Talk:George Washington/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Infobox portrait

As described in MOS:CAPLENGTH, there is an extra incentive for succinctness in the caption of a portrait in an infobox. We are using a portrait painted in 1803 by Gilbert Stuart. The caption was recently changed from "1803 portrait" to "1803 portrait by Gilbert Stuart". I think that the first version was not good, because 1803 was four years after Washington's death, so the reader would naturally wonder how that happened. The second version is even worse, because it is distracting to mention, let alone link to, Gilbert Stuart in the infobox for George Washington. I propose: no caption at all. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Bruce leverett, in agreement that there is an odd disconnect here concerning the date that should be addressed. About artwork credit, there is an ongoing fairly lengthly discussion about this at Talk:Abigail Adams#Caption which covers the various MOS topics, please add to that one, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Bruce leverett's assessment here. While I appreciate Randy Kryn is passionate about "honoring" artists, this isn't an article about art, and the weight of the guidelines supports exclusion in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Please read the recent edit summaries and the discussion at Talk:Abigail Adams. The linked guidelines in the edit summary and at the Abigail Adams page, which I'll copy here later (time limited right now) both allow and encourage such caption credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts indicates that it applies to writing about the visual arts, which we are not. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Tips for describing pictures indicates that details about the image can be provided at the image description page, which we do. Neither allows nor encourages ignoring MOS:CAPLENGTH and MOS:CREDITS, which support exclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts#Image captions guideline instruction says:

"The minimum information to be included is:

• Artist name – linked for at least their first caption, except where the article is a biography. The name should not be in bold text."

That seems pretty clear. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You are quoting from a guideline for writing about the visual arts, which again, is not what we are doing in this article.

What is both clear and generally applicable is MOS:CREDITS: "Image credits in the infobox image are discouraged, even if the artist is notable". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The guideline I quoted is much clearer and decisive. "The minimum information to be included is Artist name..." compared to "are discouraged". One is mandatory, the other discourages editors from using the fact that inclusion is mandatory when adding the name of the artist to a caption. Wording that backs up your point of view are the words "...except where the article is a biography". I was taking that to mean the biographical article of the artist themselves. Johnbod, do you have insight on why the words "except where the article is a biography" are in the guideline? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The guideline you quoted is for writing about the visual arts, so definitely not mandatory for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, the explanation is in the following sentence: "The name should not be in bold text". That tells editors not to link the name of the artist in the captions of their own biography, because it then shows up as bold in readable text. It is an instruction to the editors who haven't yet realized that, not something related to all biographies on Wikipedia. The guideline is about captions anywhere in the encyclopedia, not just in one-topic visual arts articles. When an image of a painting is used the image and its caption are "about" the visual arts (specifically, representing the artwork in a caption should use encyclopedic language, including the artists' name). It may be discouraged but appears to be mandatory when used. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The guideline you're quoting from indicates that it is for writing about the visual arts, and doesn't support your expansion of it to the whole encyclopedia. Which tracks with the impossibility of something being "discouraged but mandatory when used". Rather than reconciling the conflicts between your interpretation and the various guidelines, this conversation is simply underlining why your interpretation doesn't make a lot of sense, given how much twisting and reading between the lines it would require. So at this point unless someone else impartial weighs in, it appears that consensus is in favour of having no caption on the infobox image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No need to twist or read between any lines. When the image of a great artwork by a great artist is used to portray George Washington on the George Washington page, then the artist's name should be in the caption. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeating the word "great" twice in the same sentence doesn't make it any better.

It would be well to review MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article. ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

The Infobox, like the lead, is expensive real estate. We don't even mention in the infobox of George Washington that he was a slave owner; but somehow the fact that the illustration is a painting by Gilbert Stuart is too important to leave out?

Actually, the infobox as it stands now is a mess. It is bloated with trivia about offices that Washington once held (senior officer of the U.S. Army; chancellor of William & Mary; delegate to Continental Congress; member of Virginia House of Burgesses) and trivia about his military career. An infobox is not supposed to be something that you slog through. It's supposed to be something that you glance at when you don't even want to read the whole lead of the article, let alone the whole article. An infobox is not supposed to be a dumping ground for tidbits about the subject, but this one is, and the tidbit about the illustration being a famous painting by a famous painter is perhaps the least of our problems. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unseemly that this has become an edit war, and personally embarrassing to me, since I was an earlier participant in the discussion. I see that you have both stopped just short of 3RR, but you have both violated the spirit in the worst way.

Since the infobox illustration has gone without a caption for several months, one might say that the "status quo" is for it to have no caption. Thus the correct procedure woulod have been, after the caption was added and the add was reverted, for the reverting to stop there, and the talk page discussion to begin there, on the basis of attempting to get consensus for a change to the status quo. Just sayin'. I am not a disinterested observer, so I will not try to restore the status quo. The talk page discussion is now well under way. In case it was not already obvious, it would not have been possible to get consensus for this change to the status quo.

As I have stated in Talk:Abigail Adams, I think that if we go by strict adherence to policy, the superseding policy is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Credits, which in no uncertain terms discourages the practice of copying credit information up from the illustration's metadata to the article's illustration caption, when the illustration is in the infobox. I would grant that a one-line, four-word caption, while violating this guideline, may not be a big enough deal to have a knock-down, drag-out fight over. But the naked belligerency of trying to make a controversial change without consensus from experienced editors is shocking.

In considering alternative solutions, I note that the article now has (at least) three different Gilbert Stuart portraits of Washington. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the one currently used in the infobox is better, and better-known, than the one currently used in the section on the Presidency, and the one currently used in the section on Historical reputation and legacy. I approve of the idea of mentioning Stuart in the captions of illustrations that are photos of paintings by him, but, in line with the role of infoboxes and the policy cited above, I do not endorse mentioning him when those illustrations are in infoboxes, and in many cases (including this one) it is perfectly acceptable to have no caption at all. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This question has gone on for a very long time, starting at the Abigail Adams page. As for status quo and reverts, as far as I can tell on a quick run-through of the page history, the page had an image caption which credited Gilbert Stuart. I noticed the caption had been removed as I was adding Stuart's name to the John Adams infobox image caption, and reverted back to the status quo as I understood it. The main spot for Stuart's name and link would be in the first use of his famous painting which, as a work of visual art, the language of the visual arts guideline would apply. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion regarding the infobox caption, as I firmly believe the artist should be credited in the caption of all portraits. However, I do appreciate you trying to settle this matter. A few attempts have been made to discuss this issue with Nikkimaria by Randy and myself. A few editors have openly disagreed with NM, but any attempts to restore the captions with the artist credited have been met with reverts by NM. I’ve given up as I don’t believe this matter can be settled. I can’t say I’m happy about it, as I simply do not like the captions being added by NM. But, I don't think any amount of opposition to NM’s changes will change anything. And to be perfectly honest there’s much more important things to argue about on Wikipedia. Kind regards, Robertus Pius (Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources Needed

The lead paragraphs in this article are not cited with any sources. Would love to specifically include a source for the sentence "Washington consistently ranks in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history."

If no sources are found, what is the consensus for the next steps? XZealous (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

See the first paragraphs of MOS:LEAD. The normal function of the lead paragraphs is to overview and/or summarize the rest of the article. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't covered more substantially in the main body of the article, and "... it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." For example, the stuff about Washington's "ranking" among presidents, as well as the claim that he is known as the Father of his Country, are both mentioned in the Historical reputation and legacy section, and they are sourced there. That is why another editor went through and removed all of your citation needed tags. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Letter to Touro synagogue

I am not sure this is correctly described as "inconsequential". I found it easily by searching the Web, and as for reliable secondary sources, it can be found in Chernow, page 632. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Washington as Master Mason

The painting's title is Washington as Master Mason, but the caption underneath the photo reads Washington as Master of his Lodge. These are two different things: Master Mason is a stage in the Masonic degree structure, whereas "Master of his Lodge" signifies holding the Progressive Office of Worshipful Master. Additionally, something must be amiss chronologically: an 1870 rendering of the 1793 event - how can the painting be dated to before the event it depicts? Nuttyskin (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have given the image a more descriptive caption: Washington as Master Mason, an 1870 print depicting Washington presiding over a Masonic lodge meeting just prior to the United States Capitol cornerstone laying on September 18, 1793 – Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ratified

the article refers to "the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which drafted and ratified the Constitution." this sounds wrong, unless ratify has a meaning other than the one I'm familiar with. it was , of course, events in the several states that ratified the constitution. Obugov (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Corrected – The convention did not ratify the Constitution, neither did it establish the U.S. federal government. Drdpw (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Change in URL for the Washington Papers held at UVA

FYI to anyone editing any George Washington connected articles.

• The old URL was http://gwpapers.virginia.edu.
• URL has been changed, the NEW URL is https://washingtonpapers.org/.

Shearonink (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Birth date

I'd just point out the Anton Chekhov biography gives both old style and new style dates. Wis2fan (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The most recent substantial discussion of the Julian/Gregorian issue in this talk page can be found at Talk:George Washington/Archive 38#Birthdate again!. That discussion links to several older discussions, so I guess people have been tweaking this for a long time. However, that discussion isn't the last word; I think that people have been tweaking the dates without checking or modifying that discussion.

Right now, the first sentence does not mention the Julian date, but the infobox does. I think that this is backwards: the article should mention the Julian date (in a Note), but the infobox, which is supposed to be an ultra-lean summary of summaries, should not. That is the way it is done in Anton Chekhov. But that's just off the top of my head. I haven't yet looked at those old discussions from this talk page to check if I am missing something. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The article does not mention the Julian date in the first sentence, but does mention it in a note to the first sentence of the "Early life (1732–1752)" section. Sorry for confusion that I may have caused by missing this.

The article gives Washington's birth date twice in the text, plus once in the infobox. This is probably unnecessary, but not unheard of, see MOS:BIRTHDATE.

There is an extensive footnote about the Julian date on the text giving his birth date in the Early life section. The footnote is excessive, insofar as it explains the date change; instead it should just link to Old Style and New Style dates. Also, I think that this footnote should have been attached to the first sentence of the article, rather than to the sentence in the Early life section.

There is another footnote about the Julian date on the birth date in the infobox. It is undesirable to clutter the infobox this way; the infobox should only be a summary of "key facts", see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

First sentence

Since when is the first sentence supposed to be a list of occupations? My understanding of MOS:LEAD is that the first sentence is supposed to explain why the topic is notable. Washington isn't notable for being a planter; he's notable for leading the army and being the first president. Being a planter isn't even distant third; if he weren't already notable, nobody would remember that he was a planter. It's OK to give a little background in the lead paragraphs, but the first sentence should hit the two high points, and then the rest of the first paragraph could cover a few lesser items, such as his service in the French and Indian war and his leading the constitutional convention.

What about "Founding Father"? There is no authoritative list of Founding Fathers -- this is just a link to one of our other articles, Founding Fathers of the United States, which mentions several dozen people, and attempts make something sensible out of a very loosely defined term. I don't see how it is helpful to link to that article in the first sentence of George Washington. Maybe later in the lead?

Of course, looking at John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others, I see that we have made a similar hash of their lead paragraphs. Gotta start somewhere, I guess. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Founding Father defines Washington and seems in the appropriate spot, but yes, planter could be moved further down. He did many other things too, all notable in his life but as you point out, not defining as stand-alone frontline notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Careful, there are editors who would argue that "planter" is central and accurate for defining who/what Washington was, and that moving the term further down or especially replacing it with "farmer" is tantamount to racial and socioeconomic whitewashing of Washington. Drdpw (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Drdpw, I didn't know it was so controversial. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

On further reading and reflection, I agree on the treatment of Founding Father. It isn't as loosely defined as I had thought.

Rereading the lead paragraphs, I see that we don't say anything about Washington being a planter (or farmer) except in the first sentence. This is too little as well as too much. It doesn't belong in the first sentence, but it has to be in the lead, and the lead should mention that he was a slaveowner, since slavery is mentioned at length in the article. As for "planter" vs. "farmer", I will look at how some sources describe him. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Going through the list of U.S. Presidents, I realized that almost all of them use a "list of occupations". The only exceptions that I found were Millard Fillmore, William Howard Taft, and Harry S. Truman. Seeing this doesn't change my assessment that it's a bad idea, but I guess I will have to take it to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject United States Presidents. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning a Washington apprenticeship to Hume

This edit introduced the concept that GW served an apprenticeship for two years under Hume. This appears to be incorrect as Washington received his license from W&M in 1749. If he did indeed serve some type of apprenticeship starting in 1748, at the very least it did not last for two years since he was appointed County Surveyor in 1749. County Surveyors were their own separate legal entity and answered to no one within the Colonial government. I took a close look at the two new refs introduced in the above linked edit and they do not firmly support the claim that Washington was Hume's apprentice. Working with someone, being an Assistant, is not the same as being an Apprentice (see St. George’s History, Fredericksburg, VA - but let's discuss. - Shearonink (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this correct?

So i made a edit about changing the political party from independent to federalist since i found an encyclopedia book thats alphabetical and in that book there is a page about George Washington and in that book the political party was federalist. Depotadore (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No Depotadore, not correct. Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, but he remained officially non-partisan during his entire presidency. This fact is noted in the article and in related articles. Please undo the edit you made to article listing him as a member of the Federalist Party. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw The book i'm talking about is Academic American Enclyopaedia Depotadore (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)