Talk:George Washington/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 → Archive 35

Historical rankings

The article on the Historical rankings of presidents of the United States has been recently updated, in order to include the Siena poll of 2018. Curiously, Washington tops the list as number 1, for the first time in over 30 years. He surpassed Franklin D. Roosevelt (2nd), Abraham Lincoln (3rd), Theodore Roosevelt (4th), and Thomas Jefferson (5th).

We could use information on the criteria used in this poll, and why Washington is rated so highly. Dimadick (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the current passing reference to the rankings is adequate. Hoppyh (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We want to avoid hagiography. The Sienna Poll seems to rank Virginia Presidents very high. Wikipedia should remain neutral with any polling. Aren't all polls in reality opinions. It is not only what criteria the poll uses but the criteria the poll does not use. We want to avoid original research too such as comparing one poll to another poll or comparing one President from another especially in different time periods. FDR contended with the Great Deppression and WWII, although he died in office, and started the research into the atomic weapons. How can that be compared to Washington ? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to suppress opinions then we should remove the entire Historical reputation and legacy section. Public and/or academic opinion can change, and reporting this fact is not hagiographic. Otoh, embellishing or exaggerating the facts by saying, e.g. "Washington, ' the magnificent ', ranked number 1, ' at the very top of the list above all others' " would be hagioraphic. This has been explained many times. We should keep up with the latest facts and not suppress them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Does Chernow (2010) say Washington was the best President ? His biography should have some weight. I can't find anything where Chernow compares Washington to other presidents. Sienna grades Presidents by their families. Did not think much of Lincoln's family. But the Viriginian families ranked very high. Poor Andrew Johnson's family the lowest ranked. What does ranking a family have to do with being a president ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement needed

In the lede we mention Washington's presidential ranking at 4th. This article used to have a lead statement that rated Washington in the top three. In any case, if we mention a major detail in the lede we need to follow up on it in the body of the text, which at this time, the article doesn't. Currently, the ' Legacy section doesn't mention any presidential rating like it used to. For some reason, this was removed.
Here is the source template for the Siena College Research Institute :

  • "Siena's 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018". Siena College Research Institute. 2019.

We should also check a few other polls, and then come up with a statement for the legacy section, per the lede statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

IMO, the passing reference to the ranking is sufficient, and should be placed with a link in the legacy section without additional detail. Hoppyh (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Insert : Which link? We need a few reputable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Reposting: No need to OD and cut of my questions : Does Chernow (2010) say Washington was the best President ? His biography should have some weight. I can't find anything where Chernow compares Washington to other presidents. Sienna grades Presidents by their families. Did not think much of Lincoln's family. But the Viriginian families ranked very high. Poor Andrew Johnson's family the lowest ranked. What does ranking a family have to do with being a president ? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
To be neutral all the polls would have to be listed. Assessments of President should be done by biographers. Also how can you compare FDR to Washington ? That is another sidetracked question. We can't use a Wikipedia article as a source. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
"All the polls"? All we need are a few established and reputable polls, where all we do is pass on the word. All polls compare presidents, be they FDR, Lincoln, or whomever. If we're going to report the polls, it's best to use those polls as the sources. What biographer mentions a 2019 poll? Chernow published his biography in 2010. Requiring that polls must be referred to by biographers seems as if you are reaching for excuses to prevent this from happening. Sienna Institute didn't simply ponder the presidential families and come up with a presidential performance poll – that is an opinionated distortion, and assumes that the Sienna Institute considers the historical academic world as a bunch of simpletons who will believe anything. Reporting the facts is neutral. Let's not belabor yet another simple issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I added a web source and that used Ellis as a reference source. We can't use a Wikipedia article for a reference. I corrected the lede. It reads "first among U.S. Presidents" without mentioning polls and says many scholar in addition to Ellis. The only issue the web source had was that Washington owned slaves. We can't make Washington a perfect god or man in the article. First among Presidents is a pretty accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Biographers like Chernow and Ellis should be used to make presidential evalutations. Interpreting polls is original research. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Washington has pretty consistently been ranked as one of the top three presidents, and I think that's all that the lead should say about that. Orser67 (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It is not in dispute that Washington is ranked as the top presidents by historians. But we can't combine polls. That is original research. We have to find some biographer, such as Ellis, that ranks Washington high or first rank. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Please review Original Research — Original research involves advancing your own theory or conclusion not supported by reliable sources. All we would be doing is saying what the sources say. If several notable and reputable sources put Washington in the top three we can say this in Wikipedia's voice and list the sources after such a statement. Also, you're attempting to make up your own rules by demanding that we must have biographers to mention ratings, knowing full well that all the biographies out there are several and more years old, and not one of them is going to cover presidential ratings involving the last few years. For those of you interested in moving forward and dealing with the issue honestly, here are some sources/surveys conducted in the last couple of years that put Washington in the top three -- with a couple that put him at the top.
Ellis (2018) is the best source. It is a book. I can't get Google to show page 223. Using mulitple polls is orignial synthesis or research. The polls don't rate a President for the challenges of their administrations. FDR contended with Hitler, Stalin, Japan, developing the atom bomb, and the Great Depression. Washington contended with none of these. How can you compare the two ? Siena also ignores civil rights and slavery. Siena downgrades a President because of their families. That is rediculous. The Presidency is not a monarchy. It is best to use a book source or reliable web article. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

More ill inspired opinion. Polls are not something that outlines, or ignores, a given presidency in terms of, of all things, slavery, and civil rights, an idea that didn't even register on the map in the 1700's, compared to the fate of a young and struggling nation, given the wars, foreign designs and national threats, common place infant mortality, disease, and overall hardship. All this sounds as if was parroted by some anti-American activist who's funded by foreign sources. Washington was a slave owner, but remains at the top. How does this happen? Evidently historians are looking at the complete picture, not some narrow and distorted modern day media version. And this take about FDR and the atom bomb in that he was in on it with the Nazi's is pure activist bunk, esp since the U.S. used it on Japan, a Nazi ally, after several appeals to this wholly racist nation to surrender, still mass producing weapons of war – nationalist and ideological fanatics with no desire to end the war. Please, no more BS opinions and endless talk. Once again, you are forcing that we compound and belabor a simple issue here on the Talk page. We say what the sources say. Ellis, welcomed as a source, is but only one source. We can not suppress the accounts of numerous and reputable polls. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful with your words Gwillhickers. "More ill inspired opinion" and "parroted by some anti-American activist who's funded by foreign sources" Those are direct attacks. Being critical of Washington is not being anti-American and neither is being anti-slavery. Lincoln was anti-American because he set the slaves free by the Emancipation Proclamation? Don't question my loyalty to this nation either. FDR had to contend with Nazis not Washington. I never said FDR was in cahoots with the Nazis. I was saying that Washington and FDR are incomparible. Historians looking at the complete picture. Gwillhickers you are too trusting. Historians are often biased and believe what they want to believe. To ignore slavery or civil rights in a review of Presidents is bad history. It ignores who Washington really was. A slave owner. That does not mean he was a bad guy, but it is bad history when historians sweep slavery under the rug. These are my opinions. Polls are primary sources too. Not written by anyone. Just a poll. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Given all the distorted issues you piled on to the issue of polling, i.e. FDR, the Nazi's, the bomb, historians sweeping slavery under the rug, etc, I am giving you my opinion as to what you sounded like -- someone who once accused me of "supporting slavery" for adding context. FDR and Washington are comparable because they were both presidents who made decisions that effected a nation of people. Now you're suggesting that Washington has a high rating because historians have "ignored slavery", and "historians believe what they want to believe", as if they've completely rewrote history. More bunk, and yes, it sounds like activist bunk, out of context and distorted, rife with trigger words, to win the naive over emotionally, without having to explain themselves. 60's old hat. At this late date you should know that historians have squared off with the issue of slavery -- dedicated books have been written about Washington and slavery, starting with Wiencek, 2003, which I assumed you knew. In any case, we have plenty of sources, enough to say that Washington has consistently been rated in the top three and lately has been rated number one by a couple of polls, in keeping with the latest historical opinion. This can be covered with a couple of sentences, making it clear that these are opinions, the results of historical polls. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A poll is no more a primary source than a biography is -- both are evaluations of the historical past. Even if they were primary sources, WP allows their use. — "Policy : Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care...". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Your the activist Gwillhickers. Hagiography is an issue raised from the FA review. You are pushing that Washington must be considered the number one President for readers by using the Siena Poll. Any critism of Washington if viewed as hostile. That should not be. You questioned my patriotism rather than discussing in a collegiate manner. That is uncalled for. Talk pages are suppose to be collegiate, without bullying, or accusations. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
"civil rights, an idea that didn't even register on the map in the 1700's," Come again? The American colonists were protesting, because they claimed to have the Rights of Englishmen, and that legal documents such as the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Bill of Rights 1689 should apply to them as well. Dimadick (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Dimadick, you left out the qualifying items to my quote in your above response. i.e. "...compared to the fate of a young and struggling nation, given the wars, foreign designs and national threats..." Those things were the major concerns at that point in history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777, You're still piling on more issues with the same old attempt at evasiveness and belaboring of a simple issue on the Talk page. Once again, reporting the facts is not "hagiography". No genuine examples of hagiography have been cited by you since the review. If Washington has been consistently rated at the top by numerous polls, we simply say so. That is not "hagiography", so let's try not to use this notion as a blank-check excuse to suppress facts. Can you find just one reputable poll that rates Washington near the bottom? Sorry, but you can't. I am only "pushing" that we tell the truth and say what the sources say. I'm not the one who's made sweeping indictments against the sources, that they "often believe what they want to believe". I'm not the one that proposed that we must use biographies to cite presidential rankings, knowing that the biographies are a few years old, at least, and would not cover current polling stats. Once again, you carry on as if editors can't remember past yesterday. That is incompetent. In any case, we say what the sources say. If you can find a reputable poll that places Washington far from the top, please present it, and we'll mention it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I just don't like it when my patriotism is challenged in this article. Having a civil discussion things can be worked out. I was Washington's Mount Vernon mansion. One of the many admirers paying tribute. No President should be above criticism. That would make him or her a King or Queen. With this said concerning pushing Polls. Please read this article: Presidential Ratings Are Flawed. Which Makes It Hard To Assess Trump Julia Azari (March 5, 2018) "The ratings are very forgiving of historic racism" "Although some rankings feature categories like “pursued equal justice for all,” significant acts of racism don’t seem to hurt many previous presidents. Woodrow Wilson is a good example of this. He tends to be ranked toward the top (11th in the recent survey), and in many ways, Wilson was an important architect of the modern presidency. But he also re-segregated the executive branch and screened the violently racist film The Birth of a Nation at the White House." Cmguy777 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
"Racism", an age old and world wide calamity, is a many faceted opinion, depending on who's talking, and for whatever reasons. No president is above criticism. Washington, who spearheaded the free would in terms of the common man, (Jefferson and Madison helped) free of centuries of Monarchism and dictatorial rule, has had more than his fair share of criticism, mostly fermented by his contemporary enemies, and the 'Friends of America' crowd, and racists, of all sorts. Polls are based on presidential 'performance '. In spite of Washington's "racism", he has come out on top. Don't know what else to tell you. Regardless of the sordid and never ending opinions, we must say what the sources say. Again, if you can come up with a reputable poll that says Washington doesn't deserve top rating, that would be rather interesting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
"Can you find just one reputable poll that rates Washington near the bottom?" At least in the polls available in Wikipedia, Washington's lowest rank is 4th. In the following polls:
  • On a minor note, the 2014 survey of Science magazine on how memorable were the American presidents, placed Washington as the 4th most memorable. 94% percent of American people remembered his name or had heard of him. Compared to Barack Obama (100%), Bill Clinton (96%), George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush (95%, though conflated into a single person by the respondents), and Abraham Lincoln (88%). How is Washington so well known, since most Americans can't name or haven't heard of Presidents other than Obama? Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Insert : I asked for a reputable poll that put's Washington near the bottom, or far from the top, and you give me several polls that put him near the top. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

"He tends to be ranked toward the top (11th in the recent survey), and in many ways, Wilson was an important architect of the modern presidency. But he also re-segregated the executive branch and screened the violently racist film The Birth of a Nation at the White House." You forgot something important.

Woodrow Wilson was born in Virginia, and was mostly raised in Georgia and South Carolina. His family were slaveholders, his father Joseph Ruggles Wilson was a chaplain of the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War, and little Thomas experienced both the War and Reconstruction first-hand. Thomas Woodrow Wilsom was 9-years-old at the end of the American Civil War, and 21-years-old at the end of Reconstruction in 1877. His first involvement in politics was supporting the political campaign of Samuel J. Tilden in the 1876 United States presidential election. If you were expecting criticism of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy and criticism of the Ku Klux Klan by Thomas, you have ignored his entire ideological background. Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Julia Azari (March 5, 2018) "It’s always political" "The president is by definition a political position, so it’s not surprising that these surveys are riddled by accusations — and evidence — that they are affected by the partisan leanings of those filling them out." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone read the Azari ariticle ? Azari says the polls are political and they are very forgiving of the founders and slavery. One poll evalutates equal justice and one poll does not. Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr. the father of the poll ranking system was critisized for favoring Democratic Presidents. I object to pushing polls on the article. It is original synthesis. A link has been provided to the Presidential Ranking article. Please don't attack my patriotism to this country. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Lot's of opinions out there about what other people think. You've cherry picked one: Azari. This is why we consult numerous polls, which all say the same basic thing about Washington, Lincoln, et al.. This can't be ignored. This attempt to assert opinion over all polls as an excuse to ignore them is outright POV pushing to suit your personal opinion. This is why I consulted and use numerous sources. Many of those same polls give Obama and Clinton a high rating, and Trump a very low one. I asked for a reputable poll that gave Washington a low rating. Instead I'm getting theories and editor opinion. Polls are based on presidential performance. You're suggesting that Washington sat on his butt for eight years and accomplished very little and are attempting to use 'slavery' as an excuse to justify it. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

A proposal for the presidential poll statement:

Over the years George Washington has remained in the top three category, along with Abraham Lincoln, for ranking the performance of U.S. Presidents.[1][2] In a 2012 and a 2018 poll Washington was listed as the number one ranking U.S. president.[3][4]
  1. ^ C-SPAN: Presidential Historians Survey, 2017.
  2. ^ Ellis 2018, p. 223.
  3. ^ Public Policy Polling, Raleigh, NC, 2012.
  4. ^ Siena College Research Institute, 2018.
Sources

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Presidential polls are political and are forgiving of Founders and slavery. With that said. What this article needs is a biographer or an author who gives (an) assessment(s) of Washington and his Presidency. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What we need is not for an editor to assert sweeping opinions about the sources when they don't suit his fancy, and simply to report what the sources say. You're obviously obsessed with slavery and seek to use this one issue, out of context, to assert your opinion over the entire polling system, disregarding everything else that was done by Washington to earn a consistent top ranking, over and again. This is flagrant POV pushing, consistent with your scoffing every time points of context, established facts, were added to the slavery issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We're using a book source, Ellis, at your insistence, who also gives Washington a high rating. Is he also included in your sweeping and opinionated indictments of the numerous sources in question? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would skip the polls and use Ellis. I have no objection to any statement that Washington was greatest President in the History of the United States, qualified there is (are) (an) author source(s). Here is the source I used critical of Presidential ranking polls: Presidential Ratings Are Flawed. Which Makes It Hard To Assess Trump Julia Azari (March 5, 2018). I have made no "sweeping opinions." My opinions I have had are not in the article. Editors should be allowed to question sources reliability. Editors in the talk page should be allowed to express opinions freely without express consent from other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
No one source/poll is 'perfect', and can't please all the people all of the time, given all the (often sordid) opinions and sentiments out there. But when the greater majority of polls and other sources maintain that Washington was at, or near, the top of the ratings, we should say what those sources say. "It's always political"? This more than suggests that all the polls and sources are from the same camp. Hardly. Historians and polls have the entire academic and political world looking at them through the lens of scrutiny, and are not inclined to reinvent the wheel in terms of history and the established facts. As objective editors for Wikipedia, read by many thousands of inquiring minds, every day, it is our obligation to tell them what the greater majority of those sources say. If there is more than one reputable and established source that says Washington was not what multiple sources have consistently maintained over the years, we should mention that also. No problems there. At the risk of getting up on a soapbox, we must tell the truth, to the best of our collective ability. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Are the historical polls being objective when slavery and equal justice are being ignored ? The title of the Azari article says the polls are flawed. Should Wikipedia endorse or push flawed information ? Why doesn't Chernow say Washington was the best President ? Does Ferling say Washington was the best President ? I don't have the Ellis quote or book. The quote does not appear on Google search. The best alternative is to use the Ellis book. Yes. The polls rank Washington in the top four, but that is original synthesis or research. Emphasizing polls will in my opinion destablize the article and make it appear to be more of a blog than a summary article. The readers need to make their own assessments of Washington. The truth is the polls are flawed. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The truth is, the polls are researched by a multitude of historians and scholars and have always been consistent. This sweeping opinion of all the sources is far from substantiated, while these endless questions are the same sort of questions we can hold over any source in the bibliography. If you don't know the answers to all the questions you're piling on, all you're really doing is asserting your own doubt and ignorance as an excuse to push a very narrow POV and suppress what multiple sources have consistently said over many years. All the polls have been generally consistent in their ratings, per president – Washington, Lincoln, FDR, remain high, while Pierce, Buchanan, Harding remain in the lower category, etc. All the polls have given these presidents the same relative ratings, so the historians and scholars involved have to be doing something right. Sorry. I asked you to review wp:OR, because you have that wrong also. It's a policy that applies to editors, not historians. Meanwhile we say what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of historians and scholars that participated in the Presidential Historians Survey of 2017. Among them is Willard S.Randall and Gordon S. Wood, two of our sources here — Ronald White and Joan Waugh, two of the leading sources in the Ulysses S. Grant biography — Annette Gordon-Reed, who believes Thomas Jefferson's paternity with Sally Hemings, a slave. In a HISTORY.COM, survey coauthored by historians Joseph Ellis and Christopher Klien, Washington gets top rating. All from the same camp? You've been asked at least twice to provide a survey that places Washington far from the top, and you've yet to produce anything but a lot of unanswered questions and unsubstantiated opinions ("destablize the article") without even an explanation. In all fairness you've been given every opportunity to provide and substantiate your POV and sweeping opposition to mentioning the surveys, in the ' Legacy section, per our lede statement, and haven't produced anything, while you continue to ignore all the scholars out there. It's become rather clear that you're unwilling to concede much of any thing. Would you please drop the stick so we can move on? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no survey that says Washington is far from the top. Nothing in the article says that he is. The article says he is one of the best presidents among scholars. Many scholars put him at the top. Slavery has been addressed in the reputation section. I don't have an issue with surveys as long as the survey is mentioned one at a time. Grouping them together is original synthesis or research. The title to the Azari (2018) article says the polls are flawed; in that slavery is ignored, while the presidency is a political office, and that polls are political. You are welcome to disagree with Azari. Again, any survey mentioned should have a direct source reference to the survey. We can't group the surveys together. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Once again, OR is not an issue if we do not advance an unusual opinion or theory not supported by the sources. The above proposal is not at all OR, and is well sourced. We can add more cites if you really think this is necessary. Once again, please read what it actually says about Original research. As it is, we only have the word of one historian who speaks on behalf of other historians. While I agree with Ellis' statement, this idea needs to be better stated, qualified and sourced, given all the controversy about Washington, esp among the naive and ignorant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
There needs to be a source that says Washington was top ranked among Presidential Ranking polls to group different polls together. Otherwise it is original reasearch or synthesis. It has to be this way. Poll A said Washington was...(reference) Poll B said Washington was...(reference). Cmguy777 (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Washington has ranked among the five top Presidents. His strengths included leadership ability, integrity, moral authority, and economic management. However, Washington ranked lower for intelligence, party leadership, communication ability (speak, write), and pursued equal justice. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Your first sentence is synthesis. Your second sentence is highly subjective and would need multiple sources to cite it before we can even consider using it and would also involve synthesis. Once again, you say one thing and do the opposite. Further, I asked you to review OR numerous times now and you're still getting it wrong. Once again OR and SYNT : Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.. (emphasis added) If several of the sources put Washington at the top, we can say this. i.e. The 2nd and last sentence in the above proposal merely says, — "In a 2012 and a 2018 poll Washington was listed as the number one ranking U.S. president." — and uses those polls as sources. There is no synthesis here. Once again, you carry on as if none of us can remember yesterday. Please review the discussions before responding. This is getting a little ridiculous. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I was only attempting to compromise. There is a book titled The Top 5 Greatest Presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt. So the first sentence is not synthesis. The rest of the information comes from the Siena 2018 poll and CSPAN 2017 poll. I could have used the actual rankings. You were the one pushing the polls Gwillhickers. There are categories to the poll. You just want to push the number one overall ranking without any of the categories. You don't want to allow any lower ranking by category of Washington. That is misleading POV. I think it best to break any conversations with you Gwillhickers for now. Your tone is extremely hostile. I have tried to be civil. You will not allow any criticism of Washington in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not resorted to synthesis. My tone is now angry because I have lost almost all patience with you, as you've been acting quite irrational, saying one thing and doing another, misrepresenting policy, ignoring important points in the discussion, brought to your attention numerous times, and now here you are accusing me of "not allowing" lower ratings — this after I have asked you several times to produce a survey that places Washington "far from the top". Above I clearly said : "If you can find a reputable poll that places Washington far from the top, please present it, and we'll mention it." Remember?? My proposal mentions the top three, yours mentions top five. Either one is okay. The 2018 Siena survey is a highly reputable source, and is used in conjunction with the Public Policy Polling source that both place Washington at the top. The only thing I am "pushing" is that we report these things honestly and not try to invent excuses to suppress them, as you seem to have been doing all along.
My proposal is short and simple:
"Over the years George Washington has remained in the top three category, along with Abraham Lincoln, for ranking the performance of U.S. Presidents. In a 2012 and a 2018 poll Washington was listed as the number one ranking U.S. president.
It's general and straight forward, and provides us with a latest poll, brought to our attention by Dimadick. It doesn't get into things like "integrity, moral authority, intelligence, communication ability (speak, write)", these are, or should be, covered in the text. Polling statements concentrate on presidential performance, need to be short, simple and in summary form. Again, we would need multiple sources that rate all these different things, and it's very unlikely we're going to get the same account about subjective ideas like "intelligence, morality, etc" from multiple sources. Otoh, presidential performance can be judged by tangible accomplishments, which is why the polls have been generally the same for years.
Btw, there was a statement in the Early life section that said Washington's writing was articulate and forceful, contrary to the survey you managed to come up with, but seems to have disappeared these major details have been relegated to a footnote. Nor does it say anything about Washington's education in the main text, as it once did, yet we have a lede statement about education. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Cm', Washington was a farmer, frontier's man and a soldier, etc, but not a political scientist, or some such, as was Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton. He was not an academic and I've no objections in mentioning these things in the text if this is not intimated enough in our summary. Washington's "intelligence" was manifest in his overall involvements. Above you mention that among his strengths was "leadership ability", but then you maintain that he "ranked lower for intelligence, party leadership". Subjective opinions. Let's get the facts straight and cover this better in the text. Meanwhile, we should just mention the polls in their overall findings, per presidential performance. All the numerous surveys are consistent in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The poll issue can be resolved as long as we can have a collegiate conversation. Since the polls are primary sources OR and OS must be avoided in the article. But I think things can be worked out. Sienna 2018 poll has a press release. Siena’s 6th Presidential Expert Poll 1982 – 2018 The Siena Poll has 20 categories. Washington is ranked first overall because he encouraged trust in the federal government. Should all the twenty categories be listed ? Washington did not rank first in every category. But at least this is a start. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
CSPAN 2017 survey had 10 qualities of presidential leadership: CSPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2017 Methodology Cmguy777 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the 2018 Siena survey results. Btw, in the Presidential Historians 2017 Survey, under the Moral Authority category, Washington is at the top of the list, with Lincoln 2nd, but again, we are not here to break down and outline a given survey. At long last it's nice we can move on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem. I added a PDF link for the full Siena 2018 Expert Poll. Readers can view the full categories. Is slavery/racism moral ? Remember Azari (2018) said the polls are political and the Founders were given a free pass concerning slavery (racism) by scholars. I think the polls have been presented as neutrally as possible. I think this conversation has been discussed. Time to go on to other things. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Spot checks, etc

During the last review, one of the major considerations were citations. Every time a couple of editors did spot checks they found discrepancies. I've found several myself sometime there after, without having to spot-check many to come across one, so I can only assume there are still more to uncover. This requires a lot of time and reading. With all the prolonged issues, this effort has been interrupted. All interested editors should take a poke at the narrative and cites from time to time so we can get through this. With all the improvements in grammar made by several editors, and with a major reduction in size, I remain optimistic that we've don't have much farther to go before we start entertaining the idea of a FA nomination again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up, but here goes. Each section including the lede should be gone over and approved by editors, possibly putting each section up for discussion in the talk pages. We need more input from other editors. I don't think we are anywhere close to renominating for FA, until there is more editor input. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree overall. We need other editor's input, indeed, but because you and I have overwhelmed the Talk page this may take some time. Given our prolonged and belabored Talk, I suspect a fair number of editors have looked at the Talk page in utter dismay. At least two editors have said, in so many words, move on. In terms of the narrative, I feel we are close to a FA nomination as soon as we've spot-checked the cites/sources. As said, we need to check cites and other lose ends. Hopefully we can go the last nine yards and do this without any other issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The article in my opinion needs more than spot-checked. Each section should be gone over including the lede for accuracy, neutrality, and narration. Washington's slavery and religious sections should/could be reduced. There are existing articles. I think sometimes the narration is choppy or unclear and there is still a hagiography issue. No. I don't want to create problems that are not there. Don't fix was it is not broken. I propose a section by section reviews starting with Washington's early years. That way editors can respond in an orderly collegiate manner. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Section by section reviews

I propose a section by section reviews of each sections before FA nomination submittal. Not to fix what is not broken, but to improve narration, accuracy, neutrality, citations, and reduce any potential hagiography. I encourage editor input in a collegiate manner. These are ten sections. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

♣ Symbol on sections that need work.
♦ Symbol on stable sections.
  • Early years (1732–1752) ♦

This section appears to be edited well. I can't see any thing outright that needs improvement. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Early military career (1752–1758) ♦

Narration improvements made. Section looks good to me so far. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Marriage, civilian and political life (1759–1774) ♣

This section appears in good order in my opinion. It's understandable, neutral, and the reading flow seems good. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Added clarification on Washington 25,000 acre land grab. Taylor (2016) page 75. Removed note. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
More clarification could be used on Washington's land grab and Crawford. Did the King allow land allotment in 1770 he had previously banned in 1763 ? The information or data is a bit confusing. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Removed information on land grab until better clarification is found. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Revolutionary War (1775–1783) ♦

Minor tweaks. Section looks stable. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Early republic (1784–1789) ♦

The section looks stable but I recommend not using the block quote. It interferes with the flow of the narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Presidency (1789–1797) ♣

Introduction in this section is very wordy. Narration could be reduced. More in-line with summary style. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The rest of the section looks stable. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retirement (1797–1799) ♣

Wordy. Narration could be reduced. It reads like a book. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Burial and aftermath ♦

This section looks stable. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Personal life ♣

This section is wordy. Narration could be reduced. There are two dedicated articles on slavery and religion. Could pose problems for any future FA nomination. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Historical reputation and legacy ♣

Somewhat stable. A bit wordy. Cherry tree myth/story fabricated by Parson Weems. Unnecessary for legacy. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Article Stability

The grammar has been mulled over and tweaked for months since the last review. To assume that it still needs more tending to on a major scale is to say multiple editors have still not gotten things right. IMO, we should tend to factual issues, like the wrong page numbers for cites, things that are not a matter of opinion, but factually incorrect as the case may be. The article needs to stabilize, but with constant changes, tweaking and opinionated issues hitting the fan, article stability doesn't seem in the offing. If some of the facts are plain wrong we fix them. If some of the cites are factually wrong, we fix those too. It's about time the lot of us stopped treating the narrative like our personal sketch pad, rewording the paragraphs only to be saying the same thing. This article has been subjected to one issue and change after another. Let's get the cites and facts checked and leave the narrative to the reviewers for a change. We need to cease with the constant and belabored issues, and end the constant changes and instability. It's really a wonder that the GA status for this article hasn't been revoked. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of the narration was stagnant or made no sense. Yes. The article is not a personal sketch pad. I agree. My goal was to make the narration readable and understandable. Washington's land aquirements are not clear, especially prior to the American Revolution. It would help to cooperate in the section by section review above. I don't touch the narration where it is good. I don't touch the original reference page numbers, but will add in case more context is needed. Going through the article will only make the article more stable. It is not a rewrite. It is a review. There is a difference. A review fixes narration issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I found five sections that need work to get FA. In my opinion we are half-way to FA. I know that reducing the narration would meet resistance. That is why I did the review. I put ♣ symbol in the above review for areas that need work. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The most pressing problem for this article, in my opinion, is lack of participation needed from other editors. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article makes perfect sense, or are you suggesting everyone else's edits need work, except for yours? "Half way to FA"? This is to say the lot of us only have half a clue. I didn't mean to say we shouldn't change a letter in the narrative. Please tread lightly, and if you've a mind to, dig into the narrative, and look into the citations - the toughest task. Yes, other editor's input is welcomed, and needed, but between the two of us, and our perpetual talk (blur), I fear most have no desire to chime in any longer. You and I need to back off, and concentrate on cites and any errors in the facts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two many references in the narration. I said before Chernow should be the hub source for this article. I don't have every book that are listed as sources. So it is difficult to check the citations. I never said other editors have "half a clue." Those are your words. Any corrections or improvements to my edits are welcome. In my overview I recommended five sections that need improvement. The sections are wordy and bookish. I am not for the blocked quote. Half the article is stable. Call it a hunch, but the other five need work to get to FA. The ♦ sections are stable. We need to get all of the sections to ♦. But I know reducing the words or getting rid of the blocked quote would create an edit war. That I don't want. Getting more editors on board would help. I don't think the Cherry Tree myth should be in the article since it was a fabrication of Weems. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Insert : "Wordy and bookish" is yet another recipe for perpetual debate. Narratives are composed of words. We're not writing an outline or making a police report, so the article should not read like one. FA criteria calls for comprehensiveness, context and good writing. This calls for more words than a grade schooler would use. Anyone can sit back and endlessly tweak the grammar to their personal liking with the opinions of "too wordy", "better flow" ... At this point I would think that we finally need to tend to the citations and facts and do the tough jobs. Meanwhile, the narrative is fine overall, with the exceptions of redundancies, and any spot-checks needed. The editors who have worked on the article have done a good job for the most part, so I am not about to carry on with perpetual tweaking, making sweeping statements about their work with the obvious implication that half the article is still in dire need of improvement or correction, esp while there are facts and citations that need looking after. At this point we should make efforts not to create petty issues, and we certainly don't want to rehash and perpetuate another belabored debate, if we truly want to get "more editors on board". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Insert : I am only saying what needs to be said. My edits comments are designed for the FA review. Unless your an FA reviewer Gwillhickers, on this article, edits need to be designed to pass FA. Yes. I believe there are sections that could be edited with less words and content kept. Whether I agree with an FA reviewer or not is not the issue. The focus should be getting Washington to FA and to be Wikipedia's front page. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
FYI. In the very first section we are:
  • told three times that Washington's father was Augustine;
  • told three times that his mother was Mary;
  • told twice that his brother was Lawrence;
  • told twice that he was not educated at Appleby Grammar School;
  • told that he had a son called Lawrence and a grandson called Augustine who, it can be interpreted, both settled in Virginia with his great-grandfather in 1657;
  • given the implication that he made other trips abroad that did not involve his brother as a travel companion or Barbados as a destination.
So I'd suggest that this article needs just as much attention to the prose as it does to the spot checks (and in terms of the latter, here's one for free: I believe Washington leased Mount Vernon in 1754, but did not inherit it until 1761). Factotem (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Factotem. I've looked after some of the issues. Sometimes, however, it is appropriate to mention a name more than once. I've no issue with looking after items such as this, and of course, the spot checks and outright factual errors. Once we get through those sort of items most of the issues will take care of themselves. As said, the grammar has been gone over by multiple editors, so sometimes, with all the constant tweaking, the edits of one editor can go unnoticed by another, myself included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Factotem is correct and more than welcome to edit on the article. I have been trying to tighten the narration in the Early Years section, keeping essential context with less words. It is not grammar particularly, but the narration needs to flow smoothly. Paragraphs should be constant maybe around 150 words. I think it best to put historian comments in notes, because it disrupts the summary narration. I am not a huge fan of blocked or primary quotes. I am not sure modern readers understand 18th century context. In the overview there are sections that are wordy. The information can be said with less words. More editors need to be involved in the talk pages and in editing the article. These are just my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have attempted to improve the writing numerous times in the past, as has hoppyh and one or two others. I finally gave up in dismay, as I have already mentioned; one of the causes of that dismay was the ceaseless tweaking and counter-tweaking of the article as a whole. I would make a section read smoothly and grammatically, only to find that it had been nearly rewritten a few days later. I just finished a quick copy edit on the intro because of Factotem's comments above, and am willing to continue going through the rest of the article—but only if Gwillhickers and Cmguy777 can assure me that the dust has settled and the relentless tweaking is over. —Dilidor (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I am all in favor of that Dilidor. Go ahead through the rest of the article. Have at the article. Thanks. I have made comments in the above review where I believe the article is wordy. There was a disagreement on the blocked quote in one section. I don't think it is needed. Also, I am willing to remain on the sidelines and interested in seeing your work. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Not me. "relentless tweaking"?" Several major details were recently removed form the lede that were not at all "redundant", including Washington as delegate to Continental Congress, commander in chief, victory at Yorktown. These are landmark events. I also restored some links in the info-box that have been in place for years, with no reason given for their removal. Everyone "tweaks", sometimes needlessly, something I had commented about in an effort to stabilize the article. Then along comes one editor, goes far beyond 'tweaking' and in the process removes several major details from the lede with another editor patting him on the back. As always, I welcome real improvements, and the sort of advice Factotem has provided, but I see the recent edits/major deletions made by another editor as reckless and misguided, and the comments made directly above by the two editors involved as highly inappropriate. I initiated this section in the hopes to stabilize the article. The article has been authored by numerous editors, including those present now. I reject the premise that one editor needs to plow through the entire article and make the sort of edits that we just witnessed in the lede and info-box. Is this the sort of thing that is in store for the rest of the article? Thanks guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Please allow Dilidor to edit on the article. You can't tell Dilidor not to edit. This is obstruction and article ownership. It is you Gwillhickers that is keeping Washington from getting to FA and creating article instability. You simply won't allow another editor to edit. Your protection of Washington is keeping Washington from getting to FA. Dilidors edit to the lede was acceptable and appropriate. This is why other editors fear to work on this article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No one even implied that Dilidor can't edit. Obviously, I took exception to his removing of major landmark topics from the lede. That was far from "appropriate", and that you support such edits is rather revealing. Your claim that I "won't allow another editor to edit" is typical, and rather moronic. Please cease from the provocative and inflamatory accusations. IMO, it almost seems you are intentionally trying to get the article from reaching FA, given your accusations, recent and past multiple pov attempts, reverts and belabored Talk, so you might want to try your luck on another scapegoat. Once again, you are dragging in multiple issues, right at the time I appealed for article stability, and no doubt are ever ready to belabor these issues as you've always done all along, per edit history, in spite of my multiple appeals to drop the stick so we can move on to factual issues, spot checks, etc, that need our attention. As a result of your habitual accusations and prolonged Talk, you were once taken to a noticeboard for such behavior. If you want to remain on the "sidelines", that would be a big help. Let's see how long that lasts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I was only in agreement with Factotem and Dilidor. I was not being accusatory. I just stated my opinions in the talk page. Taking a break from the article will do me good. How long ? I don't know. All I wanted was for Washington to get to FA. That was my only POV. Take care. I drop the stick. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. See my note on your Talk page. I see Factotem has jumped in and is tackling some of the tough jobs. I'm going to give it a brake for a few days, then screw my head back on and help out with the fact checking, redundancies, etc. Keep well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Progress on the article

How is the article coming along? (This message is directed at the main contributors to the George Washington article.) Векочел (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference errors

Yay! Harvard ref errors! As follows:

  • Ref 69 - Alden 1993 Harv error: link from CITEREFAlden1993 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ref 220 - Chernow, 2010 & Bell 1992, pp. 52, 66. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow2010Bell1992 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ref 222 - Ferling 2009, pp. 251–255; Flexner 1974, p. 196; Chernow. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ref 223 - Ferling 2009, pp. 251–255; Flexner 1974, p. 196; Chernow, pp. 479-480. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ref 224 - Chernow. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.

Editors need to be careful about

That is all. Harvard cites are SO much fun. Lol. Shearonink (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, Harvard cites can get tacky. I prefer the standard types, but can deal with ol' Harvey. Thanks for doing the tough leg work and looking into factual matters. Still looking forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with Harvard cites is that many (if not most) editors don't really know how to handle them - they drop truncated refs in or mess up bits of the code or whatever. The only reason I know is because I've been finding SO many Harvard error and SO many Harvard warning CITEREFS all over Wikipedia articles lately and I've been fixing them and then I dipped back into this article for a moment and find some more. I'm tired of getting rid of the errors & warnings so someone else will have to correct and adjust the ones in this article. Ciao. Shearonink (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually...there are Eleven separate Harv errors or Harv warnings.
Under the Bibliography section we have these additional 4 ref problems:

  • Don Higginbotham ref
  • Rupert Hughes ref
  • Jonathan Elliott ref
  • Murray/Blessing ref

Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

'Fraid I'm one of those editors who is clueless about Harvard refs. The Murray/Blessing error is certainly mine, I added that today. Would you be willing to correct it so that I can see where I've gone wrong? Quite possible that I've caused the other three as well; been taking the pruning sheers to the prose. If I have, then apologies. I'm a <ref>...</ref> diehard. Factotem (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Strike that. Figured it out. Factotem (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
And none of the others have been impacted by any of my edits. Factotem (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Yay for figuring things out - hurrah! Shearonink (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Problems with Harvard cites/Referencing errors

References section
Some of the referencing numbers have changed from my last post about this but all of the six (the Citation errors are going up?...) present Harv errors are as follows:
Citations...
*Ref 31 - Chernow 2010, pp. 72–73Fitzpatrick; 1936, p. 512 Harv error: link from CITEREF1936 doesn't point to any citation.

See article, piping was missing between Chernow & Firspatrick. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

*Ref 46 - Alden 1993, p. 71. Harv error: link from CITEREFAlden1993 doesn't point to any citation.

See article, year should have been 1996 not 1993. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

*Ref 197 - Chernow, 2010 & Bell 1992, pp. 52, 66. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow2010Bell1992 doesn't point to any citation.

See article, this ref was missing piping between authors/refs. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

*Ref 199 - Ferling 2009, pp. 251–255; Flexner 1974, p. 196; Chernow. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.

Was {{sfn|Chernow|2010|1p=479|Bell|1992|pp=52, 66}} should have been {{sfnm|Chernow|2010|1p=479|Bell|1992|2pp=52, 66}} Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 200 - Ferling 2009, pp. 251–255; Flexner 1974, p. 196; Chernow, pp. 479-480. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.
  • Ref 201 - Chernow. Harv error: link from CITEREFChernow doesn't point to any citation.
Looks like you've already fixed #31, and I've just fixed #200 & #201. Factotem (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography section
This section now has six Harvard warnings (from the previous 4)... the numbers are going up here too?

  • Higginbotham, Don (1971). The War of American Independence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practice, 1763–1789. Macmillan. ISBN 9780253289100. OCLC 142627. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHigginbotham1971.
  • Hofstra, Warren R. (1998). George Washington and the Virginia Backcountry. Madison House. ISBN 978-0-945612-50-6. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHofstra1998.
  • Hughes, Rupert (1926). George Washington. W. Morrow & Co. OCLC 17399028. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHughes1926.
  • Jones, Colin; Wahrman, Dror (2002). The Age of Cultural Revolutions: Britain and France, 1750–1820. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-22966-2. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFJonesWahrman2002.
  • Leduc, Gilbert-Francis (1943). Washington and "The Murder of Jumonville". La Société historique franco-américaine. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLeduc1943.
  • Elliot, Jonathan (1827). The Debates, Resolutions, and Other Proceedings, in Convention, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution: "Containing the debates in Massachusetts and New York". Jonathan Elliot. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFElliot1827.

That is all. Shearonink (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Elliot (1827) in the primary sources appears to be a duplicate of Elliot (1830) in the book sources. Not sure which to delete from the bibliography - it looks like a primary source to me, but two refs cite the 1830 book source, so I've left this one. The others listed immediately above are not referenced in the article, so I deleted them from the bibliogaphy. Factotem (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok....this is the deal with the Elliot 1827/Elliot 1830 references. Elliot apparently published FOUR Volumes under this main title plus there might be an additional 3 volumes of States' addendums. Or something. Not sure. Anyway, does anyone know how many Volumes were published? Was Volume 1 published in 1827 and then subsequent Volumes published in later years? I dunno...but it's kind of a mess. If the person who had added the reference in the first place had made it clear which Volume they were referring to things would be easier for the editors who are trying to clear the referencing issues out of the article now. I will try to use the quoted Elliot material to ferret out which Volume the information is from. If I can't figure it all out then I'll have to remove the statement etc. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Dancing as a hobby

The article on George Washington in Conservapedia says that George Washington did dancing as a hobby. This could be mentioned in the article. Vorbee (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It could be but a reliable source for this hobby of dancing would be nice. Notwithstanding that Washington might indeed have danced as a hobby, there is some editorial discretion as to how much more information we can stuff into this one article... Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

What the Conservapedia article says is that George Washington took dancing lessons in his teenage years. Vorbee (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Shearonink. Presently the biography here states,
Washington was an aristocrat and his activities including fox hunting, fishing, dances and parties, theater, races, and cockfights. He also played cards, backgammon, and billiards. <Ferling 2002, pp.43–44;  Ellis 2004, p.44>
Yes, Washington took dancing lessons in his youth and liked to dance, at parties, as an adult, as many others did, nothing unusual, but unless he actually spent time studying the different dances, their origins, histories, etc, it would be a bit much to refer to it as a "hobby" of Washington's during his adult life. It would be my speculation, given Washington the 'frontier's-man' and general outdoor enthusiast, that he spent much more time fishing and hunting than he did dancing, but here also, we should not give specific attention/weight to these activities in such terms either. Also, in the Personal life section it says Washington was an excellent dancer, but the idea is presented in passing, with no specific emphasis on the activity, which seems appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Source check needed (Chernow)

In the last paragraph of the French and Indian War section, ref #47 is cited to Chernow p. 512 while ref #48 is cited to Chernow pp. 90-91. I find it hard to believe there can be such a significant difference in page numbers for the same period. Can someone check please? (I have the ebook version with completely different page numbering so can't check this myself). Thanks. Factotem (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Chernow reference for the General Forbes - Colonel Washington dispute is p. 89-90 in the paperback edition. The citation coding had been written with a chain of page references mixed as p2, p1, pp, which yielded the mistake attributing page 512 in Fitzpatrick to "Chernow" in the footnote.
“Chernow|2010|1p=87” is now amended to “Chernow|2010|2p=87” because it is the second reference in the citation, — I did not change the page reference numbering, trusting that the initial footnoting editor got the correct "page 87” from his 2010 hardback edition. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. If you have a chance, could I ask you to also check the page ref for the 5th para in ch. 9? Need a ref to support the statement that Washington inherited Mount Vernon in 1761, made in the last para of the Early Years section. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Chapter 9, fifth paragraph on Washington inheriting Mount Vernon is found in Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life 2011, Penguin Books, ISBN 978-01-4311-9968, p. 98. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Grand. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Could I trouble someone for a page number for the 3rd and 4th paras of ch. 5 in Chernow, dealing with the Braddock expedition? Alternatively, is anyone able to confirm that Alden mentions the fact that Washington served voluntarily as an aide to Braddock on pp. 35-36? I think this info needs to be added to the narrative. Thx. Factotem (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Chernow (2010) pp 56-62 cover the Expedition. Washington was ranked temporarily brevet captain and he volunteered to serve as Braddock's aide. Chernow (2010) p 53 Cmguy777 (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Magic. Ta. Factotem (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And could someone provide a page number for the 9th para from the end of ch. 3 (begins beginning "When Washington reached Fort Le Boeuf after dark on December 11..."), please? It needs to be added to ref #17 (end of the first para in the Early Military Career section). Factotem (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

In the paperback edition of Chernow 2011 as before, p. 35. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. I checked with Worldcat, and the 2010 and 2011 paperback editions have the same pagination, so mixing the two in the sourcing for this article is not a problem. As it turns out, I could source the relevant section in the article entirely to Fitzpatrick and Ferling (2009), which also helps fix an WP:OVERCITE issue (a common issue, it seems, based on my copyediting so far). Factotem (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Would someone be able to provide page numbers for the 5 paragraphs beginning with the 10th paragraph from the end of ch. 45, please? The first line begins, "From an economic standpoint, the period after Washington's return to Mount Vernon in 1783..."; the first line of the 5th para begins, "By June Washington had paid his oustanding taxes...". Thx. Factotem (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Paper Chernow 2011 pp. 552-553.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the U.S. Navy

The original statement in the Second term section was correct. — "In 1794, he signed the Naval Act that created the United States Navy to combat Barbary pirates before the Barbary Wars.". Created was changed to bolstered. First, the citation for the entire statement, Chernow, p.726-727, says nothing about the Naval Act of 1794, but instead is covered on p.713, where it reads, "This action officially inaugurated the U.S. Navy". — To corroborate the idea of the creation of the U.S. Navy in 1794, refer to the Naval Act of 1794 article where it says there was no U.S. Navy at this point, not even a Continental Navy, as its last ship, USS Alliance (1778) was sold in 1785. The source/citation used in that article is Abbott, 1898, p.247. The term "created" has been restored to the statement in question, and the correct citation added. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) -

The U.S. Navy (Continental) was created on October 13, 1775. We could say established, instead of created. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 Fixed Used the term founded. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The Continental Navy, such that it was, i.e.small private vessels outfitted for battle, donated for the purpose of cutting supply to the British, most notably in Boston, came long before the establishment of the U.S. Navy. In any case, your edit says the same thing, only with the omission of Barbary Wars, which indeed came latter, but was fought with the six frigates, built in response to Barbary piracy. It was under Thomas Jefferson that they were used to bomb Tripoli and the Corsairs into submission resulting in the release of many American and British prisoners who were used as slaves, under inhumane conditions, but that's another story. Your last edit is fine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The article said the Continental Navy was created by an Act of Congress in 1775. Washington's Naval Act may have been the first to commission federal ships. The U.S. Navy website interestingly does not say when the Navy was created. It is a bit confusing. My own opinion the Navy began in 1775, but it was a privatized. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's voice

@Factotem: Overall your editing has been good. However, we can not leave out major details, like the French commander Saint-Pierre, etc. Major details are an explicit FA criteria, much more important than a simple word count. Also, regarding Washington's aged mother: the source need not say flat out that Washington's mother is aged. Given that she died of old age four years later, we can emphasize, in Wikipedia's voice, that she was indeed aged, for readability and comprehensiveness, as this is clearly supported by the text. Also, your comments about the number of words used in a sentence is unnecessary. Shall we remove your comments about a ball and 21 gun salute and just say Washington received a grand celebration? Certainly not, because context is more important in a FA article, and if we need to use a few more words in the process, that's fine. Last, I am making efforts to move along smoothly, but don't appreciate the idea that we are here only to make the job easier for reviewers. We are here for the readers, foremost, and this is something I feel rather strongly about. If the article is ever submitted for an FA review again, perhaps we should warn prospective reviewers up front that if they can't deal with a lengthy and involved article they really should try another article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is too long, not because the subject is complex and involved, but because the quality of the prose is poor and the narrative goes into unnecessary detail. Efforts to address these issues are not designed to make reviewers' jobs easier, they are designed to make the prose "engaging and of a professional standard". Continue to assert yourself over this article if you like, but everything I've seen here and at FAC tells me it will get you nowhere. Alternatively, let fresh eyes have at it, and number five may be golden. Your choice. Factotem (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to accept the sweeping claim that the entire article is poorly written, given the editing of a good number of knowledgeable editors, at this (very) late date. "Unnecessary detail", once again, is a wholly subjective idea. Good writing, per FA criteria, requires comprehensiveness, and to this end, details are required, as I've always stressed. Last, I don't appreciate the idea that I've 'asserted' myself in a manner that is unbecoming to an article that will be appreciated by the history buff and the serious student of history. Good writing is not contingent on using the least amount of words possible. We're not writing an outline or an inventory report, and the article, a historical narrative, involving many topics, should not read like one. More than average 'length' is required here. This is why your mention of a grand ball and a 21 gun salute, and similar details, are welcomed. In any case, our concerns should be on the facts. Regardless of any differences of opinion, your efforts overall have been a great help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Factotem. I also believe Dilidor's edits were acceptable. Gwillhickers. Facts can always be added or taken away from an article. It is all about the prose and narration right now. Tha narration needed to be fixed. What causes dissention is not allowing editors to freely edit in the article or pressure them to add information. Let's stop singling editors out in the article, please. Again the term "major details" is very subjective. Are editors to judge what is minor an major? Yes. We are here to make the job easier for reviewers, not fight them. The readers don't vote to get Washington to FA. FA reviewers pass or fail the article. Readers are intelligent and can think for themselves. Editors don't represent readers. That would make Wikipedia a political blog. It is disrepectful to FA reviewers to tell them to move along and go to another article. Gwillhickers. I don't understand where all this negativity comes from. Factotem is doing excellent work. I would hope Dilidor would continue on the article. The article needs to be factually and historically accurate, and I am not against fact checking or better context. The narration has signifigantly improved. Context and narration are both equally important in the article. Let's let Factotem continue to edit in the article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Factotem — It's difficult to accept the sweeping claim that the entire article is poorly written, given the editing of a good number of knowledgeable editors, at this (very) late date. "Unnecessary detail", once again, is a wholly subjective idea. Good writing, per FA criteria, requires comprehensiveness, and to this end, details are required, as I've always stressed. I don't appreciate the idea that I've 'asserted' myself in a manner that is unbecoming to an article that will be appreciated by the history buff and the serious student of history. Good writing is not contingent on using the least amount of words possible. We're not writing an outline or an inventory report, and the article, a historical narrative, involving many topics, should not read like one. More than average 'length' is required for this exceptional article. This is why e.g. mention of a grand ball and a 21 gun salute, and similar details, are welcomed. In any case, our concerns should be on the facts. Regardless of any differences of opinion, your efforts overall have been a great help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are quite clearly asserting yourself on this article; more than once you've been accused of WP:OWN. And now it appears you're gearing up to assert yourself on the FAC process. That will not go well for you. Comprehensiveness is just one of the FAC criteria. Whether you like it or not, the article will be judged on all the criteria, including length, unnecessary detail and the quality of the prose. This has nothing at all to do with making reviewers' jobs easier (please drop that) and everything to do with producing an article that is "engaging and of a professional standard". Factotem (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
To give you some examples, taken randomly from the article as it currently stands, that illustrate some of the serious flaws in the prose of this article:
  • In late 1775, Washington sent staff officer Henry Knox to the recently captured Fort Ticonderoga for gunpowder and cannons. By January, with expiring enlistments exceeding recruits, the army dropped to half, at 9,600 men, and was supplemented with previous war militia.
  • "staff officer" is a false title, something that gets picked up on at FAC;
  • It's unnecessary to state that Knox was a staff officer at all, he was already identified as such in the previous section;
  • Given that Knox has already been introduced, it's unnecessary to name him in full or link him;
  • Two sentences do not warrant a separate paragraph;
  • What does "previous war militia" mean, and what value does it add to our understanding that simply stating "militia" doesn't?
  • In February 1776, Knox returned with the cannons, and per Washington's order they were transported at night to Dorchester Heights. The next morning, Howe discovered Boston was under siege by Washington's army, and his fleet was vulnerable to Patriot cannon fire. Fearing high casualties from a direct assault, Howe opted to withdraw. Howe evacuated Boston with 10,000 troops and 1,100 Loyalists, and the Patriots reclaimed the city. Washington then marched his army to New York, initiated fortification, and correctly predicted that the British would return and attack in full force.
  • Why is it necessary to state "per Washington's order"? He was commander-in-chief, surely everything was done on his orders?
  • Why is it necessary to state the cannons were transported at night? It's enough simply to state that they were deployed to the heights;
  • The siege of Boston began in April 1775. I doubt very much that it took Howe until February 1776 to discover that;
  • "Howe opted to withdraw" and "Howe evacuated Boston" is repetition, even down to restating the subject;
  • Boston was not a patriot city when the war broke out, so it's incorrect to say the Patriots "reclaimed" it. We can also infer that the Continental Army took the city from the fact that the British evacuated it; there's no need to explicitly state it;
  • New York is incorrectly linked to the province, not the city to which Washington actually marched and began fortifying;
  • There's no need to state that Washington predicted the British would attack New York, we can infer that; why else would Washington fortify it? Factotem (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The following presents fundamentally the same narrative at nearly half the word count:
  • As short-term enlistments expired, the Continental Army began to dissolve; by January 1776 it had been reduced by half to 9,600 men and had to be supplemented with militia. In February, cannons recovered by Knox from the recently captured Fort Ticonderoga were deployed on the Dorchester Heights, rendering Howe's defense of Boston untenable and forcing him to evacuate the city. Washington then marched to New York and began fortifying it.
I don't pretend that's perfect (the last sentence is not elegant; it would be better integrated with the start of the next paragraph), but it's closer to the standard expected at FAC than currently appears in the article. I'm happy to continue helping to get this article to something that might approach FAC standards as best my poor abilities will allow (although I'm not hugely experienced at FAC, I did have some success there last year), but I'm not going to waste my time fighting you over it. Your choice. Factotem (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Insert : I am "fighting" no more than anyone else has. And I am "asserting" my self no more. Everyone has opinions and assertions. Your lengthy discourse immediately, where you are asserting many matters of opinion, (like we don't need to mention Knox transported guns at night) above is proof enough. We should strive to give the reader a good picture, and mentioning things like e.g. 'night time' helps to do this. Also, please don't outline paragraphs as if I was the only one making edits around here. That is also very unfair. Almost, if not all, the sections have been heavily edited for grammar, etc, by other editors besides myself, and for some time now. But I suppose it's convenient for some to dump all the issues on my shoulders. Nice. I have no problems with reducing clearly redundant text, but when it comes to removing details, context, this needs to be scrutinized. Ideally we can reduce needless prose, but retain context. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have highlighted, in one small section, numerous indisputable issues with the prose based on basic good English and WP standards, not "matters of opinion". Having said that, I'll concede the point about night time deployment of artillery. Nowhere do I suggest that you are the only one making edits or are somehow solely responsible for the shortcomings, but you are the only one who believes the narrative "is fine overall", and I'm simply trying to point out that that is not the case. Factotem (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Cmguy7777, — It's rather disrespectful to contributing editors that the opinions of reviewers are automatically above other editors. As I said, if the article is too much for a given reviewer, it's not disrespectful to suggest that they might want to deal with a simpler article. "Let's let Factotem continue to edit"? No one is stopping him, and to infer that I am, or that no one else should contribute, is what is rather disrespectful. Here we go again? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. You know FA reviewers pass or fail the article. It's that simple. Contributing editors are to make the job of FA reviewers easier. Great narration would help get Washington to FA. Factotem should not be pressured to add more information to the article. There should be no conditional clause(s) attached to an FA reviewer. Editors need to work together to get Washington to FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Insert : Nor should I be pressured to remove information, esp that which is well sourced. Also, my ideas of suggestions for prospective reviewers was just that. A suggestion. A word about length and complexity. No one was making any "conditional clause". We should try to get along with reviewers and listen to their opinions, indeed, but at the same time they should heed our opinion's too. That is not at all unreasonable, nor have I been so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Making reviewers' jobs easier simply does not come into it. An article stands or falls at FAC on whether the prose is "engaging and of a professional standard", and the standards expected at FAC are indeed extremely high (personally, I think sometimes too much emphasis is placed on excessively high standards of prose, and not enough on making sure that articles are factually correct and based on high quality, scholarly sources, but I don't make the rules, I just follw 'em). But you are right about fighting reviewers; they offer up valuable time and effort to help out. It's perfectly reasonable to respectfully push back on their comments, but fighting them or trying to impose our own ideas of what makes an article worthy of a gold star will quickly derail any candidacy. Factotem (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I was not the one who introduced the idea of making reviewer's jobs easier -- it was one of the criticisms levied at the article concerning length, and is why I've objected to the idea when we're discussing length. In any case, I have gone along with most reviewers on most issues, and have expressed an oppossing opinion here or there. Please look at the last review. This is not "fighting", so the lot of you really need to get a handle on matters and lighten up with the accusations. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"@Factotem: Overall your editing has been good." Wow! The Article Owner has given you a passing grade! You indeed are among the Fortunate Few. I do hope you appreciate the High Honor. —Dilidor (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Factotem, enjoy your moment in the sun! Just remember, we do not make the rules, and where GW is concerned, the owner here makes the rules; that’s why, as I like to say, the article remains “GA”, and the “G” does NOT stand for “Good”. Hoppyh (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, this is nothing but rank harassment, and quite juvenile. Please knock it off. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Let's please work together. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

editbreak

@Gwillhickers: I suspect we may be talking at cross purposes a little here. Good writing is about conveying information concisely, using only those words and statements that are necessary and mercilessly rooting out those that are not. It is not about chopping important detail to keep to an arbitrary word count. Thus, for example, it's obvious that, after 11 months of siege that ended in the British abandoning Boston, Washington occupied it. We don't need to explicitly write that he did. More difficult is agreeing what represents important detail, which can indeed be a subjective issue.

Agree, some matters can get highly subjective, which is why we should include 'major' facts/details as covered by the sources, leaving matters of opinion to the readers. Also agree that we don't need to get into 'all' the battle tactics in the Siege of Boston, but only that British General Thomas Gage, mostly with the pressure delivered by Knox's artillery across the bay from Dorchester Heights, at Washington's directive, was forced to vacate Boston. That is all we need say there. btw, Thomas Gage was the only British General in the colonies when the war broke out. Washington served with him during the French and Indian War. He was also the first general Washington went up against. Seems we should mention that with at least a sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Washington was commander-in-chief. We don't need to spell out that the artillery was deployed on his orders. The fact that you're now suggesting we expand the coverage of Boston with irrelevant detail about Gage indicates that you still do not understand the necessity of keeping the narrative tight and focussed. This does not bode well.
  • In 900 pages, Chernow mentions Saint-Pierre four times, in two paragraphs. Ferling (2009) doesn't name Saint-Pierre at all. Ellis (2004) doesn't even cover the wilderness mission. Saint-Pierre is not a major detail; not knowing his name does not detract from our understanding of Washington's wilderness mission, so stating it serves no purpose at all and only adds to the word count;
  • Mary Washington barely features in this article. She is named as his mother, and that's it. She is not an important aspect in the life of Washington, at least not as conveyed in this article. It may be a nice little "humanising" touch to mention his visit to his poor ailing mother after the war, but that sort of thing should be left to the books. Factotem (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Have to disagree on some points here. Washington's mother played a pivotal role in Washington's early years, esp after Washington's father, Augustine, died when George was only eleven, leaving Mary to raise the young Washington almost by herself. He later traveled to Fredericksburg to pay her a week's long visit in her final years, resulting in a major and celebrated event. That is really all we need to say there, which we have. Since this is the Washington 'biography', we cover Washington's associations with family and famous people foremost, more so than battle tactics and that sort of thing, and yes, not necessarily with a lot of words, but at least a statement. Ditto with Saint-Pierre who is indeed mentioned by Chernow four times, while Ferling has authored more than a dozen books about, or heavily involving, Washington, and no doubt mentions Pierre in more than a couple of his works. In the French and Indian War, Saint-Pierre was a major player, who encountered Washington and went through great lengths to deceive him, so it would seem we can at least mention him in an appropriate sentence. In any case, thanks for your civil discourse. I will make continued efforts to cooperate with you. For whatever it's worth, I have not lost sight, in moments of contention, of your great help, doing the difficult work, digging into the sources, during the review, and now. All that I can hope for is that we don't always weigh a decision to include something by counting the number of words in a sentence. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Of course you do. I left his name in, but gave it in full and fixed again the false title; both issues that are routinely picked up on at FAC. I removed irrelevant detail about Washington lingering at Fort Le Beouf; it adds nothing to the story and we don't need to spell every little detail out. Please try to accommodate this in your view of what makes an article featured quality. Factotem (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You missed the emphasis in my post. I don't doubt Mary was a big influence, but that is not covered in this article at all, so it's odd that she suddenly pops up again, seemingly randomly. Also, I think you misread the source. Washington wasn't feted in Fredericksburg because he visited his mother, he was feted because he'd just led the colonies to victory then resigned his commission. Besides, Ferling (2009) writes that Washington visited Fredericksburg on business, and doesn't mention his mother at all. Factotem (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Factotem: In several edits earlier, in an effort towards conciseness, with an eye on the article main-space word-count, I tried to tighten focus in the narrative --- and still compromise and accommodate previous editor contributions in a collegial manner.
I placed some elements of the narrative into a) Notes for asides with some of Gwillhickers' edits pointing out events and relationships, or b) sourcing footnotes for important scholar-specific observations for some of Cmguy777's edits pointing out Washington historiography. I found no edits that I sent to Notes or footnotes to be in factual error or violating neutrality, or I would have not preserved them. I value both narrative detail and historiographic context.
After a while several were reverted with the rationale that the subsumed factoids were too important to leave out of the article narrative for the general reader. I think I was successful in about one out of three attempts. But the way I see it, batting 300 is good in baseball, right?
In any case, I think that an essential consideration for evaluating the article for Good Article status should be, Ease of access to the information, by the general reader. And part of that narrative readability means using a concise encyclopedic style in the article main-space narrative. The enthusiast logon at Wikipedia will read every Note, every footnote, fear not. But Washington's story must first be told and then received to cultivate the curious into becoming an enthusiast. For my money, the article must be shortened in the main-space word-count. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as Washington's mother, I think enough has been said in the article. Washington's mother Mary is mentioned in the early years and I think that is appropriate. The narration should focus on Washington. Saint-Pierre does not need to be mentioned. I say this with FA in mind. Facts can always be added or substracted from the article. What matters is passing FA. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
(I would make some smart-alec comment about baseball, but cricket :D) Indeed, and I'm a big fan of using footnotes to add explanatory detail without cluttering up the main space, though I have seen excessive footnoting challenged at FAC. Hopefully, one day soon the message about producing concisely written, tightly focussed, encyclopedic content will get through, otherwise I fear another failed run at FAC is on the cards for this article. Factotem (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Any biography mentions key points involving family members, just as the sources have. Washington's highly celebrated visit to his mother, close to her final days, is worth mention and would be highly appreciated by readers interested in Washington's life. Also, Washington dealt directly with Saint-Pierre, and brought his response back to Virginia, which directly lead to the French and Indian War. This is a major point of context covered by several reliable sources, including Chernow and Lengel, that should be mentioned in a FA article. We mention that Washington's delivered demand for the French to vacate the disputed territory was refused, with a single statement. Naturally we say by whom, per FA criteria for context – esp since it involves a notable figure with his own article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested information (?)

Cmguy777, you removed some information with the claim that it was "contested". Contested by whom? I am not outright approving or objecting, but it seems you should have run this by us here in Talk before making these highly questionable edits. e.g. "Washington gave the office executive power, created the first presidential cabinet and defined the primary role of the executive branch in the making of foreign policy.", sourced by Kline, a website source. Okay, I've always been a bit skeptical with many web-site sources, but we need to see something that refutes, or at least casts considerable doubt, on these ideas. Washington was the first president, so it seems that he would have 'created' the first presidential Cabinet. This is actually contested? I'll give you this, until we can back this up with a more notable reliable sources (e.g.Ferling, Chernow, Flexner, Randall, etc.) we can leave your edits stand, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Factotem contested the Klein source so I removed it. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
[1][unreliable source]
[1]
  1. ^ Klein 2017.
  • "There have been some 900 books published on Washington, none of them by Chrstopher Klein. The website of a TV station is not a high quality, scholarly source for this subject."
That is why I took the information out of the article. The source was contested by Factotem: i.e. TV station. It did not look good for an FA article to have a source tag. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cmguy777 - when you remove an inline citation within an Sfn or Sfnm cite - like you did with the Klein 2017 ref - please also remove the stranded cite book/cite web/cite whatever that is leftover in the Reference section. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ref issues

Shearonink, thanks for your message on my talk page. However, as before 'harv errors' don't present themselves as they do for you, apparently, on my end. I'm using the latest version of Firefox, using Windows 10. In any case, I was not the one who removed the Anderson, 2007 source. When it was removed, just recently, I assumed it was appropriate and did not link up to any citations. Upon review, cite #15 refers to Anderson, 2007. In the meantime here is the cite web template for Anderson, 2007.

Thanks again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome but I didn't say you removed it in my note, I said you added Anderson 2007 on March 7th with this edit. However, when you did so. there wasn't a reference in the Bibliography/References section for the Sfnm to anchor to. Glad you fixed it though - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers - I figured out at least one way that I am seeing the Harv warning. I always use the "Show preview" button that's at the bottom of the editing window. The Harv warnings only seem to show up during preview (like other editorial warnings). Shearonink (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Saint-Pierre

Mention of Saint-Pierre has been with the article since 2014. The statement used all these years was:

He (Washington) delivered the letter to the local French commander Saint-Pierre, who politely refused to leave.<Lengel (2005, pp. 23–24)>

Currently we mention Half-King Tanacharison, but not Saint-Pierre, the French commander Washington was sent to negotiate with. We don't even mention that the French refused to leave, only that Washington returned with a "French response". The current statement needs to be definitive in this area. By replacing the existing statement with the prior one, mentioning Saint-Pierre and, more importantly, his refusal to leave, the word count only increases by some 12 words. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I combined the statements. All things considered, I hope this is no longer an issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I edited out some irrelevant detail, including the use of a false title again, but left the name in. Curious to know why you think it's so vital that we jnow Saint Pierre's name, or that Washington delayed a few days before starting on his return journey, but not that the only action Washington saw during the Forbes expedition was the friendly-fire incident? Factotem (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It was Saint-Pierre that Washington dealt with, and his response that he returned with, which, along with Washington's oral report, lead directly into the French and Indian War. Saint-Pierre wasn't some staff sergeant passing on a message, he was the French commander in the Ohio country who was speaking on behalf of France. That is reason enough to at least mention his name, as has been the case since 2014. Also, Washington was 'delayed' because Saint-Pierre took his time giving Washington an official response, in a sealed letter, which he was not allowed to open. In retrospect I could have worded this better. Along with the French report, Washington also delivered his own oral report, a first hand account, no doubt more enlightening than Saint-Pierre's polite response. The idea of 'politely' was mentioned as Washington's party was graciously received and well looked after by the French, who also gave Washington and his party food and extra winter cloths for the return trip. This mood was simply communicated by mentioning 'politely' as the sources do. Pierre's response and Washington's personal assessment is what obviously confirmed for the British that war with France was unavoidable. This is all covered by the sources. We need to be a bit more clear on matters here, something the readers will expect to see from a FA, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
You've obviously chosen. So be it. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Parson Weems

I edited the Parson Weems information because today it is viewed as historical fiction. I am not contesting the morality of the stories or myths. Even Woodrow Wilson said Weems was a mythmaker or his account of Washington's life was not accurate. Any other editor input is welcome. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no proof that Weems' account is a "myth". The story has never been proven or disproven, yet you've presented the "myth" idea as undisputed fact. Also, we should not attempt to read Weems' mind, 200+ years later, by claiming he made the story up to make Washington look human. Seems to me Washington did enough on his own to show his human qualities, more so than most others, no doubt. You even taken out the footnote that mentions Weem's account has never been proven or disproven. This poses a serious neutrality and POV issue and needs to be corrected. If you are going to say the story is a "myth", you need to provide the facts that support that. At this late date, no one ever has. You've lined up a few sources for this — which one of them offers proof? I've not the time now, but the citations in question need to be heavily scrutinized here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Chernow (2010) says "manufactured enduring myths" and I gave the page numbers. Please don't resort to personal attacks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Weems in his own narration only says a distant female relative of Washington, without mentioning her name, told him the information concerning Washington damaging and killing the cherry tree. Why would not Weems name the source for such a tale ? Possibly the source did not exist and was made up ? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Onuf calls Weems' work one of America's best sellers in literature. It is literature. Not history. The Life of Washington page ix Introduction Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
As anyone can read for themselves, there were no "personal attacks" here, so let's not digress to that sort of discussion. If we are going to entertain the notion that Weems' account was some sort of "myth" we'll need to present some established facts. There are none. Therefore, if we are going to mention any "myth", we'll have to present it as opinion, along with a balanced statement. It would seem to me if Weems was trying to manufacture a "myth", he would have said the five year old Washington 'chopped' the cherry tree down, not merely took some bark off of it, per Weems' original account. i.e.barking. Weems' account was distorted on that note. Once again, which source(s) gives us established facts that Weems' account is "myth"? If this fair question cannot be answered we need to present the "myth" notion as modern day opinion from afar, whatever the motivation may be. You must know that various (often disgruntled, or peer pressured) interests have been trying to take Washington down, one notch at a time, and this "myth" theory more than suggests that this is one such example. We need to be fair and objective on this topic, which is what the footnote you removed had effected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I read the 1809 version. Weems was in part inspiring Washington as a great person because of the impending War of 1812. Saying he was just as great as an European. Even the Mount Vernon Ladies Association says "Ironically, this iconic story about the value of honesty was invented by one of Washington’s first biographers, an itinerant minister and bookseller named Mason Locke Weems." I don't think we should "oversell" Weems in the article. And again, Weems does not name the source for the Cherry Tree story. That means Weems is fiction or literature. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"manufactured enduring myths" Myths are typically sacred narratives, which "explain how a society's customs, institutions and taboos were established and sanctified." How is this narrative sacred to Americans? Dimadick (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
That is the term Chernow (2010) used. I think there was a Washington worship period, he was idolized, a god who ascended into heaven. Weems was along that track. I suppose it is sacred because Weems makes Washington look like a saint. This deemphasizes his slave ownership or his many land grabs. That would make him human, ambitious, or cruel. The man who ordered Indian villages to be burned who fought ruthless warfare to win the Ohio Country. Even today modern historians ignore racism in their assessments of the Founders. These are only my opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Washington provided for many dozens of slaves he had no economical use for. "Land grab"? This sort of sounds like old hat 60's divisive speak. He paid for these lands that anyone with the funds could have paid for – no different than many modern day real estate investors. "Cruel"? Of course, the "cruel" Washington was conscientious about keeping slave families together, and freed his slaves in his will. I'll give you this, Washington was no saint. Weems? you removed the important fact that there's been no proof, either way, about the validity of this account. Call it oral history, the same sort of thing that is blindly embraced by many when it comes to Black history. Weems' account is nothing fantastic or unusual, i.e.a boy, being honest with a father with whom he loved, Yet you keep on referring to Weems' account as "myth", as an established fact, with no proof - not even a viable explanation that this was/is some sort of lie, a "myth". Would you, or someone, please get the one sided account out of the article and give the readers a neutral and objective account, that the "myth" theory is wholly the opinion of various individuals? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. It's not me. Its Chernow (2010) who said Weems' "manufactured enduring myths." Chernow (2010) is a reliable source. I changed the word to inspired, because even though it was a myth, it inspired people. This article is not the place to argue the validity of Weems as an author or any of his accounts of Washington in his biography of Washington. That is why I removed that information. As far as land grabs of Washington, that needs more clarification in the article. Was land speculation part of Washington's motivation for Independence or defeating the Indians in the Ohio Country ? There is a certain amount of cruelty to slaverey, regardless of the slave owner. Not seperating families does not make up for human exploitation. These are just my opinions. The article should neutral concerning Washington and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The slavery section has long since been neutral. Everyone was/is "exploited", so we must look at the big picture before pointing a sweeping finger. "Cruelty"? Marching teenage boys and men into a hail of fire is also "cruel". Re: Weems – neutrality and objectivity needs to be effected. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Article size

The Washington biography is now down to 88 kB (14065 words), while the Elvis Presley (Featurend) article is at 106 kB (17952 words). It would seem 'article size' is no longer an issue, and that spot checks, facts/citations should be our major concern at this point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. It would be good to let Dilidor edit the article. That is a suggestion. Is the article narration passable for FA review? That needs to be concluded first. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

There was an important and major detail about Washington's legacy missing in the section. Ferling, 2009, covers how Washington was the only founder and president ever to be referred to in such hagiographic terms as "godlike", etc, and that his character has been the subject of inquiry by historians, past and present, more so than any other president. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Alleged "assassination" of Jumonville

The French and Indian War section contains this sentence: "The Battle of Fort Necessity ended in Washington's surrender and his apparent admission, under disputed circumstances, that Jumonville had been assassinated while engaged on a diplomatic mission." This is an extremely provocative statement, and it needs to be fully expanded upon and explained—or omitted altogether. I have hidden it temporarily in hopes of finding a resolution corporately, but my recommendation is to avoid such a powder keg in this article. —Dilidor (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. How can this be reworded or rephrased? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Present it as the French perspective.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Chernow, pp.42-43, states that Jumonville was carrying a diplomatic message for the British to evacuate, and while reading the demand, Half-king Tanacharison rushed in and split his head open with a tomahawk and scalped him. Chernow is objective in his account, qualifying his statement with "According to one account..." He also says "What is beyond dispute is that Washington abruptly found himself presiding over atrocities as the Indians swooped down on the remaining Frenchmen." As commander over the battle, Washington was naturally blamed for the atrocity. This is also how Washington recorded the event. I made edits to this effect, cited it with Chernow, and removed the hidden note. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. There are two versions of this event. We don't know which one is true, so it is disputed. The French versions viewed Washington the culprit, while the English version viewed Indians the culprit. There is no way of knowing. This is a summary biography of Washington. What is next quoting whole book sections. The article could increase in size again. Edits need to be geared to pass FA. Not make the article fail again. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as per your edit, the account is disputed. However, there is no dispute, at least according to Chernow and Ferling, that the Indians got out of hand and over reacted. Surely you're not suggesting that Washington instigated and/or approved of the grizzly death of Jumonville and his men. Also, we 'are' writing a summary, so let's not try to buttress your opinion in that it is conducive to FA and mine is not, esp since I'm only going by what the sources say. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Washington wanted to win and he did by the aid of the Indians. We don't know who instigated the fight. Did Washington fire the first shot? We don't really know anything except French soldiers were butchered. Washington started an inevitable war. Both the British and French wanted the land. Indians wanted the land too. Is it possible the French truly wanted to resolve the issue peacefully? That is unknown. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Insert : – Washington was listening to the French demand via his 2nd rate Dutch translator when the Indians attacked. According to Chernow, this is not disputed. i.e.Washington, of all people, did not fire the first shot, or scalp anyone. Easy math. Both the French and the British allied with various tribes who were purely mercenary and were paid for their efforts, not caring anything about the various claims made by the French or the British. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
The section reads well as it now stands. —Dilidor (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Yorktown surrender

This landmark event is inadequately covered, which is an understatement, and with only a few sentences. The only thing that is said about Washington here is that, "Washington took great satisfaction but kept his taciturn composure", and that he had "General Benjamin Lincoln accept the surrender". That's it. Currently, the topic is lumped in with a compound section title. This major event and final turning point in the war should have its own section/title and Washington's primary role should be covered, at least. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to expand this section. This is a summary article. The French did much of the work. Washington was secondary. Expansions will make it less likely for this article to pass FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
FA criteria maintains that we must be comprehensive and include major details. This requires a bit of space. Previously the section covering the Siege of Yorktown, a landmark event, only mentioned Washington in passing. As a writer of history this sits well with you? Again, get beyond the page length (induced?) obsession. Article length does not trump all the other FA criteria. If we get a reviewer that is well versed in Washington's history he or she could very well fail the FA nomination in that it is a B-class (and sketchy) narrative, lacking numerous major details and context, FA criteria. The biography doesn't even mention British General Thomas Gage, someone who served with Washington during the French and Indian War, held up in Boston, with Washington trying to get him out. It also doesn't mention Washington procuring and outfitting merchant vessels used to cut off supply from the British, entrapped in Boston. i.e.The birth of the Continental Navy. This was Washington's idea - he couldn't rout the British in Boston by any other means. Among other accounts, there is an entire work written on that subject alone. But because of this page length guide line it seems you're suggesting that we ignore those major details, also. Who are we writing for — tens of thousands of readers, every day, or a given reviewer who doesn't know the half of Washington's history? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The article is in the best shape it ever has been. A trimmed article will get FA. That is what is needed to get FA. This is a summary article. Readers hopefully can either purchase books or read them at a library for those who want more detail. It is only your opinion that the article needs more detail. Yorktown was not a decisive victory. The British held New York. The French were in charge of the British siege. The extent of Washington's involvement in the Continental Navy is interesting, but how much of that is needed in the article? FA should be the primary goal, not adding more details. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Insert : Glad to hear some optimism for a change. The article has been reduced in size greatly, and a good number of editors have worked on the grammar, sources etc. Since Washington was fundamental in getting the Continental Navy established, and functioning, a few sentences are in order here. Nothing major. We now have a little room to spare. Again, since there are a good number of Featured Articles whose size far exceeds this article, we should not act like the sun revolves around the earth (article size), making every edit as if someone is standing over us with the hammer of 'page length' ready to come down on our keyboards. At this point our biggest concern should be spot checks, making sure the statements are cited with the correct citation/source(s) and adding any last major details. It seems we can do this without any major increase in size. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
"The French did much of the work. Washington was secondary." To summarise the article on the Siege of Yorktown (1781), Washington wanted to attack Manhattan Island, in hopes or recapturing New York City. He was overruled by the French allies, and by other American officers, who were more interested in securing control over the Colony of Virginia. A French victory in the Battle of the Chesapeake (1781) secured control of the Chesapeake Bay for the French. The defeated Royal Navy was trying to regroup in the ports of New York City. With Yorktown surrounded from land and sea, and an attempt at organized retreat having failed, Charles Cornwallis, 2nd Earl Cornwallis was forced to surrender. British naval reinforcements arrived a few days following the surrender, picked up a few survivors, and then were forced to flee. Dimadick (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
This is more evidence that the RW was a world war. The French were in charge of the siege of Yorktown. It does not reduce Washington's control of the Continental Army or authority. It really just means the United States needed the French for Independence. It does not take away Washington's victories at Trenton or Monmouth. The RW was a combined effort of American-French-Spanish-Dutch alliance victory of the British-German alliance. The hurricane in the Carribean that destroyed the British fleet helped give the American-French-Spanish-Dutch alliance victory. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
All very interesting, but the fact remained, the Siege of Yorktown was grossly understated in terms of Washington's involvement, and it still seems to be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dimadick: I wouldn't go quite so far as to say Washington was secondary, but he did lack experience in siege warfare and often deferred judgement about strategy and tactics to the experienced Rochambeau, effectively putting him in command. Rochambeau, however, never challenged Washington's authority. The relationship between these two commanders is important to a 'biography', which is supposed to highlight the character of the individual in terms of his relationship with other prominent individuals. I made edits to this effect in the section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case, the main disagreement was whether to attack in New York or Virginia. Once the decision was taken to attack Virginia, Washington personally led troops in a march from New York and Rhode Island to Virginia. The so-called Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route commemorates the march. They covered 680 miles (1,090 km) between August 19 and September 14. Washington was gathering the troops in Williamsburg, Virginia, which was still in American control. (Earlier that year, the British had captured and burned down Richmond, Virginia, but did not attempt to secure control over Williamsburg. In retrospect, a fatal mistake.) Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Washington–Rochambeau march to Virginia could be mentioned in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 : The march is already mentioned and is historically referred to as the celebrated march. The sentence in our biography mentioning this doesn't get into specifics as to the exact origin, number of miles marched, etc, however, since there is a link to an article that covers all of these things perhaps it's not necessary, but I've no strong opinions here, either way. Your call.
  • Hoppyh : Your last edits to the Yorktown section are interesting. However, I would omit the statement about Cornwallis hiding in a cave, esp since it is something of a legend and tangential to Washington, at least for purposes of summary coverage within the one section. Washington firing the first shot, otoh, is among the major details where Washington is concerned, and, imo, deserves a front row seat in the section, sort of. We can cite it with Davis, 2007, p. 218, the same cite used in the Siege of Yorktown article for this statement, (add: or Tucker). There's even a painting depicting this event in the section there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's another interesting account (a primary source by St. George Tucker, a militia officer present at the Siege of Yorktown), covering Washington's firing of the first shot at Yorktown : Journal of the Siege of Yorktown, by St. George Tucker, 1781. Evidently he's a relative of George Tucker (politician). Both were born in Bermuda. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    The entire journal can be read at JSTOR, however, you must sign up and get an account to view the entire journal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
     Done — Tucker, 1781 added for citation (covering first shot only), using JSTOR url. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Insert. Yet again, you have encountered brilliance, Gwillhickers—Tucker is my third great grandfather! Hoppyh (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the article should be edited for FA. The march is interesting. Yes. The march has already been added. I don't think it is necessary for any special interest tangents. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Farewell address

The Farewell Address says Washington served his country since he was 20 years old. How can this be? He served the British in the French and Indian War. Governor Dinwiddie was a British Royal Administrator. Washington was under the authority of the British Army. The United States declared independence in 1776. Too much opinion and emphasis on Washington's Farewell Address. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The Farewell Address is a landmark topic and is worthy of some emphasis. As stated in edit history, the opinion tag is used for statements made by editors that are not supported by the sources, esp when they advance an entirely new position. Also, while Hamilton managed the wording of the Farewell Address, it was Washington's message, and he oversaw every edit made by Hamilton. i.e.The Farewell Address was Washington's 'opinion'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The opinion tags were removed without discussion. We can't put in the article that political parties are evil. Wikipedia is presenting Washsington-Madison-Hamilton Farewell address opinion as established facts. We can't push this in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Mis-use of the opinion tags were added without discussion. I've explained their removal. If this was Washington's message and it's supported by the sources we can indeed, and should, mention the evils of political parties, as this was Washington's opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The statement that Washington served his country for 45 years is misleading. Washington served under the authority of the British King, Parliament, and the British Army, and he served the U.S. Congress. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Then please just fix it. The sources will support this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The blocked quote was put in the article. Yes. It is the Farewell address opinion, but it is opinion presented as fact. That is why I put in the opinion tags, that was appropriate. To push political parties as evil is not what Wikipedia is about. Pushing the Farewell address in the article is opinion or POV. Also, we don't know whose opinion is who since the FA was co-written by Washington, Hamilton, and Madison. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Pushing" is your opinion, and something of a stretch. In any case, for clarity I added the pretext that the ideas in question, i.e. "evil of political parties, etc", were what Washington believed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did a cursory search for the term "evils", and couldn't find it in Chernow, Ferling, Randall, or in the Farewell Address article, so I substituted 'dangers' for "evils" The statement now reads, "...the dangers of political parties". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is to be edited from a neutral point of view. To add a blocked quote without context is opinion. Dangers is better than evil. The blocked quote is not historically accurate either, nor should it be presented as neutral narration. Gwillhickers, you admitted the FA is opinion. To seperate opinion from the narration "according to the Farewell Address", since it had multiple authors. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Once again, the Farewell Address is Washington's, regardless of the help he had editing it. Please review the discussion and the history of the Farewell Address, per reliable sources.
The "blocked quote is not historically accurate"? Was the quote typed in wrong? We've presented the quote as is, so any perceived neutrality issues have no basis. Also, I'm not really interested in another belabored debate about blocked quotes, as there is no basis to that either, esp since, as your remember from past debates, blocked quotes are used extensively throughout WP. There is no neutrality issues here as the Farewell Address is presented as Washington's, and can be backed up by a multitude of reliable sources if need be. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
The blocked quote says Washington served his country for 45 years. The United States was not created until July 4, 1776, DOI. Washington served under the authority of Great Britain, not the United States, during the FAIW. That is not historically accurate I suppose Virginia is implied as his country, but the reader can't decipher this. Or maybe Washington is trying to absolve his service to the British Army. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
These are Washington's words. When he speaks of "my country" it should be understood that he is referring to his country at any given point in time, regardless if 'his country' became independent and adopted a new name. In any case, the reader with average intelligence will not be confused here. If you personally really feel this needs to be clarified you can add a footnote, per reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. That is the importance of a summary biography. We can't just put in a block quote and expect people to understand it. The reader could interpret to mean the United States existed when Washington was 20, or it could mean Washington meant Virginia was his country, or it could mean that Washington was distancing his service to Britain during the FAIW. It is difficult for readers to have to choose between various options. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
You're dumping all of your personal expectations on a quote. The entire article explains the details in question. We can't expect it of any one quote. Again, if you have any remaining uncertainties about "my country", add a footnote. Even that's not really needed as coverage about which country was/is which comes long before coverage of the Farewell Address. If a given reader comes along and is still actually "confused" at this point, he or she can read the appropriate section(s) that explains this matter, such that it is. We've quoted Washington to the letter, and have cited it with reliable sources. Your apparent concern, and assumption, about some reader getting "confused" is not very convincing. Even a 4th grader knows that Washington was fundamental in establishing a 'new' country. I'm not seeing any viable explanation that warrants removing this definitive quote involving a landmark topic. I suggested a footnote, and I think I'm done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The FarAd address needs to be summarized with a reliable source. The quote is a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary or tertiary sources. I am not sure why the quote is neccessary. Does Chernow (2010) use blocked quotes in his book? In an effort of compromise, maybe another quote can be used from the FarAd without the mention of 45 years of service. What country ? Britain, United States, Virginia ? `Cmguy777 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Blur... You're repeating yourself overall. The so called "FarAd", is a landmark event in terms of Washington's biography and legacy, and is summarized, with Chernow and several other sources for the citations. The quote in question is definitive. As you must know, quotes are common among reliable sources. Edits have been made for clarity and your concerns have been more than reasonably addressed. Once again, you made multiple changes in the middle of a discussion, with no consensus, and once again, you need to stop the perpetual argumentative talk and drop the stick. Please stop inventing highly opinionated issues and the ego-centric arm-wrestling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

If you look at it from the perspective that Washington's appointments were always by a Virginia authority rather than by the Crown directly, then Washington would be broadly accurate, close enough for government work. George II or III never directly appointed him anything. And I doubt Washington regarded his country as something that sprang into existence on July 4, 1776, rather as a continuing entity whose independence was declared at that time, but which existed before then.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. Stop making personal attacks and making accusations. I started this talk page. You reverted opinion tags without discussion. You are giving me orders. Other editors find that you control the article, and I believe that is the real issue here. Wehalt addressed this concern without accusations. Thanks. I made edits because I thought the narration was not up to FA standards. As far as I know Gwillhickers you have never said the goal of this article was to get to FA. I needed your permission before I made any edits. That is editor control. I kept the FarAd that mentioned Washington's 45-year service to his country. Wewalt, we have to go by the facts. What country was Washington refering too ? The reality Washington was a British subject who worked under the authority of a British appointed Governor and the British Army. The 45 year of service probably was a reference to Virginia. That was his country. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously Gwillhickers you reverted my edits. You left none of my edits in the article. You apparently have taken complete control of the article. You took out Chernow (2010) information. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt : I agree, Washington obviously was speaking from his own national perspective when he said "my country", and given the context of such a referral, used in his Farewell Address, it makes perfect sense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmguy777 : Your concerns were addressed on several points. We don't say "evil political parties", that was a bit much, and was a good call on your part. However, you were reading into Washington's quote with your own interpretation and sought to remove it on those grounds, while twice ignoring my suggestion that a footnote clarifying "my country" might help those few readers who just didn't get it. Then in the middle of the discussion you made multiple changes, removed important context, making rewrites etc, and in the process claimed that Hamilton co-authored the Farewell Address. The essence of the Address was Washington's, and it was he who submitted the final draft, in his own hand, to his exact liking. Also, you continue to misrepresent "hagiography". As for your accusations about ownership, it was you who was editing against a long standing consensus, as if you owned the article. You just up and made numerous changes right in the middle of a discussion you initiated, and belabored.
    Not long ago I made an appeal for article stability, bringing the constant 'major' changes to an end, refraining from trying to "fix" what isn't broke and inventing issues, but rather making needed spot-checking of the cites and sources, adding any missing major details. Imo, you haven't been much help in these areas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I restored a passage that you (Cm') had added in one of your edits yesterday (Mar,18). Was in sort of a heated rush to get the section back to where it was that I overlooked this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. When I edited, I used Chernow (2010) to clean up the section. Chernow said Washington complained about pay and critics first draft. Deleted. Chernow said Washington argued for the right of government to tax citizens. Deleted. I added the "AMERICAN" statement, Deleted. I also put the section in chronological order. I did keep in the 45-years of service statement although reduced. I added content not take it away. I compromised. I worked with the edit that was already there. I felt you only deleted it because you just did not like it. You did not want Washington viewed a complainer or pro-tax. It is difficult to edit when apparently approval is suppose to be made for every edit. Your edits don't require approval. Neither should mine nor any other editor. In my opinion the section is chronologically confusing for the reader. There is no mention of Washington being a complainer. There appears to be no compromise. I appreciate that you took out political parties are evil from the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make deletions just because 'I don't like it', thank you. We were in the middle of a discussion, and while you don't require approval, the least you could have done is see the discussion through. From the beginning you argued about opinion tags, Washington's quote being "misleading", "pushing" the Farewell Address, took exception of the block quote format, complained that the quote was a primary source (even though they are allowed), ignored my compromise suggestion for a footnote, argued that the quote was not even necessary, with nothing mentioned about making additions based on Chernow, where you up and just started rewriting almost the entire section, misrepresenting Hamilton's role in the process. I restored a noteworthy passage you had added, regardless. While we should summarize the topic, some details and quotes are definitive and needed, but we can't outline the entire Farewell Address in this section. If you feel we must squeeze in more details, based on Chernow, or whomever, I would have reservations, but at this point, I would like things to cool down between us, and will acquiesce to their inclusion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we are getting somewhere. I am all for cooling things off. Concerning the 45-year service to country I used the quote found in Chernow (2010). I don't think a full blocked quote is needed. Chernow (2010) did not discuss what country Washington was talking about. I take that he was talking about Virginia, but it is unclear about what country Washington is talking about since the U.S. was created in 1776. The American Revolution did not begin until 1765. The Declaration of Indepence was 1776. Virginia was a Royal colony and Washington's Virginia militia was a secondary branch of the British Army. That was mainly a talking point in the talk page. I think it would be good to mention Washington complained about pay and critical newspapers. That shows he was human. Hamilton co-authored the second version. I don't want to repeat myself in the talk page. My edits that were reverted was the direction I was going in. I want my edits to speak for themselves. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a new source; cleaned up and rewrote the section. I kept the blocked quote. I kept the information on the Farewell Address. No need to cover Washington's last address to Congress. I removed information that was saying the same thing. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

dancing as a hobby

The discussion of Washington's level of interest in dancing from a fortnight ago has been moved to the archive very promptly, but I wanted to add this passage from "Three Officers and a Lady: The Hudson Highlands and Georgia During the Revolution" by Edward J. Cashin, in Key to the Northern Country: The Hudson River Valley in the American Revolution, eds. James M. Johnson, Christopher Pryslopski and Andrew Villani, State University of New York Press, Albany, 2013, which seems at least to show that his interest in it was more intense than simply "he danced at parties just like all aristocrats did back then":

Greene's twenty-five-year-old wife loved dancing. As it happened, so did George Washington. And they particularly enjoyed dancing with each other. While encamped at Middlebrook, Washington bet Caty that he could outlast her on the dance floor. She took the bet. The good-natured Nathanael reported to a friend, "They danced upward of three hours without once sitting down." Binabik80 (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We already mention dancing, along with other activities Washington spent more time involved with. Getting into all these details, mentioning someone's wife by name, etc, gives too much weight to the idea. We addressed this topic not long ago. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

American resolution

Why does "American revolution" keep getting made into a section rather than a subsection of "Marriage, civilian and political life"? The way the section is written, it fits within the "political life" part and ends at 1774 which is the end date for the timeline given for the section. Speaking of which, all the biographical sections have timelines and it doesn't make sense to have one without. Certainly not for a potential FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The American revolution is a major topic which warrants its own section and should not be lumped in as a subsection under, of all things, "Marriage and Political life". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The subsections name was changed to "Onset of American Revolution". Hence it was not about the entire revolution. Also you can't just make "Commander in Chief" a subsection with a timeline. The article establishes that only sections get that. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The American Revolution also included events and issues leading up to the actual war and is a major topic, with all other things,i.e. the actual war, Commander in Chief, Quebec, Boston, and Long Island, etc, clearly being subtopics to it. "Early revolutionary activity" is not a subtopic to 'Marriage, etc'. You spoke of a consensus, but did not get one before you listed the Revolution as a subtopic to Marriage, politics, etc. Until we get a clear consensus for listing the major topic of the American Revolution as a subsection we should leave things as they were. Before the section was entitled "American Revolution and War". This includes pre-war activity the war and all the other topics involved.
@Hoppyh, Cmguy777, Shearonink, Wehwalt, and Dimadick: — Will other editors please chime in so this issue is not dragged out? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

"Early revolutionary activity" is part of "political life". It talks about his early involvement in the politics of the colonists before the war began and is not about the entire American revolution. The "Commander in Chief" section deals with his role as a military leader in the revolution. Also, early revolutionary activity fits perfectly within the 1759-1774 timeline. You can't just ignore the rules you set up with sections and timelines. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you referring to specific policy? Sections can contain their own timeline, and can 'also' have a timeline involving separate subsections, creating an overall timeline. Washington's political life did not end in 1774. Therefore, the section entitled, Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774), should not have subsections that involve events that extend beyond 1774. The major topic of the American Revolution and war includes all the subtopics related to it, including the revolutionary "politics" that occurred before 1774. Also, the Early revolutionary activity section should be changed to the general heading of American Revolution and war, in the context of the Washington biography, esp since there is a main link right under it, i.e.George Washington in the American Revolution.  Washington's Revolution politics should not be lumped into the same section covering his marriage and brief political activities that occurred in the 1750's.

Also, re: this statement : — He became more politically active in 1769, presenting legislation in the Virginia Assembly to establish an embargo on goods from Great Britain. — This is political activity that led directly into the Revolution movement and subsequent war and should be listed under the general heading of ''American Revolution and war. The current major section of Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774) should not contain topics/subsections involving issues and events that occurred after 1774. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774)" doesn't include events that happened beyond 1774. It ends right there. Just because it discusses events that lead to the war doesn't mean they should go together. Sections flow into other sections all the time. You made a "American Revolution and war" section which didn't have a timeline with "Commander in Chief" subsection that does. That contradicts how the other biographical sections are structured, with the sections having timelines but not the subsections. You can't just ignore the logic you created with how the sections are structured. As it stands, "Early revolutionary activity" fits both within the subject and timeline of Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774). Commander in Chief is about this military leadership. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If we have a major section i.e.Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774), it should not have subsections that involve issues and events that happened after 1774. Subsections are part of, and should be consistent with, the theme of the major section. It's like entitling a book, 19th century warfare, and including chapters covering 20th century topics, like, e.g. war planes. Your arrangement will never pass a FA review. Also we are writing a narrative, not an outline that covers things in an exact chronological order. The narrative is the timeline. i.e.Narratives, unlike outlines, often covers issues in the past while referring to the present, regardless of any exacting timeline. Please try to find an appropriate section arrangement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, the early revolutionary subsection ends at 1774. If you want an "American revolution and war" then you should make the timeline 1765-1783. Or you could just remove the timelines altogether. You can't have inconsistent use of timelines for sections and subsections. LittleJerry (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You can't have multiple subsections that cover events and issues that occurred after 1774 under a major section with (1759-1774) in its title. This is exactly what you've done. Once again, subsections are components of the major section. Also, the idea of "Early revolutionary activity" didn't end in 1774, it extended into months leading into the beginning of the war, which began in April, 1775. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Where in the current 1759-1774 section does it discuss events after 1774? The early revolution subsection mentions 1763, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1770 and 1774. Clearly it overlaps with the timeline given for "Marriage, civilian, and political life (1759–1774)". I also don't understand why you insist on the inconsistent use of timelines for sections vs subsections. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Once again, Revolutionary politics extended beyond 1774. Once again, the article is not an outline, but a narrative, where at times we can refer to events and issues in the past while covering the present. In any case, another editor changed the name of the section to Opposition to the British Parliament, which is fine. I extended the year-date range to 1775, as the idea of Early revolutionary activity, per Parliament, etc, extended beyond 1774 all the way up to 1775 just before the actual war broke out. Hope this works for all. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate sections

The addition of the historial opinion only makes the section political. The historial opinion should be in the reputation section. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

"makes the section political"? This opinion can be applied to many things, including the fact that we mention that Washington favored Republicanism, a strong Federal government, etc. The statement in question is best suited in the section covering the topic to which it refers. A statement covering criticism from Madison and others was added for balance, per Spalding & Garrity 1996. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The addition of the historical criticism is good, but historial opinions that follows are endorsements of the Farewell Address. Chernow and Flexnor are modern historians. Now we need to add dates to the edorsements. In my opinion, this is a politicalization of the article and sectional hagiography. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
If covering the criticism is "good", so then is covering the approval and acclaim. You're also assuming that because Chernow and Flexner are modern sources, (like the greater bulk of our sources, esp website sources, like Lurie) that their coverage has to be some sort of an "endorsement", rather than a historical observation. To report that the Farewell Address overall received wide acclaim is not an endorsement, but rather an observation. If the Farewell Address was widely acclaimed throughout history, we say so if the sources say so, and doesn't automatically amount to an endorsement. We went through a similar discussion regarding "hagiography". i.e.Covering Washington's victories, good deeds, leadership ability, etc, is not hagiographic if these are the facts and are presented in simple terms without embellishment or exaggeration. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
From what I read Washington had more military losses than victories. He was quiet on slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Is that leadership ? Is that moral ? "Good deeds" is very subjective. Wikipedia should represent Washington as who he was using reliable sources. We skipped the part of Washington complaining about pay and criticism. Acclaim is the same as an approval. I would call that an endorsement of the Farewell Address, but the Farewell Address was a political document. Wikipedia should be neutral and not take sides in politics. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You're sort of wandering off into other issues, once again, making vague inferences that other editors have edited in error and you haven't, as if there is really something factually or neutrally wrong with the narrative. Once again, if something was acclaimed historically, we cover it as the sources do, and as we have. You're free to refer to this as an "approval" on e.g. Flexner's or Chernow's part, or taking sides. "Wikipedia should be neutral and not take sides in politics"? I was the one who added a statement about criticism. Making efforts to suppress facts and ignoring reliable sources is less than neutral. If you have this desire to present the Farewell Address as receiving more criticism than acclaim over the years, you'll need to present any sources that supports this notion with established facts. If you want to make the typical fuzzy claims about the entire article, in the middle of this particular discussion, you'll need to point out actual examples and back up your contention(s) with reliable sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The acclaimed information belongs in the Historical reputation and legacy section. The reader is told this a great document on Republicanism three times and the time frame jumps to the 21 Century. I don't want an edit war. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
To prevent an edit war, I will ask Dilidor, to try and resolve the situatation. I want this article to be stable for FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Cmguy777 : This is the way the Farewell Address was received by the people to whom it was written for, and goes beyond the idea of simple legacy. It was a document of great weight, and a leading Washington scholar, to communicate this idea, said it carried just as much weight in the eyes of the nation as did the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. This is the only statement that reveals the weight and importance of the Farewell Address. As said, this is more appropriately covered in the section to which it refers to. We would treat the Declaration of Independence in the same manner. We wouldn't simply say it was written by Thomas Jefferson, we would also cover how it was received by Britain v the colonists, an idea that goes beyond simple legacy. If you are are going to call in an other editor, (just one?) please call in a neutral party. Given the personal attack and harassment I received from your choice of editor your apparent attempt at resolving this inflated issue comes off a little insincere. You say you don't want an edit war, yet you seem to be provoking one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


I have (without being asked) removed what IMO is hyperbole, on a point which is otherwise adequately made.Hoppyh (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hoppyh : Why didn't you remove the comment about criticism and Chernow's statement about Republicanism also? Flexner is one of the few top scholars on Washington, almost in a class by himself, given his extensive research. His four volume work on Washington won a Pulitzer Prize and set much of the tone for the Washington biographies that followed. He was among the first to cover Washington in human terms, far from perfect, not god-like. Flexner is listed in the bibliographies of Chernow, Ferling, Randall and many others. Referring to his statement as "hyperbole" is a rather narrow estimation of how he covered the Farewell Address and the importance and the weight that it carried. His statement was included to demonstrate to the readers the great importance of this document, comparable to the DOI and the Gettysburg Address. It was a little disappointing to see it so casually brushed off. I restored the statement so this can be further discussed. if there is a clear consensus to move it to legacy section we can do that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
[Add comment :] Currently we have a broad estimation on the Farewell Address, in its own section. We mention how it was initially received in its day, with criticism and acclaim in the press. We also have a comment from Sparks from 1839, one from Flexner in the 1972's and one from Chernow, from 2010, covering three different centuries. All of this information is a bit much for the legacy section, which should cover legacy in general terms, not on a per item basis, esp involving one topic. We don't even mention the Siege of Yorktown in the Legacy section. If we mention the Farewell Address with a general statement, then we should mention the Surrender of Yorktown and other notable topics in that section, which sort of opens the door to much else. Do we really want to go there, or should we just cover legacy in general terms, as we've already done? The only specific topic mentioned in the Legacy section is Washington's resignation as Commander in Chief, which received acclaim throughout much of the world, including praise from King George III. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. You have never personally attacked anyone ? I have tried to make improvements but denied by your reversals. I don't takes sides. I don't want to continue to edit only to have my edits deleted. Dilidor has improved the article. Discussing with another editor about the article is not provoking an edit war. Whatever differences Gwillhickers has between Gwillhickers and Dilidor is none of my business. There is too much weight on the Farewell Address, the sentiments of Washington, Hamilton, and Madison. I believe Madison's first few paragraphs were kept. I am not sure the advise in the Farewell Address is sound policy. It's an isolationist view, except of course, for trade. And again, that is political. Why stress a political document as being lauded by historians. That makes historians political. This article is not to generate debate over isolationism versus globalism or Manifest Destiny. France ceded the Louisiana Territory. The South West and California were won by the Mexican American War against Mexico. Was Washington an isolationist ? The French and Indian War. The capture of the Ohio Country during his Presidency. Didn't Washington suppress the Haitian Rebellion ? Enough said. You do what you want with the article Gwillhickers. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We've all have made criticisms, but stop short of harassment in the form of humor. You have made more than your fair share of accusations, and reverts, and your closing comment just now is an accusation, btw. In fact your reverts and changes almost always involve my edits. I explained my comments about your choice of editor. I've already addressed your opinion, claiming that we are making the section "political". Adding Flexner's account is no more political than mentioning Washington favored Republicanism, per Chernow, which is also a historical fact. You are not helping matters by repeating issues that have already been well addressed. Would you please address my above comments and stop repeating and belaboring the issue? Your proposal for moving Flexner's coverage (only?), for the one topic, to the Legacy section, opens the door to a rewrite of the entire Legacy section. We can't just stick one topic in there and ignore the rest. Once again, the way the Farewell Address was received is history, and the sources cover it this way. So should we. If you can find additional criticisms about the Farewell Address, made by notable people besides Madison, this would be welcomed, in the Farewell Address section, also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My last comment was not an accusation Gwillhickers. Editors should be allowed to edit freely to get Washington to FA. These conversations are futile. There is no room for compromise. I don't understand this strong editor push of the Farewell Address. The Farewell Address is a political fact, not just historical. Too much lauding is hagiography, and that makes the article less neutral. I am dropping the stick. I don't want to keep going around in circles. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of the Flexner comment is in dispute, and IMO should be resolved before the comment is added to the article. Hoppyh (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Am I correct that the dispute is chiefly concerning the following sentence? 1972, Washington scholar James Flexner referred to the Farewell Address as receiving as much acclaim as Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. If that is the case, I honestly cannot see any reason to omit it. It is in a section which cites a variety of historians and their assessments—good, bad, and neutral—and it provides bibliographical backing. There are a few mechanical tweaks needed in the section, such as a transitional statement twixt "it was initially ill-received" and the next sentence in which it was well-received, removing an unnecessary ellipsis, improving the wording a trifle—but otherwise I do not follow the reasoning behind insisting on deleting the sentence. —Dilidor (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Editbreak

  • Dilidor :  I agree, and this is what I've tried to explain. The statement in question was authored by James Thomas Flexner, a major and widely recognized authority on Washington who was among the first to cover Washington with less than god-like referrals and is very objective in his coverage. At the same time, this didn't prevent him from expounding on Washington's achievements, leadership ability, etc. As said, his statement reveals the weight and significance of the Farewell Address. It wasn't just another speech, it is a landmark document in the same order as the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. Also, if you can further improve the grammar in the section while keeping the narrative informative and contextual, by all means, have at it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Cmguy777 :  Again, you try to tell us what we can plainly read for ourselves. If your last comment wasn't an accusation, and/or a criticism - then what would you call it? No matter. The reason discussion with you is too often futile is for this very sort of thing, and because you require that things be explained for you over and again, while you typically drag in numerous off topic issues in the process. Re: your notion about the statement being "political" or "hagiographic", this also has been explained to you repeatedly.  e.g. If a person is noted for ten good things, and one not so good thing, we still cover the ten good things, regardless if they far outnumber the not so good thing. We cover the important facts, in neutral terms, per reliable sources. While Washington's Farewell Address received some criticism on some points, from certain individuals, like Madison, which we mention, it was nonetheless widely acclaimed by the country, including members of the Legislature, the press, et al, and became a landmark document attributed to Washington. This is a historical fact. Nothing "political" or "hagiographic". There are a good number of instances in this article where we refer to the ideas and/or quotes from historians, including Chernow, Ferling, etc, and we've done no different here. You seem to want to bury this idea completely.
  • Hoppyh :  The statement in question fits in with the other comments about the Farewell Address and is appropriate for the section. It would seem to me that if a well sourced statement is in dispute, we would need more than highly subjective opinions, i.e. "hyperbole", "hagiographic", "political", all reasonably addressed as such, to exclude it from the biography. I really should restore the statement you've deleted, but for the sake of article stability will refrain from doing so. Again, Flexner's statement about the Farewell Address communicates the idea of its weight and significance definitively. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider matters and restore the statement on your own, hopefully bringing this dragged out issue to a close. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I had said I dropped the stick but you mentioned me again. All editors have the right to freely edit on the article in good faith to get Washington to FA. That is not an accusation. Just a comment. I requested Dilidor for help on this area and Dilidor has responded. You even agreed with Dilidor. Since Washington was an elected official, voted twice into Office of the President of the United States, in my opinion, the Farewell Address is both a political and historical document. Initially there were two pro Farewell Address comments Flexnor and Chernow. An 1839 comment pro Farewell Address comment was added, uneccessarily. Since Dilidor does n not oppose Flexnor, I don't either. I suggest one criticism and two pros. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
You mentioned that you wanted to drop the stick but are now going after Sparks. Sparks mentions that the Farewell Address was printed by order of the Legislature and that they approved of it, and its author. This is history, not a "political" opinion. Like Flexner and Chernow, Sparks doesn't personally lend his support to the Farewell Address, so his account is not "pro". It also doesn't matter if the Address touches on various political ideals. There are dozens of topics in this article that involve politics in one form or another, but none of the sources covering these topics are pushing a political ideal or agenda as you suggested from the start by complaining that "The addition of the historical opinion only makes the section political", which is not at all true. None of the sources involved, i.e.Flexner, Chernow, Sparks, have done anything more than report the established facts. None of the sources said, in any sort of way, that 'The Farewell Address was a great and noble document, because ...' They only cover how the Farewll Address was printed, overwhelmingly received and its significance, which at this late date has been well established. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I had to respond because you mentioned my name in the talk page and kept critisizing my editor opinions, after I said I dropped the stick. Now you mention me a second time concerning Sparks. You will not allow me apparently to have any opinions in the talk page. Dropping the stick does not mean attack an editor after an editor has already dropped the stick. Sparks is entitled to Sparks opinions. There are three pro Farewell Address statements. I believed two would be adequate for the article. There is no further need of discussion between Gwillhickers and Cmguy on this matter. Please respect my right to dropping the stick. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding sources & Harvard cites & so on

Calling all the usual suspects - Gwillhickers, Cmguy777, Hoppyh, Dimadick, etc. If I missed anyone, mea culpa.
Another Harvard cite error has crept into the article plus there is an error in the cite itself so here goes:
I am going to deal with the error within the actual cite template first.

  • {{cite web|last=Lurie|first=Shira|title=George Washington's Farewell Address|url=https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washingtons-farewell-address/|publisher=Mount Vernon Ladies' Association|date=2019|accessdate=March 20, 2019|ref=harv}}

This article is undated. Wikipedia is incorrect to refer to it being written in 2019. We don't know when it was written, it is undated. So. When this error gets corrected it causes yet another issue. I'll refer you to Template:Harvard citation#Citation has multiple authors and no date. I've cut&pasted the source code of their example below. Ok, so when Harvard cites have an undated reference, the form must be changed to something like the following:

Citation has multiple authors and no date
The templates assume that the last field is the year. Where there are multiple authors and no year the template will form a correct link but will display the last author as if it were a year. To force the displayed text to show all authors as name, the following work around may be used:

Markup Renders as 
Article text.<ref>[[#{{harvid|Lane|Singh}}|Lane & Singh]]</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* {{citation
  | last = Lane
  | first = Kieran
  | last2 = Singh
  | first2 = Karun
  | title = Richard Watts
  | work = Richard Watts Charities
  | url = http://www.richardwatts.org.uk/richardwatts1.html
  | accessdate = 21 June 2012
  }}

Article text.[1]

Notes
  1. ^ Lane & Singh
References
  • Lane, Kieran; Singh, Karun, "Richard Watts", Richard Watts Charities, retrieved 21 June 2012

Yeah that's a lot of code but it is necessary for folks to understand that when a source is undated the example above of

<ref>[[#{{harvid|Author or Authors}}| Author or Authors' Names]]</ref>

must be used - otherwise the code pulls the wrong information from the template. If the Lurie reference is still in the article if/when the FA Review comes along and IF ANYONE THEN COMPLAINS ABOUT THIS APPARENT DIFFERENCE IN REFERENCING NOMENCLATURE just REFER THEM TO THE ABOVE INFORMATION and TEMPLATE. This form is not wrong or incorrect or malformed...it is necessary and it is correct.
I went ahead and fixed this latest Harvard cite issue but there are two still remaining - Ellis 2007 and Wright/MacGregor 1987. All that has to be done is for these two cites/references to be removed from the Bibliography section and we will have a fairly clean References section. I think I've done enough clean-up for now - someone else will have to remove those two cites. Good night Gracie, Shearonink (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The Lurie article was on the website Mount Vernon Ladies' Association dated 2019. That is the date I put in the reference. The orginal date is not listed, but the work is part of the MLVA website. The article is incorporated into the website Shearonink. Therefore the article can be dated by the website date. I could use the ref=sfnRef style. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are right - instead of using the #harvid nomenclature we could use the ref={{sfnRef. Regarding dating materials from the Mount Vernon/MVLA website...The entire MVLA website does have a copyright status/date of 2019. But we don't actually know when individual articles were published onto the website. These articles could have been written a year ago or ten...the website itself doesn't date their articles. So it would seem that we shouldn't date them either. In my opinion, none of the materials from the MVLA/Mount Vernon website should be dated unless there is a clear date associated with the material and, so far as I can tell (with a single exception), their articles just don't have an actual associated publishing date. Both of the possible work-arounds from the usual Harvard cite style - the #harvid above plus the ref=sfnRef - used for the MVLA sources in this Wikipedia article are even more complicated than normal(?) Harvard cites...because, again, the article themselves are not dated. To me, it's as if the articles are books and the MVLA website is the publishing house. Besides, the articles were written at different times - clearly, they were not all written or even published onto the website in 2019 so how can Wikipedia say otherwise? (unless you want to somehow state that the website itself is in a continual act of being published but then 2019 or 2018 or 2020 wouldn't be correct either...if it is continually being published...). Goodnight, Shearonink (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
With all the noted reliable sources why are we using a web-cite source, more so than all the other sources in the section? The cites/sources used previously are more than adequate. The name "Lurie" as a citation in the text seems a little obtuse and can't be consolidated with the other cites. This is a bit sloppy and unneeded, imo. If we stuck to the original cites for this information would not have this harv-error and other issues in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
"If we stuck to the original cites for this information would not have this harv-error and other issues in the first place." Really. well, that's water over the dam a long time ago, I'm just the editor who came along and fixed the many pre-existing problems so we can hopefully/someday/maybe pass an FA without any referencing issues. (The Harvard cites do have some good points, chiefly being able to cite different pages in a source without having to completely write out another whole reference.) How about the 2 that are still in the article right now?...they have nothing to do with the Lurie cite - how about getting the Ellis 2007 and the Wright/MacGregor 1987 corrected? I outlined how to do it above...it's easy. I'm just waiting for someone else to do it.
And actually the "Lurie" cite can easily be crafted to more closely resemble the other cites, I just ran out of time last night. Btw, right now I'm recrafting the Lurie cites into the {{sfnRef style and then it won't just be an author's name...and if afterwards there's an editorial consensus to remove those cites I have no problem with that. Hell, if the editorial consensus would be to convert the Harvard cites back to the cite template/commonly-used style I have no problem with that either...I'm just not going to be the one to do it. I've converted some articles from one to the other and it is a massive MASSIVE undertaking & time-sink. Shearonink (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Who is "Shira Lurie" anyways? If we're to use a website source it should be one which presents a noted name with a list of sources/bibliography. A date would be nice. The "Shira Lurie" source has none of these, so I'm objecting to its use and will try to replace this source, which is only used in conjunction with the other sources anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Shira Lurie is a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia. Here's her C.V.: https://www.shiralurie.com/new-page . She's probably more-qualified than almost any Wikipedia editor who has worked on the GW article here. And cite web sources often lack a clear date but that doesn't negate their validity or their research. Shearonink (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't use thesis papers. Lurie authored a web article. Lurie fills in some gaps missing in Chernow (2010). The Mount Vernon Ladies's Society is affiliated with the George Washington Library. There is nothing in the article that says what Lurie authored was a thesis paper. Right now. I am not sure there is a better alternative, unless there is a book dedicated to the Farewell address. I thought the article was reliable and understandable. Lurie listed sources too. I would keep Lurie until there is a better alternative. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Cmguy777 - ? ..I didn't say it was a thesis paper, just was speaking to Ms. Lurie's qualifications, that she had bona-fides since Gwill was asking "who is 'Shira Lurie' anyways?" (and are those scare quotes around Ms. Lurie;s name?). I don't know about you but someone who has published multiple articles in mainstream publications and who is getting their PhD from the University of Virginia...she's not exactly a scholarly unknown. Shearonink (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We should not reject the Mount Vernon Ladies' Society. The Washington Library is run by the MVLA and has access to documents and papers of George Washington. MVLA is a reliable source. I can't see any profit motives involved, either, such as a book deal. It is about as a reliable website as can get. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay Shearonink, you argued your case fairly and definitively in terms of Lurie's qualifications, but she's still a relatively unknown source, esp compared to Chernow, Ferling, Flexner, Ellis, Randall, etc. Why aren't we using these sources as our first choice? My only reservation now is that the cite is used in conjunction with other cites more so than any other source, and that it can't be consolidated as can all the other cites. Cm' you once thought we should base the entire article primarily on Chernow and Ferling, yet you bring in an unknown source. Isn't there established sources already in our bibliography that covers the Farewell Address? Do we really need the Lurie cite used four times in the section? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association is not an unknown source. How can Lurie be unknown when the MVLA used Lurie in the article? Books don't fill in the gaps. Lurie just discussed the Farewell Address in a summary fashion. That was needed for the article to fill in the gaps. Chernow (2010) is 8 to 9 years old. Is there a better authority source on the Farewell Address? There would have to be a search for a book or article that just covers the Farewell Address. The MLVA is reliable for this article. The site is exclusively covering George Washington. I had put in information from Chernow (2010) of Washington complaining about pay and criticism of his presidency. That was deleted. Was Chernow not good enough then when something critical of Washington is said? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Chernow is 8 to 9 years old? What would you like this to amount to? You once expressed sentiment that there were too many sources in the Bibliography, and that it should be based primarily on Chernow and Ferling. During the last review one reviewer said we should replace website sources with existing published and scholarly sources. Lurie is a relatively unknown compared to Chernow, Ferling, Flexner, et al., and working for the MVLA doesn't make her otherwise. She doesn't list any sources, compared to Chernow, Ferling who have extensive bibliographies and notes in their works. As such Lurie is a second rate source, something of a 5th wheel, who doesn't bother to back up her work. I had asked why we are not using one of the many reliable, and established sources. You've ignored that and are talking contrary to previous discussions.

  • Please look at cite #282, which is sourced by Chernow and Ferling, with Lurie thrown in. Is Chernow and Ferling inadequate to cite this simple sentence?
  • Cite #287. To cite this one simple sentence we have Randall, Cooke, Flexner, Avolon, Boller — and to top it all off, you've thrown in Lurie.

This is a little ridiculous. Lurie is clearly unneeded here, and elsewhere. If Lurie could be used to cite something that all the other established sources could not I'd have no objection, but this is clearly not the case. Currently we have 26 web-site sources (!) and it's only a matter of time before some/most of these links go 404. Otoh, the page numbers of established sources never change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cm'. Anything you can cite with this work, imo, would be welcomed. However, if we can further cite the existing narrative with existing notable sources we should try to do that first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Gwillhickers. I don't believe we should exclude Lurie from the article. It is an aritcle on the MLVA. Lurie maybe studying for a PH.D. but that should not exclude the Lurie article. I think the praise mentioned in the article for the Farewell Address should be mentioned in the reputation section. To me it reads like a Wikipedia endorsement for the Farewell Address rather than a summary. Would there be a United States without French-Spanish-Dutch alliance, Louis XVI, funding and use of the French Army and Military, especially at York Town ? Foreign involvement helped America be independent from Britain. Also it is a political document. The Presidency is a political office. These are just my opinions. Not trying to rock the boat. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in the Lurie article that says it is a thesis paper. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Lurie references have been supported and paired with book references. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A couple of Lurie cites were removed from statements that had multiple cites to begin with. We can leave the other Lurie cites in place, for now anyway, but we should try to use the best sources available, only using one or two cites when it's possible. Overall, we should try to replace as many website sources as possible considering all of the (many) established sources there are for Washington and the Revolution, always making efforts to use the best sources available. This is not a pressing issue, so I'll leave it at that, hoping the lot of us will make efforts to use the best sources already in our bibliography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, a new referencing error cropped up because of some recent changes. I fixed that issue and then noticed that the unused/orphaned refs of Ellis 2007 and the Wright/MacGregor 1987 with their Harv warnings were still hanging out in the article. So.
I went ahead and FIXED them - the ELLIS/2007 and the Wright/MacGregor 1987 refs. After I asked for someone else to do it... Because if errors are littering this article when/if it gets submitted for an FA, it'll just be another reason to kick it on back down the stairs. Shearonink (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been dealing with content issues requiring a lot of reading and research, looking for the best reliable sources, while dealing with over-citing and the usual fuzzy distractions in Talk. The Ellis and Wright/MacGregor issues are news to me. I can't do everything myself, but when I get the chance I'll look into cites and sources and the spot-checks, also, as I've always said needs to be done. My apologies for any cite errors on my part. Thanks for looking out and your words of patience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed another referencing issue. Higginbotham/1985 was deleted with this edit. All that has to be done to fix these issues is to remove the reference that is stranded within the Bibiography/References section (without an associated inline Sfn/Harvard cite). I've gone ahead and removed Higginbotham/1985 since it was useless. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Site for war planning

I am reading a new book The First Conspiracy: the secret plot of kill George Washington. and have not read anything in reference to using masonic halls for the purpose of war planning. The recent article on the subject of masonry & Washington has nothing to support the alleged practice. See https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-becomes-master-mason Church of the Rain (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC) A non-Masonic or a non-local history source is needed.Church of the Rain (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

We currently mention this, but it's recently been tagged for verification. Thanks for your interest. Any help you can offer to the article is welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Washington/Archive_30&oldid=892956102"