Talk:George Washington/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Article ownership

Why should I spend one more second on this article? It's in the clutches of two feuding owners. Bye. YoPienso (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any article ownership. I believe there is an effort to protect Washington and slavery. There was an effort to remove the word "Patriot" from black soldiers, a hidden meaning that only whites can be Patriots. This is either an effort of "neoconservatitism" or some other bias. All of the controversy seems to stem around race. That could involve some other ideology or ideologies that involve race. Wikipedia should not be promoting political ideologies. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, you just mentioned a "neoconservatism" effort. That's just as crazy as accusing you of advancing anti-American ideals for your continued effort to remove context. Let's not compound matters. Yopienso is correct, we were both acting as if we owned the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. "Anti-American" So Ferling, Taylor, and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association are anti-American because there was some critical assessment of Washington. That is what history is. The historian gives critical assessment(s) of a past event(s) or (a) historical (person) people. I was only using their sources. The book authored by Taylor lists African American soldiers as Patriot soldiers in the index. Fighting the British would make them Patriot soldiers. Let's not make things personal here or question my patriotism. I could question your partriotism here but I won't. This article is not suppose to be a blog that promotes any ideology, political party, or faith. It is not anti-American to be critical of Founding Fathers. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Michael Novak wrote for the National Review. Wasn't he a "neoconservative" ? He is listed as a source. He maintains Washington was a born again Christian. How can that be verified ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"So Ferling, Taylor, and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association are anti-American because there was some critical assessment of Washington"? — As I said, this is ridiculous. Listen to yourself now — giving an answer to your own silly questions. Try not to confuse, also, the difference between critical assessment and the concerted effort to keep context out of the article. If the critical assessment has any real weight, it will survive the context. Won't it? — I'd like to move on, and hopefully some of our fellow editors will join us again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I don't have anything in the slightest against George Washington. I don't have any political ideology I am pushing. I consider myself a Patriot or patriotic. I was born in the state that bears Washington's name and I have personally been to Mount Vernon, even the bedroom where he died. All I want is for Washington to get to FA. There should be enough critical assessment and reduction in the article and improved prose that get Washington to FA. From what I have read, people in England and Canada, are not taught anything about the American Revolution or George Washington. Somewhat of a footnote in history. So yes. I am for all moving on. Critical assessment is put in the article to get Washington to FA. We need your talents as an editor, and other editors, to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cm'. At this point I am hoping there is both enough critical assessment and context in the article to give readers a truthful perspective of what went on in George Washington's 18th century life. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving forward again

Cmguy777, it's good to get back to work on the entire article again. I've noticed you've made a good number of edits in a rather short period of time, which is fine, we've all been there. Just wanted to remind everyone that with so many edits one or two are bound to get changed or reverted. I restored mention of Washington's father and brother Lawrence giving Washington his first taste of education, which comes before mention of his tutoring. As this is a biography we should mention the basic important roles Washington's father and brother were involved with during Washington's youth, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have been reading through and editing on the article. My goal is to get to 95 K by smaller edits and improve narration. You are free to add or delete what ever you want Gwillhickers. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington's height

Chernow claims that Washington was only 6 feet tall and bases his speculation on a letter from Washington to his tailor. Later Washington, however, complained that his cloths were too small. Ferling, 2002, p.16, the cite that was being used to support the six foot height statement, says Washington's height was six-feet, three and a half inches. Accounts of measurements at death also vary. Lying down flat on his back, Washington's feet could very well have been pointing up. Washington had a reputation for being very tall, esp when standing among his contemporaries. He wouldn't have earned this reputation if only six feet. At 210-220 lbs Washington, who was known to be on the slender side, would have had a stocky or heavy-set build if he was only six feet tall. Our account now says that estimates of Washington's height vary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Weren't people on average shorter then? He would stand out more ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The normal weight for someone six feet tall is about 190 lbs. At 210-220 pounds and only six-feet Washington would have been rather stocky, or had one heck of a beer–belly. He had neither. At 210-220 lbs Washington no doubt was well over six feet tall, as most sources say he was. In any case, some of the sources do vary, so this is what we say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chernow said Washington himself told his taylor he was six foot tall. Why not go by what Washington said ? That makes sense. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Washington also complained that his cloths came back too small, as mentioned above. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Washington may have been overweight. We don't know. This is turning into original research. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It could also mean Washington was muscular, accounting for his weight. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Insert : Yes, we keep original research out of the article, including speculations about how Washington's muscles effected his weight. We only say what the sources say. If their accounts vary, we say so. Ferling says 6' 3.5″ — Chernow speculates and says 6' only. One of the nice things about Wikipedia is we don't present the narrative based only on one person's version of history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue of Washington’s height pales in comparison to the depth of his article, IMO. Hoppyh (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We mention that accounts vary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not start the talk Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chernow did not speculate anything Gwillhickers. Washington said he was six foot tall. That is what should be put in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chernow speculates when he says measurements of Washington remains may have been wrong if his toes were pointing downward, rather than straight up, which is more likely when a body is lying flat on its back. He doesn't know, either way. Chernow also claims this is what Washington said, but he doesn't make specific reference to a dated letter addressed to a specific name. To coin a phrase you recently used: "Where is the letter?" If Washington indeed said 6-feet, specifically, then we mention it, specifically. But since Chernow is only one source, we should give him no more weight than we do for Ferling and other notables. Meanwhile, it suffices to simply say that account's vary from 6' to 6'3-1/2″. Btw, someone used Ferling to source the six foot height claim, but Ferling said Washington's height was 6' 3-1/2″. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 and the Transformation of North America Admittedly Washington says that his measurements could be considered faulty. But he said he wanted his clothes made for a person 6 feet tall. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• From George Washington to Richard Washington, 20 October 1761 " I therefore leave the choice of the Workman to your care likewise—I enclose a Measure, and for a further Insight I dont think it amiss to add that my stature is Six feet—otherwise rather slender than Corpulent.2" Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Washington was slender, and he likewise mentions the fact while admitting his measurements could have been wrong. If he was 210-220 lbs and slender, he would have had to of been several inches taller than six feet. Easy to figure. In any case, we say accounts vary without asserting any of these things in the text. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Personal life

There seems to be some important items missing in this section, one of which is Washington's courtship of girls or women before he became married to Martha. The only thing that gets close to this idea is that he liked to dance. As this is the Washington biography this section should be given full weight, imo. Will look into the matter. We devote several sentences to horses, which is fine, but it would seem we should say a few things about this topic, (dating, first loves, etc) during Washington's younger years, more so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Dating, first loves ? It's the 18th century, not the 21st century. I am not sure we can equate such actions or give it full weight. We are suppose to be reducing the article not expanding it. Did the young Washington have an affair with Sally Fairfax ? Do we really want to devulge into such gossip ? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We know it's the 18th century, and Washington very well could have dated, or courted, a girlfriend, who could have been a first love. If we find information about a first love of any sort, we include it, as this would be a major detail concerning Washington's youth. — I agreed to 97k. You put 95k out there and no one responded. I also asked you what you expected if the article came down to a given page length number. i.e.Do we revert any further additions? You ignored that question twice, and I really don't expect your behavior to change now. Please don't stand over editors with a letter counter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Graham Woods said 97 % is not enough. We have to get to 95 %. Do you really want to bring out gossip against Washington Gwillhickers. How he told Sally he was in love with her while he was engaged to Martha. How he pleaded with Sally to come back to America. I made myself perfectly clear on the 95%. That might even be too big. My position has always been to get the article to 95% and then submit to FA. You never agreed to that so we are not on board. Do you want Washington to fail FA Gwillhickers ? I don't. I think he deserves FA. You seem to be doing everything to fight it. Why ? We edit the article to get to 95%. I read through the article and find areas to reduce. I don't specifically look for additions to revert them. Again you are telling me how to edit this article. I don't have to answer to you. You are not the boss. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"By the time he served in the French and Indian War, Washington, now engaged to Martha Custis, admitted to Sally that he loved her. "The world has no business to know the object of my love, declared in this manner to – you," he wrote, "when I want to conceal it.""1 Sally Fairfax Mount Vernon Ladies' Association Cmguy777 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Let the gossip begin ! Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in deep seated biasedly motivated opinions like GB's, and it is only your opinion that any first love of Washington is only "gossip", esp since it's covered by reliable sources. Also, no one responded to your 95k number, and once again, you ignored the fair question of what happens when we come down to a given page length number. You're also assuming that the nomination will fail on a page length number alone. I am no longer interested in your opinion, as you're obviously being argumentative. If you can establish a clear consensus for 95k, which you've already tried to do and failed, I'll address that consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have to answer any of your questions. You are not the boss. You do not own the article. You are doing everything you can to defeat FA. These talks are not nessecessary. You never cared for my opinions anyways. Any real Patriot would want to get Washington to FA. But no, some petty feud with Graham Beards gets in the way. Why are you friendly sometimes and then turn around and start to badger ? These talks are unproductive. Clear concensus. No one except you was opposed the 95 K. I was going be the FA review and Graham Beards comments that the article needs to be reduced. We are fighting in the talk pages rather than get Washington to FA. Hopphy also favored my reduction in the Final Days section. You reverted that reduction. There is enough on Washington's personal life. And you want to bring Washington's love for Sally Fairfax at a time when he was engaged. Don't use this talk page to slander me. I don't appreciate that. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What "slander"? This is mostly rant, and weasel speak, filled with the usual accusations, while in the same breath you complain about fighting. No one said you had to answer my questions, but it's rather obvious you can't. i.e.We are still faced with what will happen if there was a clear consensus to settle on a given page number. Then what? Your denial or refusal to address this fair concern only exemplifies the reality of that situation. Your dogmatic adherence to page length, too often at the cost of context and major details, is an affront to good writing and comprehensive coverage as is required by FA criteria. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I take the FA review serious. Two FA reviewers said the article had length issues. Hopphy approved of one of my reduction edits that you reverted. I was following the FA review. You can have good writing and comprehensive detail at 95 k. Of course you are the only judge to qualify what is "good writing and comprehensive" Gwillhickers. Why do you fight FA reviewers? There is no need to. I am complying with FA reviewers. And as Graham Beards mentioned you can't just pick and choose FA reviewers to get a pass. Graham Beards criticism of Washington does not disqualify Graham Beards as a reviewer. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

95k is a reasonable goal. Other than yourself, I don't see any objections. Get the article to 95k, then submit for FA review. 97 K was too big. So why not 95 K. It is a good number. My goal is to get an FA review that reviews content, not just page length. We don't want an immediate rejection of the article. It's not editor consensus. It is FA reviewer concensus that counts. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think there is a bit of history here, in terms of not complying with FA review requests. I think this was a bit of a problem with Jefferson. Washington deserves better than he’s getting here, guys, IMO. Hoppyh (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sally Fairfax

Washington was a real person with some faults, just like everyone else. A comment is due about his first love, of Sally Fairfax, as almost all the biographers mention her. Washington did not elope with her or actually had an affair, he only had a love for her. Even if he did, it would merit a sentence or two. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It is gossip Gwillhickers. Actually, it might not put Washington in the best light. Readers will assume that he loved Sally over Martha. Washington looks secretive and dishonest to Martha. Affairs come from the heart Gwillhickers. There does not have to be a consumation. Also Sally was a married woman. Not single. Also the Fairfax estate was confiscated by Viriginia for being loyal to the King. Washington had a hand in that war and was responsible for their estate being confiscated. Was there compensation for the Fairfax property. That is what is brought up. Nothing is really innoccent, is it ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Possibly words like "infatuated", combined with the very real doubt that there's much there there (after all, they did stay friends and the Washingtons and Fairfaxes visited back and forth until the Fairfaxes returned to Britain), can lead to a low key compromise about phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If there is a source who alleges it, it’s probably worth mentioning, with the proper description e.g. allegation, opinion, rumor etc. Hoppyh (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned already in the article termed a romantic interest. Washington said he loved her and wanted to keep this love secret. Keep what secret? Remember Sally is a married woman. Was there an actual affair ? For a time, the two did not live that far away, until Sally left for England. Why did Washington love her ? Did Washington not love Martha ? Did Washington only marry Martha for the money, but he really loved Sally? I don't think there is enough information on the issue. Love letters were found in Washington's presidential desk in Philidelphia. Were those letters to Sally or Martha ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

If we have RS that poses the query we can state that but I assume any attempt to answer it is going to be original research. Hoppyh (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

That is my whole point. Can historians say for sure say what went on between the too. Just a letter, infatuation, or was there something more tangible ? Do we want readers to jump to their own conclusions ? The article already says there was a romantic interest. Washington told Sally, a married woman, he loved her in a letter, at a time he was engaged to Martha. Why did he love her ? That is the unknown. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

95 k and improved narration

I have been trying to get George Washington to 95 k and improve narration to get ready for another FA review. I believe 95 k is the best article narration length that will keep content and will help in getting this article to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Context and comprehensiveness are what the readers want most. They really could care less about a given page length number. This is not the first time I've had to restore major details that were removed in this effort to get the page length down at any cost. Again, what happens when we get the article down to a given page size? Shall we appoint a Wiki-cop with a letter counter to stand over the article and not allow additional content?? This obsession and denial of inherent problems surrounding page length should really end, so editors can better give their attention to the narrative, not some page length number. Page length is a guide line, and exceptions are allowed. Thank goodness policy makers were not so inept as to not get that. The narrative should be the central issue. "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". The readers will appreciate it. It would seem that only a reviewer with an acute negative bias would go so far as to fail a well written and comprehensive article on page length alone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Article reduction has been mandated by two FA reviewers. All my editing has been done with that as a goal. Context and comprehensiveness can be put in the article at 95 K. I don't speak for FA reviewers. Editors are allowed to have their own opinion(s) on historical people. That will not affect the outcome of an FA review. Size of an article has nothing to do with content. In fact in the last FA review content was not discussed. None of the other editors have protested on size reduction to 95 K. Just you Gwillhickers. Hopphy thought my reduction in the Final Days section was appropriate. Two editors who had reviewed for FA said size was an issue for the article. The real question is Gwillhickers. Are you on board to get Washington to FA ? Or will you try to defeat such an effort ? 95 K is very reasonable. I don't want content to get lost in the article. I am following the concensus of other editors for article reduction. No content is being lost in the reduction to 95 k. Again, are you on board Gwillhickers to get Washington to FA ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Mandated"? You're repeating the same failed arguments while you continue to dodge fair questions. i.e.What happens after we settle on your preferred 95k line in the sand? You're only assuming, reaching, that the nomination will fail on a page length greater than 95k. Please don't carry on as if your opinion is analogous with getting to FA. Once again, FA criteria says the article doesn't overlook major details and presents the subjects in context with comprehensive coverage. Page length guidlelines take a back seat to that premise. Please stop this childish arguing and concentrate on the narrative. If the article should be greater than your 95k limit, then please try to cope with not getting your own way all of the time. It's rather obvious that is your primary peeve.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Getting my own way ? Primary peeve ? Childish argueing ? Two FA reviewers, have said this article was too large. I had asked if you were on board for getting Washington to FA ? You have not answered that. I can only assume you are against Washington from getting an FA review. Content can be kept at 95 K. It is not childish. I am a 54 year old man. Please don't refer to me as a child. Why make this personal ? Major details are not being overlooked. Content and comprehensive coverage have been given. This is not a book. It is a Wikipedia article. Fringe information is not content either nor supporting "neo Conservative" political view, such as Novak, put into the article, passed off as history. This article should not be used to promote any political ideologies, religious faiths, or any personal agendas. This article is not to condemn Washington either, his religion, or his role as a master Mason, or his slave ownership. For the most part this article is neutral, but neutrality is an FA criteria too. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• It was already explained how I wished to bring the article to FA. You can assume what you like, including the idea that page length is the most important consideration in a review and will fail on that basis alone. As for reviewer opinion, one of them shot himself in the foot with his admitted and deep seated bias, and as such has forfeited any credibility as for what is best for an article whose subject and country he holds in contempt, so all we have really is one reviewer who mentioned page length, but did not say the nomination will fail on that basis alone. This is your assumption alone.
• Re: Washington and Christianity: Once again, if you can present reliable sources that refute any connection with or homage to Christianity on Washington's part, please present them. That he was baptized a Christian and was an active member of the Anglican church is not a "fringe" theory. It is not a "fringe" theory that Mason's and Christians shared many common precepts and views, which is why Washington was attracted to the Masons in the first place. Please abandon the contrary and argumentative talk and present sources to refute Novak's (and other's) claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• "Washington's pastor at Pohick Church before the war confirmed that he "never knew so constant an attendant at church as Washington." His early biographer Jared Sparks recorded this comment from Washington's nephew George W. Lewis who observed Washington's private devotions in his library both morning and evening, in a kneeling position with a bible opened before him and believed such to have been his daily practice. General Robert Porterfield recalled that when he delivered an urgent message during the revolutionary War he "found him on his knees, engaged in his morning devotions".<Chernow, 2010, p.132>

Religion disputed information

I don't think there is enough evidence to support this information. It is unknown whether Washington had any religious training. He was baptized in the Anglican Church. Did the Anglican Church officially accept Mason rights ? Was Masonry part of the Anglican Church ? Was Washington a born again Christian ? There is no record of Washington professing Christ as his savior or that he believed in Christ's divinity. He refused to take communion as an adult, a central part of the Anglican faith. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Washington was educated in and adhered to the Anglican-Episcopal church, while he believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, with no indifference to other forms of Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a general statement. Novak (2007) did in depth coverage on this subject, and his bibliography is rather impressive, while he also draws on numerous letters from and to Washington. Our biography here also mentions that Washington was noted for his religious toleration, cited by Boller, p.125. He devoted private time for prayer, per Chernow, p.119, and embraced both Christian and Masonic doctrine, per Chernow, p.500. It would seem Washington would not have devoted so much of his life and service to a religion and church he didn't embrace. Was there something in particular that has you wondering if Washington believed in the basics of Christianity, typical of many Masons? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Novak's research was unfounded and he does not speak for everyone in the Christian faith. Christianity is an active faith. No Orthodox Christianity would condone a secret society such as the Masons. Christ did his ministry in public. Is Novak a mason ? Is Novak a pope ? There is no evidence Washington believed in the divinity of Christ and he refused to take communion as an adult. Nothing mentions Washington saying he was a sinner and Christ was his savior. Those are fundemental doctrines of Christianity that Washington did not follow. When was Washington's conversion to the Christian faith ? Novak's controversal statement "he believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity". Cmguy777 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Conversion to the Christian faith"? Washington was baptized a Christian as an infant and attended and extended his service to the Anglican church for many years of his life. Our own biography says this, yet you 'talk' like you just took up history yesterday. "Novak's research was unfounded."?? "Is Novak a Pope?" (Blur..) Cm', unless you have reliable sources that offers information that supports your fishing expedition, just save the off the cuff, argumentative, 'talk' for someone who doesn't know any better. Meanwhile, we say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Yes Washington was baptized as an infant into the Anglican Church. That is not in dispute. And it is not his tolerance to other people's faith. That is not in dispute. Gwillhickers, why have you ignored my other statements ? Christianity is a conversion, not a baptism. Washington never acknowledged the divinity of Christ. He refused to take communion as an adult. There is no evidence Washington acknowledged he was a sinner and needed as savior. His membership in Masons, a secretive society, was contradictive to Orthodox Christianity. Christ's ministry was public. Freemasonry in American Orthodox history. Freemasonry in American Orthodox history Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Apostolic Episcopal Church and Freemasonry Cmguy777 (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Anglicanism and Freemasonry Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Washington never had to 'covert' to Christianity. Also, please explain yourself, rather than just throwing links at me with the assumption you're actually offering some viable argument. Btw, your first link to an artcile says "The association of Anglicanism with Freemasonry is very strongly established in nineteenth and twentieth-century history, despite significant opposition from some quarters in recent years." Did you actually read it? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Washington mixed pagan beliefs with Christianity with his ideal of Providence: The Political Philosophy of George Washington Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Another link that requires 'me' to do reading and searching. Please present information that refutes Novak's assertion in no uncertain terms. That you haven't done this from the start only tells us you're simply fishing and arguing with no real knowledge of the viable facts in question. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. No one is born a Christian. People are born in sin. It is faith in Christ that saves. Washington never confessed his sin, he never took communion as an adult. Christ said to be saved one must be born again spiritually. Washington never acknowledged the divinity of Christ. Novak is a conservative trying to link Washington to the Conservative movement by claiming him as a Christian. Novak wrote for the National Review. Novaks book was labeled "Neo Conservative". Cmguy777 (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

There is division in Christian churches concerning Masonry : Christian attitudes towards Freemasonry. To say that Washington believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity is unfounded. The Anglican Church is neutral to Freemasonry. These sects are in opposition to Freemasonry: Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Church of the Nazarene Mennonites, The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Christian Reformed Church in North America, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, Society of Friends (Quakers), Free Methodist church, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Free Church of Scotland, Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, Presbyterian Church in America, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God Romans 3:23 King James Version (KJV) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? Acts 16:30 King James Version (KJV) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 16:31 King James Version (KJV) Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 King James Version (KJV) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5 King James Version (KJV) Cmguy777 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Washington acknowledged he was a sinner and that he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ or was born again ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We are not claiming in the article that Washington acknowledged being a sinner, etc. This would be a very personal and private matter for Pastor's ears only. Naturally there is no official record of such an event. There is more than enough evidence, however, that Washington embraced Christian views, which is all we are saying. All you're doing here is asking one narrow question and filling up the talk page with links to sources that don't refute these facts. We say what the sources say, and do so in context. Novak hasn't asserted any idea that hasn't been said by many other sources. We also acknowledge that some historians have assumed Washington was a deist because he never uttered the name Jesus Christ in public, which is easily explained, as there were many Christian denominations who often took strong exception to the others, esp between Anglicans and Presbyterians, and as such, Washington always stayed clear of speaking about religion in public, much less about Jesus Christ. This became a tradition among Ppresidents which is still followed by modern day presidents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Does Novak present evidence that Washington acknowledged he was a sinner, that he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ or was born again ? Making a blanket claim without any evidence is not history. It is just an unfounded claim. It is true modern Churches have distanced from Masonry. The Anglican Church allowed Masonic speakers. Did the Anglican doctrine during Washinton's time incorporate Masonic beliefs? One author said Washington combined pagan and Christian beliefs. That counters what Novak said. Novak is politically motivated to get Washington on his side. Novak wrote for the National Review. You can't be both pagan and Christian. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• You're merely repeating the argumentative talk. Washington wasn't "born again", as was explained. More than enough evidence has been presented to support this statement in our biography:

"Washington was educated in and adhered to the Anglican-Episcopal church, while he believed in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, with no indifference to other forms of Christianity."

We don't need official evidence that Washington admitted he was a sinner to support that idea, while there is plenty of evidence that Washington embraced Christianity, regardless of any practice while a Mason. Btw, Mason's were not pagans, people who believe in multiple deities, unlike Christians, so you'd better look further than your "one author" who claimed Washington was something of a pagan. Once again, if you can present reliable sources that cast more than a shadow of a doubt that Washington embraced Christianity please do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• GENERAL ORDERS
  Head Quarters, New York, July 9, 1776.
  (Excerpt) ... "The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger—The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country.
  <Fitzpatrick, 1932. Writings of Washington, Vol 5, pp.244-245>
  There are numerous such accounts that support the idea that Washington embraced Christianity. All you've done is submit incompetent weasel questions like "Is Novak the Pope?" – "Does Novak present evidence that Washington acknowledged he was a sinner, etc". Once again, if you can present reliable sources that can refute, in no uncertain terms, the idea that Washington was a Christian, we'll talk. Meanwhile, you can continue with the sort of talk you've been resorting to -- at least it provides an opportunity to get supporting evidence out into the daylight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a quote: "Washington did his level best throughout his trying public career to cultivate a stoical reliance on the will of Providence. Occasionally he used the Anglicized Roman term "fortune" instead of the more Christian-sounding "Providence." We will deal with Washington's complex conception of Providence at greater length; for now we note only that Washington blended pagan and Christian notions of Providence. He adopted the Roman teaching on the inscrutability of Providence, to which he added an unwavering belief, more Christian than pagan, Providence was benign rather than morally indifferent." Jeffry H. Morrison (2009), The Political Philosophy of George Washington, page 94. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting on its face, but this is fuzzy talk: "Washington blended pagan and Christian notions of Providence". How does one "blend" a belief in one God with belief in multiple deities? Morrison doesn't even use the term God, but Providence, which means fate. As mentioned, pagans observe multiple deities. All Morrison is saying here is that both Christians and pagans believe fate is determined by God or gods, respectively. Almost every sort of belief shares some of the same ideas. Does this source bother to say which other deity Washington was supposed to have embraced? (I thought so.) There's nothing here that comes close to refuting the idea that Washington got down on his knees before an open bible, on a daily basis, and embrace Christianity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence says Washington believed he was a sinner, believed in Christ's divinity, and was born again ? How does Novak support his arguement Washington embraced Christianity ? We can't put in the article some blanket statement by Novak without any evidence to support the statement. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the third time, Washington wasn't "born again". Where are you getting the idea that he was? The article doesn't say this. Novak, or the article, doesn't say anything about Washington believing he was a "sinner", either. Please review the discussion and the article context before asking incompetent questions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

America’s Key Founders, Neither Christians nor Deists: An Interview on a Major New Book Justin Taylor (June 6, 2012) The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution (The University Press of Kansas, 2012) by Gregg Frazer According to the interview Frazier said the Founders were neither Christian nor Diests. Frazier called them "theistic rationalists." Washington is listed as a Key Founder. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Insert : — "Neither Christians nor Deists"? That's a new one. So now we're expected to believe that Washington just put on this life long act, and believed in no form of God, even as a Deist? It seems all you've done here is demonstrate the amount of hyperbole floating around on the internet. I'm sorry, but it's become a little obvious that you're just fishing around for anything to fill up space, which you are free to do of course. Just don't expect that it be taken seriously. I believe this comment is called for. You just asserted the idea that Washington was actually an atheist and a life long liar and deceiver. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• “Theistic rationalism” was a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. Adherents believed that these three elements would generally complement one another, but when conflict between them could not be resolved or ignored, reason had to play the decisive role. Because they borrowed from natural religion and Christianity, if one selects statements conveniently and out of context, one can make them appear to be either Christians or deists. That is why both the Christian America camp and the secular camp can find snippets to support their claims. Interview of Gregg Frazer (June 6, 2012) Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

editbreak2

You've presented nothing that compares to Washington's life long service and attendance to the Anglican church, his daily prayers before the bible, his reference to being a good Christian soldier, etc, etc. All you've done is provided snippets of conjecture from your goggle searches. Washington's actions, his practices, all well documented by reliable sources, speak louder than conjecture, i.e. "rationalism as the predominant element". Since you're one for demanding 'evidence', where is your evidence for this assertion? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"No one is born a Christian. People are born in sin." This is not a universal Christian belief. Pelagianism, for example, explicitly denied it.: "Pelagianism is the belief in Christianity that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid." Dimadick (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, but my comments were directed at the idea that Washington was a "born again" Christian. There's no evidence, at all, that he ever abandoned Christianity for him to be "born again". Otoh, there is plenty of evidence that says Washington embraced Christianity all his life, as many Masons did. There's nothing in Masonic doctrine that contests Christian doctrine. Some individuals seem to think there is. It's almost like saying if you believe in science, you can't believe in God, asserted with the assumption that the two have nothing to do with the other. — Just a reminder, this topic can take us in many directions, so we should concentrate our discussions in terms of what the article should say in regards to Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Frazer disputes that Washington was a Christian. I quoted that King James Bible, the Bible of the Anglican Church. Original sin An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church Original sin is a Christian belief. Washington's paganism or natural religion may not have believed in original sin. I can't confirm that. What is disputed is that Washington was a Christian or that he was born again and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Christ An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church Cmguy777 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Eucharist An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church Washington refused to take the Eucharist (Holy Communion) as an adult. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Morrison, 2009 the source you introduced says...

"Washington...attended church but seems seldom to have taken communion, never referred to Christ in his correspondence. Yet he was a thoroughly religious man who quoted the Bible more than any other source, borrowed liberally from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and was firmly convinced a benign Providence ruled the affairs of nations and had presided over the birth of the United States."<Morrison, 2009, p.136>

Once again, there is more than enough evidence, per reliable sources, that more than supports the idea that Washington was a Christian. Seldomly receiving communion doesn't change this. These things also do not negate the idea that Washington was a man of the Enlightenment. Nor did his aspirations to the Enlightenment negate his belief in Christianity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

At dispute is Novak as a source. A "neo-conservative" writing for the National Review trying to link Washington with the Far Right or conservative Christian Republican movement. That makes the article political. Again Frazer disputes Washington was a Christian. Being religious is not the same as being a Christian. What kind of a Christian never refers to Christ. Communion has to do with Christ. No record of Washington taking Communion as an adult. In fact, he avoided that. All that needs to be said is that there is a dispute whether Washington was a Christian. But Novak is political. I think he is fringe who promoted a 21 Century political movement. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You can't impeach a source (Novak) because of any political leaning of the author. It's like saying, we can't use source 'X' because the writer is a liberal. Does being a liberal 'automatically' make the source not true? Nonsense. This is worse than judging a book by its cover. Also, Washington not mentioning Jesus in his correspondence and in public has been explained for you. There was much contention between religions, and he made efforts to not use Jesus when writing letters to other statesmen, dignitaries, etc. This is nothing amazing. We don't know if he used the name Jesus in person among close friends, or in his correspondence to Martha, as she burned almost all letters that were exchanged between them. Obama is a Christian, yet he supports the gay rights movement. Does this make him "non-Christian"? If a Christian should commit a sin - does this make him a non-Christian? Washington went to and gave service to his Christian church virtually all his life; he prayed before an open Bible on a daily basis; he used the term Christian in at least one General Order; he quoted from the Bible more than any other source. What does it take to see Washington as a Christian? All that we have that says Washington was not a Christian is the sort of argumentative, opinionated and reaching conjecture you demonstrated for us here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. I did not remove Novak. I used Frazer as a source. I don't speak for Frazer, who mentioned that Washington had a staff writer that could have interjected the phrase. I don't speak for Obama. Frazer's main contention is that Washington refused to take communion. Masonry did not support the divinity of Christ nor original sin. Is it possible Masonry and the Enlightenment had an effect on Washington and religion ? In my opinion yes. I had just put in the article there was a debate. I did not specifically say in the article Washington was not a Christian. I left room for the reader to decide. Frazer offers information on Washington, particularly that he was a prayer and encouraged other people to pray. Novak being part of a political movement or the National Review is a concern possibly fringe. It does not disqualify him to be in the article. I don't want Washington to be linked to a modern political movement. That is great for blogging but not Wikipedia. Did Washington acknowledge being a sinner ? When Jesus was tempted by Satan, even Satan quoted the Bible. I am not saying Washington was not a Christian. His freeing of his slaves in his will could have been some silent act of confession, an "atonement". Only Washington and God know that. I emphasize I did not specifically say Washington was not a Christian in the article. Let the reader decide. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Masonry with a religion. Of course Masonry doesn't support the divinity of Christ - neither does your local bowling team. That's not what it's for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed. Claiming Washington was not a Christian because of his involvement with the Masons is like saying one is not a Christian if one recognizes the role of science in nature. It assumes a Christian (or any) God has nothing to do with either. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Cmguy7777, you say you want the readers to decide, but your edits tells us differently. We had a statement that said Washington embraced both Christianity and Freemasonry, but you changed it so it reads that he only embraced Freemasonry. The sources say he embraced both, so I restored the original statement. Once again, you say one thing, but your actions tell us a different story. This doersn't do much for good faith. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But you are taking sides that Washington embraced Christianity. That is inserting your opinion into the article. That brings up a question of neutrality. Frazer countered that Washington did not embrace Christianity and says he was not a Christian. Let the historians debate. How can you embrace Christianity when you walk out of Church during communion or stop attending Church because of Communion. Gwillhickers why do you fight Washington to get to FA ? That is the real issue here. You are turning this article into your own personal blog. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. What source says Washington embraced Freemasonry and Christianity? There is dispute whether Washington was a Christian. I am trying to get this article to FA. Don't talk to me about good faith. Your personal attacks do not help this article get to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, you asserted your opinion by saying Washington only embraced Freemasonry, while striking Christianity. We are only saying what the sources say. Washington practiced both. We can include conjecture and doubt from Frazier on the narrow basis that Washington didn't always receive communion, but again, that is no different than saying a Christian becomes a non-Christian as soon as he/she stops going to communion or commits a sin. I changed "embraced" to practiced, as it is well established that Washington went to church, quoted from the bible, and prayed before an open bible on a daily basis, while encouraging men to act like Christian soldiers. As for this silly comment - "why do you fight Washington to get to FA ?" Do you ever go back and read your writing before posting? Please stop claiming your opinion/approach is the only way to get to FA. Thanks.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have issues with the phrasing of "practicing Masonry". That makes it sound like a religion, which it isn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: What would you recommend? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Hmmm. "Washington practiced Christianity while also embracing Masonic values", maybe? Chernow, in Chapter 2 (no page visible) places Masonry in the "social sphere" and says "Washington believed devoutly in the group's high-minded values", and quotes Washington as saying "I conceive it to be founded in benevolence and to be exercised only for the good of Mankind." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be on p.27. On retrospect, it would be best if we just said practiced, imo. Washington was attracted to Freemasonry because, like Christianity, it advocated high ideals believed to benefit mankind, so in a way, Freemasonry was like a religion, just like practicing good will by itself is like a religion as far as its beneficial aspects go. Since there are links to both Christianity and Freemasonry the readers can go to either page if they have any further inquiries. Yes? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Eh. It's not correct, but I'm not going to xkcd it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What source says Washington embraced both Masonry and Christianity ? Please stop your personal harassment of me Gwillhickers in this article talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan — Well, it seems no matter what we say there will always be some aspect of any term used that is not perfect for all readers. At least we are not claiming what Washington actually 'believed' by saying "embraced" anymore. No one, Chernow, Morrison, Frazier, can read Washington's mind (even if he were still alive) so all anyone can do is cite his actions. Since Washington prayed, went to church, quoted from the Bible, etc, we can at least say 'practiced'. Likewise, since Washington attended lodge meetings participated in Masonic ceremonies, it would seem 'practice' would be suffice to say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What Washington did not do is also signfigant for not taking Communion and when challenged to take Communion Washington refused to attend Church rather than take Communion. This section is on Religion, so it is appropriate to put in any beliefs of Washington or statements on Religion recorded by Washington. As far as I know there is no record of Washington specifically denying Christ's divinity. His friend, at one time, Gouverneur Morris, had said that Washington had specifically told him he did not believe in Christ. That is only his memory and there is no record of the event. Is Masonry a religion or a cult ? It seems to have religious aspects or rituals. It did not acknowlege Christ's divinity, nor original sin. As far as I know it was not a sporting activity such as bowling. It was more than just a fraternity. I think it appropriate to ask this question. It is claimed Masonry was involved in the foundation of the Mormon Church. From a reader perspective, it might be good to say what Masonry is. It is secretive. One person who told its secrets was killed in the 1820s. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, we have all sorts of articles like Freemasonry, Morgan Affair, and Mormonism and Freemasonry that will answer your questions above. You might try actually reading them, so you don't contradict existing text when you make changes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You know, SarekOfVulcan, you just vandalized my edit. That is predatory behavior. Most unbecoming of wikipedia editor. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I removed an edit that didn't reflect the source given. That's not vandalism. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I did reflect the source given accurately that Masonry teaches secret moral revelations for the individual by the use of symbols. I gave the page numbers. And then, you remove my edit and source, without any justification. A whole book on Masonry just thrown out on a whim. That is vandalism. The reader has no idea what Masonry is and deserves to know in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Secret, not particularly. Moral? Yes. Revelations? No. Symbols? Yes. Hebrew? Not sure where that came from. And the reader can click through to the link if they want to know more. It's undue weight to try to teach someone what you think they need to know about something that they can figure out by clicking on a link - and get far more information that's been hammered out over years of discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The symbols secretly reveal to the individual a moral teaching. That is a personal revelation. Certainly the reader deserves to know this because Washington had a painting of himself in full Mason uniform in 1793 and was the leader of the Masonic Lodge in Alexandria. It is certainly not undo weight. Washington had a masonic burial a funeral. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is the painting:

Cmguy777 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that's a WP:SYNTHESIS. I'll take this opportunity to tell you it's bad to kill people. That's a moral teaching. Have you just had a personal revelation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And nobody here is claiming he wasn't a Freemason. I'm just saying that you're trying to express your opinion of what Freemasonry is, instead of just giving the link and letting people find out for themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No. You lie. I gave a source that you deleted that defined Freemasonry. It is not WP:SYNTHESIS or undue weight. You make this personal. You are attacking me. The source I gave was reliable. It looks like you want an edit war. Enough talking. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no, I just want accurate information, and I think your last set of edits are good.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

editbreak3

It was well to remove the statement about what Masonry taught, esp since no such statement was offered about Christianity. However, if we are going to explain what Freemasonry is in a footnote, there should be one that explains what the basic precept of Christianity is. Since there are links to these subjects, it would seem best to refrain from any footnotes explaining either Christianity of Freemasonry. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem putting in what Chistianity is Gwillhickers. I am all for that. My edit was valid. The addition of the source was valid. There was a whole book written on Freemasonry. I added a footnote and a very brief definition. Nothing in the definition was sinister either. It adds stability to the article. I gave a reliable source too. I also added the Mount Vernon source on Freemasonry. How about this: "Christianity is a faith founded on the teachings of Jesus Christ." Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Christianity Encyclopedia of Religion and Society page 82 Edward I. Bailey (1998) Cmguy777 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do you feel links (Freemasonry and Christianity) are not suitable enough for a description? Seems the lede for these articles would be sufficient. Imo the footnote section should be used to cover lesser details about, or effecting, Washington, not for generic descriptions about major subjects, esp when there are articles for these subjects. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Why should we assume readers know the difference ? This is a seperate article. There is a section devoted to Washington, Religion, the Enlightenment, and Freemasonry. A definition for Enlightenment is good too. We have a President standing in full masonic uniform as a Master Mason while he was alive in 1794. Is there any reason to hide this from the reader, on Washington being a Master Mason ? Is it too controversial. No secrets of Freemasonry are given in the article, as far as I know. No negative information is given on Freemasonry. Masonry used symbolism. A brief definition is appropriate for Christianity, the Enlightenment, and Freemasonry. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

How is anything being 'hidden' with links to the articles that explain these subjects in full? I would think the Washington bio' is not the place to be expounding on either Christianity or Freemasonry, or any "secrets". As for uniforms, symbols and such, the readers can evaluate these things for themselves. You're assuming these ideas are automatically "negative". How so? As for the controversy or "negative information" about Freemasonry, this, also, is not the place to be entertaining such theories, most often perpetuated by the 'Friends of America' crowd. Nothing is being 'hidden'. Imo, simple links are the best way to go. Footnotes should be used for lesser details directly involving Washington, not for general descriptions of general subjects that have articles that outline these subjects in detail. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Interesting how a neutral footnote on Freemasonry has generated so much controversy. Since Washington was a mason the reader deserves to know briefly what Masonry is. The 1794 portrait is not negative. It depicts a historical event and shows Washington was directly involved while President in Freemasonry. Links alone are not adequate for this article. The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association says Washington continually contacted Masonic lodges by letters after 1782. He was Master Mason of the Alexandria lodge. He was buried in a Masonic funeral. The laying of the cornerstone of the Capital building was a Masonic ritual as depicted in the painting. And please don't tell me what I am assuming. That is gossip. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The foot note is a general description, and not the best one at that. "...a system of moral teachings veiled in symbolism." I've no objections of making such information readily available. The intelligent and inquisitive reader will go to the proper articles if simple links are made available. I added links for Baptism and Christianity along with a piped link to American Enlightenment. It could be argued that all these things deserve explanatory footnotes, but since there are main articles for these subjects, simple links are the practical way to go, reserving footnotes for lesser details about Washington. As for any 'negativity', I'm sure you know that many conspiracies theories about Freemasonry, most of them derogatory, have emerged during the 20th century, and having a footnote that says "veiled in symbolism" only plays into these speculations, which I'm wondering was your intention. Above you said — "No secrets of Freemasonry are given ... No negative information is given on Freemasonry." This is why I naturally said you assumed Freemasonry symbols and such were negative. No "gossip". You made your intentions with a footnote rather clear. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My intentions ? Go ask the author who put that in his book. It was a reliable book and author. I did not invent that definition. Regardless, the reader should have some understanding of what Masonry is in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You said negative. Washington was openly a member of the Freemasons, it was no "secret". While the organization has certain secrets about its ceremonies, history, treasure in Jerusalem, etc, it is no "secret" about the benign efforts towards society in general or their moral teachings, which is why Washington aspired to this fraternal order. As for symbols and uniforms, they exist in the military, religion, the practice of law and numerous fraternal organizations. Mark Stavish, the source for the footnote, is a Freemason himself. He doesn't say anything "negative" about the Freemasons. Those were your words. During WWii it is estimated that up to 200,000 Freemasons were killed under the Nazi regime. Apparently the Freemasons were doing something right. In any case, we shouldn't give a footnote to a topic that is well covered with its own article, per due weight, as there are none for Christianity, the Enlightenment, Baptism, Anglican Church, etc, nor should there be. This is why we have links. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Stavish is valid. He is a Freemason. So shouldn't we use his definition in the article. Editors are entitled to their own views on Freemasonry as well as the readers. We should not disregard Freemasonry in the article because of any assumed negativity of Freemasonry. Gwillhickers, when did I use the word "negative" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I had said "no negative information". Why am I under attack ? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Fairly negative here, actually... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You lie again ! Not negative. Viscious slander in the talk page does not help. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777, once again, you complained above that, "No negative information is given on Freemasonry", when it was proposed that the footnote be removed with a link taking its place. All that was pointed out was that, given your complaint, the footnote obviously was added for this purpose, esp since you didn't bother to provide one for Christianity. You wouldn't be criticized, or if you prefer, "attacked", if you simply didn't carry on as if editors can't remember past yesterday. Also, please don't escalate matters with hyper speak, accusing editors of lying, twice, and viscous slander. Once again, we shouldn't give this topic special treatment, while there are no explanatory footnotes for Christianity, Baptism, the Enlightenment, Anglican Church etc, all general subjects with their own articles. In any case, nothing is being 'hidden' by simply providing a link to Freemasonry. This is a reasonable and fair approach. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing on the article has become extremely hostile. Two editors ganging up on one editor. Every word deciphered to have some hidden meaning. Don't escalate matters ? Editors should be free to express opinions in the talk page, the freedom to be negative, the freedom to be positive. Editors should not be forced to defend themselves for every comment made in the talk page. I don't want to use harsh language. I don't like being accused of things or pressured to take back an edit put in a footnote with a reliable source. I was not complaining. I was careful not to word Freemasonry in a negative manner, using a book by a Freemason, who supplied a definition of Freemasonry. In an FA article that is perfectly appropriate. But no, editors always change the subject and attack the editor. Why not put an article of all links to the American Revolutionary War ? I was trying to move on from Freemasonry. Let the edit settle, but I keep get drawed back in. I am willing to stop using heated language, as long as I stop getting attacked. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you're not actually being attacked here, and that you continue to insist you are is fairly disturbing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"fairly disturbing" Again. That is another attack. I am not allowed to express opinions in the article that are falsely called "negative." Your continued obsession over me as editor is evidence of article control. I put in a reliable source and information on Freesmasonry in the article. That is what is generating this controversy. The reliable source and information were taken out without cause. I am continually being badgered for that edit. I hope that this will stop and the article can continually be approved. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I've asked at the Helpdesk if someone can drop in and take a look at this, and see if I'm using attacks I'm not seeing, or if you're seeing attacks I'm not using. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

How about we just stop and have a truce ? This is all about Freemasonry. Two editors not wanting the definition of Freemasonry in the article. I have felt pressured to remove the edit. That is what I would tell the help desk in this continued affront on my integrity. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The footnote was not even reverted. You were merely criticized, given your complaint about nothing negative about Freemasonry in the article. No "viscous slander". A reasonable alternative using links was offered, with an explanation that none of the other general topics had general explanatory footnotes, which you ignored and responded with accusations of lying, "viscous slander", "editor control", accusing editors of "ganging up" on you when they are only expressing a consensus, typically over reacting. "Integrity"? Now you want a truce, while your special footnote is still in the article. The footnote is undue weight since none of the other religious topics have special explanatory footnotes. Freemasonry should not get any more attention or special treatment than does Christianity or the Anglican Church — institutions that Washington committed much more of his effort and life to than Freemasonry. He and Martha attended church almost every Sunday, far more than he attended lodge meetings. Washington encouraged his men to act like "Christian soldiers", not 'Masonic soldiers'. Like our biography says, Washington's attendance at lodge meetings was "sporadic".
Links are neutral, they treat all topics the same way, and they do not 'hide' anything from the readers. There's less of a chance readers will click on a tiny letter for the footnote, strung in with the citations, than they will a link which is spelled out with an entire word. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The complete term Freemason was missing in the section. Along with adding this term, with a link, there was some minor rewording in the sentence, along with a brief neutral description, using Stavish as the source. while the footnote was removed. We still don't offer any description for Christianity, or the other subjects, but since they are generally common terms, they're not needed as much, while all such topics have their own links. Hope this is a compromise we all can live with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Moving on

Didn't realize matters went to a noticeboard until after the matter was closed. Am glad that nothing 'heavy' resulted. Hope that no one has been discouraged. Now that the dust has settled, we should move on and tend to sources, citations and any existing prose that needs tending to. The lot of us have much to offer. Let's get the Washington bio' to the front page and do this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I am all for moving on. I am not discouraged. Any comments I make will only be directed at myself, not other editors. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Final touches

It appears the article is about ready for nomination. Several editors have made numerous improvements in grammar, while many corrections in sources and citations have been made. As always, the more opinions, and the more eyes on the ball, the sooner we can iron out any last issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You can nominate the article at anytime Gwillhickers. I personally don't think it is ready. It is too big and there need to be narration improvements. But. I am not here to argue. These are only my opinions. I don't want to cause any controversies or fight editor concenus. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"....he was the principal force in victory, effected with the surrender of the British at Yorktown." in the lead needs work/simplification. It's oddly worded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary to keep track of Washington's church attendance or whether he kneeled at church in the article. Keep information on communion an prayer. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"signifigant obstacles" ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Washington and religion

Are there any records or letters of Washington quoting the Bible as is claimed in the article ? Old Testament ? New Testament ? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but for our purposes all we need say is that Washington quoted the Bible more than any other source. As Washington never used his religion as a device in official political business, it would seem actual documentation of specific quotes would be rare, assuming there are known examples at all. A search through the Washington Papers, as edited by John Clement Fitzpatrick or W. W. Abbot would no doubt be quite an undertaking. It is estimated that there are some 135,000 pieces of correspondence from and to Washington, most occurring during the Revolutionary War. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are some Washington quotes. They are not quotes from the Bible per se, but are rather revealing nonetheless.

• You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.  <Fitzpatrick, Vol. XV, p. 55, from his speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779.>

• While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.  <Fitzpatrick, Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778>

• The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger. The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.  <Fitzpatrick, Vol. 5, p. 245, July 9, 1776 Order>

• I now make it my earnest prayer that God would… most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of the mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion.  <The Last Official Address of Washington to the U.S. Legislature of the United States (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1783), p. 12>

Don't want to get away from article improvement, but I thought these items would prove interesting, and if anything, give us more of a perspective as we tend to the overall article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. But the claim is that Washington quoted the Bible. That appears to be a claim not backed up by the written record. I suggest removing the claim from the article before going to FA. In my opinion it is not good to put in any statements that can't be verified. Saying "bible" type words or language, is not the same as Bible quotations. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't help what things look like from our limited POV. We would have to search through many thousands of documents, letters, not to mention several hundred sources before entertaining your desire to remove the statement in question. There are 100's of sourced statements in our biography that are not "verified", so we can't treat this sourced statement any differently. We'll need more than speculation before considering removing this revealing context. Also, I made it clear that the above quotes were not from the Bible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

How can you find what is not there ? Did the author offer any examples of Washington quoting scripture ? It will affect the neutrality of the article. It is not speculation to verify a statement. It is an unverified statement. It does not need to be in the article. The statement itself is unreliabe. I have already stated my opinion. There is no need for further discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree. You've made a string of claims and turn around and say there is no need for further discussion. There is no basis to your claim that the statement is unreliable. The idea of Washington quoting the Bible is really nothing unusual for him and is consistent with the fact that he prayed before an open Bible on a daily basis, attended church frequently, encouraged his men to act like "Christian soldiers", etc, etc. You didn't acknowledge the fact that almost all sourced statements in our biography are not "verified", yet you've singled out this particular statement. Stating facts has no bearing on neutrality. Otho, singling out certain facts with no viable basis raises serious questions of neutrality. Washington frequently quoting the Bible is a major detail and a definitive and important item of context that needs to be in the article, per FA criteria. – "How can you find what is not there?" How do you know it's not there? Have you searched all of Washington's papers and all (or even half) the sources out there? It would seem that if you're going to make claims it is incumbent on you to present 'some' evidence that supports those claims. Meanwhile, we say what the sources say. Esp major details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This is what Morrison, in the reference cited, said about GW quoting the Bible. Here's a more comprehensive list.

All you have to do to find the actual quotes is to google "george washington" with one of those phrases.

stumbling block and millstone

wheat and tares

"take up my bed & walk"

"good & faithful servant"

"vine and fig tree"

Etc. YoPienso (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a Bible quote: "Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk." John 5:8 Washington paraphrased this passage: "take up my bed & walk". The two are not the same. One is a paraphrase, the other is a quote and reference to John's gospel. A quote of the bible would reference John's gospel. Again. There is no reference to Jesus in Washington's quote. I won't fight editor concensus. I don't respectfully have to agree with editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to saying Washington used biblical allusions or language. But I think it is not accurate to say Washington quoted the bible. I hope we can go on to other areas of the article and get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and almost changed that myself. In my mind, someone who quotes the Bible repeats at least a line and more likely a verse verbatim. GW used biblical terminology. YoPienso (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I made some changes, but am giving up, as the task is too daunting. There's no ref for the lack of GW's mention of Jesus Christ in his writings. Two possibilities are https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-religion/ or p. 95 in Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country by Michael Novak and Jana Novak. YoPienso (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the section can be perfect. The term "Jesus Christ" is in one of his public writings. One of his staff could have put the phrase into his letter. I don't think the section should make Washington look like a theologian. He was not. Make the best of it and get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Yopienso, thanks for making efforts here, but Morrison specifically says Washington quoted from the Bible. Whether this consisted of a phrase, sentence or a paragraph, the fact remains that he quoted from the Bible. Saying "borrowed" from the bible, by itself is sort of sketchy and could mean he related ideas found in the Bible. "Quoted" the Bible means exactly that and this is the term the source uses. The section now says he both quoted and borrowed from. The term 'Borrowed' was left in place, as Washington no doubt did that also, since he was already quoting from the Bible. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Included in the Presidency section was mention that Washington placed his hand upon a bible that was provided by a Masonic lodge. Since the Religion and the Enlightenment section lends itself in great part to Freemasonry, mention of their providing the bible is in order, and helps to dispel modern day distortions that Christianity and Freemasonry were two opposing or completely separate entities. Chernow also mentions on p.568 that immediately after the swearing in, Washington, visibly moved, "seized the Bible and brought it to his lips" I'm wondering if this should be mentioned also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Does the reader have any room to think in this article ? Since when is Wikipedia the advocate of Freemasonry ? I could debate whether Freemasons are Christians, but we are not suppose to do this in Wikipedia. The goal should be to get Washington to FA, not advocate Freemasonry in the article as Christian. I think this article is getting side tracked with Freemasonry. There is a book on Freemasonry that calls it a cult. This article should not be concerned whether Freemasonry is a cult or pro Christian. That is not a neutral point of view needed for FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating that Freemasonry is Christian. Freemasonry isn't a religion. Christians can join Freemasonry, just like Deists, Jews, and Muslims can. And saying that the article "should not be concerned with whether Freemasonry is a cult" and immediately posting a link to a book claiming that Freemasonry is a cult is questionable at best.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Freemasonry The Invisible Cult In Our Midst Jack Hill 1983 Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Insert: I removed the link. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS, if you please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Editbreak4

Cmguy777 — No one is "advocating" that Freemasons were Christians in our biography, even though many, if not nearly all of them, were. It could easily be asserted that the precepts of Christianity is what inspired the basis of Freemasonry. All we are doing is presenting the facts as outlined by reliable sources. Readers, and apparently some individual editors, are free to scoff at the facts all they like. Did you know Washington carried the book of Psalms in his pocket? Along with Washington placing his lips upon the Bible, perhaps this also should be mentioned. There's more. The objective and intelligent reader, I'm assuming, would welcome this perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Gwillhickers I can't continue this conversation concerning Freemasonry and Christianity. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. As a general comment to all, we have an opening statement that says Washington's religion and beliefs were complex, so this right off tells the readers there's much to be considered. We also provide plenty of details and context that lends itself to Washington's religion, that he didn't use the name Jesus, didn't receive communion, etc, while also mentioning he attended church frequently, prayed before a bible and quoted it often. Also, we outline Washington's Enlightenment and Masonic involvements well. We also mention there is debate among historians and others. No where in the section do we come out and say Washington believed in the divinity of Jesus or was wholly a deist, or both. While we can always find more details to add, I believe we've given the readers the overall view here. I don't see a pressing need to add anymore details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Article milestones issue

See error message above. Hoppyh (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix it. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Closing statements for lede

@Hoppyh: In the lede we now have two statements at the end of the first paragraph, one of which you returned there just recently after I placed it at the end of the lede with the idea it's a good closing statement. In their present location they seem out of place, as they're placed in the middle of the text covering Washington's life. If you've no strong opinions about keeping them there I'd like to place then at the end of the lede, after the summary of Washington's life, as they're more appropriate as closing statements. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the ranking statement is well placed—see Warren Harding. The “father of the country” reference pairs well with the end of the lede. I’m just a sojourner here, you guys are the landlords - just kidding? Hoppyh (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We are all equal editors. I think the scholars information is good at the end of the lede. I would keep the "Father of His Country" information in the first paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree, esp with 1st sentence. Anyway, articles such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, among others, mention historical assessment at the end of the lede, (just as historical assessment and legacy is always mentioned near or at the end of the article). As it is, the lede starts off covering Washington's life, stops and mentions historians, and then continues on covering the rest his life. If the entire life is summarized first, then mention of historical assessment is better understood. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Let it be said that you two agreed with one another for once, even if you are both WRONG. I’m kidding; not that important, assuming you are both serious about the article’s promotion. When in God’s name are you guys going to make the nomination? Make sure you do it together, because the reviewer needs to to see some measurable good will between you here, or the FA nom is dead in the water. Get together on this, and then we can make it happen. Hoppyh (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement. I think a Pier Review would be good before a FA nomination. Rjensen and Coemgenus would be of help. I think 95 k would be a good size to submit for FA. My recent edits have been minimal. Neutrality is a concern. I am here to get along with editors. I have made efforts to be more positive and work with other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Rock-throwing in "Personal life" section

There is a tidbit at the end of the Personal life section concerning W's great strength, illustrated by his throwing a rock—"to a height of 215 feet" or something like that. I've edited it as best I could, but somebody needs to fact-check this. Did he simply throw a rock straight up in the air? To a height of 215 feet?? That's pretty hard to believe, and how would that even be measured? And how big was the rock?? And why in heaven's name did he do this in the first place?

I was sorely tempted to simply delete the rock business because it is sketchy at best and very reminiscent of the cherry tree, but I resisted the impulse. Can somebody please elucidate? —Dilidor (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not something we are making up. It is found in Chernow (2010). Maybe "rock throwing" can be condensed that Washington was a strong man. It might be a reason why his peers respected him. I would condense the passage. Maybe just say Washington was known for his muscular strength, particularly his forearms. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

We had a simultaneous edit conflict, so I think I overwrote your edits—not intentionally. But look over that section and see where I moved it and whether you're good with it. —Dilidor (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, things like this are best looked into. As stories about Wahsington go, i would leave in the Cherry tree story, but would remove things like this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)