
• Btw, under the Domestic issues section we now have four separate sections that lend themselves to Hamilton. We may as well rename this greater section Alexander Hamilton. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In this article we need to focus only on GW's relations with Hamilton, and NOT on Hamilton's many many activities.Rjensen (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The scandals were unknown at the time, not Hamilton. Should we throw Banning (1974) information under the bus ? No. We have to go by what the sources say as I have been told millions of times. Washington directly appointed Hamilton. Washington had everything to do with Hamilton in his cabinet. Hamilton kept these secrets from Congress. The question is did Washington know about them ? Banning (1974) put these under Washington's presidency. Washington did not have to respond to the scandals because they were kept secret. But they were scandals important enough for Banning (1974) to mention. We should focus on whether there was corruption under the Washington administration, as Banning (1974) did. Why such resistance ? Is it because of Washington's reputation ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we say what the sources say, but not 'everything' they say, per due weight, as explained. The 'cite web' source used for the sex scandal only mentions Washington in passing. e.g.Madison wrote a letter to Washington about the scandal. — Washington had nothing to do with it. Is there anything the sources say about Washington and his involvement with Hamilton's affair?  No, there isn't, simply because there is none. And Hamilton's affair had little to no impact on Washington's reputation, so I'm not understanding your apparent inference there either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Then this is about protecting Washington's reputation. That is editorial POV. Why not just be bold and say so. Don't hide behind "per due weight". Of course this was not Washington's affair, but it happened under his administration. Washington did know about it. I don't want to argue in circles. Banning (1974) said if these scandals were known by Congress, Hamilton would have been driven from office. I would not call that undo weight. The affair is only mentioned in passing, but even that is too controversial. Just because things are kept secret, does not equate, that there was no corruption during Washington's presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Your leap to the conclusion that this is about protecting Washington's reputation has no logical basis, esp since, as you point out, Washington didn't even know about it. Once again, Washington had nothing to do with the affair. In fact, the affair was wholly personal -- and I don't appreciate the accusation of POV pushing. In any case, thanks for removing this stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The Reynolds Affair may have had official ramifications because it was a sordid affair. It is involved sex, Reynold's husband, and war bonds speculation. Hamilton paid the woman in "loans" and he paid off her speculator husband, for hush money. Washington's reputation is on the line. It was Hamilton's affair yes. I took out the "sex scandal" part. I am not here to rock the boat. Hamilton caused the Panic of 1792. That affected Washington's reputation. Are editors against mentioning that Reynolds Affair and the Panic of 1792 ? Again. The corruption took place under Washington's tenor and involved a cabinet member that he chose to be on his cabinet. That was the whole point of the edit. That is all the readers need to know. Washington does not have to be involved. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I objected to the stand alone and out of context statement of Hamilton's affair with Maria Reynolds because, as such, it served no purpose in the Washington biography. However, mention of the affair serves to highlight both Washington's and Jefferson's view of Hamilton. I made an edit to this effect. It's interesting to note that James Callander, the man who accused Jefferson of having an affair with Hemings, thought Hamilton's admission to the affair was actually a smoke screen to divert attention away from his dealings in the treasury. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

the more we have on Hamilton the less readers will learn about Washington. It belongs in Presidency of GW article and not here. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that Hamilton's sexual affair had nothing to do with Washington that was why I took out the term sexual affair. But since Washington supported Hamilton's fiscal policy, it is appropriate speak of Hamilton in article. The Reynolds affair also had to do with speculation on war bonds by Reynold's husband. I believe Reynold's husband was put in prison. Hamilton gave Reynold's hush money. The whole issue was to mention that corruption took place under Washington's administration, it is not to emphasize the corruption, nor focus on Hamilton. The Panic of 1792 was a result of Hamilton allowing his former assistant to speculate with $200,000 in Treasury money. Yes. The information should be in Washington's presidency article. Banning (1974) said the Reynold's Affair may have had official ramifications. It is appropriate to mention the Panic of 1792 and Reynold's Affair in the George Washington article. I have attempted to keep such edits as brief as possible. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I put information on Hamilton in the note. Still in the article but not in the narration. Compromise. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• The section involved here is entitled Hamilton-Jefferson feud, which was one of the defining advents in Washington's administration. The affair by itself affected nothing politically, in terms of legislation, acts, etc, and mention of the scandal as a stand alone statement does tend to lead the reader away from Washington. But with the proper context, with a short quote from Washington to Hamilton after the smoke cleared, it adds to the Washington biography in terms of defining personal relationships among the Cabinet members and Washington -- Washington's final feelings towards Hamilton, and his quote doesn't belong in a foot note. However, this is all we need to say about the affair. So long as Hamilton, or even Jefferson, another major player under Washington, is covered in direct relation to Washington, this will add to the biography comprehensively. I removed much of the unrelated text (Treasury assistant, William Duer,, etc) that was lumped in along with the affair.

• The last edit made by Cm', regarding the Jay Treaty and Washington not being immune from abuse, belongs in the Foreign affairs section where the Jay Treaty is covered and needs to be presented more comprehensively. The Reynold's affair occurred in 1791, the Jay Treaty wasn't signed until late 1794. As it was, it's an isolated statement and begged the question: 'why'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought I had put in that the Jay Treaty was viewed as pro British by the Republicans. I believe the Reynold's Affair should be in the article. I put it in a note out of compromise. It should only be mentioned briefly without detail. Washington was not involved but Banning (1974) said it might have had official ramifications. I suspect that is the speculation by Reynolds husband using Hamilton's money. The affair made Hamilton suseptible to extortion. Again. I understand this article is on Washington as Rjensen correctly mentioned. I don't think the average reader understands that Hamilton had questionable ethics in office under President George Washington or that he ran a loose department. All this is somewhat knew to me myself. The reader should know he was investigated by Congress. This is not OR and I am not pushing any agenda. I am going by Banning (1974) and Cooke (2002). Cmguy777 (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes the Reynolds affair should only be mentioned briefly with emphasis on how it effected relations with Washington, and of course Jefferson, Hamilton's hand-in-glove political adversary, which is how the biography now presents it. I've been doing extra reading on the topic -- a very intriguing episode. Historian speculation varies. Heidler, 2015, Washington's Circle, pp.256-259, maintains that James Reynolds, a man with little to no scruples, knew of the affair from the start, and who abused and exploited his wife. Together, they conspired to lure and entrap Hamilton so he could hold the affair over his head in order to ensure Hamilton's silence involving his dealings with funds set aside for back pay to veterans, for which he was arrested and sent to prison for. Ironically, Aaron Burr defended Maria in court, who ended up divorcing James. — Brookhiser, 2000, p.99, Alexander Hamilton, American, goes as far as to refer to Maria as a whore, and James, a pimp, both of whom were blackmailers. When Monroe, Muhlenburg and Venable showed up at Hamilton's doorstep and confronted him with the issue, Hamilton, to their amazement, spilled his guts. Hamilton was not the first dupe that Maria had slept with. 'Nice folks'. Washington didn't know of the fiasco until much later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would not say "entrap" Hamilton. He would have to have some personal accountability. Her husband James wasn't jealous. That is evidence his "wife" was used for extortion. I don't know all the details to the affair, but I believe it did compromise his ability to run the Treasury Department due to James speculation, I believe with Hamilton's money. It certainly was a sordid affair. I see no romance in it at all. The Panic of 1792 should be mentioned somewhere in the article. How did Washington respond ? That again was caused by Hamilton allowing his former assistant to speculate $200,000 he took from the Treasury. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Hamilton-Jefferson feud section is a good example of the severe bloat from which the entire article suffers. It is far too much detail on an event which is completely extraneous to the topic of this article—which is the life and career of George Washington. We've had this discussion already concerning the length of the article, and I have already pointed out its excessive detail. My view is that the entire section on this feud should be cut from this article. —Dilidor (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• No, I wouldn't go so far as to say "entrap" in the article, as this is something of a speculation, regardless if there is a basis for it. But Hamilton was indeed approached by Maria and coached by her husband. Anyway, our account only mentions the affair in direct relation to Washington, which I'm sure people interested in Washington and what he had to deal with will greatly appreciate. Yes, it certainly was a sordid affair, and, While Washington didn't lose faith in Hamilton it served to confirm Jefferson's belief that Hamilton couldn't be trusted, which of course is not an unreasonable deduction. If a man can't be faithful to his own wife, it's easy to assume he can't be trusted in other matters of good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've made some reductions on items that don't involve Washington directly, but only in cases where it doesn't compromise the historical context surrounding Washington, and will not mindlessly slash and burn text just to satisfy a page length number. FA's must be "well written" and "comprehensive", per FA policy. We had great success with this approach in the Grant biography and elsewhere. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

edit break

Cm' I see you restored the statement about Gile's resolution, however, after reading the article I noticed it doesn't say anything about Jefferson drafting them. They were also proposed in 1793, while approval for the bank from Washington occurred in 1791. In any case, can we tie this in with Washington better? We already know there was strong disapproval from Jefferson -- the Gile's resolution only reiterates this idea, with no apparent connection to Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The statement about the Gile's Resolutions, aside from being stuck anywhere in the narrative, is redundant in that it only restates the idea of Jefferson's disapproval toward Hamilton's efforts. Unless there's a good reason to keep this, it should be removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Banning (1974) says Jefferson drafted the Giles' Resolutions. I gave the source. It should be in the article. It does not help to dance around the issue of corruption in government under Washington's presidency. It took place under Washington. It caused a financial panic in 1792. I am tired of having every edit watched I make under minute scrutiny. There is no need for an edit war over this. I allow other editors to edit freely, why not have the same priviledge. I don't have to defend every edit. The Giles' resolutions shows that Congress wanted Hamilton out of office. And he was in 1795. I don't want to keep defending myself. These were real resolutions. Not imagination. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh will you please stop it?? — Everyone's edits are scrutinized. You have made dozens of uncontested edits that are still with us, far more than almost all other editors here. Instead of deleting the statement this time, you were asked a simple question about it. There is no edit war -- there is no assumption that the resolutions are imaginary -- and there is no dancing around corruption, we're highlighting it -- remember Maria and her husband, and how Washington stuck with Hamilton?? Please stop playing the eternal victim. The question still stands: why mention the Giles resolutions when we already know Jefferson categorically opposed Hamilton's political aspirations? Washington had nothing to do with it, and you've yet to tie it in with Washington even remotely. The resolutions were drafted by Giles and Jefferson and aimed at Hamilton and were defeated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. Why? Banning (1974) mentions Giles' Resolutions, drafted by Jefferson. That means that Congress was getting fed up with Hamilton, resolutions were created. That is signifigant. Hamilton was out of office in 1795. He did not complete Washington's second term. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I combined sentences. Anti-Hamiltion Giles' Resolutions only mentioned being defeated in the House. Removed information on Jefferson drafting the Giles' Resolutions. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)